Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[SingleMomMonica]

Yesterday on Catholic Radio (may have been live or a repeat of a Catholic Answers Call In Show) I heard Tim Staples repeat something I’ve heard him say before…something along the lines of How Clear It Is in Acts 15 That St. Peter Was In Charge At The Council Record There.

That is a Pet Peeve of mine…just like seeing a random single shoe in the road. I mean really, how does that happen? Where is the other shoe? Didn’t the person feel it when it fell off? Why didn’t they go back and get it? If they were trying to throw them out, where is the other Shoe? Where is the other Shoe!!!

When I read Acts 15, I see that St. James was clearly the one in authority at that council. When I was Catholic, I tried really hard to read into it that St. Peter was the one in charge, but I had to be honest with myself that that was just Not the case. The passage is too clear that St. James heard everyone who wanted to speak on the matter and then St. James made the decisions of the council based on what he heard.

Mickey:

Let us see what he has to say about St James:

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

---

St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

Mickey has graciously provided this quote of St. John Chrysostom regarding Acts 15. St. John Chrysostom (meaning Golden-Mouth) is a highly regarded early Church Father. St. John Chrysostom also saw that St. James was the one in charge at this council.

I’m really curious as to what Tim Staples would have to say about St. John Chrysostom’s position and how Tim feels comfortable holding a position which clearly goes against the early Church Fathers in the matter. But since I can’t ask him, I’m turning it over to the people here on Catholic Answers Forum.

What are your thoughts after reading Acts 15 in it’s entirety?

 

[Randy_Carson]

When I read Acts 15, I see that St. James was clearly the one in authority at that council. When I was Catholic, I tried really hard to read into it that St. Peter was the one in charge, but I had to be honest with myself that that was just Not the case. The passage is too clear that St. James heard everyone who wanted to speak on the matter and then St. James made the decisions of the council based on what he heard…What are your thoughts after reading Acts 15 in it’s entirety?

Let me offer you something to consider on this.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: “Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m really curious as to what Tim Staples would have to say about St. John Chrysostom’s position and how Tim feels comfortable holding a position which clearly goes against the early Church Fathers in the matter. But since I can’t ask him, I’m turning it over to the people here on Catholic Answers Forum.

John Chrysostom on Peter, Shepherd of the Flock

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock – the sheep and the lambs alike – in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

 

[Erich]

I saw this explanation on another thread:

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

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.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Randy excellent and informative post;

If I could add a little common sense here? IF James was in full charge, why did he need Peter there to hear is troubles. Sure James had the first Jewish converts who were probably very conservative, and not allowing to eat and sit with Gentiles unless they were Circumcised. Who probably wanted to accept the Gentiles, but his Jerusalem church was probably making problems with this new concept of allowing the Gentiles into “The Way” community without circumcision.

Secondly the Lord Jesus from Heaven spoke to Peter in a vision not “James” to allow the Gentiles into his body the Church. Peter already equiped with this binding and loosing authority from heaven, excercised his Keys from Jesus himself, by speaking and all fell silent to his words, not from Peter himself, but from his infallible revelation from Jesus in heaven. (see Acts 10;9…)

James was Bishop of Jerusalem with a doctrinal problem. Peter heard the council, spoke, and the Gentiles were allowed into Church community without the requirement of circumcision.

 

[rep140]

I wish we could get beyond “this verse says this so I’m right” then someone says “this says that so I’m right”. I am very happy being Catholic because of Catholic theology. I love having a Pope because we can speak with one voice. Most Popes, especially my favorite B16, make lesser claims for themselves than uber Catholics. The expression
“more Catholic than the Pope” applies to EWTN and Catholic radio.

 

[mark_a]

The expression “more Catholic than the Pope” applies to EWTN and Catholic radio.

 

[NDfan]

Let me offer you something to consider on this.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

Randy interesting post but the conclusion Bonocore has come to here is simply unfounded. The faction of James never challenged anyone with regard to the necessity of circumcision. After the letter is generated by the council Paul and Barnabus along with Barsabbas and Silas returned to address the Gentiles at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The first part of the letter speaks to the very issue that these churches were facing, that of Jewish factions coming from Judea with requirements which eventually necessitated Apostolic clarification at the Jerusalem Council. I quote the initial statement from the letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers [3] who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that **some persons have gone out from us and troubled you [4] with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, **

Please pay close attention to verse 3 and 4. The Jerusalem Council along with James readily admits that no one from the Apostles or Elders gave these folks instructions. The faction of Jews from Judea were a rogue group looking to cause trouble. James had absolutely nothing to do with it nor did he or any Apostle give instructions that the Gentiles had to be circumcised.

