Peter Imprisoned, Where Was Paul? The Relief From Antioch To Judea
"Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11:29-30)
In their zeal to find a principle on which to base the theory of "Centralized Control and Oversight," brethren have injected the modifying clause "at Jerusalem" in Acts 11:30, which would make the verse read like this: "Which also they did, and sent it to the elders at Jerusalem by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." Possibly the thing that prompts them to inject "at Jerusalem" in Acts 11:30 is the fact that, on the, return from Judea, Paul and Barnabas "returned from Jerusalem." (Acts 12:25) (Other ancient authorities read, "And Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission . . . . ," which indicates that they went to the churches throughout Judea and returned to Jerusalem before going back to Antioch. This agrees with the context. See Acts 11:28-30.) Thus brethren conclude: "Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea through the elders of the Jerusalem church, and the Jerusalem elders had control and oversight in distributing the relief to all the churches in Judea." Also, to bolster their claim that Antioch sent to Judea through the Jerusalem church, they take ANOTHER instance of the "churches of Macedonia and Achaia" sending relief to the poor saints in Jerusalem, and combine it with the same instance mentioned in Acts 11:29-30. See Rom. 15: 25-26. Thus they get "Judea through the Jerusalem elders." Therefore, they cry, " 'Centralized Control and Oversight' is based on a Bible example."
Let us examine their "proof," point by point:
1. It is hardly worthy of notice to show that there were TWO instances of sending relief. One from Antioch to Judea, Acts 11:29-30, and another from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, Rom. 15:25-26; Cor. 8th and 9th chapters. Any casual reader can see that there were TWO different instances of sending relief. Therefore, brethren can't get "Judea through Jerusalem" in the relief from "Antioch to Judea."
2. Acts 11:29-30 analyzed:
(1) Agabus, the prophet, "signified by the Spirit" that there would be a "great dearth." (Acts 11:28)
(2) The disciples, "every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea." (vs. 29)
(3) "Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." (vs. 30)
Can anyone fail to understand the above? Did the brethren in Antioch do what they determined they were going to do? Did Paul and Barnabas deceive the brethren at Antioch and do differently? Can you read the above passages and honestly conclude that Paul and Barnabas took the bounty to Jerusalem and that the elders at Jerusalem distributed it to the churches in Judea as they thought best? I believe the brethren in Antioch did what they determined they were going to do; that is, they sent relief to the saints in Judea through the elders in Judea, and "sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul." What do you believe about it, my brother?
3. But, didn't Paul and Barnabas return FROM Jerusalem "when they had fulfilled their ministry in Jerusalem"? Yes, and no! They returned "from Jerusalem" when they had finished their ministry in Judea. Other ancient authorities read, "And Barnabas and Saul returned TO Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission . . ." This indicates that they went throughout Judea carrying the relief to the elders of the churches, and that they returned TO Jerusalem when they had finished, before returning to Antioch.
Remember: Where did the Antioch brethren send them? To the elders in Judea! The fact that they returned to Antioch FROM Jerusalem would no more mean that they went to Jerusalem ONLY, than, had they returned from Caesarea to Antioch would mean that they went to Caesarea ONLY. Since the Bible teaches that FAITH is necessary to salvation, could one conclude that faith is the ONLY condition?
4. Something to consider:
(1) Paul and Barnabas went to Judea to carry relief to the elders. (Acts 11:29-30)
(2) While they were in Judea, "fulfilling their ministry," Herod stretched forth his hand and killed James with the sword. This was in Jerusalem.
(3) Also, he had Peter confined to prison. Peter was KEPT there. (Acts 12:3-5)
(4) The angel released him. (Acts 12:7-10)
(5) Peter went to the house of John Mark's mother where many were gathered together praying. (Acts 12:12)
(6) Peter told them to go tell James and the rest of the brethren. (Acts 12:7) He then departed to another place.
(7) There was "no small stir" about the matter.
Observations: Where were Barnabas and Saul? Why didn't Peter mention Paul's name? Can you imagine Paul and Barnabas hiding while Peter was in trouble? Why didn't Peter instruct the house of Mary to "Go tell James AND Paul, and the rest of the brethren?" Well, where were Paul and Barnabas at this time? I believe they were in Judea carrying the relief to the elders of the churches as the Antioch church had instructed them. Where do you think they were, my brother?
Remember: The Roman Catholics claim that Peter was the first "Pope" in Rome. But they can't explain the "Popes" silence surrounding the martyrdom of Paul! We ask them: Where was the "Pope" when one of his "Cardinals" was brought to Rome as a prisoner? Where was the 'Pope" when, at Paul's first trial, no man stood with him? (2 Tim. 4:16) Did the "Pope" forsake him?
Now, brethren, where was Paul, "the Cardinal," when Peter, "the Pope," got in trouble in Jerusalem? Did the "Cardinal" forsake the "Pope"? If Paul was in Jerusalem, why his silence surrounding the incidents of Peter's imprisonment? I believe Paul was in Judea fulfilling the mission of the Antioch church while Peter was in Prison in Jerusalem. That later he returned to Jerusalem from his mission in Judea, and that finally they returned from Jerusalem to Antioch. I believe the context teaches this very thing. Now, can someone tell me WHY they conclude that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem ONLY?