COMMUNALISM AND JERUSALEM COUNCIL
(Presented by Lenin on 20th Jan 06.)
INTRODUCTION
It is clear from the church history that the Church was born in the bosom of Judaism, it had developed into two groups. One group of Jewish Christians with a Pharisaic background believed that gentiles as well as Jews must keep the Law of Moses for salvation, thus making Christianity a particularistic sect of Judaism. The other group realized that salvation came by faith in Christ alone and the offer of salvation was for all rather than for Jews only, and that by works[1]. Here the term communalism refers to socialistic approaches between the Jews and the Gentiles which gives rise for controversies. This conference is also one of the most important council in the history of the church and it is also called as, “the Apostolic council”, designates the meeting by leaders of the church at Jerusalem to discuss the implication of preaching a Gospel of grace among the gentiles, which determined that the Mosaic Law did not bind Gentile Christians.
1. DATE AND OCCASION
Acceptance of the date is c.a A.D 50 on the fact that Gallio, to whom tribunal in Corinth, Paul was summoned during his second missionary journey (Acts 18: 12- 17), was proconsul of Achaia, in A.D 51 to 53. If the council was held, as Acts implies, shortly before the journey started, it must be dated to c.a 50.
According to Acts 15, the meeting was occasioned by the arrival of Judaic Christians from Jerusalem who insisted that Gentiles must observe the Mosaic Law. A vigorous controversy ensued, and Paul and Barnabas, with some others, were sent to Jerusalem to present the issue to the Apostles and the other leaders. People like Peter, Barnabas and Paul settled the Question after the defense of Gentile freedom from the law. James’ confirmation of the defense made this view unanimous. The importance of James with regard to this question stemmed from the factors, that he was, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1: 19), one of Jesus’ relatives. He was also the head of the Jerusalem church since Peter’s departure (Acts 12: 19). Finally he was the devout observer of the Mosaic Law, a man to whom the most fanatically Jewish of the Christians would listen with respect. The Council on the other hand did not consider or decided less on the question of the binding force of the law on Judaic Christians. The main source of information about the council is Acts 15. It is possible that Gal 2:1 to 10 describes the same meeting from a different viewpoint. However the identification of Acts 15 with Galatians is questioned[2].
2. THE PROBLEM OR THE CONTROVERSY OF THE JUDAIZERS
The rapid flux of the Gentile believers into a new church at Antioch and the successful mission of Paul and Barnabas in the predominantly Hellenistic cities of south Galatia posed a novel problem for the Christian movement, which resulted in the strong opposition among the Jews of dispersion who resisted any modification of legal tradition and who were unready to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the risen Lord. On the other hand the controversy also arose from the legalist teaching of the member of the Jerusalem church who claimed James’ authority, whom he later disavowed (Acts 15: 24)[3] Therefore the problem that Paul face was the scope and means of salvation and so he addressed it to the Jerusalem Council after the 1st missionary Journey[4].
There was a need for the Antioch teachers to come to an understanding with the Apostles and the church at Jerusalem respecting the heathen converts and their relation to the Mosaic Law. That the Messiah’s kingdom was to comprehend the gentiles was assumed on all hands. But the heathen converts were multiplying. Meantime there had been an accession of members to the Jerusalem Church, among whom were converted Pharisees, who carried into the Christian society a stubborn attachment to the legal observances. Like, what was the meaning of the OT promises, what was to become of Jewish precedence in the Messiah’s Kingdom, What was the use in being a Jew if the heathen were to come in without first becoming Israelites in the manner ordained by the Law of Moses? The Judaizers practiced racial discrimination within the context of the Christian church. For e.g. on the basis of the OT law they do not allow or bar gentle Christians from entering the temple area just because he was uncircumcised[5] and they were the ones who quelled by the prevailing temper of the tolerance in the “pillar” apostles and their Jewish Christian followers. Since, Paul being a new convert of Christianity, they continued to dog the steps of Paul, and to foment suspicion against him among Christians of Jewish extractions. They went so far as to deny his claim to be an apostle, as he not one among the twelve. The apostle to the gentiles had a life long conflict to wage with this busy, implacable faction. At the same time, by the Jews who were not converts to Christianity, he was pursued with malignant hate as an apostate from the religion of Moses[6].
3. HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The historical questions surrounding the meeting are formidable. In Gal 2:1–10 Paul gives an account of the conference, which occurred on his second visit to Jerusalem following his “conversion.” He, together with Barnabas and Titus, went “by revelation” to discuss the message he had been preaching among the gentiles. James, Peter, and John are the Jerusalem apostles specifically mentioned as present and in a private meeting “added nothing” to Paul’s gospel. The Jerusalem apostles asked only that Paul and his colleagues “remember the poor,” probably a reference to the offering Paul solicited for the Jerusalem saints. Another result of the meeting was an agreed-upon division of labor, which gave the Jerusalem leaders responsibility for the circumcised and Paul and his colleagues responsibility for the gentiles. Apparently, there was a third group present at Jerusalem (called by Paul “false brothers”), who tried unsuccessfully to force the circumcision of Titus.
The historical problems arise in the effort to connect Paul’s account to the information found in Acts. Acts mentions five visits of Paul to Jerusalem (9:26–30; 11:27–30 and 12:25; 15:1–30; 18:22; 21:17–23:31). The question is: Which account (or accounts, if any) parallels Gal 2:1–10? A number of solutions have been proposed[7].
3. 1. ACTS 11:27–30; 12:25 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
Paul and Barnabas are commissioned by the Church at Antioch to carry the funds for famine relief, and while in Jerusalem, it is argued, they reach a private agreement with the leadership regarding the admission of gentiles to the church (Lake 1933: 445–74). Sometime after this meeting, the dispute between Peter and Paul over table-fellowship occurs at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14), precipitating a second, more public conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–30). The major difficulties with this proposal are the silence of Acts regarding a private meeting at the time when the funds for famine relief are brought and the silence of Galatians regarding a third visit of Paul to Jerusalem[8].
3. 2. ACTS 15:1–30 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
This represents the most widely held proposal and rests on the fact that the persons, the locations, and the issues are the same in both accounts (Lightfoot 1914: 123–28; Hengel 1986: 111–26). The problem with this solution is the insistence on the so-called apostolic decree in the Acts account (“that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity,” 15:29), which, if actually agreed to by Paul, would invalidate his argument in Galatians. The decree may have come later, after the conference, as a compromise achieved without Paul to restore the broken fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians[9].
3. 3. ACTS 15:1–4, 12 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
This proposal argues that Acts 15:1–30 actually reflects two conferences, which have been confusingly merged by the author into one. Acts 15:1–4, 12 reports a first conference to answer whether gentiles had to be circumcised to unite with the Church. Paul was present at this meeting and provided his account in Gal 2:1–10. A second conference was held at Jerusalem (Acts 15:5–11, 13–33) to deal with the issue of table-fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians. Paul was absent from this second conference and thus was not a party to the “apostolic decree” (Weiss 1959: 259–73). The primary difficulty with this third proposal is that Acts 15 does not read like the confluence of two accounts of separate meetings[10].
3. 4. ACTS 18:22 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
The proposal is made that the meeting recorded in Acts 15:1–30 actually takes place later (at 18:22), when a brief note is made of Paul’s greeting the church at Jerusalem. At this visit Paul is asked to “remember the poor,” a request, which he responds to not long after by soliciting, gifts from Christians in Corinth and in Rome. The council must have immediately preceded the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans (Knox 1950: 61–73; Lüdemann 1984: 149–57, 195–200). This explanation depends heavily on a Pauline chronology derived exclusively from his letters[11].
3. 5. ACTS 11:1–18 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
A recent proposal postulates the presence of Paul at the discussion recorded in Acts 11:1–18 when Peter silences the criticisms of “those of the circumcision.” The writer of Acts is unaware that Paul and the Jerusalem leaders had a private meeting on this occasion, but the Pauline account is found in Gal 2:1–10. After Peter and Paul have left Jerusalem to engage in further missionary activity, James is pressured by the more conservative Jewish forces in the Church into a second conference at which time the “apostolic decree” is issued, representing a dramatic compromise. Acts 15:1–30 mistakenly records Peter and Paul as present at this second conference (Achtemeier 1987: 44–55). The obvious difficulty with this proposal lies in the speculative suggestion that Paul was present at the occasion of Peter’s speech in Acts 11:1–18[12].
