{"id":56990,"date":"2021-05-21T12:26:07","date_gmt":"2021-05-21T16:26:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=56990"},"modified":"2021-05-21T12:40:23","modified_gmt":"2021-05-21T16:40:23","slug":"did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html","title":{"rendered":"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page<\/a> with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier<\/a>, a good friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic priest, and my co-author of the book,\u00a0Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison<\/a><\/i>\u00a0(3rd revised edition: July 2015, 335 pages). His words will be in blue<\/span>. He likely has more to say. If so, that will be\u00a0 added to this dialogue.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

[for background, read Acts 15]<\/p>\n

Saint Peter did not preside at the council of Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Ah, east and west. Here is the argument for St. Peter presiding, as I understand it, from a 2017 article of mine (some repetition from the above and some new elements, too):<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the \u201chost.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided \u2014 with regard to food \u2013, to prohibit only that which \u201chas been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled\u201d (15:29).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore expands upon this<\/a>:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Jerusalem Council: Orthodox or Catholic style of council?<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here\u2019s how it worked:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The bishops met TO EXAMINE the matter. They DEBATED.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Then, Peter \u2014 after listening to the debate \u2014 gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter\u2019s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas \u201cfall silent,\u201d allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly \u201cfalling silent\u201d after Peter\u2019s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is \u201csigesai\u201d (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it\u2019s \u201cesigese\u201d (past tense aorist usage \u2014 meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter\u2019s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
So, why does James speak?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
We think there are three reasons:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
He\u2019s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*
\nWhat he says, he \u2026like Paul and Barnabas \u2026ties into Peter\u2019s declaration: \u201cBrothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God\u2026\u201d etc.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church\u2019s \u201cJewish wing.\u201d Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u201cSome who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, \u2018Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.\u2019
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\u201cIt is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Who was \u201ctroubling\u201d the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas.\u00a0\u00a0Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision.\u00a0So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the \u201cJewish party\u201d that James is giving a \u201cjudgment\u201d to.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Thanks for the reply. Here is what I just posted on my page.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
DID ST PETER PRESIDE OVER THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM?<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
This to me is an interesting and important question in part because it highlights the importance of Petrine primacy in support of local or regional primacy. Here I defer to Pope St John Paul II:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
\u201cThe first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community\u2014all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.\u201d \u2013 Ut Unum Sint, #97<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
It is simply an anachronistic reading to say that Peter \u201cpresided\u201d over the Council, when in fact (as the Pope references) he spoke in the name of the apostolic community and in service to the unity of the brethren, while respecting the authority of James. What authority was that? To preside over the Council as the head of the local Church in Jerusalem.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
I certainly agree with Petrine primacy and believe that this is a model for how it can and should function \u2013 in service to unity and to the strengthening of the local and regional authority of bishops, not in presiding over every activity, including Synodal activities.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Fr. Daniel,<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I think we are basically quibbling over the meaning of \u201cpreside.\u201d I used it in a way to mean that Peter had the greater overall authority. But it can also be used to denote administrative or procedural authority or in the sense of the \u201clocal bishop presiding over his own jurisdiction.\u201d St. James did the latter (I agree; I don\u2019t think anyone disagrees about that<\/strong><\/em>). But Peter had more authority overall. I don\u2019t see that this disagrees at all with what Pope St. John Paul II wrote (Peter represents the apostles while James is Bishop of Jerusalem).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Mark Bonocore wrote in another part of his article that I didn\u2019t cite: \u201cIt is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place \u2014 even over the resident reigning bishop (James).\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I agree.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I think another issue is what we view the Jerusalem Council as representing (as a prototype or analogy). There is a sense in which it was a local council and also by analogy, the prototype of what was to become the ecumenical council. It\u2019s the only example of a council (after Pentecost) in the NT that we have. And so if we are to learn about the nature of an ecumenical council in the NT, this is it. I believe that we could find statements from popes and theologians expressing this analogy.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Thus, in the \u201cprototype of ecumenical councils\u201d model, Peter would obviously ultimately preside. But in the \u201clocal council\u201d perspective it would be James.
