[First appearing on April 28 of this year, I’ve republished (with updates) this post because this is the week we actually study this particular Watchtower article. – MV]
It appears that the sole purpose of this, the third study article in the July 15, 2013 The Watchtower is to establish the premise for the new understanding put forward in the final article in this issue. If you have already read the magazine’s study articles, you will know that we are now taught that the eight members of the Governing Body make up the faithful steward in its entirety. How do we know that Jesus was referring to such a small number of men when speaking of a faithful slave whom he appoints to feed the domestics? The reasoning, as laid out in this third study article, is that he set the precedent for this arrangement by the way he performed a particular miracle, the feeding of thousands using only a few fishes and loaves of bread. His disciples did the feeding.
The article will now make the point that Jesus performed this miracle so that he could show how the feeding of his sheep would take place two thousand years in the future.
This is the fallacy of circular reasoning combined with the weak analogy fallacy. The article’s conclusion needs scriptural support, but there is nothing declared in Scripture to support the idea of a central committee feeding millions of followers. So the writer has found a miracle which, among its many components, has the element of a few feeding many. Presto, bingo! We have proof.
Having found his analogy, the writer would have us believe that Jesus performed this miracle to teach us that some 2,000 years in the future this is how his disciples would be taught. The reason Jesus himself gives for performing this miracle is to care for the physical needs of his listeners. It is an example of his superlative loving kindness, not a object lesson on how the sheep are to be taught. He did refer back to this on one other occasion to teach an object lesson, but the lesson had to do with the power of faith, not how to feed the flock. (Mat. 16:8,9)
Nevertheless, the fact is that the eight men of the Governing Body feed the millions of Witnesses worldwide, therefore, this miracle must support this reality. And since there is such a miracle, then the modern-day feeding must be supported in Scripture. You see? Circular logic.
Fair enough. But does even our analogy, such as it is, work in actuality? Let’s run the numbers. He gave the food to his disciples to distribute. Who were the disciples? The apostles, right? The trouble is, the math doesn’t work if we leave it as that. Factoring in women and children—since only men were counted in those days—we are conservatively talking about some 15,000 individuals. That many people would cover a number of acres of land. It would take many hours for only 12 men to carry that much food if each one was responsible for feeding well over 1,000 persons. Just imagine walking the length of a football field enough times to provide food for an assembly hall full of people and you have some idea of the task before them.
Jesus had more than 12 disciples. At one point, he sent 70 out preaching. Women were also counted as part of the group of his disciples. (Luke 10:1; 23:27) The fact they divided the crowd into groups of 50 and 100, indicates the likelihood that one disciple was assigned to each group. We are probably talking about a couple of hundred disciples. However, that doesn’t fit with the point the article is trying to make, so the illustrations in the magazine only depict two disciples.
This is all academic in any case. The real question is: Was Jesus performing this miracle to teach us something about the way the faithful and discreet slave would be structured? Seems like a leap in logic, particularly so since he makes no connection between the miracle and the parable in question.
The reason he performed miracles, as we’ve been told on numerous occasions, was to establish himself as the Son of God and give a foregleam of what his eventual Kingship would accomplish.
It seems we are once again reaching for some imagined prophetic parallel to try to bolster an interpretation of Scripture not otherwise evident in the inspired record, supporting it with a very weak analogy and a good deal of circular reasoning.
Paragraphs 5 through 7 speak of the choosing of the 12 apostles who were given “an office of oversight” and told to ‘feed Jesus’ little sheep’. Jesus did this just days before departing for good, just as the parable of the faithful and discreet slave depicts. (Mt. 24:45-47) However, we will be told in the next article that the apostles never constituted that faithful slave. In paragraphs 8 and 9 we show how just as a few fed many with the fishes and loaves, so the few apostles fed many following Pentecost.
“Let the Reader Use Discernment”
This is where we have to be careful and use our powers of discernment. For the analogy to work in support of our new understanding, the apostles and their replacements (the few) will have to continue feeding the many throughout the first century. Only if that is the case will this prophetic type serve as support for our modern-day antitype of the Governing Body feeding the worldwide congregation.