Further your assumption that the Pharisees mentioned in Galatians are the same Pharisees that belonged to James group is preposterous. There’s absolutely no proof of that whatsoever and places an interpretation into scripture that does not belong. Additionally as stated above the Jerusalem Council letter clarifies that no one was given instructions to go out and preach the need for circumcision. James was head of the church in Jerusalem and that point was never disputed by anyone. Had Peter been considered the supreme leader of the Apostles then the Jerusalem Council letter would have been a decree from Peter. Instead it’s from the Apostles and the Elders.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Like in all Councils, all (or at least all who can) Bishops come and participate. St. Peter was an Apostle and was in the area and was able to come, so he came.

This thread isn’t about who was shown a vision, but about who was in authority at the Council mentioned in Acts 15. Please stay on topic.

The early Church Father St. John Chysostom says it was St. James who was in charge, not St. Peter.

Do you know any early Church Fathers that say it was St. Peter in charge of the council in Acts 15?

And by the way, read Acts 15, St. Peter wasn’t “hearing”, he was being heard by St. James who made the decision once St. James had heard everyone.

Randy excellent and informative post;

If I could add a little common sense here? IF James was in full charge, why did he need Peter there to hear is troubles. Sure James had the first Jewish converts who were probably very conservative, and not allowing to eat and sit with Gentiles unless they were Circumcised. Who probably wanted to accept the Gentiles, but his Jerusalem church was probably making problems with this new concept of allowing the Gentiles into “The Way” community without circumcision.

Secondly the Lord Jesus from Heaven spoke to Peter in a vision not “James” to allow the Gentiles into his body the Church. Peter already equiped with this binding and loosing authority from heaven, excercised his Keys from Jesus himself, by speaking and all fell silent to his words, not from Peter himself, but from his infallible revelation from Jesus in heaven. (see Acts 10;9…)

James was Bishop of Jerusalem with a doctrinal problem. Peter heard the council, spoke, and the Gentiles were allowed into Church community without the requirement of circumcision.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I am glad you’re happy! And hope you stay that way! God’s blessings be upon you.

I wish we could get beyond “this verse says this so I’m right” then someone says “this says that so I’m right”. I am very happy being Catholic because of Catholic theology. I love having a Pope because we can speak with one voice. Most Popes, especially my favorite B16, make lesser claims for themselves than uber Catholics. The expression
“more Catholic than the Pope” applies to EWTN and Catholic radio.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Randy,

Are you really suggesting that we should ignore St. John Chrysostom on the matter and believe a modern-day debator who came to a different conclusion on the issue than the early Church?

That just doesn’t work for me. Do you know of any other early Church Fathers who specifically taught that St. Peter was the person “in charge” at the Council described in Acts 15?

Thanks,
Monica

Let me offer you something to consider on this.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: “Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Again, this doesn’t “prove” that St. James was not the one in charge of the Council of Acts 15.

Do you have any early Church Father quotes showing any early Church Father said that at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 that St. Peter was the one in charge?

John Chrysostom on Peter, Shepherd of the Flock

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock – the sheep and the lambs alike – in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these”? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

If this were true, can you explain how that was not perceived by St. John Chrysostom and the early Church?

I saw this explanation on another thread:

Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers [3] who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you [4] with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

Please pay close attention to verse 3 and 4. The Jerusalem Council along with James readily admits that no one from the Apostles or Elders gave these folks instructions. The faction of Jews from Judea were a rogue group looking to cause trouble. James had absolutely nothing to do with it nor did he or any Apostle give instructions that the Gentiles had to be circumcised.

I am aware of the passage you quote, but you seem to have missed my coverage of this possibility in my posting. There are two possibilities: 1) James agreed with the Judaizers, or 2) James was their pastor even though he disagreed with them.

If the former, then James was in error and he was corrected by Peter and the Council. If the latter, then James spoke after Peter NOT because he was the ultimate decision maker (as non-Catholics LOVE LOVE LOVE to claim) but because he was soothing the raw emotions of those who had just been over-ruled by Peter. His speech was pastoral but not executive.

Further your assumption that the Pharisees mentioned in Galatians are the same Pharisees that belonged to James group is preposterous. There’s absolutely no proof of that whatsoever and places an interpretation into scripture that does not belong.