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Is it only<\/em> a local council, though? I say that it clearly wasn\u2019t<\/em>, because its decision (about circumcision and clean food requirements) was binding thereafter on the entire Church: not just Jerusalem (which would be the case in a merely<\/strong><\/em> local council).
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Hence, Paul pronounces the decision as binding upon the Christians in all the cities he was visiting in Asia Minor [Turkey] (Acts 16:4). Therefore, the Jerusalem Council is more a model of an ecumenical council, in my opinion: because of who is affected by its decision (the entire Church). If we say that a local bishop presided over a decision that affected the entire universal Church all through history, I think that is a mix-up of categories and makes little sense. But if we view Peter as \u201cpresiding\u201d in the sense of ultimate authority and the issuance of the central proclamation, then it makes more sense of a universal decision being presided over by the universal bishop.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
It might be objected that with regard to the Deuterocanon, local councils were originally the ones that declared it. But<\/em><\/strong> those were ratified by the pope. Thus, for the rulings of the Jerusalem Council to be universally binding, would they not have to be \u201cratified\u201d by the first pope, Peter (whether he technically \u201cpresided\u201d in the sense that we agree James did or not)? I think so.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Moreover, by further analogy (can you tell that I love that sort of argument?), the book of Acts, prior to this council, had already presented Peter as overwhelmingly preeminent in the early apostolic Church:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
1) Peter\u2019s name occurs first in a list of the apostles (Acts 1:13; cf. 2:37).<\/div>\n
2) Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.<\/div>\n
3) Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
4) Peter\u2019s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
5) Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
6) Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to \u201cpreach the gospel\u201d in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
7) Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
8 ) Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
9) Peter\u2019s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
10) Peter is the first [named] person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
11) Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
12) Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
13) Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
14) Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison \u2013 Acts 12:1-17).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
15) The whole Church (strongly implied) offers \u201cearnest prayer\u201d for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
16) Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
17) Peter\u2019s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the \u201cHouse of Israel\u201d (2:36) \u2013 an example of \u201cbinding and loosing.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
18 ) Peter was the first \u201ccharismatic\u201d, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
19) Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
20) Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
21) Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).<\/div>\n
22) Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called \u201cvisitation of the churches\u201d (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn\u2019t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
So \u2014 again, by analogy \u2014 when we get to the Jerusalem Council isn\u2019t it plausible to ALSO think that Peter had the greatest authority? Whether James presided as local bishop doesn\u2019t affect Peter\u2019s overall authority as pope and head of the universal Church. And he exercised that at this council, by delivering the central and definitive message. In the first part of Ut Unum Sint<\/em> #97, Pope St. John Paul II also wrote:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is\u2014in God\u2019s plan\u2014an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
I will come back to this later, but for now let me only say that I think we need to consider a couple of points.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
First, to preside at a council even if it is simply a council in seed form is to preside over an act of the magisterium \u2013 in this particular case and apostolic magisterium. I don\u2019t think we should reduce the role of James to purely an administrative one when in fact very clearly he speaks for the whole council and renders an authoritative judgment in the name of all present.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
Second, I think the issue of who has more authority is really an attempt to read into a narrative a concern that is not being answered or addressed by the narrative. It is essentially to ask the question \u2013 what if James had disagreed with Peter, could he have rendered a different judgment? Such a notion would have really been foreign to the concerns or spirit of the apostolic age, so again I think what we have here is an anachronistic reading addressing later theological concerns. I\u2019m not saying it is entirely illegitimate, nor am I saying that James would or could have disagreed with Peter at this point. I think he rightfully identifies this act of the council as a work of the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
All that being said, I do not disagree with the importance of Peter\u2019s role and his authority in all of this, although there is a definite shift in focus from Peter to Paul in the book of Acts. But I do not believe that it can be said that he (Peter) is presiding over this council and I think the Pope is pointing this out, Nor do I see the necessity of arguing that he is presiding here in order to support Petrine primacy as I indicated.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
