Acts 15 Peter not "Prime?"

[ni8_shadow]

I read the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and I know we use the “and the council fell silent” part in order to point out Peter’s primacy in the early Church. It goes “And the council kept silent;** and listened as** Paul and Barbabas…” Protestant friend said this line refers to the council being silent BECAUSE Paul and Barnabas are telling them of all the miracles etc. NOT because Peter stood up and spoke.

And I still can not properly explain that even though James says “**I **have decided…” that it was Peter’s decision that stopped the council.

Oh and is “Symeon” another way to say “Simon” as in Peter?

 

[Pons]

This thread is useful.

Oh and is “Symeon” another way to say “Simon” as in Peter?

Yes. (I mean, who else spoke?)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I read the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and I know we use the “and the council fell silent” part in order to point out Peter’s primacy in the early Church. It goes “And the council kept silent;** and listened as** Paul and Barbabas…” Protestant friend said this line refers to the council being silent BECAUSE Paul and Barnabas are telling them of all the miracles etc. NOT because Peter stood up and spoke.

And I still can not properly explain that even though James says “**I **have decided…” that it was Peter’s decision that stopped the council.

Oh and is “Symeon” another way to say “Simon” as in Peter?

It’s quite simple – in rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s quite simple – in rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

That’s really helpful, Vern! I had not heard that before. I’ll definitely remember that the next time I encounter this issue. Thanks!

 

[ni8_shadow]

It’s quite simple – in rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.

Very informative:thumbsup: , but I can still see how that may not prove Peter was THE head. It does not show Peter speaking last, the position of the most authority. It implies that Peter may have been equal to or even below someone else.

 

[sandusky]

vern humphrey:

It’s quite simple – in rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

Peter spoke first.

Also, can you link to a source that outlines the universal etiquette that encompasses all of the differenct rabbinic traditions, or “sects,” that states when debate is finished, the youngest ranking rabbi will announce his decision with the words, “It is my decision…?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Very informative:thumbsup: , but I can still see how that may not prove Peter was THE head. It does not show Peter speaking last, the position of the most authority. It implies that Peter may have been equal to or even below someone else.

It wasn’t meant to show Peter was the head – it was an account of a collegiate debate in the early Church, pure and simple.

If you want to see Peter acting as the head of the Church, read Peter’s sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2,14 and following), Peter’s leadership of the Christians first attempt to produce a collective society (Acts 4 and 5), Peter’s dealing with Simon the Magician (Acts 8,9 and following) and Pete’s vision at Joppa and subsequent setting aside of the Mosaic Dietary laws (Acts 10, 9 and following.)

Read the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Where Clement, the 4th Pope acts as a Pope, telling the Corinthians they must take back the bishop and priests they expelled) or Irenaus’ comment, “Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Peter spoke first.

He spoke in the debate – James spoke first at the decision.

Also, can you link to a source that outlines the universal etiquette that encompasses all of the differenct rabbinic traditions, or “sects,” that states when debate is finished, the youngest ranking rabbi will announce his decision with the words, “It is my decision…?”

Go attend any rabbinical debate or court where a decision is made.

 

[sandusky]

"Sandusky:

…can you link to a source that outlines the universal etiquette that encompasses all of the differenct rabbinic traditions, or “sects,” that states when debate is finished, the youngest ranking rabbi will announce his decision with the words, “It is my decision…?”

Go attend any rabbinical debate or court where a decision is made.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[Erich]

The NAB’s footnote to Acts 15:13-35 says the following:

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lev 18), all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem “Council” that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).

Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed the latter council in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

 

[ni8_shadow]

Just emailed my Protestant pal and he states

“True that the other passages can show Peter’s role as A leader. However, Acts 15 does not display the Church acting in Council the way the Catholic Church does it. The “Pope” was NOT the final authority on the matter and as I have pointed out it was because Paul and Barnabas speaking that the crowd kept silent. If anything this proves that the Orthodox Churches are more right than the Catholic Church in matters of council.”

I am currently for early Church councils where the Pope was either a)final authority b)displayed more authoritative power over other bishops.

