Despite the lack of an explicit description of the structure of the early church in the New Testament, certain facets of it can be discerned in the texts. The most obvious is Peter was the head of the quorum of the Twelve, not as one possessing superior authority over the rest of the apostles, but being the first among equals. However, James, the brother of Jesus, appears to occupy the presiding position in the church.

It was James, not Peter who presided over the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-22) and it was James, not Peter, who settled the issue of the requirements of the Gentiles for admission into the church (Acts 15:13-21 esp. vv.13,19-20).

Paul obeyed the order to appear before the council (Acts 15:2) and was on one side of the two opposing parties. The traditionalists, or conservatives, insisted that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses (Acts 15:5) while Peter (15:7-11) and Paul (15:12) took the opposite view. After both sides presented their cases, James decided in favor of Paul and Peter's position. James said, “my sentence is …” which proves he really presided in the council and everyone, including Peter and Paul submitted to his decision.

Because of the conduct of James, and of Peter and Paul deferring to his authority, reporting to him and being sent by him (Acts 21:18; 8:14; 15:13-21; 12:17; Gal 2:12), we can assume that James, the brother of Jesus, was the president of the early Christian church,1 while Peter was the president of the Twelve (just as Joseph Smith was the president of the church in 1843 and Brigham Young was the president of the Twelve). This will also explain why the surviving apostles deemed it so important to convene another council to replace James after his death, not as a bishop of one particular church (out of over thirty)2 but as the head of the entire church. Simon, the cousin of Jesus was unanimously chosen to be the next president of the church.3

The traditional view that James and Simon were merely bishops of the church of Jerusalem is untenable due to the actions of the surviving apostles. If they viewed James as a bishop of one church, why would they go through the trouble of assembling all of the surviving apostles and the other leaders of the church just to replace a bishop? If Simon was only a bishop of one particular church why didn't all of the apostles and leaders of the church gather in councils whenever a new bishop had to be appointed? Why is it that this tremendous effort was never done to any other church? Not even the bishop of Rome received the privilege of having all of the surviving apostles and other leaders of the church ordain him. On the other hand, if Simon was only a mere bishop of one church and he received this ordination whereas the bishop of Rome (if there was one at the time) never did, doesn't this mean that the apostles viewed the bishop of Jerusalem as being more important than any other bishop, including the bishop of Rome? The importance of James shows he had to be the president of the early church.

It is obvious that the Mother-Church of Christianity during the time of the apostles was Jerusalem and this high regard was carried by many prominent Christians through the centuries.6 This Mother-Church status can clearly be seen in Acts and the letters of Paul (e.g., Gal 4:26).7

6.Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book 3, Chapter 12.5; Tertullian. Against Marcion. Book 4, Chapter 35; Firmilian letter to Cyprian. 74th Epistle; First Council of Constantinople(382). Synodical Letter; THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Pelikan). p.35.