What can be said about the complexity of the historical problems surrounding the council and the variety of proposed solutions? Since Gal 2:1–10 represents the firsthand recollections of a participant at the conference and the Acts material is secondhand, historical priority must be given to Gal 2:1–10 as the normative account. Of the five visits to Jerusalem in Acts, the one mentioned in 15:1–30 seems to resemble most closely Gal 2:1–10 in personnel, structure, issues, and the basic agreement that circumcision is unnecessary for the admission of gentiles to the Church. Whether the visit should come later in the Acts chronology, perhaps at the time of the visit of 18:22, is beyond the scope of this study[13].
How then is one to explain the difficulties with the Acts 15:1–30 account, which represents sharp differences from the report in Gal 2:1–10? The Acts account is woven carefully into a larger narrative through which the writer addresses a prophetic word to the readers. The writer’s intention (as revealed in the narrative) is not to chronicle historical events but to trace the activity of the divine Spirit in the life of the Church and the movement of the Church as a predominantly gentile group “to the end of the earth.” Historicity is not the primary criterion by which the narrative is to be judged. Acts 15:1–30 seems to represent a critical reshaping of sources in order to support the theological purposes of the larger narrative, with its concern for the unity and mission of the Church[14].
4. LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Both Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–30 play crucial roles, respectively, in their literary contexts.
4. 1. GAL 2:1–10.
Paul argues at the beginning of Galatians that there is but one gospel, which exercises supreme authority in the life of the Church (1:6–9). The power of this gospel is evidenced in the remarkable transformation, which it precipitated in Paul’s own experience, a transformation confirmed by the testimony of the Judean Christians (1:22–24). Then comes the report of the Jerusalem Council (2:1–10) through which the Galatian readers discover that the gospel is not idiosyncratically Paul’s, but is agreed to by the pillar apostles at Jerusalem. The mission to the gentiles in whom the Christian message is offered free of the legal demands of circumcision is not to be seen as a sectarian movement. At the heart of the council’s decisions is the mutual recognition of a mission to the gentiles and a mission to the Jews, both empowered by the one gospel of grace. The ensuing report of the conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch (2:11–14), given of course from Paul’s perspective, merely reiterates that the gospel alone can provide the bond for Christian unity. Readers in the Galatian communities learn that Peter’s action in withdrawing from table-fellowship with gentiles de facto establishes something other than grace as the basis for unity. Later chapters elaborate the character of the gospel in terms of the righteousness of God manifested in the faithful death of Jesus Christ[15].
4. 2. ACTS 15:1–30.
The Jerusalem Council is presented as a response to a dispute at Antioch, which takes place when visiting Judeans insist on circumcision as essential for salvation. Paul and Barnabas, as commissioners from Antioch, report on their mission among the gentiles and are opposed by believers from among the Pharisees. Two speeches are recorded. Peter’s speech (15:5–11) serves to link the council to his previous vision at Joppa and his baptism of Cornelius (10:1–11:18) and to make him rather than Paul the precedent-setter for the mission to the gentiles. James’ speech (15:13–21), citing Scripture, represents a compromise: no demand that gentiles be circumcised but adherence to the “apostolic decree.” A letter embodying the compromise is then drafted for the church at Antioch, which in turn receives it with joy[16].
The council represents a critical turning point in the Acts narrative since the focus shifts from Peter to Paul, from Jerusalem to Ephesus, the Grecian cities, and Rome. The shift is a smooth, not an abrupt one. Continuity is maintained, and the compromise signals that the law continues to have significance for the lives of both Jewish and gentile Christians[17].
5. MEETINGS
According to the scholars the meeting went on for many days. There were three general meetings.
(1)First there was a General Public meeting: as soon as Paul and Barnabas arrive to Jerusalem along with other delegates from Antioch and this time the missionaries gave the report (Acts 15:4-5).
(2) Secondly, a Separate Meeting, consisting of the apostles, elders along with Paul and Barnabas in order to discuss the problem in detail and try to work out a solution (Acts 15:6; Gal 2:2- 10).
(3) Thirdly, a Full Assembly, with whole church to hear from the missionaries and from the Apostles and it was here that the decision was reached, which was agreeable to all those who were present[18].