So what really happened in the first century? The few, the 12 apostles, trained thousands of newly converted men and women and eventually sent them on their way back to their homes. Did the apostles continue to feed them after that? No. How could they? Who fed the Ethiopian eunuch, for instance? Not the apostles, but one man, Philip. And who directed Philip to the eunuch? Not the apostles, but an angel of the Lord. (Acts 8:26-40)
How was new food and new understanding dispensed to the faithful in those days? Jehovah, through his son Jesus, used male and female prophets to instruct the congregations. (Acts 2:17; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9)
The way this works—the way it has always worked—is that a few with the knowledge train many others. Eventually, the many go forth with their newfound knowledge and train many more, who go forth and train still more. And so it goes. Not just with the Good News, but in any intellectual endeavor, this is how information is disseminated.
Now in paragraph 10 we are told that “Christ used this small group of qualified men to settle doctrinal issues and to oversee and direct the preaching and teaching of the Kingdom good news.”
This is the pivotal paragraph. It is the paragraph where we establish the crux of the argument that a few (the Governing Body) feeds the many, the worldwide brotherhood. We state categorically that:
- There was a first century governing body.
- It was comprised of a small group of qualified men.
- It settled doctrinal issues for the congregation.
- It oversaw and directed the preaching work.
- It oversaw and directed the teaching work.
For proof of the foregoing, we offer up three Scriptural references: Acts 15:6-29; 16:4,5; 21:17-19.
Acts 15:6-29 relates the case involving the circumcision issue. This is the only time in the Bible that the apostles and older men of Jerusalem are consulted over a doctrinal issue. Does this single incident prove the existence of a first century governing body that performed all the aforementioned duties? Hardly. In fact, the reason Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem was because the dispute in question originated from there. Why were certain men from Judea promoting circumcision of the gentiles? Is this evidence of the direction and oversight of a first century governing body? Obviously, the only way to stop this false teaching was to go to the source. This isn’t to say that the congregations didn’t respect the older men and apostles in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it is a big, unsupported leap of logic to conclude that this implies a first century equivalent to our modern Governing Body.
Next, Acts 16:4,5 is provided as proof of their directing the work. What is relayed there is the fact that Paul, having received a letter from the apostles and older men of Jerusalem, was carrying it to the gentile Christians in his travels. Of course, he would do this. This was the letter that ended the dispute over circumcision. So we are still dealing with the one issue. There’s nothing in the Greek Scriptures indicating this was common practice.
Finally, Acts 21:17-19 speaks of Paul giving a report to the apostles and older men. Why wouldn’t he do this. Since the work originated there, they would want to know how things were progressing. It is likely he reported on the activities of other congregations each time he visited a congregation in a new city. How would making a report constitute proof of all we claim?
What does the Bible record really teach about that meeting with the supposed governing body? Here is the account. Do we see evidence of Paul addressing a small body of qualified men as depicted by the illustration on page 19?
(Acts 15:6) …And the apostles and the older men gathered together to see about this affair.
(Acts 15:12, 13) …At that the entire multitude became silent, and they began to listen to Barnabas and Paul relate the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.
(Acts 15:22) …Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers;
“The entire multitude”? The “older men together with the whole congregation”? Where is the scripture that supports the artist’s conception on page 19?
What about the claim they oversaw and directed the preaching and teaching work?
We’ve already seen that Jehovah used prophets and prophetesses in the congregations. There were other gifts as well, gifts of teaching, of speaking in tongues and of translating. (1 Cor. 12:27-30) The evidence is that the angels were directing and overseeing the work directly.
(Acts 16:6-10) Moreover, they went through Phrygia and the country of Galatia, because they were forbidden by the holy spirit to speak the word in the [district of] Asia. 7 Further, when getting down to Mysia they made efforts to go into Bithynia, but the spirit of Jesus did not permit them. 8 So they passed Mysia by and came down to Troas. 9 And during the night a vision appeared to Paul: a certain Macedonian man was standing and entreating him and saying: “Step over into Macedonia and help us.” 10?Now as soon as he had seen the vision, we sought to go forth into Mac·e·do?ni·a, drawing the conclusion that God had summoned us to declare the good news to them.