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a30.htm

<< Acts 15 and the Leadership of Peter

Well, to begin with, we are told of a crisis in the church of Antioch. Having returned from their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas find that:

“Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’ Because there arose no little DISSENSION and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul and Barnabas, and some of the others, should GO UP to Jerusalem to the Apostles and presbyters about this question.”

So, what’s happening here? Well, notice that the Scripture says that Paul and Barnabas were DISSENTING. Interesting word, huh? Yet, it reveals that those who were pushing for circumcision were IN AUTHORITY over Paul and Barnabas (who were the younger colleagues at this time). And they were in authority because they came from Judaea/ Jerusalem – seat of the magisterium. So, what’s happening is that agents of the magisterium are coming to Antioch and preaching something that doesn’t seem right (i.e, “the spirit of Vatican II” ;-). Therefore, Paul and Barnabas are going to check to see if the Jerusalem magisterium is really teaching this.

And, yes. It does say that they were going to see the “Apostles and presbyters.” It does not say that they were going to see Peter. However, there’s a good reason. They probably DIDN’T KNOW that Peter was going to be there! Or, possibly, they knew that all the Apostles were gathered there (probably for Mary’s funeral / Assumption).

If you look in Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem “for another place” (which Tradition tells us is Rome – both Eusebius and Jerome count Peter’s episcopacy in Rome from this time, which was AD 42). However, the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49 and, strangely enough, Peter just happens to be there having disappeared from the narrative of Acts since chapter 12. Why so? Well, as we know from Seutonius, all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) and their expulsion was because of a riot over someone named “Chrestus” (i.e., “Christus” or Christ). So, Peter was among the refugees which is why he was back in Jerusalem (thereafter to go on to Antioch, after the Council, and then back to Rome after Claudius’ death, when Jews could return).

So, Peter was at the Council. And, here’s how the Council operated:

“The apostles and presbyters met together TO SEE about the matter. AFTER MUCH DEBATE HAD TAKEN PLACE, PETER got up and said to them…”

And Peter’s teaching on the matter is conveyed through the next several verses. Thereafter, when Peter finishes, it says:

“The whole assembly FELL SILENT…” (That is, the other Apostles and presbyters) … “…and they LISTENED while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.”

So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here’s how it worked:

The bishops met TO EXAMINE the matter. They DEBATED.

Then, Peter – after listening to the debate – gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).

After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).

Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).

And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.

However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage – meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

So, why does James speak? Three reasons:

(1) He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.

(2) What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.

(3) And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:

"Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’

Well? See? They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:

“It is my judgement, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”

Well? Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to. >>

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just emailed my Protestant pal and he states

“True that the other passages can show Peter’s role as A leader. However, Acts 15 does not display the Church acting in Council the way the Catholic Church does it. The “Pope” was NOT the final authority on the matter and as I have pointed out it was because Paul and Barnabas speaking that the crowd kept silent. If anything this proves that the Orthodox Churches are more right than the Catholic Church in matters of council.”

In fact, it displays the Church acting exactly as the modern church does.

People falsely assume the Pope is an autocrat and makes all the decisions in the Church. He does not – for the Pope to speak *ex cathedra *is very rare, and even when it happens, it is usually a result of long collegiate deliberations.

I am currently for early Church councils where the Pope was either a)final authority b)displayed more authoritative power over other bishops.

Why? When and where does the Church act in such a way, or claim that the Pope acts in that way?

 

[ni8_shadow]

Sheesh Anthony I wish I could say that verbatum in person to someone!? Muchas thanks!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sheesh Anthony I wish I could say that verbatum in person to someone!? Muchas thanks!

Remember, the person with whom you are debating is not arguing against the Catholic Church as it is, but against the Catholic Church of his imagination – and expects you to defend that non-existant church.

 

[ni8_shadow]

In fact, it displays the Church acting exactly as the modern church does.

People falsely assume the Pope is an autocrat and makes all the decisions in the Church. He does not – for the Pope to speak *ex cathedra *is very rare, and even when it happens, it is usually a result of long collegiate deliberations.

Why? When and where does the Church act in such a way, or claim that the Pope acts in that way?