The relation of the account of Luke with Paul is also under sholarship and the vacillations of Peter eating with the gentiles at Antioch and withdrawal from their company when Jewish Christians appeared (Gal 2: 10ff) seems more likely to have occurred before the council than afterwards. Had the relation of Christian gentiles been already settled, he scarcely have been souncertain of his ownposition. It is much likely that Peter ahd joined Paul and Barnabas intheir fellowship, but had recoiled when he was criticized for eating in the company of Gentiles. Later having reconciled himself after Paul’s rebuke, he championed the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15: 7-11)[19]. There seems little evidence to support the theory of some scholars that Peter and Paul represent not merely different emphases in the early church but thoroughly antithetical theological systems. Peter’s future in Antioch was almost certainly a well motivated but ill-judged step aimed at keeping peace in Jerusalem, without adequate reflection on the damage he was doing to Gentile believers[20].
6. THE SPEECHES
The speeches of Peter and James are given in detail in Acts 15. The comments of Barnabas and Paul are summarized unanimity. The unity of events in 15:1 to 15:29 is the one problem not yet solved with any unanimity or agreement. Some scholars maintain that, while there is basic unity, vv 4 to 5 describe preliminary meeting, vv 6 to 21 a formal one among the official, vv 22 to 29 a final pubic session. Others call vv 1to 29 a composite, a literary summary of decision made by the church with regards to two different but related questions. (1). The first concerned the necessity of the Mosaic Law for Gentile Christians. (2) The second centered around the practical demands to be made on the Gentiles for the furtherance of peaceful common life with the Judaic Christians[21].
Peter: He played a crucial role in the meeting (15: 6-11) claiming that the law did not bind the Gentiles. He argued from the fact from the witness of the HolySpirit who descended upon the uncircumcised gentiles (Cornelius and his household) even as he had upon the Apostles. Peter concluded that is very nearly Pauline: “Now then, why do you 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? We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are”(Acts 15:10-11)[22].
Barnabas and Paul: They appealed to the evidence of divine approval implied by the miracles of God had worked among the pagans. They must surely have described the miracles at Iconium (Acts 14:3) and Lystra (Acts 14: 9). The order of the names “Barnabas and Paul”, indicate Luke’s historical accuracy, for at Jerusalem Barnabas would have precedence over Paul.
James: He was the last spokesman (Acts 15: 14-21). As a leader of a church in Jerusalem he could not be accused of partiality to Gentiles, or had his contacts with Paul been so frequent that he would have swayed by Paul’s influence. His decisive words were marked by soberness and fairness. Quoting Amos 9:11,12 from the Greek Septuagint, which differs from the traditional Hebrew text, he asserted that the restoration of David’s tabernacle would induce other men to seek God, even the Gentiles, who had become his worshippers by his use of this text he declared that he anticipated the salvation of the gentiles, whose conversion had been predicated by the prophets. In the light of this prophecy he commended as unnecessary restriction be imposed upon the Gentile converts, and that they be required to observe four rules of comity, they are 1) to abstain from the defilement of idolatry, 2) from sexual promiscuity, 3) from eating the flesh of strangled animals, 4) from blood. Here the four requirements dealt with the practices most repulsive to the Jewish believers. Idolatry was a direct contravention of the first commandments, “thou shall have no other gods before me”(Exodus 20:3). Even if the Gentiles placed no importance on eating meat offered to idols since the images were impotent, they should refrain from any indulgence that would offend their Jewish brethren (1 Cor 10: 25-31). To say fornication was a common sin that violated Jewish standards of chastity and that often accompanied the ecstatic rites of heathen worship “blood” and “things strangled” referred to the dietary laws which were ceremonial rather than moral in essence, but which were so ingrained in the Jewish mode of life that to disregard than would cause needless offense. Here the first two mentioned were both discussed in Paul’s writings to the churches and were a part of the ethical code for Christian and were part of the ethical code for Christian and Jew alike, and the second pair were ceremonial regulations which the church members asked to observe for the sake of maintaining peace. Nowhere in the NT are these two latter stipulations emphasized. They seem to have been forgotten as the separation between Christianity and Judaism became wider[23].