If there indeed were such a body overseeing and directing the work, why were they not in the loop when Paul was commissioned to preach the good news to the nations.
(Galatians 1:15-19) …But when God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through his undeserved kindness, thought good 16 to reveal his Son in connection with me, that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. 17 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. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
If there was, as we declare, a body of older men and apostles in Jerusalem overseeing and directing the preaching and teaching, then it would have been improper for Paul to have deliberately avoided going “into conference with flesh and blood”.
A hundred years from now, a survivor of Armageddon could look at any of our modern publications and have no doubt about the existence of a Governing Body directing the preaching and teaching work. Why then is there no such evidence in the Greek Scriptures supporting our contention that a first century counterpart to this modern body existed?
It is beginning to look like we have created a fiction in an effort to shore up the authority of our Governing Body.
But there is more. Paragraphs 16 to 18 sum everything up, laying the foundation for what is to come in the final article.
- Russell and the pre-1914 Bible Students were not “the appointed channel through which Christ would feed his sheep”, because they were still in the growing season.
- The harvest season began in 1914.
- From 1914 to 1919 Jesus inspected and cleansed the temple.
- In 1919, the angels began to gather the wheat.
- Jesus appointed “a channel to give out spiritual “food at the proper time” during the time of the end—after 1919.
- He would do this using the pattern of feeding the many through the few.
Take these six points. Now think how you would prove them to someone you might meet out in service. What scriptures would you use to prove any of this? Is it not true that all these “doctrinal truths” are really just unfounded assertions which we accept because we are trained to accept anything from the Governing Body as if it were the very word of God?
Let us not be that way. As were the ancient Beroeans, so are we.
Four prophecies are intertwined in this interpretation.
- The seven times of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness.
- Malachi’s messenger of the covenant.
- The parable of the wheat and weeds.
- The parable of the faithful steward.
For number 1 to work in support of 1914, we have to accept eleven distinct and unproven assumptions. For number 2 to work, we have to assume that it has a secondary application and that said application took five years to achieve fulfillment—from 1914 to 1919. We also have to assume that number 2’s fulfillment is linked with that of number 1, even though there is no evidence of this connection in the Bible. For number 3 to work, we have to assume it is linked to numbers 1 and 2. For number 4 to work, we have to assume it is linked to numbers 1, 2, and 3.
What is of interest is that neither Jesus nor any Bible writer makes any connection whatsoever between these four prophecies. Yet not only do we link them all together, but we also tie them to the prophetically unsupported year of 1919.
An honest examination of the facts will force us to admit that the entire interpretation is based on nothing but assumptions. There is no historical evidence that Jesus spent five years from 1914 to 1919 inspecting his spiritual temple. There is no historical evidence that the wheat began to be harvested in 1919. There is no more evidence that he didn’t choose Russell prior to 1914 as his appointed channel of communication than there is that he did choose Rutherford in that capacity after 1919.
As those who worship “in spirit and truth”, are we being loyal to our master by accepting human speculation as Bible truth?
[…] he never received from Jesus Christ. (Read an analysis of the Governing Body’s position here, then what the Bible really says about the subject […]
isn’t it curious that Paul would write a letter to the congregation where the “governing body” was located? couldn’t the governing body even take care of their own congregation???
also strange that Paul didn’t seem to know who was on the governing body with him??? Gal 2
and that another member of the governing body had difficulty understanding what paul was writing about? 2 Pet 3:15,16
and that not one of the 27 books was written collectively by the governing body?
Actually, 2 Pet. 3:15, 16 doesn’t indicate that Peter had difficulty understanding Paul, only that some found his writing difficult to understand.
Hello brother Meleti, Time does not allow me to post on your blog as much as I would like but I deemed necessary to draw your attention to some facts. I think the WTS’s assertion that Jesus fed many through the hands of a few is not entirely without basis. Let me first refer to your assertion that more than twelve (possibly 70) disciples were involved in the feeding activity. Frankly, there is no basis for such a conclusion. Had there been 70 disciples, one of the four writers would have mentioned it. In fact, the opposite is true, Luke… Read more »
Brother Vassy, you make some excellent points. While it is just speculation as to how many of the disciples were involved in the distribution of food, it seems logistically impossible that only the 12 apostles could have fed so many thousands. What is likely is that the twelve distributed food from Jesus to a secondary group of disciples who either passed it out to a third distribution point or directly to the end users. However, that is not really the point. The point is that it is a speculation that Jesus performed this miracle to illustrate how the feeding work… Read more »
Hi Meleti,
There are some interesting cross-overs between our comments. I hadn’t seen yours before I posted that reply to Vassy. I guess we’re on the same wavelength on this.
