 |
|
|
Not According To Apostle Paul
|
|
|
"I did not go at once into conference with flesh
and blood, Neither did I go up to Jerusalem
to those who were apostles previous to me"
- Galatians 1:16, 17
The Meeting of Elders and Congregation Members of Acts 15
In Acts chapter 15 , certain men from Judea came to Antioch and began to teach the brothers that circumcision was still necessary. Paul and Barnabus, after disputing with these men, then went to Jerusalem, where these persons causing the dissension were from. It was there in Jerusalem with the participation of the Apostles, older men and the ENTIRE congregation, that a decision was reached, not a small group of men as shown in the March 15, 1990 Watchtower. (Acts 15:22) Does this prove that there was a governing body in Jerusalem
|
Comments From A Man Who Sat On The Governing Body Of Jehovah's Witnesses
for Over 9 Years |
| The Watchtower referred to, grossly manipulates
the evidence to fit the thesis it argues for. On page 10 it shows a picture of the supposed "first-century governing body" with only nineteen or twenty men present. It also (on page 12) speaks of Christ as adding "a number of other older men in Jerusalem."to the governing body. But the account in Acts chapter fifteen indicates that the elders as a whole were present at the council held and not just "a number" of them, for it consistently speaks of the "apostles and the elders" with no limitations implied. Some 3,000 persons had been baptized at Pentecost and not long after the number of believers is given as "about five thousand."(Acts 2:41; 4:4) That was evidently in the year 33 A.D. How reasonable is it to believe that 16 years later, in 49 A.D., there were only a handful of elders in Jerusalem?Surely the number of them would have packed out the room depicted in the in the Watchtower's picture, but this would not fit the concept of a "small number of men" forming a governing body, such as the dozen men who currently form the the Brooklyn-based Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. The magazine also presents a totally false picture as to a supposed formation of a "governing body" among Watch Tower adherents in the late 1800's. As shown in Crisis of Conscience, pages 52-55, initially Charles Taze Russell, not a governing body exercised full control over the Watch Tower Society. Until his death in 1916, he was recognized as the on and only "pastor" of all the"ecclesias" and that is why he was regularly referred to as "Pastor Russell." The article likewise totally misrepresents the real situation regarding administrative control existing in the 1970's, as pages 50-91 in Crisis of Conscience document. It would seem that the writer of the 1990 Watchtower articles was either ignorant of the facts or was guilty of deliberate fabrication |
Notice what nineteenth century scholar Barnes points out in the Barnes' Notes, page 235:
"This council (of Acts chapter 15) has been usually appealed to as the authority for councils in the church as a permanent arrangement, and especially as an authority for courts of appeal and control, but it establishes neither, and should be brought as authority for neither. For (1) It was not a court of appear in any intelligible sense. It was an assembly convened for a special purpose: designed to settle an inquiry which arose in a particular part of the church, and which required the collected wisdom of the apostles and elders. (2) It had none of the appendages of a court . . . Courts of judicature imply a degree of authority which cannot be proved from the New Testament o have been conceded to any ecclesiastical body of men. (3) There is not the slightest intimation that anything like permanency was to be attached to this council, or that it would be periodically or regularly repeated. It proves, indeed, that when cases of difficulty occur--it is proper to refer to Christian men for advise and direction . . but the example of the council summoned on a special emergency at Jerusalem should not be pleaded as giving divine authority to these periodical assemblages . . (4) It should be added that a degree of authority would of course be attached to the decision of the apostles and elders at that time which cannot be in any body of ministers and laymen now. Besides, it should never be forgotten that it seems to have been the pleasure and the interest of ecclesiastics to forget-that neither the apostles nor elders asserted any jurisdiction over the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; that they did not claim a right to have these cases referred to them; that they did no attempt to "lord it over their faith or their consciences. The case was a single specific, definite enjoined no future reference of such cases to them, to their successors, or to any ecclesiastical tribunal. They evidently regarded the churches as blessed with the most ample freedom and contemplated no arrangement of a permanent character asserting a right to legislate on articles of faith, or to make laws for the direction of the Lord's freemen."
Where did Apostle Paul go after his conversion to Christ ? "If such a governing body did exist, he certainly would have been concerned to coordinate his work with its members. . . But Christ said absolutely nothing to Paul (Saul) about going to Jerusalem. Instead of sending him back to Jerusalem, from which city Paul had just come, Christ sent him on to Damascus. He gave what instructions he had for Paul through a Damascene resident named Ananias, clearly not a member of some Jerusalem-based "governing body." From the very start of his letter to the Galatians (chapter 1 verse 1), Paul himself took great pains to make plain that neither his apostle ship not his spiritual direction proceeded from or through men, specifically including apostolic men at Jerusalem."(1) Notice Apostle Paul's words in Galatians 1:16,17
"I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and I came back again to Damascus."
Here Paul made it a point, not to go to Jerusalem and have conferences with men ("flesh and blood"). This supports the argument that there was not an authoritative central ruling body over all the Christian congregations.
In the very next verse 18, Paul then makes it a point to tell us it was not until three years later that Paul made a trip to Jerusalem. (Gal 1:18) He then states that at that time he saw only Peter and the deciple James, but no others of the apostles during his fifteen day stay. He did not meet a central ruling body or the elders in Jerusalem. Thereafter Paul made his base in Antioch, not Jerusalem. He engaged in missionary journeys and it was the congregation of Antioch that sent him out, not Jerusalem.