James reminded the church that those who wished to follow the Mosaic Law completely could resort to the synagogues where the content of Torah was expounded every Sabbath. Reiterating the ordinances of the Law would be unessential, since the church existed to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah.[24]It is also clear that from (vv13-18), exclusive of the decree, it also viewed the acceptance of Gentiles into the church as a fulfillment of Amos 9:1 and 2. The crucial part of the citation is “that the rest of mankind may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is invoked” (Acts 15: 17). Such is the text found in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the O.T James, however, would most likely have quoted from the Hebrew, which reads: “that they may conquer what is left of Edom and all the nations that shall bear my name.” The difference makes it appear that the reconstructions of the speech are somewhat artificial. Either James’ word have been made more pertinent by recourse to the Greek versions of Amos or this part of James’ speech owes as much as to Luke, or his source, as to James Himself[25].
7. THE DECREE AND ITS MEANING
The decree is listed three times in Acts: fully in vv 19 to 20 and vv28 to 29 and partially in vv. 21 and 25. The central focus and its importance was the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Law. The formulae, “For the Holy Spirit and we have decided” (15:28), states the apostolic conviction that important church decisions were assisted by the HolySpirit.
The secondary element in the decree was an injunction to the gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, Cilica indented to make communal life between them and the Judaic Christians less difficult. There are variants in the text at this point, but it is certain that the so- called Eastern text, “to abstain from anything that has been contaminated by idols and from immorality and from anything strangled and from blood, is correct. The partaking of food offered to idols would imply a participation in pagan cults. The eating of meat from which the blood had not bee properly drained would have offended the Judaic Christians, since for the Jews blood was the symbol of life and hence something which pertained to the divine. The “immorality” mentioned probably means marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship. The interpretation is based on the striking similarity between these conciliar injunctions and those of vv17 to 18[26].
8. EVALUATION
Thus it is very clear from Acts 15: 28- 29, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”, that everything was decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, explaining that which had been impossible burden for Jews, should not be required of gentiles. This made the church to have a free access upon a larger work for the bringing of all people, of every race, and in every land under the realm of Jesus Christ. Jewish members of the church were expected to continue in their obedience to the Jewish Law, though such leaders interpreted the regulations broadly as St. Paul. But Gentiles could enter the Christian fold by simple faith in Christ and a righteous life, without submission to legal requirements. If one counts the membership after the twenty years one can find that increasingly gentile and decreasingly Jewish; for as the gospel took momentum towards the gentiles and thus left the Jews to grow more and more bitter in their hatred and that is why in this period almost every where it was the Jews who instigated persecutions against the Christians. Therefore it is very clear that the council also had smelled a bit of offensive nature.
CONCLUSION
Therefore it is clear that the total decree of the council was a compromise. It must be interpreted according to its historical setting. The main point was the exemption of gentiles from the law. The rest of the injunctions were given in the interest of peaceful unity and were applied only in localities where many Judaic Christians were to be found outline of Acts no mention is made of them. Paul never refers to them (cf. 1Cor 8: 1- 10 -30) in his epistles, an indication they were only of local and temporary importance. Thus the decision of the council of Jerusalem opened a new era in the expansion of the church. The barrier between the circumcised Jew and the uncircumcised gentiles had been broken by the concession that Gentiles need not keep the law to obtain salvation. The emissaries of the gentile church at Antioch no longer felt under constraint and were able to preach freely anywhere the doctrine of salvation of faith in Christ. As theologians we should also think that the same problem was faced by the reformers, who saw that the Roman church also demanded man-made works in addition to faith as the condition for salvation. To say that the problem of the Jerusalem council was a persistent one, and the principles that were victorious and that was related throughout the history of the church and thereby we can also implement the same principles to the dilemmas in the generation to come.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Fisher, George Park, History of the Christian Church. London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887.
Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol-3. New York: Doubleday 1997.
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary. Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990.
Marthaler, Berard L. (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7.Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Times. London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965.
Woodbridge, John D. Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
[1] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 67.
[2] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 772.
[3] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Times, (London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965), 239.
[4] George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887), 22, 23.
[5] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 548.
[6] Ibid, 23, 25.
[7] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 766.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 767.
[10] Ibid.
[11] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 766.
[12] Ibid, 767.
[13] Ibid.
[14] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 768.
[15] Ibid, 768.
[16] Ibid.
[17] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 768.
[18] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 543.
[19] Ibid.
[20] John D. Woodbridge, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 18.
[21] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 771.
[22] John D. Woodbridge, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 17-18.
[23] George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887), 22, 23.
[24] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Times, (London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965), 249-50.
[25] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 772.
[26] Ibid.
(Presented by Lenin on 20th Jan 06.)