Apollos
Vassy, I think you make some thought provoking points. There are some issues to be separated however. I’m not saying you haven’t done that. You’ve been very careful to define the points in Meleti’s article that you are challenging, and I can see where you are coming from. But if we accept that the 12 apostles were indeed a “governing body” in that they were the foundation of the congregation, laid on the cornerstone of Christ Jesus, we still have to get from there to the idea of some sort of apostolic succession. This to me is a much more… Read more »
Dear Meleti, While I do not wish to belabour this—we should remember whenever we read Acts 15, we should also read the first two of chapters of Galatians. Only there are we informed of how long it was before Paul and Barnabas were finally invited to Jerusalem to visit with those “who SEEMED to be pillars.” Fourteen years! And that doesn’t count the three Paul waited before visiting Peter alone, having never met the rest. So for seventeen years Paul preached—going from Jew to gentile, directed to cover no other territory than that to which he was led by the… Read more »
Good points all. Given the reluctance of the Governing Body to accept counsel from those beneath them, the account of Paul publicly reproving Cephas before all onlookers is not a comfortable one. How does our current Governing Body resolve this Scripturally-induced dilemma? Simple. They have appointed Paul to membership within the non-existent first century governing body.
*** w85 12/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
It is reasonable to conclude that Paul was a part of the Christian governing body in the first century.
Notice how the answer to that question concludes: “But at other times he (Paul) brought matters before the entire body, as the account in Acts 15 illustrates.” Acts 15 is the ONLY time. Then they say, “So while traveling, Paul certainly spoke for the central governing body.—Acts 16:4, 5.” That it was all, one SINGLE meeting I find so misleading. And that one single decision was considered as multiple events of precedent-setting permanence gives even less credit to Paul for bringing the whole matter to a head, correctig THEIR mistake (something those of the circumcised never could figure out). So, no… Read more »
Saying “spirit-directed” instead of “inspired” is to make a distinction which constitutes no difference whatsoever. These are essentially synonymous terms.
Thanks, SW. And you are right. That’s the way it was back then, in 1985. Question fo all: BTW, has that word “spirit-directed” [organization] ever been scripturally defined by anyone, since that year in 1985, since they sprung the word on us back then? I mean, how does this particular designation, differ from the plain word everybody else uses, namely “inspired”? I don’t hear any other churches using that word. They just say “inspired” and not “spirit-directed.” In other words, Is this word, “spirit-directed” uniquely to be found ONLY among us, Jehovah’s Witnesses? Is it unique to our vocabulary, and… Read more »
Dear Observer17, You’re not alone in this and while I sympathize immensely, this is the result of screw-tightening by our present micro-managers. When the change occurred we didn’t pay any attention since many thought it was spirit directed to give us a better sense of unity while legally protecting us, blah, blah, blah…..Face it, we all felt the same at the time. Then came the new disfellowshipping announcement when those so named were “no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Excuse me, I said, but if what God has yoked together in marriage could not be put apart by men, how… Read more »
Your evidence is presented so logically that you could argue this in a court of law and win. [not only in this article but many of the other articles on this website] However, logical deductions do not seem to be compatible with the Governing Body’s “indoctrination” and thus the vast majority of JWs will continue to follow the GB like “sheep to the slaughter” before they will be willing to recognize that the GB are just human men (whom I no longer believe to have a “direct channel to Jehovah”). If 1+1 = 2 and the GB instructs that 1… Read more »
Read the papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, and you’ll realize that there is much more than a similarity between the Pope and the GB. In it, he wrote that in order to receive eternal salvation, you must be a member of the Catholic Church, and that you must be in subject to the Pope. Sound familiar?