I don\u2019t think I\u2019m being \u201canachronistic\u201d at all, though it\u2019s possible: more on that below. I\u2019m simply analyzing a \u201cprimitive\u201d instance of ecclesiastical \/ ecclesiological matters that obviously highly developed through the centuries.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
We have to actually address the biblical texts involved and exegete them to have this discussion, no? I have presented (rightly or wrongly) many dozens of them.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
The Bible is not gonna offer a full-fledged, fully developed ecclesiology: however we construe what that is. That\u2019s why I speak of models and prototypes and analogies, because the ecclesiology of Latin Catholicism or Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy (or any form of Protestantism) will not be seen in its fullness in Scripture.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I have no problem whatsoever with the jurisdiction of each bishop in his own See. James presided in that sense. That\u2019s Catholic teaching. But it\u2019s a question about who has more authority over a council whose decisions were interpreted by no less than St. Paul as having essentially universal binding application.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The Jerusalem Council occurred as the Church was just starting to determine how it would run itself. It had elements of being a local council, and also (I would say, much stronger) elements of being the prototype of an ecumenical council. I think that\u2019s why we can have these two somewhat differing interpretations, that I actually think aren\u2019t far apart at all.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
We both bring the bias of eastern and western ecclesiology in how we approach and exegete the text (let\u2019s not fool ourselves). If I have a bias leading to \u201canachronism\u201d so do you, just as much, I respectfully submit. You will tend to sort of regard Peter as relatively less authoritative, just as I will tend to view him as more so. And so we observe that in our respective arguments. All the more necessity to exegete the actual texts more deeply . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
But (it may surprise you to learn, though it shouldn\u2019t), I have argued (in an article for National Catholic Register<\/em><\/a>) that the Jerusalem Council was quite democratic and almost egalitarian (thus more \u201cEastern\u201d and not at all \u201cultramontanist\u201d) in the way in which it reached its conclusion:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
[T]he Jerusalem council presents \u201capostles\u201d and \u201celders\u201d in conjunction six times:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Acts 15:2 . . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 15:23. . . \u201cThe brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili\u2019cia, . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Acts 16:4 . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
\u201cElders\u201d here is the Greek presbuteros<\/em>, which referred to a leader of a local congregation, so that Protestants think of it primarily as a \u201cpastor\u201d, whereas Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans regard it as the equivalent of \u201cpriest.\u201d In any event, all agree that it is a lower office in the scheme of things than an apostle: even arguably lower than a bishop (which is mentioned several times in the New Testament).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
What is striking, then, is that the two offices in the Jerusalem council are presented as if there is little or no distinction between them, at least in terms of their practical authority. It\u2019s not an airtight argument, I concede. We could, for example, say that \u201cbishops and the pope [and non-bishop theological advisers] gathered together at the Second Vatican Council.\u201d We know that the pope had a higher authority. It may be that apostles here had greater authority.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
But we don\u2019t know that with certainty, from Bible passages that mention them. They seem to be presented as having in effect, \u201cone man one vote.\u201d They \u201cconsider\u201d the issue \u201ctogether\u201d (15:6). It\u2019s the same for the \u201cdecisions which had been reached\u201d (16:4).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
St. Peter worked within that framework, in a council presided over by James (in the sense I have agreed with), but he still provided the central rationale for the decision and in that sense exercised ultimate and universal (and \u201ctheological\u201d) authority. He functioned as the foremost interpreter of past religious practice and beliefs (even more than St. Paul: for whom I also have a very strong bias in the overall scheme of things). He worked together with other apostles and elders, just as popes have habitually done (as I have argued many times).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Dom Bernard Orchard (Catholic Commentary<\/em>, 1953) offers some interesting insights:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
7. Perhaps 6 describes a private meeting, during which \u2018there had been much debate\u2019, and now St Peter announces the result to the multitude. Be that as it may, he speaks with an authority that all accept, and by re-stating his decision in the case of Cornelius, implies that the question should not have been re-opened. . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
19. From St James\u2019 \u2018I judge\u2019 it has been argued that he and not St Peter had the first position, but a word cannot prevail against the context, so favourable, here, as in the rest of Ac, to the Petrine primacy. The phrase bears a very different interpretation. \u2018For which cause\u2019, in view of Simon\u2019s action in the case of Cornelius, and of the prophecy, \u2018I\u2019, without wishing to engage others, \u2018judge\u2019, am of opinion, a usual sense of the Gk \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, and one found often in Ac, \u2018that the Gentile converts are not to be disquieted\u2019. St James shows why he adheres to the decision which has already been given by Peter on the point at issue. He then puts forward a practical suggestion, which so far from being a decree of his own, is expressly attributed to the Apostles and presbyters who adopted it, 15:28; 16:4.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Navarre Commentary<\/em> adds:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
