ChrisP said:
Could you please point me to scripture/documentation regarding this?
Popeyesays said:
And yet Roman Catholicism will say Peter was the "rock" upon which the church is founded. The only direct Gospel assignment to James is in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas
There are several reasons for thinking that the leadership of Jesus' followers passed to James after Jesus' death.
I think the early followers of Jesus viewed him as in some sense a successor to David, and were naturally loyal to his family.
Jesus and his closest followers were from Galilee, but he was also connected to the ministry of John, which drew followers from Jerusalem and Judaea. Luke records a tradition that the resurrected Jesus told his followers to "tarry ... in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Acts says that after the ascension of Jesus,
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
So scripture tells us that the earliest community was located at Jerusalem, and included Jesus' mother and brothers.
After the death of Stephen, there was a "great persecution ... and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." But where was James?
It's universally acknowledged that James was an apostle. Paul, who didn't have the smoothest relationship with James, calls him an apostle, and he's traditionally numbered among the Seventy Apostles mentioned in Luke. Everything we know about James after the resurrection locates him at Jerusalem. Christian tradition universally names James as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.
We see that the Jerusalem community has a central position in the early church. Jerusalem sends out apostles to various places, and all the disciples send relief back to Jerusalem.
Okay, so James was at Jerusalem, the first headquarters of the movement, was an apostle, and was probably the presiding bishop of Jerusalem. But was he the leader of the apostles?
The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim of primacy on the supposed primacy of Peter. It's made the claim so long and so well that it's hard for Western Christians to think of anyone but Peter as the leader of the apostles. Even those who reject the primacy of Rome tend to go along with the primacy of Peter, partly because Peter figures so prominently in Acts, especially the first part of Acts. Eastern Christians tend to see the apostles in more collegial terms. What are the facts?
We know more about Peter than about most of the apostles, and Peter seems to be more outspoken. (Or is that just because we know more about him?) It's Peter who says that a replacement for Judas must be named. It's Peter who speaks to the crowd at Pentecost. When Ananias and Sapphira lay their gift at the feet of the apostles, it's Peter who rebukes them. It's Peter whose very shadow is thought to have miraculous qualities. The prominence of Peter in the community is undeniable.
Yet Acts records that "when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." That's a hint that Peter wasn't in a position of primacy over the other apostles. The sender always has authority over the one sent; the apostles as a group were able to send Peter on a mission.
Paul claims to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and says that Peter is the apostle to "the circumcision." He even speaks of two gospels: "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter." (What are the implications in
that for his warning, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"?) Paul compares and contrasts himself to Peter, and is not afraid to stand up to Peter: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Yet Peter isn't at all opposed to the reception of Gentiles into the community. It's Peter who has a vision that reveals the Gentiles should be accepted. It's Peter who orders the first Gentiles to be baptized, and Peter who defends the decision before the apostles and community at Jerusalem, winning them over to the idea that Gentiles can be part of the community. Peter is the very
author of the idea that uncircumcised Gentiles can be full members of the Jesus community.
Once the Gentiles had been accepted, though, there were still arguments about what the exact terms of that acceptance were. For James, the Law was still valid, though there's no reason to think he interpreted it as Orthodox Jews do today. Jesus had radicalized the Law, but the early Jesus movement didn't abandon the Law, they just saw it differently than other Jewish sects did. For Paul, Jesus completely abrogated the Law. The Law was rendered obsolete, and Gentile, Pauline Christians need not concern themselves with it. Peter was a bit of a waverer, inclining to Paul's position when he spoke to Paul, and to James' when he spoke to James. Maybe he just wanted everyone to get along. But he was clearly not Paul's great opponent in the struggle; that was James. Why did Paul, in Galatians, contrast himself to Peter instead of James? Was it because he didn't dare to oppose himself to James?
Paul says:
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
In other words, Paul at the beginning of his ministry was content to receive instruction from James and the others, and even later Peter was intimidated, according to Paul, by people sent by James. And there's no indication that Paul ever withstood
James "to his face."
In the description of what has been called the Council of Jerusalem, it's James who renders the decision about how Gentiles are to be received:
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
My sentence. Other translations say "my judgment" or "my decision." Once James has spoken, there's no more discussion, and the apostles and elders [presbyters] and the whole church [ekklesia] do as James has decided. So even in an account written by an ally of Paul's, who is sympathetic to Paul and his gospel, there's a clear indication of James' leadership. We see it near the end of Acts, when Paul, in peril of death because his attitude toward the Law has become a scandal to the Jews in Judaea, returns to Jerusalem.
Luke writes:
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
James tells Paul that he needs to demonstrate before all the people that he still follows the Law:
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
This at a time
after Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians! He's in great peril, but he's never hesitated to risk his life before; it's not cowardice that makes Paul obey. Paul, who has trouble getting along with anybody, constantly argues with his friends, and boldly defies those oppose him, will not stand up to James.
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Is Paul afraid for his life? Not likely. Has he changed his beliefs? Also not likely -- and if he had, would Pauline Christians have become the dominant sect of Christianity? Would they even have handed down his letter to the Galatians? Paul has simply come up against an authority he cannot defy.
Catholics talk about Peter's primacy, and Protestants like to dwell on Pauline theology, but the scriptures make it clear that both Peter and Paul deferred to James. This despite the fact that the sources were written and assembled by men who admired Peter and Paul.
And when James died, tradition tells us he was succeeded as Bishop of Jerusalem by another member of Jesus' family, their cousin Symeon.