g. The leading position was seemingly held by James, the brother of our Lord, in the early years of the Church. Consider the Council at Jerusalem which is recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, especially verses 13 to 29.
h. Regardless of who was the leader, the Council’s decision was not one leader’s authoritative action. The decision and its implementation were the Council’s collegial action. What we see here is the “collegiality” of the apostles rather than the sole dictatorship like the monarchical papacy of the Roman Church.
i. The apostles as a body in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria on a mission (Acts: 14-17).
j. Paul withstood Peter to the face in the presence of others when he found Peter’s action to be against the principle of the Gospel (Galatians 2:1-14).
k. There was a rough division of the mission field
…show more content…
In the days of the apostles, it appears that the prominent leader was James, the brother of Jesus, rather than Peter. The story in Acts 15 about the historic Council of the apostles and the elders who gathered to discuss a vitally important theological issue shows this. In the meeting of the Council Peter made an important contribution, but it was James who made the final conclusive speech and his proposal was adopted as a whole and implemented. It appears that James acted as the chairman at the Council. Elsewhere the apostle Paul says that James, Peter and John were “reputed to be pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2:9). Paul also gives an interesting account about a significant incident. He says that he rebuked Peter in the presence of people for Peter’s hypocrisy and wrong action (Galatians 2:1). If Peter were recognized as the supreme leader set apart by Christ from other apostles as the Roman Church asserts, it is improbable that Paul would dare to rebuke Peter in the presence of people. Furthermore, the way Peter acted in the incident is not that of an undisputed
Peter the Great was mainly described as a man who was powerful and violent. In some of the accounts he was described very differently. Bishop Burnet wrote from his experience with Peter, because he had been in the company of him. He experienced Peter’s violent and non–violent side. He also stated that Peter was a very smart man even though he did not show it much. In the writing from Von Korb he tells of the time of the Streltsi revolt. He did not have much of a personal experience with Peter the Great. Based on the writing from Korb he was basically des...
Paul the Apostle, was a famous preacher of first century Christianity and was God’s tool used to spread the light of the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul is credited fir having written many books in the New Testament of the Bible. He was born an Israelite to a clan of the tribe of Benjamin, speaking the Aramaic and Hebrew tongues from infancy. He was an enthusiastic student and a stringent devotee of the Torah. He was the man that later had a peculiar meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ while on the road to Damascus. His life and duty were considerably altered and in turn eventually changed the course of the development of Western Civilization and culture.
Besides Paul's humble and radically changed image found in his introduction, he also explains that he is one who is "called". His apostleship wasn't a man apointed thing, but a matter fully bestowed upon him by God. Paul was chosen and sent on a mission, and he had authority to represent God. Reading this gives great hope to us, the believers of today
Harris calls Paul “the most influential apostle and missionary of the mid-first-century CE church and author of seven to nine New Testament letters” (H G-33). It would be quite an accolade to receive such recognition, but what makes it even more remarkable is that Paul, or Saul, (Saul was his Judean name and Paul was his Roman name (footnotes B 1943)) originally persecuted the ekklesia or “church”. Paul went from persecuting the ekklesia or “church” to being its “most influential apostle and missionary”. Why and how did Paul make such a drastic change? The answer to the question can be found in various books of the New Testament including some of the letters that Paul wrote. This answer also aids in the explanation of how and why Paul argue with the Ioudaioi.
1. A significant passage we have gone over in class together is Acts 2: 42-47: Communal Living. In this passage the followers became a community and a church and they were spreading the wealth to help other like Jesus would so that none were marginalized and all were taken care of. The followers devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles and communal life. Everyone would meet up and they would break bread with each other. 2. The author of the Acts of the Apostles is Luke the Evangelist. Luke saw the church and everything that was going on it as the work of the Holy Spirit and that he was enlivening the people to do the things they are doing and working through people such as Paul, John, and others of the Early Church. 3. I see the people actually live as church and the church is changing and becoming more of a community. I see the Holy Spirit in this because it is sort of the main cause of this development of the church be cause he made all of the events leading up to this happen. 4. In this passage I see community of disciples because that is exactly what it became it became a community of followers of Jesus and they had values and lifestyles that differed from the social norm of the times. Community of disciples is defined as a group that devote themselves as followers of Jesus thereby having values and lifestyles that may often be in contrast with society. 5. Having studied this passage, I now realize that the Holy Spirit brought all the people together and because of that they became accepting of each other. One way I see this passage related to church life today is that we all break bread with one another and have no second thought about it when we receive communion together we are not thinking about who that ...
Campbell, William. Sanger. “The ‘We’ Passages in the Acts of the Apostles: The Narrator as Narrative Character.” Journal of Theological Studies 59, no. 2 (2008): 755-757.