Excellent points, made by both “Andrew” & “StillHaveFaith”! I wholehearted agree. I am reminded of a couple of quotes from the publications, some years ago which highlighted the danger of confusing one’s holy dedication to Jehovah with any man, or any organization, including the Watchtower Society & Jehovah’s Witnesses as a congregation. For example this one: “A Christian therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of ANY ORGANIZATION, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.” —… Read more »
It has been suggested that the reason for the 1985 change in the baptismal questions has more to do with legal issues than anything else. Say you have stopped attending meetings for some time, then start talking with friends about doctrines of the Organization you no longer agree with. Next thing you know, you’ll have the elders inviting you to a judicial hearing. You may decline saying you do not wish to attend, and they exercise no authority over you. Therefore, they cannot compel you to attend, nor do they have the right to disfellowship you anymore than they have… Read more »
A very sad development in 1985, and we all ask, what the change of the question has to do with the Bible while the New Testament contains no focus on organisation.
Sometimes I think by myself: If I only I had noticed these tendencies and questionable background earlier.
Thanks Meleti, for your comment. And yes, I have heard that suggestion too.
Observer17
It seems to me that the right of ecclesiastical authority regarding disfellowshipping is in direct conflict with the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion, which was originally designed to protect individuals as well as religious organizations. As individuals we do not have the right under the jurisdiction of the Governing Body to practice our faith according to our own personal beliefs. Some government authorities in Europe are investigating the WTBTS under the premise that their citizens rights to freedom of religion are being removed according to the control methods utilized regarding disfellowshipping “apostates”, and thus breaking up families.
The only explanation given for the change is as follows which seems to suggest that all the people baptized before 1985 did not fully comprehend what their dedication and baptism meant. Which is you now must adhere to the authority of the organization: (W87 4/15 pg. 15 – Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism – {under the Footnotes}) “Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.” —————————————————————————————————— (What does the Bible Really Teach… Read more »
Excellent point, “BeenMislead”! I must admit, ‘m a little shocked, amazed even. I must have missed that particular issue of the magazines or something. That is the 1987 Watchtower quote you mentioned, shown below. I find this quote, after meditating upon it, particularly disturbing: (W87 4/15 pg. 15 – Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism – {under the Footnotes}) “Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization.” Did they openly say, an “intimate… Read more »
Okay, now I remember reading that April 15th, 1987 article a while back. Thanks, for reminding me of it, “BeenMislead.” Somehow, I had just forgot about it.
…go figure.
I guess I’m getting old. (LOL)
Observer17
Just recently, in the July 15th, 2013 Watchtower article on “Who Really Is The Faithful Slave And Discreet Slave?” this insidious statement was made, concerning whether a person could have a quote, “healthy spiritual relationship with Jehovah” … without having one with the Governing Body. I believe, this statement itself, ties in quite nicely with the great change in the baptismal questions of 1985. Notice this “enlightening” comment in that particular study article, for our benefit.: Comment found in paragraph #2 of the 4th study article in the July 15th, 2013 magazine, where it states: ” … That faithful slave… Read more »
If the link doesn’t work, you can try this one:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/
Observer17
Except that the current Governing Body has more power over people’s lives than the current Pope.
