In his first Epistle to Timothy the apostle Paul wrote, “If I delay, I write that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (3:15). Timothy needed some instruction to know how to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the church. We too need such instruction today. We may think that the church is simply the coming together of the saints with some leading ones and the carrying out of some services. However, the truth concerning the church is not so shallow or simple. If it were, Paul would not have needed to instruct Timothy concerning how to conduct himself in the church life. The burden in this chapter is for us to see how to conduct ourselves in the church.
Based on my own learning and experience, I would say that to know how to conduct ourselves in the church, we first need to see the headship of Christ. The entire New Testament unveils that today God has ordained in His economy that we respect, regard, and exalt the headship of Christ to the uttermost in everything. Matthew 1 through Revelation 22 reveals that God’s intention is that no head other than Christ should exist among God’s people. In the Old Testament there was a series of kings; there was no unique head. In the New Testament, however, there are no heads other than Christ. It is true that Peter is always listed first in the four Gospels among the twelve disciples, but the Lord Jesus never said that Peter was the highest disciple. The Lord never gave even a hint to indicate that anyone was first. He did not establish a leadership with Peter. Rather, the Lord always placed Peter in difficult situations. In his natural man Peter desired to take the lead. In John 21 he threw himself into the sea to be the first to meet the Lord on the shore, but he was shamed by the Lord (vv. 7, 15-17). Peter also was the first of the disciples to speak on the Mount of Transfiguration, but he was stopped by God (Matt. 17:4-5). The four Gospels show no sign that the Lord had any intention to establish Peter as the leader among the apostles.
In Mark 16 when the angel sent the sisters to tell the disciples of the Lord’s resurrection, the angel particularly added the phrase and Peter (v. 7). Some may think that the phrase and Peter indicates that Peter was first among the apostles, but this is not the meaning. And Peter was added because Peter had a complete failure when he denied the Lord. Rather than being first in something positive, Peter was first in denying the Lord. No one denied the Lord as many times or as seriously as Peter did. Peter denied the Lord to such an extent that he probably did not have any confidence to come back to the Lord. Therefore, the Lord added the phrase and Peter so that Peter would know that the Lord would never forget him but had forgiven him already and was waiting for him to return.
There is no indication in the four Gospels that Peter was appointed to be first among the apostles. On the day of Pentecost Peter took the lead to stand with the eleven and speak a message to the Jews (Acts 2:14). At that time Peter was certainly the leader, but he was not an official, permanent, organizational, or positional leader. Rather, he was a leader temporarily according to his spiritual capacity at that time. Later, Peter became weak, not in a small matter but in a great matter. Paul said that Peter was not walking in a straightforward way in relation to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). Peter, who was a Jew, ate with the Gentile believers. This was against the law of Moses, but it was according to the truth of the gospel. However, when some Jewish believers came to Antioch, Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles (v. 12). This shows Peter’s weakness. This weakness was not a small thing but a great thing that damaged the truth of the gospel. This shows that at that time Peter was no longer a spiritual lion but had become a spiritual chicken. Therefore, he was no longer the leading apostle. The Bible records that James had become the leading apostle (vv. 9, 12).
Suppose that there are five elders in a certain locality today. One may always take the lead. If this leading one becomes weak to the extent that he damages the truth of the gospel, the other brothers may not have the boldness to allow another one to take the lead. However, the record of the Holy Spirit in the Bible has the boldness. As soon as Peter became weak, the record of the Bible recognizes another one as the leader. There is no indication before this in the New Testament that James was spiritually strong. I do not know why James was the one to replace Peter, but according to Acts 15:13-21, as soon as Peter became weak, James rose up to take the lead. The point here is that there is no official or permanent leader in the New Testament. God does not desire that there be an official or permanent leader among His people in the New Testament age, because such a leader would be an insult to the headship of Christ.