King Saul

[bibleguy]

FQ, did you look at Deut. 17? Read diligently. You'll find that this was a matter "to great" to be decided locally. James was "the judge," and as such he did not call the meeting as you correctly stated. But the brought the matter to him and the elders at Jerusalem.

They fulfilled Deut. 17 precisely.

[Full Quiver]

James made no decision but merely accepted truth along with the rest of those present. Again, it was not a meeting of the entire church.

Let's say James had so no, everyone must be circumcised because God does not change and he required it of Abraham as a sign of faith?

Well then Paul knowing better probably would have either rebuked him or went on about the work of faith and grace that he was doing.

I did read Duet. 17 BTW and I see what you are getting at but the Lord is the judge. God gave the answer through Paul's testimony of how the Gentiles were being converted without circumcision. I don't read where James offered any insights, personal witnesses, or the Word to come to a conclusion. He merely stated the truth after Peter and Paul's testimony and some discussion.

I also see that you are implying that God has an appointed judge over all Christians and we should bring our matters to him. Where is he? I know what you are thinking but why so quite. Please don't take me wrong because I do like you. You are very insightful, learned, and a pleasure to communicate with but I am not buying into this stuff.

[bibleguy]

James made no decision but merely accepted truth along with the rest of those present. Again, it was not a meeting of the entire church.

Let's say James had so no, everyone must be circumcised because God does not change and he required it of Abraham as a sign of faith?

Well then Paul knowing better probably would have either rebuked him or went on about the work of faith and grace that he was doing.

I did read Duet. 17 BTW and I see what you are getting at but the Lord is the judge. God gave the answer through Paul's testimony of how the Gentiles were being converted without circumcision. I don't read where James offered any insights, personal witnesses, or the Word to come to a conclusion. He merely stated the truth after Peter and Paul's testimony and some discussion.

I also see that you are implying that God has an appointed judge over all Christians and we should bring our matters to him. Where is he? I know what you are thinking but why so quite. Please don't take me wrong because I do like you. You are very insightful, learned, and a pleasure to communicate with but I am not buying into this stuff.

Thanks. And ditto.

There was a lot of stuff not included in the Acts 15 account. There were several days of "no small disputation." I am of the opinion that the information included was enough to point us to the prophetic significance of the event (i.e. fulfilling the requirements of Deut. 17). Enough is recorded to see that they did as the Scriptures required. Much must have been left out, like the word says about Jesus, that he did many things that weren't recorded. The whole of scripture does the same thing, giving us the info of utmost prophetic import, and leaving out details that would be no doubt of some historical interest, but of a lesser significance with regards to the overall plan of God's work.

[beckrl]

Luke 22:
24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel


Something to think about...

[bibleguy]

I would claim there to be a difference in arguing over who's greater, and exercising God-given authority.

Moses and Aaron didn't argue about being greater, Korah and his buddies did that. But Moses and Aaron did have a special authority and would have been remiss if they did not exercise it.

Upon Jesus' departure, he left Peter in an obvious place of leadership. (John 21). So much so, that Peter was confused as to why him and not John the beloved disciple. God has a chain of command, always has, and no doubt always will.

[Full Quiver]

Peter was left as the pastor, shepherd, of the Jerusalem church but not the authority over all Christians (judge is what you referred to in Duet. 17). Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep; that's what a pastor does. He did not say take my place. Paul identifies Christ in his writings as the Chief Apostle therefore signifying that HE, Christ, is still in charge.

[bibleguy]

Peter was left as the pastor, shepherd, of the Jerusalem church but not the authority over all Christians (judge is what you referred to in Duet. 17). Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep; that's what a pastor does. He did not say take my place. Paul identifies Christ in his writings as the Chief Apostle therefore signifying that HE, Christ, is still in charge.

Christ's authority over the church has never been in question. The same as his authority was absolute when Moses was leader, or Gideon, or David, or Zerubbabel. Whomever God appoints as judge or leader on earth is always subject to Christ. Please don't imagine that I would ever question that.

I believe in a both/and organizational structure: there is biblical evidence for a central governance of some kind, and in some issues, and that is necessary for unity (Psa. 133:1-3 for example). However, there is much local freedom in many if not most areas. Local churches may (by their understanding or by their conscience) decide to worship on Saturdays instead of Sundays, or to refrain from eating pork, for instance. They may require a certain dress code: long sleeves, long skirts, uncut hair for women.

This can all exist under the same organizational umbrella, so long as it does so peacefully. They must keep the spirit of Rom. 14:3, "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."

When that peaceful coexistence cannot be maintained, as was the case in the present example of Acts 15 (the matter being greater than they themselves could resolve), they came to Jerusalem, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, James gave a ruling. James' ruling was not contrary to any Scripture, and James compared himself to Moses in the passage, saying that his sentence should be read in all of the churches, just like Moses is read in all of the synagogues.

Paul warned agains the spirit of Korah in the churches. This is not about direct rebellion against God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost, or the cloud per se, because Korah did not deny the cloud or the Lord, and insinuated that since the whole congregation was holy, there was no need of Moses and Aaron. They could see the cloud as well as Moses could.

Rather Korah was emblematic of the persisting condition of God's people to deny that God chooses someone from time to time to be the leader among the brethren. "We all have the Holy Ghost. I am led by the Spirit, I don't need anyone." There can be no Korah if there is no Moses, so the warning would be moot.

[Full Quiver]

& who is the judge?????