Was Peter "Chief" of the Apostles?

[Matthan]

I read on another thread where a person who contributes here regularly called Peter the chief of the apostles. Of course that is in scriptural error because we can read where Paul states, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." And, "I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." "Apostles" in both of the examples here is plural, and I do not believe it would not have been had any particular apostle been appointed by Jesus as the chief apostle. Add that to the body of evidence that clearly shows that Peter (singularly) was not saluted, addressed or even mentioned as being of higher rank or authority than any other apostle, and I believe the case is clear that he may have possessed a brash and impulsive personality, but he was not appointed to any specific and unique position of leadership among the apostles.

(By the way, Bishop Strossmayer agrees with my assessment.)

So, what do you think?

Matthan

[DeaconDean]

I read on another thread where a person who contributes here regularly called Peter the chief of the apostles. Of course that is in scriptural error because we can read where Paul states, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." And, "I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." "Apostles" in both of the examples here is plural, and I do not believe it would not have been had any particular apostle been appointed by Jesus as the chief apostle. Add that to the body of evidence that clearly shows that Peter (singularly) was not saluted, addressed or even mentioned as being of higher rank or authority than any other apostle, and I believe the case is clear that he may have possessed a brash and impulsive personality, but he was not appointed to any specific and unique position of leadership among the apostles.

(By the way, Bishop Strossmayer agrees with my assessment.)

So, what do you think?

Matthan

I'm sorry if you took issue with me using that term in my response in the "other" thread. But I must explain something to you. I started that research some five years ago not long after I entered seminary. If one considers all the mentioned apostles, no two apostles stand out as do Peter and Paul. John being an exception being because of the gospel he wrote, 1,2,3 John, and supposedly Revelation.

I can't right off remember the sourse I used, but that was a term that was used/included in the sourse I used. Perhaps I should have been more careful about using the quote, but it does not take away from the issue at hand.

Personally, I admire Peter for in him, we see all the qualities of us. Peter shows me mostly a side of me in him. Peter to me, represents the common ordinary man. The everyday ordinary man who works hard, not very well educated, yet God saw in him, something that He wanted and used to His will and purpose. The same can be said about me. I'm just a simple "country boy." Not well educated, I've had to work hard in school, and in life to get where I am. Yet God saw something in this dumb ole "country boy" that I didn't see in myself.

In the gospels, James, John and Peter are mentioned more than the others. Was I wrong to refer to Peter this way? Perhaps. Does it take away from the message I was trying to communicate in the other thread? No. Does this make the other disciples any less than the others? No.

So before this gets out of hand, if I offended anybody for calling Peter the chief among the apostles, I'm truly sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Phileoeklogos]

Who is Bishop Strossmayer?

[Matthan]

I'm sorry if you took issue with me using that term in my response in the "other" thread. But I must explain something to you. I started that research some five years ago not long after I entered seminary. If one considers all the mentioned apostles, no two apostles stand out as do Peter and Paul. John being an exception being because of the gospel he wrote, 1,2,3 John, and supposedly Revelation.

I can't right off remember the sourse I used, but that was a term that was used/included in the sourse I used. Perhaps I should have been more careful about using the quote, but it does not take away from the issue at hand.

Personally, I admire Peter for in him, we see all the qualities of us. Peter shows me mostly a side of me in him. Peter to me, represents the common ordinary man. The everyday ordinary man who works hard, not very well educated, yet God saw in him, something that He wanted and used to His will and purpose. The same can be said about me. I'm just a simple "country boy." Not well educated, I've had to work hard in school, and in life to get where I am. Yet God saw something in this dumb ole "country boy" that I didn't see in myself.

In the gospels, James, John and Peter are mentioned more than the others. Was I wrong to refer to Peter this way? Perhaps. Does it take away from the message I was trying to communicate in the other thread? No. Does this make the other disciples any less than the others? No.

So before this gets out of hand, if I offended anybody for calling Peter the chief among the apostles, I'm truly sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
I was not in any way offended by your titled mention of Peter. I was simply curious about how many individuals posting in the "Baptist" forum that thought in the same way.

