James "ruled" in Acts 15:19

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry1700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Larry1700

Guest
In Acts 15, shortly after Peter gave his speech regarding Gentiles not having to undergo circumcision, there is a speech by James.

In Acts 15:19, quoting the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, James said “I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.”

The major question I have is, by what authority did James “rule?” Peter was there at the council, so why didn’t Peter do the “ruling?”

A second question is, why did the letter specifically mention fornication? It seems out of place considering the other items mentioned. To me, it seems that if fornication was mentioned, the rest of the Ten Commandments should have been mentioned as well.
 
Larry1700 said:
The major question I have is, by what authority did James “rule?” Peter was there at the council, so why didn’t Peter do the “ruling?”
Click to expand...
Expect an embarrassed silence on that one.
A second question is, why did the letter specifically mention fornication? It seems out of place considering the other items mentioned. To me, it seems that if fornication was mentioned, the rest of the Ten Commandments should have been mentioned as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe fornication was more prevalent than murder.
 
This chapter relates a" Church Council".Differant opinions were allowed to be given.Vs.7 after much debate(NAB),Peter stood up and said to them,"My brothers,you are well aware that from the early days God made his choice amoung you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.After they had fallen silent James in agreement with Peter gave his opion.Please read,Ga.2:1-10.
 
James ruled as bishop (patriarch) of Jerusalem by appointment of Peter (and James and John).

Peter was there as patriarch of Antioch, leader of the original Twelve, and the “Petros/Kepha” (Mt. 16:18, the usual). James gave disciplinary measures whereas Peter gave the teaching behind them (“We shouldn’t make things more difficult for pagan converts!”) Popes don’t have to do everything themselves.

Lots of threads/posts on this topic. See this and this for example
 
Larry1700 said:
A second question is, why did the letter specifically mention fornication? It seems out of place considering the other items mentioned. To me, it seems that if fornication was mentioned, the rest of the Ten Commandments should have been mentioned as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe it was thew issues that there was debate over, it was presumably obvious that Gentile Christians couldn’t murder, steal, blaspheme, worship idols etc
 
{15:19} Propter quod ego iudico non inquietari eos, qui ex Gentibus convertuntur ad Deum,
{15:19} Because of this, I judge that those who were converted to God from among the Gentiles are not to be disturbed,

{15:20} sed scribere ad eos ut abstineant se a contaminationibus simulacrorum, et fornicatione, et suffocatis, et sanguine.
{15:20} but instead that we write to them, that they should restrain themselves from the defilement of idols, and from fornication, and from whatever has been suffocated, and from blood.

The Latin has ‘ego judico’ meaning ‘I judge’. So James was giving his judgment of the matter; Peter and the other Apostles decided to accept that judgment.

A Council can decide on matters of doctrine and on matters of discipline. Dispensing with most of the external precepts of the OT law is a matter or discipline. Reiterating that Christians are to keep from fornication is a matter of doctrine.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Latin has ‘ego judico’ meaning ‘I judge’. So James was giving his judgment of the matter; Peter and the other Apostles decided to accept that judgment.

A Council can decide on matters of doctrine and on matters of discipline. Dispensing with most of the external precepts of the OT law is a matter or discipline. Reiterating that Christians are to keep from fornication is a matter of doctrine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the issue except that Latin or English, or French matters little since the actual text was written in none of these languages. Again, I completely agree that St. James “the Less” was not over St. Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. One need only read the first 12 chapters of Acts (with the exception of chps 6 & 7 - describing Stephen’s martyrdom) to plainly see that it is Peter who is in charge here. God bless.
 
The translation “I rule” is a bit odd. I suppose it’s acceptable, but it’s not required by any means. The Greek word can mean all sorts of things. It’s almost always translated as “I judge” or “it is my judgment.”

Now the thing is, the phrase “It is my judgment” is represented in anti-Papal arguments as though James was rendering a judgment, as though a judge does. However, it may also be understood in the sense of “Here’s what I think…” It may be that after all of the evidence, James simply got up and said, “Ok fellas, here’s my thoughts on this.” “Here’s what my judgment tells me.” I don’t know about you, but I’ve spoken like this before using similar words to those of James. The passage in and of itself is ambiguous, because it allows for both meanings. In this case, we ought to look at how the passage was interpreted by the fathers of the Church. St. John Chrysostom, an Eastern father(and so of more weight as one might expect him to be critical of the papacy) writing in the 400s viewed it as follows, in his third sermon on Acts.
Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world’s affairs: and resplendent not with wails, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly. They were “about an hundred and twenty,” it says. The seventy perhaps whom Christ Himself had chosen, and other of the more earnest-minded disciples, as Joseph and Matthias. (v. 14.) There were women, he says, many, who followed Him. Mark xv. 41–>.) “The number of the names together.] Together” they were on all occasions.
Click to expand...
[Peter says “Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.—For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body:with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, “And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Luke xxii. 32–>, Ben.)
Click to expand...
Peace and God bless
 
Actually, the Greek krinw (2919) is pretty heavy. It translates into “judge” in the judicial/court sense. Of course, a judge in the court “rules” so “rule” is an acceptable translation as well. The same word can also be translated as “condemn” so the implication leans toward a binding ruling.

