Figure of speech, yes. But if Peter was the most prominent or chiefest apostle of the 12, he might in a way also represent them all. But also there's no denying that Jesus called him by his new name, which means rock or stone.
Jesus called him a small stone. Jesus built His church on an immovable massive connected rock face.
Peter's rock is detached small therefore can be moved. Peter is petros masculine noun.
Jesus' rock upon which He builds His church is petra feminine noun.
By Jesus' choice of words there can be no way Christ would build His house on a small pebble that can be moved.
The Scriptures teach against ranks among the apostles, superior, chief, prominent, head, greater etc.
Not one scripture in the entire new testament gives any of the apostles any of these titles.
The silence of the scriptures should silence any contemplation leaning in this direction.
I agree those verses are not enough to go on by themselves, just thought they showed how some men in the church including apostles could have more prominence than others
The verses we have discussed show prominence among apostles to not be the case.
Jesus condemned this idea when the apostles themselves wondered about who would be greatest in the Kingdom.
but there are at least a couple more verses that give that impression (Gal 2:2 and Acts 15:22)
Galatians 2:2,
- and I went up by revelation and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the gentiles but privately to those of
reputation lest by any means I might run in vain, or had run vain
Two groups that Paul preached the gospel to in this verse.
Gentiles. No gentile was ever given apostleship.
Those of reputation were the jews.Those who were appointed elders and apostles.
Reputation separates Christian brethren in the church from apostles and elders in the church.
It does not seperate apostles into some of reputation(leaders) and some not of reputation.
The private discussion is recorded in Acts 15. Apostles and elders of the church came together to discuss the matter of the Jews binding circumcision and commanding that the gentile Christians keep the law of Moses.
Paul repeats this twice Galatians 2:6 ; 9
Leading men are referred to as Pillars of the church.
That word is reference to elders and apostles in the church.
Specifically James, Cephas, John.
Pillar simply means men that were respected in the church.
This has NOTHING to do with ranking among the apostles.
Proof of this is Cephas was not even an apostle!!! Yet he was one of the Pillars.
So in no way is the context implying greater apostles over other apostles as Pillars in the church.
But I think there's no denying Peter's leadership and prominence among the rest. Look at Acts 1:15 where Peter is the one who stood up among the other apostles to call for a new apostle to replace Judas. And in Acts 2:14 He stood up with them and is the one recorded as preaching to "Ye men of Judea...." after the Holy Spirit was given
Your reasoning does not equate to prominence because Peter is recorded as speaking more than the others.
What if Matthew's preaching was recorded instead of Peter's preaching in Acts chapter 2?
Would that make Matthew prominent over Peter?
That's not evidence that's speculation.
If the apostles were here today and all 12 held a gospel meeting at a local church.
It was a 7 day meeting.
Matthew preached Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.
Peter preached on Wednesday.
John preached Thrusday, Friday and Saturday.
Would you reason Matthew and John were prominent apostles over Peter?
Just because they spoke more at the meeting?
Acts 3 and 4 as well. Peter is the one who is recorded as the main one preaching and evangelizing the people. Later, he is the one who rebuked Ananias and Saphira and when he did they fell down dead. Still later it was written how people were healed when Peter's shadow fell on them. Etc. It's very hard not to have the impression he had more prominence than the others (unofficially). The more I look into it, the more I tend to think Jesus was letting Peter know he would have grace to lead the early church, but in a sort of quiet and tactful way, not in a worldly way of giving him status and title or indicating official "succession" as the Catholics claim.
Have you forgotten Paul was not yet chosen?
Trying to add up who is recorded the most on preaching is not proof of prominence.
It's not even a fair way of reasoning since Paul has not yet even been given the opportunity to begin his preaching.
So of course Peter preached early on as Paul was not yet preaching!!!
Add up who preached the most from Acts 2 to Acts 9 and Peter wins.
This reasoning cannot be used to come to a sound conclusion that Peter was prominent.
Notice we dont even know how much preaching the other apostles did. The scriptures did not record everything that took place among the apostles evangelism We have missing data to try and come to an honest conclusion of who is the head apostle based on numbers alone.
This reasoning is flawed.
I just don't know how to emphasize strongly enough how vital it is to remain in the simplicity of Christ
Agreed,
Again, The Scriptures have answered this doctrine. It is unscriptual.
John 13:16,
- verily I say unto you the servant is not greater than his Lord, neither
he(Peter, John) that is sent is greater than he(other apostles) that sent him(Peter, John)
Acts 8:14,
- now when the
apostles which were in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they
sent unto them
Peter and John