6\u201321. The hierarchical Church, consisting of the Apostles and elders or priests, now meets to study and decide whether baptized Gentiles are obliged or not to be circumcised and to keep the Old Law. This is a question of the utmost importance to the young Christian Church and the answer to it has to be absolutely correct. Under the leadership of St. Peter, the meeting deliberates at length, but it is not going to devise a new truth or new principles: all it does is, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to provide a correct interpretation of God\u2019s promises and commandments regarding the salvation of men and the way in which Gentiles can enter the New Israel.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
This meeting is seen as the first general council of the Church, that is, the prototype of the series of councils of which the Second Vatican Council is the most recent. Thus, the Council of Jerusalem displays the same features as the later ecumenical councils in the history of the Church: a) it is a meeting of the rulers of the entire Church, not of ministers of one particular place; b) it promulgates rules which have binding force for all Christians; c) the content of its decrees deals with faith and morals; d) its decisions are recorded in a written document \u2014 a formal proclamation to the whole Church; e) Peter presides over the assembly.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
According to the Code of Canon Law (can. 338\u2013341) ecumenical councils are assemblies \u2014 summoned and presided over by the Pope \u2014 of bishops and some others endowed with jurisdiction; decisions of these councils do not oblige unless they are confirmed and promulgated by the Pope. This assembly at Jerusalem probably took place in the year 49 or 50.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
7\u201311. Peter\u2019s brief but decisive contribution follows on a lengthy discussion which would have covered the arguments for and against the need for circumcision to apply to Gentile Christians. St. Luke does not give the arguments used by the Judaizing Christians (these undoubtedly were based on a literal interpretation of the compact God made with Abraham \u2014 cf. Gen 17 \u2014 and on the notion that the Law was perennial).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Once again, Peter is a decisive factor in Church unity. Not only does he draw together all the various legitimate views of those trying to reach the truth on this occasion: he points out where the truth lies. Relying on his personal experience (what God directed him to do in connexion with the baptism of Cornelius: cf. chap. 10), Peter sums up the discussion and offers a solution which coincides with St. Paul\u2019s view of the matter: it is grace and not the Law that saves, and therefore circumcision and the Law itself have been superseded by faith in Jesus Christ. Peter\u2019s argument is not based on the severity of the Old Law or the practical difficulties Jews experience in keeping it; his key point is that the Law of Moses has become irrelevant; now that the Gospel has been proclaimed the Law is not necessary for salvation: he does not accept that it is necessary to obey the Law in order to be saved. Whether one can or should keep the Law for other reasons is a different and secondary matter. . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
[16:4] 4. The text suggests that all Christians accepted the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem in a spirit of obedience and joy. They saw them as being handed down by the Church through the Apostles and as providing a satisfactory solution to a delicate problem. The disciples accept these commandments with internal and external assent: by putting them into practice they showed their docility. Everything which a lawful council lays down merits and demands acceptance by Christians, because it reflects, as the Council of Trent teaches, \u201cthe true and saving doctrine which Christ taught, the Apostles then handed on, and the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, ever maintains; therefore, no one should subsequently dare to believe, preach or teach anything different\u201d (De iustificatione<\/em>, preface).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Scott Hahn (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible<\/em>) observed:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
15:11 . . . Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church. He formulates a *doctrinal* judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a *pastoral* plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
And St. John Chrysostom<\/a>:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, \u201cIn the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.\u201d (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion. . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
It occurred to me that Pope St. John Paul II didn\u2019t actually state<\/em> [using the word] that James \u201cpresided\u201d at the council of Jerusalem in Ut Unum Sint<\/em> #97. I grant that it\u2019s possible to interpret it that way, but in the next sentence after what you cite, he wrote:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry? A ministry which presides in truth and love so that the ship\u2014that beautiful symbol which the World Council of Churches has chosen as its emblem\u2014 will not be buffeted by the storms and will one day reach its haven.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Note that when he refers to \u201cpresides\u201d he is referring to Peter, not James. This is obvious in the immediate context and in the larger context of the entire encyclical, since the previous section (88-96) is entitled, \u201cThe ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome\u201d and even the title of the section cited is called \u201cThe communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome: a necessary condition for unity.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
