Dispelling JW Myths: Governing Body

by AuldSoul 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AuldSoul

  According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Acts 15 shows a gathering of older men in Jerusalem convened for the purpose of deciding about the issue of circumcision. They teach that this gathering demonstrates that the older men in Jerusalem exercised doctrinal authority over the congregations throughout the known world.

  Let us examine, from the two perspectives of Luke and Paul, what really was going on. During the course of the discussion we will examine Peter's testimony as well to decide whether God was using this group of men as the ancient version of the modern day Governing Body. Most of these verses will be paraphrased for brevity.

  Acts 15:1, 2 — Certain men from Judea came to Galatia and were teaching that the people had to get circumcised and adhere to the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas resisted them and there was "no little dissension and disputing" over the matter. The men from Judea arranged for Paul and Barnabas to meet with the apostles and older men in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas did not arrange to meet. As we shall see, they did not believe it was necessary to meet about this.

  Galatians 1:6-9 — Paul encourages the Christians in Galatia to consider anyone accursed who brings a different gospel than the one they received, even if it seems similar and even if Paul or an angel brings it.

  Galatians 1:13-2:5 — Paul explains it had been 14 years since he had been to Jerusalem before the arrival of "false brothers [snuck in] . . . that they might completely enslave us—to these we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour."

  Think on this: For more than 14 years Paul had been starting congregations throughout the Gentile regions, seeing firsthand the gifting of spirit upon these people as an incontrovertible proof of God's approval, and had never compelled any to be circumcised. Not even the older men in the predominantly Gentile congregations had to be circumcised. Then representatives from the "Governing Body" arrive trying to compel circumcision and Paul openly encouraged outright resistance to their directions and viewpoints!

  He went up to see about this, but not passively. He was not going as a penitent seeking information about this new doctrine. He already knew what was the truth. Even Titus, who went with them, went uncircumcised. Back to Acts 15.

  Acts 15:3-5 — They arrive in Jerusalem to a warm reception, and recount all that God has done by means of them. The Christians from the sect of the Pharisees rose up and challenged that it was "necessary to circumcise them and charge to observe the Law of Moses." Notice who was still pushing the issue of circumcision even after Cornelius was baptized some fifteen years prior—it was those who had been Pharisees.

  This group in Jerusalem had presumptuously assumed an authority God had not granted them. God had long since settled—once and for all—the issue of circumcision.

  Acts 10:15, 27-29 — And the voice [spoke] again to [Peter], the second time: "You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed."
  
  And as [Peter] conversed with [Cornelius] he went in and found many people assembled, and he said to them: "You well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean. Hence I came, really without objection, when I was sent for. Therefore I inquire the reason that you have sent for me."

  God decided it. The so-called "Governing Body" was at least fifteen years behind the "chariot" on this one. It had been decided, put into practice, and was the basis for Paul's entire ministry to the nations for at least fifteen years (probably more like 16, but for the sake of erring on the cautious side).

  The "Governing Body" of older men and apostles in Jerusalem—understood as a group God exclusively used to distribute doctrine—is a myth.
• 

  nomoreguilt

  YUP! That's a fact JACK! There is no bible based account of any call for/or existance of a GB. These self-righteously proclaimed old and not so old farts in NY have taken on the role of being the higher clergy class of jw. And oh yes, don't be mistaken about this fact' they do LORD it over the rest of the flock. BAAAAAAAAAAAh! HUM BUG!!

  NMG
• 

  SirNose586

  Thanks for that outline, AuldSoul. It's going to come in handy in the days to come. I had a similar way of explaining it, but this is better.
• 

  AuldSoul

  No problem, SirNose! Let me know how it goes when the time comes, okay?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  There is no indication of regular meetings of the men.

  Paul had never gone to a "governing body" to receive an assignment.
  He went and recruited without reporting to anyone. Years later, he
  winds up in Jerusalem.

  After the big meeting, there is no record of another "governing body" session.

  Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
• 

  yesidid

  Thanks AuldSoul,

  That was well done, and will be useful.

  yesidid
• 

  Narkissos

  I understand this is meant as an argument ad JWs and as such it may well be effective to an extent.

  However I think the discrepancies between Galatians and Acts are far deeper than they look in the above summary.

  If you stick to the scenario in Acts you will notice that any hint to the independance of the Pauline ministry or teaching is carefully avoided. Instead, Saul/Paul is introduced to the apostles immediately after his conversion in 9:27, i.e., prior to the conversion of the first Gentile which is committed to Peter, not Paul. Henceforth Saul/Paul long remains a second to Barnabas (11:25f,30; 12:25; 13:1f,7; 14:14); in 15:25 Barnabas and Paul are made the obedient carriers of the so-called "apostles' decree" (which the Pauline letters actually ignore). The role of Paul in the "council" of chapter 15 is reduced to that of "witness" to the conversion of Gentiles, while the voicing of Pauline-like theology about the inadequacy of the Law for salvation is ascribed to Peter, not Paul (v. 7-12). A complete, even if ritually conditional, acceptance of Gentile believers is ascribed to James, which doesn't suit the perspective of Galatians either. Even the conflict between Paul and Barnabas, which in Galatians appears as related to the central topic of Jewish-Gentile table communion in the Antiochian church, is explained away as a strictly personal matter (v. 36ff).

