Great point Hoffnung!
Regarding Acts 15 and a "Governing Body"
by Ding 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
fulltimestudent
Quotation from Ding's first post:
"So the idea that there was some kind of "Governing Body" in Jerusalem from whom all Christians took orders is simply false."
My interest is a historical interest in early Christianity. For the record, I am no longer a Christian, although I sometimes call myself a "post-Christian."
Now some questions:
What was the structure of the early (first century) Christian organisation? Any ideas?
Did the author of the Matthew gospel, structure his words in Matthew 16:18,19 to suggest 'control' over the forming Christian Society?
In Antioch, was there a structure to the Antiochian church?
To whom did the Holy Spirit give the instruction of Acts 13:2?
THe Holy Spirit is referred to as the initiator of the missionary expedition, but the words attributed to the Holy Spirit are clearly directed to the congregation, as it tells them to set aside Paul and Barnabas for this work. And, it was 'they' (i.e. the congregation) who "laid hands upon them and let them go." Leaving aside the tradition of the Holy Spirit's involvement, do you think that perhaps, this was the first time that a congregation outside Jerusalem had actually 'sent out' missionaries? Or, perhaps, was the Antioch church acting under delegated authority?
When Saul/Paul and his companions returned to Antioch the dispute over the value and role of circumcision arose at the instigation of some Jewish*Christians, we read that the Antioch congregation decided to send Paul and Barnabas and others, to the "apostles and older men in Jerusalem" to have the matter settled. (Acts 15:1,2)
On arriving in Jerusalem the congregation (then the oldest in the world?) 'received' this delegation of brothers from Antioch and a specific mention is made that the 'Apostles and elders" were among the welcomers. (Acts 15:4)
The matter of circumcision and keeping the law comes to a head as certain CONVERTED Christians that had been Pharisees spoke for the need to circumcise** (Acts 15:5)
Acts 15:6 tells us that a meeting was convened, of the Apostles and Elders, to consider the matter. Symeon (Peter) spoke first, then Barnabas and Paul. No one else is mentioned, though since this is a summary, there may have been other speakers.
James sums up, (Acts 15: 13) perhaps acting as chairman, and in 15:19, says it is his determination (the NASB, says his"sentence" the NWT says "decision", which conveys the probable useage of krino in the context better than the NASB).
To keep this analysis short, we note that the decision is conveyed first to the Antioch congregation and then later to other congregations, as Acts 16:4 makes clear.
So what we have described in Acts is a doctrinal dispute that is referred to a central body for a decision. Then the decision is conveyed to the believers who assemble in various congregations.
Does that really indicate that there was NO central organising group in the early church?
I do not post this to defend the witnesses, I post it because to say that there was no 'centre' to the early church is quite a stretch of the available information, and the subsequent history of the early church indicates that they (early christians) saw it as an organisation with a need for a controlling body.
As a practical step, just compare the JW organisation to the Catholic Church and note the similarities.
Notes:
* Note, the text refers to Judea (refer Strongs) not Jerusalem so these believers in the value of circumcision could have, but not neccessarily did come from Jerusalem, although we can imagine that most Christians in Jerusalem were ethnically Jewish.
** It is conjectured that these former Pharisees, who were now accepting of Jesus, had in mind the Abrahmaic covenant. Genesis 17: 9-14 states that "God" said to Abraham that male circumcision was a sign (symbol) of this covenant, and that circumcision would be an everlasting sign of that covenant. So what was the dispute about? Paul, a former Pharisee, arguing against a need to circumcise, and the Christianised former Pharisees arguing that the Abrahamic covenant still had validity.
I think that the answer to that question lies in the attitude of the 'those of the nations' to circumcision. There are indications that the Greeks and Romans thought that the Jews were "funny peculiar" for wanting to cut a bit off their kid's penises. Perhaps as a matter or practical concern, Paul thought that it would be easier to male converts of non-jews, if they did not have to cut a bit off their penis/
-
Hoffnung
Most of the questions you ask are answered in a somewhat older thread:
To answer some of your questions directly:
1) Basically in the 1st century every congregation was its own little group without much oversight, just a local group of older men. Jesus never organized a religion. Paul was not a travelling overseer, but a missionary, ordained by Holy Spirit and not by men (as you wrote yourself - a contextual reading of how Paul was called to serve is telling - see 4+5).
2) No, he did not. Peter was used by Jesus to unlock christianity for Samaritans and the nations. also see answer 1.
3) yes, as described in answer 1)
4+5) Let us read the verses: "Now in Antioch there were prophets and teachers in the local congregation, Bar′na·bas as well as Sym′e·on who was called Ni′ger, and Lucius of Cy·re′ne, and Man′a·en who was educated with Herod the district ruler, and Saul. 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar′na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them."3 Then they fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them and let them go.
The Holy spirit decided to send Barnabas and Saul, and the 3 others (Symeon, Lucius and Manaen) who were with them, let them go. They were not sent by the congregation, but by the Holy Spirit. Not much room for interpretation here. Furthermore, the words of the holy spirit was directed specifically to the 5 prophets and teachers. "They" clearly refers only to these 5, and not to the congregation.The rest is answered well enough in other threads, as the one I mentioned above.
For the following sentence, you did not provide any basis: "So what we have described in Acts is a doctrinal dispute that is referred to a central body for a decision. Then the decision is conveyed to the believers who assemble in various congregations."
The truth is: the doctrinal dispute is referred to the local congregation from where the problem started.
Many scriptures in the bible indicate there was no central authority in the christian congregations. To be honest, if they were indeed individually guided by Holy Spirit, there was no need for extra guidance. Revelation 2 and 3 point out that Jesus is guiding the congregations. If there was a central body, would he not have said something about it, like: you are following their lead well? or alike, but he did not.
Nowadays, would you take your disputes to the next meeting of the governing body, and would tell them they are the originator of the problems in your congregation? That is exactly what you are saying that Paul and Barnabas did. Very unlikely.
Would you consider it normal to tell the pope off in front of others because he is not having lunch with non-catholics? Because that is what Paul did with Peter.
Some thoughts maybe worth your considerations.
Hoffnung
-
Fernando
Great points Ding!
Of course it is considered "apostasy" to let the facts get in the way of the "true religion".
So, sadly only those with eyes will see...
Maybe you would also write for us on the Governing Body that did exist back then, namely the Sanhedrin...
-
transhuman68
The book of Acts is a late writing, with its pro-Rome bias; it is a work of fiction based partly on the details of Paul's letters, and considered pretty dubious by most Bible scholars. Paul's letters more clearly reveal the chaos that early Christianity was.
-
xtreemlyconfused17
i was looking for this thread........@ding WOW i like the way u 'digged in'................@hoffnung u too very deep explanations. I'll quote the both of u to the elder.................@fullltimestudent i thought u made a great point...........until i read hoffnung's reply lol