Besides your comment another writer recently posted that Peter was "appointed" head of the Church. And of course some of our regular posters here, while they do not practice it, have no real concern with "infant" or small child baptism. There is a lot of misinformation floating around out there, and at least some of it adversely affects our spiritual thoughts on Scripture and our Lord's relationship with us, not to mention our relationship with Him.

Matthan

[Matthan]

Who is Bishop Strossmayer?
He was a catholic priest who gave a speech during vatican one. It was not well received by the pope of that time....

Just quarry his name, Josip or Joseph Strossmayer, and you will find out more if you want to.

Matthan

[Phileoeklogos]

Sounds like Strossmayer was preaching to a hostile audience,;)

[psalm511013]

For what they're worth, anyway

8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--
11 a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

And I know that the OP from the other thread from which this question has been asked has explained himself, but I feel this passage begs the question, are any of the apostles raised above our own level of faith or authority? I think the answer is no. There are none righteous, not one, as Paul wrote elsewhere, and therefore no one is more "special" or authoritative than anyone else, because we are all subject to Christ.

To be sure, there are those with greater -- no, wait, check that ... make it "more visible" -- gifts than others. That does not set them higher in authority or make them "chief" above anyone. The apostles personally knew Jesus, but so did thousand of others, who were called His disciples. Mathias was among these until tapped by the Holy Spirit to replace Judas in their collective ministry.

Setting any apostle above the others is diametrically opposed to what Paul taught in the above passage (Colossians 3:8-11, by the way) as is setting anyone above ourselves and others, who dons a priestly garment or acquires regional or national exposure on television. The field is level at the foot of the cross. There is no "greater" anything, except perhaps when describing our life in sin.

[sneezingleopard]

hmm, interesting. Perhaps a question to be asked in OBOB.
In Christ,
Matthew

[Matthan]

hmm, interesting. Perhaps a question to be asked in OBOB.
In Christ,
Matthew
Why? I think most of the posters on this Forum can make a rough guess was to what the obob response might be. But Baptists on the other hand, well, you never know what some of them might come up with, right?

Matthan

[bdarien]

Peter obviously wasn't of any great authority over the church as some mistakeningly teach today. While he was a great leader he was taken to task by Paul for his hypocrisy and was a sinful man like every other man.

[jsimms615]

I read on another thread where a person who contributes here regularly called Peter the chief of the apostles. Of course that is in scriptural error because we can read where Paul states, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." And, "I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." "Apostles" in both of the examples here is plural, and I do not believe it would not have been had any particular apostle been appointed by Jesus as the chief apostle. Add that to the body of evidence that clearly shows that Peter (singularly) was not saluted, addressed or even mentioned as being of higher rank or authority than any other apostle, and I believe the case is clear that he may have possessed a brash and impulsive personality, but he was not appointed to any specific and unique position of leadership among the apostles.

(By the way, Bishop Strossmayer agrees with my assessment.)

So, what do you think?

Matthan
Seems to me that Jesus gave special access to his life by Peter, James and John. You see the three of them with Jesus when the other disciples are not as close. But, to say that Peter was chief is inappropriate in my view.

[A Brother In Christ]

I read on another thread where a person who contributes here regularly called Peter the chief of the apostles. Of course that is in scriptural error because we can read where Paul states, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." And, "I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." "Apostles" in both of the examples here is plural, and I do not believe it would not have been had any particular apostle been appointed by Jesus as the chief apostle. Add that to the body of evidence that clearly shows that Peter (singularly) was not saluted, addressed or even mentioned as being of higher rank or authority than any other apostle, and I believe the case is clear that he may have possessed a brash and impulsive personality, but he was not appointed to any specific and unique position of leadership among the apostles.

(By the way, Bishop Strossmayer agrees with my assessment.)

So, what do you think?

Matthan

Heb 3:1 Therefore holy brethren, partaker of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Christ Jesus