  So it seems pretty obvious to me that the agenda of Acts is to tone down the true nature and seriousness of the antagonism between "early Christian" factions and to promote the illusion of some "organisational unity" under the leadership of a fairly "united body" of "spirit-directed" apostles and elders. This is why the completely different perspective of the Pauline letters remains very difficult to grasp unless one gets to see through the agenda of Acts.
• 

  glenster

  There are several versions of reconciling Galatians and Acts:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Galatians#Date_and_audience
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus#.22Council_of_Jerusalem.22

  There's also the related matter of reconciling Paul and the rules of the Coun-
  cil. Of the debated possibilities, I think the more likely possibility is that
  Paul explained the matter of the decree in harmony with the way Luke in Acts
  did. Christians didn't have to be circumcized but had to decide how Christians
  should handle socializing with the Jews to gain them to Christ if the Jews were
  restrictive about that socialization.

  Jewish culture thought eating idol temple meat was to eat meat not koshered of
  blood, to eat blood, and off-limits as meat slaughtered by a Gentile, too. Paul
  paralleled it with eating the Lord's Supper at 1 Cor.8-11: either is right with
  the right worship and wrong with the wrong worship, but abstain from eating idol
  temple meat, not koshered of blood, circumstantially around another who, in the
  Christian view, was weak in their faith about it, such as a Jewish law follower.

  This also suits the fact that the Council rule about blood doesn't explain a
  difference from the Jewish idea of not eating blood--koshering. None was meant
  because the idea was for Gentiles to be considerate of the already assumed Jew-
  ish idea of it for socialization with them.

  Finding a way to have Christianity, now accepting Gentiles, socialize with
  Jewish culture that restricted socialization with Gentiles, or Christians send-
  ing a message specified for Gentiles "Because Moses is taught....", was also the
  reason Luke gave that Paul had Gentile Timothy circumcised just after the Coun-
  cil in Acts 16--"because of the Jews." Paul went through a Jewish cleansing
  ritual for that socialization in Acts 25, then the decree is brought up as what
  was done for the Gentiles about it.

  The rule on fornication suits the idea of Jewish culture needing to be reas-
  sured that Gentiles, known to have looser habits about it, would be told not to
  do it to help Christians socialize with Jewish law followers to try to gain them
  to Christ, too. The difference is that it was a sin generally but similar as
  one the Jewish law followers wanted to be reassured that the Gentiles would be
  told to not do if socialization was going to happen.

  The JWs leaders' misrepresentation of these possibilities, medical concerns,
  and about a dozen things they try to affect exclusiveness about, is the best
  evidence that they're not responsible leaders regardless of which reconciliation
  is chosen for Acts and Galatians.
  http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htm
• 

  justhuman

  There are other facts in your post that it is worth considering:

  1.If it was a GB according to WT's interpretation they would have disfellowship Saint Paul for apostasy since he disobeyed their decision for circumcision, (Timothy)...So we have an apostate Apostle of the Nations!!!

  2. The Church of Antioch were "apostates" since they change the name from the "Way" to "Christians". The reason is that they didn't have any approval of the so called GB in Jerusalim.

  3. In the first Christian Synodos at Jerusalim the Presiding Bishop(Episkopos)was James. It was an open door, because it was in front of the Ekklisia(congregation), and they talked about the matter. GB does a close sessions meetings and no one knows what is happening behind close doors. On the contarary at the Church we see that: When there was an issue of Christian dogma the Bishops had a Synodos in order to specify and keep out from the Church the heretic views. This was done in Nicaia regarding the Arian refusal of the deity of Jesus. Arius was a prominent bishop, and he knew that he was heretic, but due to pride he continued to follow what he teached. He said to his mother that he knew that he was wrong but he will fight Athanasios. As a result he had a tragic dead.

  4. It is clear that the Jewish Christians they kept following and attending to the Synagoges of the Jewish faith. They even kept their Jewish traditions and customs. At the first Apostolic Synodos we see that the Pharisseas who became Christians, and they were Bishops(Episkopoi)they kept their Jewish faith, thus it will make them apostates(if you follow JW's reasoning)

  The Christian Church has nothing to do with GB or WT. It is obvious that the first Christians enjoyed their freedomn to have their traditions, and there was no GB to tell them how to act in every single aspect in their life. It was the Christian freedomn that the Episkopoi and Saint Paul never tried to interfear, or become masters,like the GB are doing to the JW's.
• 

  Atlantis

  AuldSoul:

  Thank you AuldSoul! I enjoyed your article very much!

  N.