The text does say that the room fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written. We are dealing with two Greek words for silence. Verse 12 describes what happened before St. Paul and St. Barnabas were recognized to address it's council. The word used is "esigese". This is the past tense aorist usage, meaning that the assembly became and remained silent after St. Peter's address. Scripture is very clear that indeed, after St. Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled. In verse 13 the verb used is "sigesai". This is the infinitive aorist: meaning only that Paul and Barnabas had finished talking.
St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name. He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers. He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis. I understand why the Reformation needed to destroy the Papacy of St. Peter and attempted to erase the Traditions of the Church in order to create the blank slate onto which they wrote their theology. I find it simply one more in a long line of heresies and heterodoxies that have unsuccessfully challenged the Church. That said I do not find Protestants evil or even damned, just wrong.
Peace be with you.
RE: It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written.
__________________
The idiomatic Greek DOES NOT TELL US who spoke first or later in the text. It does tell us BASED ON the sequence of the verse that Peter spoke in verse 6 and Paul and Barnabas spoke in verse 12.
The word SILENCE was applied to the speech of Paul and Barnabas. THAT”S ALL THE TEXT TELLS US.
In fact, the text clearly states :
When they finished, James spoke up.
Who are they? I understand it to be both Paul and Barnabas. However, I would imagine you would like to include Peter in the mix. That’s alright with me. The important point is still this — Peter’s speech IS NOT THE ONLY ONE GIVEN CONSIDERATION in the text. Paul and Barnabas’ speeches were as well.
I cannot infer from the text that Peter settled the matter for everyone.
Everyone’s speech was given EQUAL CONSIDERATION, James then COMPARED what Peter said with scripture ( to confirm that it had the blessing of God’s word ) and THEN made a decision.
We ought to follow this pattern too.
RE: St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name.
Being given a new name does not make one Supreme over others.
Abraham’s name was changed from Abram. Paul’s name was changed from Saul to Paul. What does that prove?
Jesus gave a special name to James and John (Mark 3:16,17). And God gave special names to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5,15), Jacob (Gen. 32:28f), and others. Were all these people Supreme to others too?
NO. A change of name could indicate a change of status, a change of role that someone is to play, or even ( as in Jacob’s case ), an event in one’s life.
RE: He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers.
But he was NOT ALWAYS MENTIONED FIRST by Paul.
In more than one occasion, James was mentioned ahead of Peter.
For instance, When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10).
RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given.
I disagree with you that the keys were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter.
They were given to ALL the apostles, and
for that matter, the whole church.
What are the keys of the kingdom? The keys are that which unlocks heaven to the sinner. What is it that locks heaven against one? It is sin.
The provision to take away sin, that man might not be shut out of heaven, is the key of the kingdom, and that provision is the gospel of our Lord. Now the privilege and commission to preach the gospel were given to all the apostles, and likewise to the whole church.
The church really exists for no other work than to preach the gospel in all the world; and if a man accepts it, the kingdom of heaven is unlocked to him.
I agree with Origen when he said this :
“Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock
(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
So, When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be. BTW, Origen is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18 and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church.
RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis
I find it really interesting that you would READ INTO Scripture everything that makes Peter Supreme to all other Apostles and then totally ignore verses that indicate otherwise. Yours is the one that really counts as eisegesis.
You ASSUME that Peter is Supreme and then force the Scriptures to meet the assumption instead of letting scripture speak for itself.
Every single verse you ascribe to Peter can in fact be ascribed to Paul which will ridiculously make Paul the Pope.
Both myself and Roman Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to “prove” Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.
Consider the following :
* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7). Peter on the other hand, was.
* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.
* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.
* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).
* Paul stated on two occasions was not inferior to any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.
* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.
* Peter cited Paul’s letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter’s letters as authority.
* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.
Paul wrote a letter to the Romans when Peter was allegedly the Pope. Why the need to do that when Peter was already there?
* Paul’s labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).
Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.
Peace be to you too.
____________________________