If the papacy is true, then shouldn’t we see Peter ruling over the Church like a dictator in the New Testament? This question might sound silly, especially to those who understand the nuances of Catholic teaching, but this is what some people actually believe about the papacy!
Acts 15 is often cited as knock-down proof that Peter didn’t act like a pope. After all, James is the one who makes the final decision at the Council of Jerusalem! But aside from misunderstanding the papacy, this objection from Acts 15 can be reversed into a papal prooftext.
Let’s first address why James makes the final decision (15:19): he is the bishop of Jerusalem. Catholics do not hold that the pope should micromanage other dioceses, especially when the bishops agree with his judgment. The objection expects something totally unreasonable.
In fact, here is what Vatican I teaches:
This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.”
Peter’s “supporting” role in the Council of Jerusalem is consistent with Catholic teaching. But having a supporting role does not entail that Peter is subordinate to James. The same is true of a senior rabbi nudging a younger one to a correct conclusion or an elder brother guiding his younger brother to make the game-winning play.
Notice how much weight James places on Peter’s judgment in his ruling: “Brethren, listen to me. Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” (Acts 15:13-14). James then cites Amos 9:11-12 in vv. 15-18 as verification of Peter’s decision:
And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.”
Peter’s speech had such a profound impact on the assembly that James uses it as the blueprint for his ruling! For example, although Barnabas and Paul spoke after Peter, James mentions only Peter’s name in his decision (Acts 15:12).
Let’s rewind to Peter’s speech to see why it’s so important.
Peter begins in v. 7, “after there had been much debate,” implying that he is issuing a definitive judgment. “Brethren,” he says, “you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” Notice that Peter singles himself out as being the divinely chosen apostle who would first open the Church to the Gentiles. He also implies that this is (or ought to be) common knowledge. In vv. 8-10, Peter defends the validity of Gentile Christians who have not been circumcised, and, in v. 11, Peter speaks on behalf of the entire Church, “But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
In other words, God has already revealed through Peter’s ministry that the Gentile Christians are real believers through faith. When the Church stopped following Peter’s lead, it went astray. When James and the rest of the churches accept Peter’s ruling at the Council of Jerusalem as their own, however, the gospel prevails. This is eerily reminiscent of Luke 22:32, where Jesus commits the other disciples into Peter’s care. Peter is now shepherding Christ’s Church through his example and ministry.
A final noteworthy detail is that Peter’s authority is wider than James’s. Peter was always meant to be the head of the Church, as evidenced by his incredible authority in the nascent Jerusalem Church and even afterward in his evangelism. Anglican scholar JND Kelly writes, “The first half of Acts discloses that after the Ascension, though his relationship to James, the Lord’s brother, remains unclear, Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful Church. It was he who presided over the choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar the Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48).”
New Testament scholar Ajith Fernando notes that by Acts 12:17, however, Peter had become a missionary after his miraculous escape from prison, leaving James in charge in Jerusalem. By then, Jerusalem was no longer the entire Church, and Peter had left to continue shepherding God’s people. In Acts 15, however, he returns to remind his brothers of his divinely appointed ministry and then speaks on behalf of the entire Church.
Acts 15 is therefore a beautiful illustration of the papacy. Although Peter is the chief steward of Christ’s Church, at the Council of Jerusalem, he urges his brother bishops to grasp the gospel and shepherd accordingly. He invites them to open the Church with the keys he received from Christ.
Rather than being a helicopter parent over the Church, Peter desires that the bishopric grow into maturity. This does not negate or equalize Peter’s authority. Instead, it highlights Peter’s prudence over the Church placed in his care.