All that was said about James was that Peter was \u201crespecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem.\u201d So the question is: what does this mean<\/em>? As I said, I think \u201cJames presided over the council\u201d is a plausible take, but if so, I think it has to be qualified, per my overall argumentation. And could not one say that you might be reading too much into that, because of your prior bias (as we all have biases)?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
I will be looking to see if I can find anything in JPII or Benedict XVI elsewhere dealing with this specific question of \u201cwho presided?\u201d and\/or whether James \u201cpresiding\u201d has a particular sense. If I find that JPII said elsewhere that Peter presided, then it seems to me that Ut Unum Sint<\/em> has to be interpreted in that light.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The presiding referenced in the subsequent paragraph pertains to his presidency over the whole Church, not to the council specifically. It is in the context of the council that he makes specific reference to respecting James\u2019 authority.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out that when he used the word \u201cpresides\u201d it referred to Peter, not James; and you agree. I was simply talking about that word. He never wrote, \u201cJames presided . . . \u201d or some such. \u201cRespecting the authority of James\u201d could mean \u201crespected his authority to speak last\u201d or \u201cto \u2018run\u2019 a council held in his See\u201d or any number of things. We don\u2019t know for sure. I haven\u2019t been able to find anything else in searches, to make it more clear. I wish I could. \u201cThe Holy See\u201d search engine is lousy and frustrating to use.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Jerusalem Council vs.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[9-2-04]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Christian Ecclesiology: Dialogue with a Mennonite: Especially that of the Early Church, and the Jerusalem Council<\/a>\u00a0[5-30-12]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Acts 16:4 vs.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0& John Calvin?: Is Conciliar Authority Binding on Protestants (Especially When it is Guided by St. Paul and St. Peter?)\u00a0<\/a>[11-2-15]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-15-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
C. S. Lewis vs. St. Paul on Future Binding Church Authority<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 1-22-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\u201cArmstrong vs. Geisler\u201d #10: Ecclesiology (Jerusalem Council)<\/a>\u00a0[3-2-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Conciliar Infallibility \/ Council of Constance & John Hus\u2019 Execution<\/a>\u00a0[5-25-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Dialogue with a Protestant: Authority of the Jerusalem Council\u00a0<\/a>[5-26-17]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lawler vs. Pope Francis #5: Jerusalem Council vs. \u201cIdeology\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-3-18]
\n*<\/div>\n
Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) Decrees: Universally Binding?<\/a>\u00a0[11-21-19]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Were the Jerusalem Council Decrees Universally Binding?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 12-4-19]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 5-19-21]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Reconstruction of Herod\u2019s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson\u2019s Arch in the foreground<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Summary<\/em>:\u00a0Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good friend of mine who is a Byzantine Catholic priest, and my co-author of the book,\u00a0Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison\u00a0(3rd revised edition: July 2015, 335 pages). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56992,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131,138],"tags":[598,779,514,52,33,3067,13685,246,810,3460,1327,32,35,47,13688,1129,932],"class_list":["post-56990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-catholic-tradition","tag-christian-authority","tag-church-councils","tag-council-of-jerusalem","tag-development-of-doctrine","tag-ecumenical-councils","tag-james","tag-jerusalem-council","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-st","tag-st-peter","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\nDid Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-05-21T16:26:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-05-21T16:40:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/TempleHerod.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"474\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html\",\"name\":\"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-21T16:26:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-21T16:40:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?","description":"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?","og_description":"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2021-05-21T16:26:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-05-21T16:40:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":474,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/TempleHerod.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html","name":"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-05-21T16:26:07+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-21T16:40:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod? This is a discussion I had on my Facebook page with Fr. Daniel G. Dozier, a good Meaty dialogue on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): specifically about who presided over it: Peter or James? Also, the question of its being a prototype of ecumenical councils is discussed.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2021\/05\/did-peter-or-james-preside-at-the-jerusalem-council.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56990\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56992"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}