Doesn’t the reults of the council HAVE to be ratified by the Pope? He is also a tie breaker too right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doesn’t the reults of the council HAVE to be ratified by the Pope? He is also a tie breaker too right?

What do you mean by “ratified by the Pope?”

Peter set forth the Church’s position, and James and his colleagues accepted it. What further “ratification” is needed?

Let me point out that the Ordinary Magisterium (the teachings of the Catholic Bishops, world-wide) partakes of the Kharisma of Infallibility – and that is the most common application of that Kharisma.

 

[Genesis315]

No Church teaching can bind the entire Church without the Pope’s at least passive approval–this is because the college of bishops must act in unity with its head. Thus, as the First Vatican Council explained, the Successor of Peter’s magisterium is endowed with the same infallibility as that of the Church as a whole. This is because, as St. Cyprian explained, what was bestowed on all the Apostles was first bestowed on Peter, on one, to be the source of unity–he also adds that unity will always be preserved in its source.

Some of the early Councils were called by the Emperor and often began as local councils that grew, but no Council was ever binding on the whole Church if it was not at some point received by the Bishop of Rome. Thus, St. Leo the Great condemned the “robber council” of Ephesus and even struck out a canon from Chalcedon. Likewise, the Tome of Leo settled the doctrinal issue there.

Finally, the Pope is not omniscient so in order for decisions to be made for the best of the Church, it is best to get all the bishops together to discuss and to formulate a truth that will best end confusion for the faithful across the world.

Likewise, as St. John Chrysostom explained, while Peter could make a decision himself, he often chose to let decisions be made in common to avoid any suspicion of favoritism, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No Church teaching can bind the entire Church without the Pope’s at least passive approval–this is because the college of bishops must act in unity with its head.

That is correct – but to show passive approval is difficult, since it basically consists of doing nothing.

Thus, as the First Vatican Council explained, the Successor of Peter’s magisterium is endowed with the same infallibility as that of the Church as a whole. This is because, as St. Cyprian explained, what was bestowed on all the Apostles was first bestowed on Peter, on one, to be the source of unity–he also adds that unity will always be preserved in its source.

Correct. Yet some will make the odd argument that Peter’s authority could not be passed down – as if somehow Christ planned for His Church to last for only one generation.

Some of the early Councils were called by the Emperor and often began as local councils that grew, but no Council was ever binding on the whole Church if it was not at some point received by the Bishop of Rome. Thus, St. Leo the Great condemned the “robber council” of Ephesus and even struck out a canon from Chalcedon. Likewise, the Tome of Leo settled the doctrinal issue there.

Finally, the Pope is not omniscient so in order for decisions to be made for the best of the Church, it is best to get all the bishops together to discuss and to formulate a truth that will best end confusion for the faithful across the world.

Likewise, as St. John Chrysostom explained, while Peter could make a decision himself, he often chose to let decisions be made in common to avoid any suspicion of favoritism, etc.

That is correct – and subsequent Popes have followed that practice. Normally, the Pope does not speak ex cathedra. He simply endorses or approves the results of long debates.

 

[Schabel]

And Peter’s teaching on the matter is conveyed through the next several verses. Thereafter, when Peter finishes, it says:

“The whole assembly FELL SILENT…” (That is, the other Apostles and presbyters) … “…and they LISTENED while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.”

After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).

Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).

And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.

However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage – meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

Excellent post.
Aside from your great insight into the underlying greek, it seems apparent that the OP’s protestant friend is using the NIV translation, which inaccurately uses the words “became silent” in verse 12. Note how various translations don’t make that same error:

Ac 15:12 (RSV) And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Ac 15:12 (NIV) The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
Ac 15:12 (KJV) Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Ac 15:12 (NASB) And all the multitude kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Ac 15:12 (ASV) And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.
Ac 15:12 (NRSV) The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Ac 15:12 (NAS95) All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Ac 15:12 (BBE) And all the people were quiet while Barnabas and Paul gave an account of the signs and wonders which God had done among the Gentiles by them.
Ac 15:12 (DBY) And all the multitude kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating all the signs and wonders which God had wrought among the nations by them.