Many of the false thinkers, Valentinus and Marcion rebelled during the midst of the Church and went around corrupting the rule of faith, claiming “they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles, and have found the genuine truth.” St. Irenaeus mentions different successors and how each successor is a full demonstration of the Church’s faith and truth. We know through tradition the Apostles followed Jesus Christ during his time of proclamation. A lot of Jesus Christ teaching to the Apostles was handed down to them in oral testaments. Later, created into written testaments by the followers of the Apostles.
The Book of Acts begins with Jesus Holy Spirit appearing to the chosen apostles over a period of forty days and speaking to them about the kingdom of God. Jesus commanded the apostles not to leave Jerusalem and wait on the gift promised by His father. The gift to the apostles was to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Jesus then told his apostles you will receive the power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and the ends of the earth. Peter serves as the leader of the apostles. The first thing ordered was to elect Matthias as the twelfth apostle, replacing the traitor Judas.
The Apostle Paul is known as the greatest missionary of the early church. Paul, who once vowed to wipe out belief in Jesus Christ, was later converted to do the work of Christ. He would author almost half of the 27 books in the New Testament. He endured sickness, rejection, and repeated attacks on his life to bring the message of God's grace and forgiveness to Gentiles. Paul was the apostle largely responsible for the solid inception and growth of Christianity. He spoke before Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Paul is known as the apostle to the Gentiles. He defended God's Word before kings and emperors of this world. By the end of his life, much of the Mediterranean world had been reached with the gospel.
James was the brother of Jesus, thus making Jude Jesus’ brother also (Judas, Matthew 13:55). Some people think that Jude was also one of the twelve apostles, and that sometimes he went by the name Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18), but in other references to the twelve apostles (Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13) Jude is referred to as, “Judas the son of James.” Both Peter and Jude would have had a close relationship with Jesus, and since they could both possibly be one of the twelve apostles, one could assume that they were receiving very similar or even the same teaching, this would help in contrib... ... middle of paper ... ...
Junia and Andronicus are referred to as “distinguished among the apostles” but it has been debated whether Paul meant Junia was in fact an apostle or if Paul referred to her as an apostle without really meaning “Apostle”. Epp continues, “it is equally clear that Paul, in his letters, feels compelled to defend his apostleship, which he does vigorously, making it highly unlikely that he would employ the term “apostle” loosely when applying it to others” (867). Since Paul would not use the term apostle to refer to just anyone, Junia and Andronicus were held to a high standard in the early missions of the church. According to Paul, in order to be considered an apostle one must consciously accept and endure the hardships and dedication that is attached to missionary work. Therefore, if Paul revered Junia as an apostle who was dedicated to the labors and sufferings that are joined with missionary work than he considers her as a vital part of the missionary process.
First major theme of the book of Acts is the work of the Holy Spirit in the apostles and the early church. Jesus appeared to his disciples and commanded them not to leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift, the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:3b-5) As they gathered together and prayed in one place, the Holy Spirit came to rest on each of them (2:1-3). The disciples who were filled with the Holy Spirit boldly proclaimed God’s word and performed miracles (2:14-42, 3:1-10). Throughout the book, the author focuses on how the Holy Spirt ministers the apostles and the believers in their lives and the community.
Peter specifically recognizes Paul’s writings as Scripture. In 2 Peter, Peter endorses Paul’s writings, warns of those that would twist and change the meaning of Scripture, and concludes with final exhortations. Specifically, in 2 Peter 3:14-16, Peter tells his readers that Paul is not one of the false teachers, but rather one that speaks truth. Bob Deffinbaugh writes that because Paul had little interaction with church leaders due to his past of persecuting Christians, it was important for a trusted person, like Peter, to affirm Paul’s writings as truth (Deffinbaugh, 1). Here is just one of many instances where Scripture validates
However, it is to my understanding that this is a lesson regarding the leadership of the House of worship of Jesus Christ, mutually ancient and modern. In Acts, nevertheless, the command was to preach to scattered Israel in addition to reveal the gospel all over the Roman Empire and as far as they could. This commandment was not deprived of its troubles. Long, treacherous travels, oppressions, concerns of Church guidelines, assimilation of foreigners,
In the Acts 2 New Testament Church, leadership was defined in terms community without hierarchy and authority, in fact, leadership rested solely with the saints instead of a singular man (Bilezikian, 2007). Leadership was hesed to the New Testament saints and apostles by Christ who fulfilled the New Covenant on the cross, and shared in community through mutual accountability (CCBS, n.d.); hence, the function of leadership was to release the potential of the community in sharing the good news of the gospel with a broken world (Bilezikian, 2007). Following the advent of congregational churches, came authoritarian leaders who often disguised servant leadership with a lust for power and control over a community in stringent rules and dogma (Bilezikian, 2007). Thus, the end results of authoritarian leadership were the destruction of community leadership potential, and violation of the New Testament Church structure with hierarchy (Bilezikian,