INTRODUCTION
It is clear from the church history that the Church was born in the bosom of Judaism, it had developed into two groups. One group of Jewish Christians with a Pharisaic background believed that gentiles as well as Jews must keep the Law of Moses for salvation, thus making Christianity a particularistic sect of Judaism. The other group realized that salvation came by faith in Christ alone and the offer of salvation was for all rather than for Jews only, and that by works[1]. Here the term communalism refers to socialistic approaches between the Jews and the Gentiles which gives rise for controversies. This conference is also one of the most important council in the history of the church and it is also called as, “the Apostolic council”, designates the meeting by leaders of the church at Jerusalem to discuss the implication of preaching a Gospel of grace among the gentiles, which determined that the Mosaic Law did not bind Gentile Christians.
1. DATE AND OCCASION
Acceptance of the date is c.a A.D 50 on the fact that Gallio, to whom tribunal in Corinth, Paul was summoned during his second missionary journey (Acts 18: 12- 17), was proconsul of Achaia, in A.D 51 to 53. If the council was held, as Acts implies, shortly before the journey started, it must be dated to c.a 50.
According to Acts 15, the meeting was occasioned by the arrival of Judaic Christians from Jerusalem who insisted that Gentiles must observe the Mosaic Law. A vigorous controversy ensued, and Paul and Barnabas, with some others, were sent to Jerusalem to present the issue to the Apostles and the other leaders. People like Peter, Barnabas and Paul settled the Question after the defense of Gentile freedom from the law. James’ confirmation of the defense made this view unanimous. The importance of James with regard to this question stemmed from the factors, that he was, “the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1: 19), one of Jesus’ relatives. He was also the head of the Jerusalem church since Peter’s departure (Acts 12: 19). Finally he was the devout observer of the Mosaic Law, a man to whom the most fanatically Jewish of the Christians would listen with respect. The Council on the other hand did not consider or decided less on the question of the binding force of the law on Judaic Christians. The main source of information about the council is Acts 15. It is possible that Gal 2:1 to 10 describes the same meeting from a different viewpoint. However the identification of Acts 15 with Galatians is questioned[2].
2. THE PROBLEM OR THE CONTROVERSY OF THE JUDAIZERS
The rapid flux of the Gentile believers into a new church at Antioch and the successful mission of Paul and Barnabas in the predominantly Hellenistic cities of south Galatia posed a novel problem for the Christian movement, which resulted in the strong opposition among the Jews of dispersion who resisted any modification of legal tradition and who were unready to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the risen Lord. On the other hand the controversy also arose from the legalist teaching of the member of the Jerusalem church who claimed James’ authority, whom he later disavowed (Acts 15: 24)[3] Therefore the problem that Paul face was the scope and means of salvation and so he addressed it to the Jerusalem Council after the 1st missionary Journey[4].
There was a need for the Antioch teachers to come to an understanding with the Apostles and the church at Jerusalem respecting the heathen converts and their relation to the Mosaic Law. That the Messiah’s kingdom was to comprehend the gentiles was assumed on all hands. But the heathen converts were multiplying. Meantime there had been an accession of members to the Jerusalem Church, among whom were converted Pharisees, who carried into the Christian society a stubborn attachment to the legal observances. Like, what was the meaning of the OT promises, what was to become of Jewish precedence in the Messiah’s Kingdom, What was the use in being a Jew if the heathen were to come in without first becoming Israelites in the manner ordained by the Law of Moses? The Judaizers practiced racial discrimination within the context of the Christian church. For e.g. on the basis of the OT law they do not allow or bar gentle Christians from entering the temple area just because he was uncircumcised[5] and they were the ones who quelled by the prevailing temper of the tolerance in the “pillar” apostles and their Jewish Christian followers. Since, Paul being a new convert of Christianity, they continued to dog the steps of Paul, and to foment suspicion against him among Christians of Jewish extractions. They went so far as to deny his claim to be an apostle, as he not one among the twelve. The apostle to the gentiles had a life long conflict to wage with this busy, implacable faction. At the same time, by the Jews who were not converts to Christianity, he was pursued with malignant hate as an apostate from the religion of Moses[6].
3. HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The historical questions surrounding the meeting are formidable. In Gal 2:1–10 Paul gives an account of the conference, which occurred on his second visit to Jerusalem following his “conversion.” He, together with Barnabas and Titus, went “by revelation” to discuss the message he had been preaching among the gentiles. James, Peter, and John are the Jerusalem apostles specifically mentioned as present and in a private meeting “added nothing” to Paul’s gospel. The Jerusalem apostles asked only that Paul and his colleagues “remember the poor,” probably a reference to the offering Paul solicited for the Jerusalem saints. Another result of the meeting was an agreed-upon division of labor, which gave the Jerusalem leaders responsibility for the circumcised and Paul and his colleagues responsibility for the gentiles. Apparently, there was a third group present at Jerusalem (called by Paul “false brothers”), who tried unsuccessfully to force the circumcision of Titus.
The historical problems arise in the effort to connect Paul’s account to the information found in Acts. Acts mentions five visits of Paul to Jerusalem (9:26–30; 11:27–30 and 12:25; 15:1–30; 18:22; 21:17–23:31). The question is: Which account (or accounts, if any) parallels Gal 2:1–10? A number of solutions have been proposed[7].
3. 1. ACTS 11:27–30; 12:25 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
Paul and Barnabas are commissioned by the Church at Antioch to carry the funds for famine relief, and while in Jerusalem, it is argued, they reach a private agreement with the leadership regarding the admission of gentiles to the church (Lake 1933: 445–74). Sometime after this meeting, the dispute between Peter and Paul over table-fellowship occurs at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14), precipitating a second, more public conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–30). The major difficulties with this proposal are the silence of Acts regarding a private meeting at the time when the funds for famine relief are brought and the silence of Galatians regarding a third visit of Paul to Jerusalem[8].
3. 2. ACTS 15:1–30 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
This represents the most widely held proposal and rests on the fact that the persons, the locations, and the issues are the same in both accounts (Lightfoot 1914: 123–28; Hengel 1986: 111–26). The problem with this solution is the insistence on the so-called apostolic decree in the Acts account (“that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity,” 15:29), which, if actually agreed to by Paul, would invalidate his argument in Galatians. The decree may have come later, after the conference, as a compromise achieved without Paul to restore the broken fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians[9].
3. 3. ACTS 15:1–4, 12 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
This proposal argues that Acts 15:1–30 actually reflects two conferences, which have been confusingly merged by the author into one. Acts 15:1–4, 12 reports a first conference to answer whether gentiles had to be circumcised to unite with the Church. Paul was present at this meeting and provided his account in Gal 2:1–10. A second conference was held at Jerusalem (Acts 15:5–11, 13–33) to deal with the issue of table-fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians. Paul was absent from this second conference and thus was not a party to the “apostolic decree” (Weiss 1959: 259–73). The primary difficulty with this third proposal is that Acts 15 does not read like the confluence of two accounts of separate meetings[10].
3. 4. ACTS 18:22 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
The proposal is made that the meeting recorded in Acts 15:1–30 actually takes place later (at 18:22), when a brief note is made of Paul’s greeting the church at Jerusalem. At this visit Paul is asked to “remember the poor,” a request, which he responds to not long after by soliciting, gifts from Christians in Corinth and in Rome. The council must have immediately preceded the writing of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans (Knox 1950: 61–73; Lüdemann 1984: 149–57, 195–200). This explanation depends heavily on a Pauline chronology derived exclusively from his letters[11].
3. 5. ACTS 11:1–18 PARALLELS GAL 2:1–10.
A recent proposal postulates the presence of Paul at the discussion recorded in Acts 11:1–18 when Peter silences the criticisms of “those of the circumcision.” The writer of Acts is unaware that Paul and the Jerusalem leaders had a private meeting on this occasion, but the Pauline account is found in Gal 2:1–10. After Peter and Paul have left Jerusalem to engage in further missionary activity, James is pressured by the more conservative Jewish forces in the Church into a second conference at which time the “apostolic decree” is issued, representing a dramatic compromise. Acts 15:1–30 mistakenly records Peter and Paul as present at this second conference (Achtemeier 1987: 44–55). The obvious difficulty with this proposal lies in the speculative suggestion that Paul was present at the occasion of Peter’s speech in Acts 11:1–18[12].