Not that it attacks the Catholic position in any way. As I said, even the Church does things the same way today.
 
porthos11 said:
Actually, the Greek krinw (2919) is pretty heavy. It translates into “judge” in the judicial/court sense. Of course, a judge in the court “rules” so “rule” is an acceptable translation as well. The same word can also be translated as “condemn” so the implication leans toward a binding ruling.

Not that it attacks the Catholic position in any way. As I said, even the Church does things the same way today.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, Porthos. Strong’s Lexicon says,
G2919
κρίνω
krinō
kree’-no
Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.
Click to expand...
Thayer’s says,
G2919
κρίνω
krinō
Thayer Definition:
  1. to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
  2. to approve, esteem, to prefer
  3. to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
  4. to determine, resolve, decree
  5. to judge
    5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong
    5a1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one’s case may be examined and judgment passed upon it
    5b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure
    5b1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others
  6. to rule, govern
    6a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment
  7. to contend together, of warriors and combatants
    7a) to dispute
    7b) in a forensic sense
    7b1) to go to law, have suit at law
    Part of Speech: verb
    A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: perhaps a primitive word
    Citing in TDNT: 3:921, 469
Click to expand...
Certainly the judicial meaning is there, but so is “to be of opinion” and other such meanings. Now krino would usually be the word to use to talk about a courtroom judgment, but it’s not the only possible interpretation. Hence, we rely on folks like St. Chrysostom.
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I have to disagree, Porthos. Strong’s Lexicon says,

Thayer’s says,

Certainly the judicial meaning is there, but so is “to be of opinion” and other such meanings. Now krino would usually be the word to use to talk about a courtroom judgment, but it’s not the only possible interpretation. Hence, we rely on folks like St. Chrysostom.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see your point. What I’m getting at is that the judicial/binding nature of krinw is bound to get thrown at us, and it won’t be unfair to do so.

I’m just saying that even if James’ ruling were to be taken in the binding/judicial sense (certainly allowed by the Greek), it doesn’t affect our position, since even today, rulings are issued by lower hierarchs than the Pope.
 
Larry1700 said:
A second question is, why did the letter specifically mention fornication? It seems out of place considering the other items mentioned. To me, it seems that if fornication was mentioned, the rest of the Ten Commandments should have been mentioned as well.
Click to expand...
The four “rules” they laid down for the Antioch(ians?) were Noahide laws. These were part of the covenant that God established with Noah, which of course, pre-dated the 10 commandments.
 
BTW, these verses of Acts 15, still crack me up!
*** And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter. When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation***.
Click to expand...
I bet they were delighted!!! No circumcision necessary??? I bet they were dancing in the streets!!!
 
James ruling affected his “diocese” of Jerusalem, Peter’s ruling affected the whole Church.

James ruling was for the benefit of the Jews who were imposing things on the Gentiles "to whom we gave no commandment " in Acts 15:24. By making it illegal for both Jews and Gentiles in the diocese of Jerusalem to eat strangled meat, the Christian Jews in Jerusalem would not be scandalized. (Paul taught that if it offends your brother to eat meat, then don’t eat it, so Paul is reiterating a local ruling made by James on the principle of not offending your brother, not for the sake of a rule itself).

This ruling by James was temporary, Peter’s ruling still stands. Later, forbidding the eating meat from strangled animals was rescinded, but is not recorded in the Bible, proving it was a temporary, local ruling by a bishop who was doing his job.

Everyone fell silent when Peter spoke infallibly, and the bishops made their contributions in accordance with their office. The argument that James ruled the whole Church at the Council of Jerusalem and not Peter has no biblical basis whatsoever.
James ruled in his diocese like he was supposed to.
Peter ruled the Church like he was supposed to.
It’s been that way ever since.
 
Was that James the Great or James the Less?

As a posting already indicated, “fornication” referred to worship of idols and had nothing to do with sexual misbehaviour.This misconception(no pun intended) caused endless confusion in the Church.
 
maklavan said:
Was that James the Great or James the Less?

As a posting already indicated, “fornication” referred to worship of idols and had nothing to do with sexual misbehaviour.This misconception(no pun intended) caused endless confusion in the Church.
Click to expand...
James the Greater died some years prior to this; he was executed by Herod Agrippa I.

This James was James “the brother of the Lord”. Some traditionally identify him with James the Less, one of the Twelve, but others identify another James who was a relative of Jesus but not one of the 12. Either view is acceptable.
 
porthos11 said:
James the Greater died some years prior to this; he was executed by Herod Agrippa I.

This James was James “the brother of the Lord”. Some traditionally identify him with James the Less, one of the Twelve, but others identify another James who was a relative of Jesus but not one of the 12. Either view is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Porthos. I’ve held this position for quite some time and found no support from others on it.

I understand the James, the bishop, was an ex-Jewish leader who had the balance the two religious factions in Jerusalem. An Apostle of Jesus’ would not have found acceptance among the Jewish locals of Jerusalem that would have been necessary to start up the Christian sect in that city.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top