Oh? Since both the scribes and the pharisees would have been concentrated (almost exclusively?) in the city of Jerusalem to be near the Temple, they would have come under James’ pastoral care. And since Galatians tells us, “12Before certain men came from James”, I’m hard-pressed to see how they didn’t come from James in the face black-letter evidence that they did. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

Additionally as stated above the Jerusalem Council letter clarifies that no one was given instructions to go out and preach the need for circumcision. James was head of the church in Jerusalem and that point was never disputed by anyone. Had Peter been considered the supreme leader of the Apostles then the Jerusalem Council letter would have been a decree from Peter. Instead it’s from the Apostles and the Elders.

I agree that James was the leader of a local congregation. Peter, of course, had larger responsibilities. Thank you for that.

As for the Church issuing a letter from all the Apostles, this doesn’t detract from Peter’s role as leader of the Church in the least.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like in all Councils, all (or at least all who can) Bishops come and participate. St. Peter was an Apostle and was in the area and was able to come, so he came.

This thread isn’t about who was shown a vision, but about who was in authority at the Council mentioned in Acts 15. Please stay on topic.

The early Church Father St. John Chysostom says it was St. James who was in charge, not St. Peter.

Do you know any early Church Fathers that say it was St. Peter in charge of the council in Acts 15?

And by the way, read Acts 15, St. Peter wasn’t “hearing”, he was being heard by St. James who made the decision once St. James had heard everyone.

Was Chrysostom there?

Was Chrysostom infallible?

Did Chrysostom (an Eastern Father, yes?) have motives for elevating James?

I explained why James spoke last after Peter had declared the council’s decision.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, this doesn’t “prove” that St. James was not the one in charge of the Council of Acts 15.

Do you have any early Church Father quotes showing any early Church Father said that at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 that St. Peter was the one in charge?

How 'bout this from Chrysostom himself?

On the Relationship between Peter and James

John Chrysostom

“James was invested with the chief rule [in Acts 15], and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. ‘And after that they had held their peace, James answered,’ etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.” (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 33)

“And should any one say, ‘Why then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?’: this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man (Peter) not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe.” (John Chrysostom, A.D. 387, Ib. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 6, p. 600, in Joseph Berrington, John Kirk, eds., and James Waterworth, rev. The Faith of Catholics, vol. 2 (New York: Pustet & Co., 1884), 34.)

James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. Peter was the head of the Church on earth.

 

[Kiechlin]

SingleMomMonica,
The meat of the matter is this-was Peter the first Pope? If you say no, based on Acts 15, then the burden is on you to provide much more evidence from Scripture and the Church Fathers. If Peter wasn’t in charge, please post further evidence and explain why his successors would be seen as “in charge” by the early Church. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Also, if you’re hung up on St. John Chrysostom, check RandyCarson’s post.
In Christ,
Kiechlin

 

[SingleMomMonica]

No, I started this thread and that is NOT the issue.

The issue is this and only this:
Tim Staples always says that St. Peter was in charge of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Yet the early Church Father, St. John Chrysostom says the St. James was the one in charge of that council.

Tim’s statements, conflicting with the teachings of the early Church, are a pet peeve of mine.

SingleMomMonica,
The meat of the matter is this-was Peter the first Pope? If you say no, based on Acts 15, then the burden is on you to provide much more evidence from Scripture and the Church Fathers. If Peter wasn’t in charge, please post further evidence and explain why his successors would be seen as “in charge” by the early Church. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Also, if you’re hung up on St. John Chrysostom, check RandyCarson’s post.
In Christ,
Kiechlin

 

[Kiechlin]

Okay, I get what you’re saying. You’re claim is the Early Church says James was “in charge” at the Council of Jerusalem. Where is the proof in addition to the testimony you posted from St. John Chrysostom? My point is that IF the Early Church teaches Peter wasn’t “in charge” how does that jive vis-a-vis with the Church’s teaching on the Papacy?
I’m not trying to be mean or start something. I’m sorry if I came across as harsh, it’s not my intention.
In Christ, Kiechlin

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, I started this thread and that is NOT the issue.

The issue is this and only this:
Tim Staples always says that St. Peter was in charge of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Yet the early Church Father, St. John Chrysostom says the St. James was the one in charge of that council.

Tim’s statements, conflicting with the teachings of the early Church, are a pet peeve of mine.

I’ve responded to your concerns with explanations of the Council of Jerusalem and with a direct quote from Chrysostom himself.

Any response to these posts?