Now in the next chapter, 2, and the first verse, Paul tells us that it was not until fourteen years later he again went back to Jerusalem,
"Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas taking also Titus along with me. But I went up as a result of a Revelation."... (Galatians 2:1)
If there were a central governing body in Jerusalem, it would only make sense that Apostle Paul, the writer of 14 letters of the bible cannon, would not have waited 14 years to have traveled there and have spoken personally to these older men. So to go there at this time to meet them would only be a speculation, but rather Paul tells us that the reason for his trip to Jerusalem: the result of a revelation (not to conference with a central ruling, governing body of older men). This shows that Christians did not customarily and routinely look to Jerusalem as a seat of centralized authority for all Christian congregations. (2)
It is evident that if a "governing body" had existed as a central administrative body in the early congregation then there should be some evidence beyond just a single meeting in Jerusalem to support this. Nowhere in the rest of the Scriptures does this appear. In all the writings of Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Jude and James, not one indication could be found that men in Jerusalem, or any centralized body of men, exercised supervisory control over what went on in the rest of the many places where Christians were located. Nothing to indicate that the activities of Paul or Barnabas or Peter or any other person were carried out under the direction and supervision of a "governing body." When the Jews revolted against the Roman imperial rule and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., where did the supposed Christian "governing body" operate from thereafter? Again, it seems reasonable that there should be at least some indication of this if it was indeed God's arrangement, if such a centralized administrative body was the divine instrument of Christ Jesus for directing his congregation earth wide. (2a)
The only Scriptural writings subsequent to Jerusalem's fall are those of Apostle John. In the book of Revelation, his visions portray Christ as sending messages to seven congregations throughout Asia Minor. In none of these is there any indication that such congregations were under some outside direction other than Christ's own. There is no sign of any direction by Him through some earthy, visible "governing body." (2a)
Writings of early Christian authors of the second and third centuries, likewise reveal nothing to indicate the existence of any centralized administration for supervising the numerous Christian congregations. The history of the period reveals something quite to the contrary. It shows that such a centralized authority bas was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development. By a gradual process covering centuries of time this eventually resulted in the kind of centralized control by a visible organizational leadership that the Watch Tower's concept of a "governing body" embraces. (2a)
Certainly it can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, that the early churches were linked together as far as:
- Conforming to universal church practices as taught by the Apostles.
- Shared finances with poorer churches
- Greetings and letters sent to one another
- Different teachers traveled freely among the different congregations
- All Christians had the responsibility to offer hospitality to traveling Christians.
- All Christians were to pray for one another
- All Christians were to view themselves as one worldwide brotherhood.
However, in the face of overwhelming historical evidence for the "original completeness and autonomy" of each local church, the early churches were not linked by a superior ruling body, having authority over the local churches. Acts chapter 15 cannot be made to justify inter church organizations or courts with authority over the local church. the churches were not linked by a superior ruling body, having authority over all congregations. (4)
It is a historical fact that no formal inter church federation, denominations union, or fixed organizations framework linked churches together for the first two hundred years of the Christian era. In his classic work, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, renowned church historian and classical scholar Edwin Hatch (1835-1889) demonstrates that no superior individual or organizational body ruled over local Christian congregations. Each congregation was self-governing and independent, with the jurisdiction of its elders restricted to the local congregation:
"In the course of the second century, the custom of meeting in representative assemblies began to prevail among the Christian communities."
"At first these assemblies were more or less informal. some prominent and influential bishop invited a few neighboring communities to confer with his own: the result of the deliberation of such a conference was expressed sometimes in a resolution, sometimes in a letter addressed to other Churches. It was the rule for such letters to be received with respect: for the sense of brotherhood was strong, and the causes of alienation were few. But so far from such letters having any binding force on other Churches, not even the resolutions of the conference were binding on a dissenting minority of its members. Cyprian (died A.D. 258), in whose days these conferences first became important, and who was at the same time the most vigorous of early preachers of catholic unity--both of which circumstances would have made him a supporter of their authoritative character if such authoritative character had existed--claims in emphatic and explicit terms and absolute independence for each community. Within the limits of his own community a bishop has no superior but God."
"But no sooner had Christianity been recognized by the State than such conferences tended to multiply, to become not occasional but ordinary, and to pass resolutions which were regard as binding upon the Churches within the district from which representatives had come, and the acceptance of which was regard as a condition of other provinces."
"It was by these gradual steps that the Christian Churches move from their original state of independence into a great confederation." (3)
According to Schaff's History of the Christian Church, it states:
"We have no distinct trace of Councils before the middle of the second century . . . when they first appear"
That it is at least one hundred years after the events of Acts chapter fifteen that we first have evidence of another such council being held. History shows that these councils were originally open to all members of the congregation but in time became restricted to those few who were appointed as elders and bishops.
As Schaff further states:
"But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican spirit (that is allowing all members to sit on the councils besides the bishops and elders) gradually vanished. The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles."
Not until the post-Biblical development did councils form restricting all members to only that of church bishops (presiding overseers) and elders. Each congregation had a body of elders who were not authoritative figures, exercising control and but were fellow slaves performing a service for the brotherhood. Not until later periods of time did these overseers meet together and form councils or synods.
For more information on the formation and unification of the church, eroding a universal brotherhood of individual freedom and sole submission to the Christ to the group submission of a central ruling human authority, click here.
Footnotes: 1 In Search of Christian Freedom - By Raymond Franz - page 43 2 Ibid page 44 2a. Ibid pages 47-48 3. The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London: Long mans, Green, and Co, (1901), pp. 170-172,175 - By Edwin Hatch 4. Biblical Eldership - pp. 128-129 - By Alexander Strauch