Hi Meleti, Wow! So if the present-day Governing Body has MORE POWER than the Pope as you say, and over 7 million Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly publicly condemns this as HEINOUS IDOLATRY on the Catholics’ part and all, why are we doing the exact same thing in making our Governing Body [or letting them become] an UNTOUCHABLE, “Golden Calf” too, I ask? For example, what was wrong with the original baptismal questions accepted by the organization back in Oct. 1966, presented to us by President Nathan Knorr and Vice President Frederick Franz? Personally, I thought they were perfect. — See October… Read more »
The new question is subtly worded so that it can be argued that it is not a direct contradiction of our original position. Having said that, the reason given for the new question does show the true intent and is not only a direct contradiction of our previously stated position, but it is also and more importantly contrary to Scripture. (W87 4/15 pg. 15 – Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism – {under the Footnotes}) “Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in… Read more »
Hi Meleti, You said: ***… It makes no suggestion of what is really intended: that we are dedicating ourselves to the Organization as well. If we disagree with the Organization at some point, they can disfellowship us, essentially nullifying our dedication to God–at least in their minds. … The whole thing is really is quite reprehensible.*** Yes, that is the way they [Watchtower Society] see life, and Jehovah as God. However, if Jehovah Himself agreed with “anointed” Nathan Knorr & “anointed” Frederick Franz’s original position on our dedication questions back in 1966, and thinks that ONLY … ONLY Jehovah Himself,… Read more »
(Jeremiah 51:45) 45 “Get out of the midst of her, O my people, and provide each one his soul with escape from the burning anger of Jehovah. (Revelation 18:4) . . .And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. Jehovah’s faithful ones are described as being inside Babylon as her destruction is imminent. At that point, the individual salvation of each one will depend on separating himself or herself from the target… Read more »
I would like to make one additional thought for sincere pondering on this topic:
… With the Governing Body controlling the contents of the Watchtower magazine, one needs no imagination to see how this special “tool” [Watchtower magazine] could be easily used to capture and manipulate the “minds and hearts” of sincere persons earth-wide and eventually exact unquestioned obedience, as would a “god” over a period of time. — See 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.
This is what I’ve noticed, over the years.
…my opinion.
Observer17
It’s interesting to note that Fred Franz, in a discourse given to the 59th Gilead class at their graduation (September 1975), obviously knew there was no Governing Body in the 1st century.as taught by the WT. This discourse is still available online in audio and printed form.
I can see where they come up with the inspection and whatnot, but where do they get the 5 years 1914-1919? Is there even a verse that can be misinterpreted to come up with that.
I think some kind of case can be made for some sort of central authority based in Jerusalem in the 1st century. First, take Acts 15:2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar?na·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar?na·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute. First, if this was just an inter-congregational problem, why go all the way to Jerusalem to deal with it? Why not just send a letter? Then, after the decision is made, we read:… Read more »
I agree with your viewpoint completely. We do need–humans have always needed–some governing authority. I would imagine that even under Jehovah’s righteous rule after the 1,000 years have ended, there will be some level of authority or hierarchy. The Bible speaks of that among the angels. We have benefitted and continue to benefit from the lead the Governing Body and others take and from much of their direction. Not all, but that is where imperfection has a hand. However, as you point out, they go too far. They exceed their authority in teaching us things which are the result of… Read more »
I don’t find it clear that this relates to them in any way as a central authority. Instead, authority seemed generally distributed, based upon the giving of revelation and the presentation of evidence. For example, Peter alone received the revelation on the acceptance of gentiles, and word spread on this and it was accepted. He did not consult with a centralized body and have them distribute the teaching. Would we not expect this if such a structure existed? The “us” in 3 John would appear to be Gaius himself. This is evident from the “we” in verse 8, which includes… Read more »
Hi Steve, It could be, as you say, that when John says “us” he’s referring to himself and Gaius, but I’ve read the entire book (all 15 verses!) again and it seems far from clear who the “us” is. Here are some excerpts from the ESV that I think show that it is at least ambiguous: Verse 9: I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. Verse 12: Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you… Read more »
With regard to decision making at the Jerusalem council, after both private and open discussion before the “multitude” verse 19 of Acts 15 records that it was James who made the final decision “my decision” (Greek I am judging), on what should be done to resolve matters. This I believe to be consistent with perhaps a position of oversight of the Jerusalem Christian religious congregation (ekklesia). James on a number of occasions is referred to separately relative to other brothers and elders. Peter after his miraculous release from prison at Acts 12:17, instructs that a report of his experience should… Read more »
I see your point and it appears to be well supported Scripturally. Actually, you got me thinking of something. We refer to the “first century governing body”. (You’ve provided good proof it wasn’t really a committee so much as a council of elders or advisers with James making the final decision.) Be that as it may, It could only have been in place for a maximum of 30 years. The Christians left Jerusalem in 66 C.E., never to return. What then of the first century governing body? When John was directed by Jesus Christ to write to the seven congregations… Read more »
It is also interesting to note that in Galatians 2 Paul identifies them as men of reputation, which would be quite the understatement were they the governing body.
It is also worth noting that the letter says the false teachers went out from among them, which is shocking if they were the governing body.
Steve