What can be said about the complexity of the historical problems surrounding the council and the variety of proposed solutions? Since Gal 2:1–10 represents the firsthand recollections of a participant at the conference and the Acts material is secondhand, historical priority must be given to Gal 2:1–10 as the normative account. Of the five visits to Jerusalem in Acts, the one mentioned in 15:1–30 seems to resemble most closely Gal 2:1–10 in personnel, structure, issues, and the basic agreement that circumcision is unnecessary for the admission of gentiles to the Church. Whether the visit should come later in the Acts chronology, perhaps at the time of the visit of 18:22, is beyond the scope of this study[13].
How then is one to explain the difficulties with the Acts 15:1–30 account, which represents sharp differences from the report in Gal 2:1–10? The Acts account is woven carefully into a larger narrative through which the writer addresses a prophetic word to the readers. The writer’s intention (as revealed in the narrative) is not to chronicle historical events but to trace the activity of the divine Spirit in the life of the Church and the movement of the Church as a predominantly gentile group “to the end of the earth.” Historicity is not the primary criterion by which the narrative is to be judged. Acts 15:1–30 seems to represent a critical reshaping of sources in order to support the theological purposes of the larger narrative, with its concern for the unity and mission of the Church[14].
4. LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Both Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–30 play crucial roles, respectively, in their literary contexts.
4. 1. GAL 2:1–10.
Paul argues at the beginning of Galatians that there is but one gospel, which exercises supreme authority in the life of the Church (1:6–9). The power of this gospel is evidenced in the remarkable transformation, which it precipitated in Paul’s own experience, a transformation confirmed by the testimony of the Judean Christians (1:22–24). Then comes the report of the Jerusalem Council (2:1–10) through which the Galatian readers discover that the gospel is not idiosyncratically Paul’s, but is agreed to by the pillar apostles at Jerusalem. The mission to the gentiles in whom the Christian message is offered free of the legal demands of circumcision is not to be seen as a sectarian movement. At the heart of the council’s decisions is the mutual recognition of a mission to the gentiles and a mission to the Jews, both empowered by the one gospel of grace. The ensuing report of the conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch (2:11–14), given of course from Paul’s perspective, merely reiterates that the gospel alone can provide the bond for Christian unity. Readers in the Galatian communities learn that Peter’s action in withdrawing from table-fellowship with gentiles de facto establishes something other than grace as the basis for unity. Later chapters elaborate the character of the gospel in terms of the righteousness of God manifested in the faithful death of Jesus Christ[15].
4. 2. ACTS 15:1–30.
The Jerusalem Council is presented as a response to a dispute at Antioch, which takes place when visiting Judeans insist on circumcision as essential for salvation. Paul and Barnabas, as commissioners from Antioch, report on their mission among the gentiles and are opposed by believers from among the Pharisees. Two speeches are recorded. Peter’s speech (15:5–11) serves to link the council to his previous vision at Joppa and his baptism of Cornelius (10:1–11:18) and to make him rather than Paul the precedent-setter for the mission to the gentiles. James’ speech (15:13–21), citing Scripture, represents a compromise: no demand that gentiles be circumcised but adherence to the “apostolic decree.” A letter embodying the compromise is then drafted for the church at Antioch, which in turn receives it with joy[16].
The council represents a critical turning point in the Acts narrative since the focus shifts from Peter to Paul, from Jerusalem to Ephesus, the Grecian cities, and Rome. The shift is a smooth, not an abrupt one. Continuity is maintained, and the compromise signals that the law continues to have significance for the lives of both Jewish and gentile Christians[17].
5. MEETINGS
According to the scholars the meeting went on for many days. There were three general meetings.
(1)First there was a General Public meeting: as soon as Paul and Barnabas arrive to Jerusalem along with other delegates from Antioch and this time the missionaries gave the report (Acts 15:4-5).
(2) Secondly, a Separate Meeting, consisting of the apostles, elders along with Paul and Barnabas in order to discuss the problem in detail and try to work out a solution (Acts 15:6; Gal 2:2- 10).
(3) Thirdly, a Full Assembly, with whole church to hear from the missionaries and from the Apostles and it was here that the decision was reached, which was agreeable to all those who were present[18].
The relation of the account of Luke with Paul is also under sholarship and the vacillations of Peter eating with the gentiles at Antioch and withdrawal from their company when Jewish Christians appeared (Gal 2: 10ff) seems more likely to have occurred before the council than afterwards. Had the relation of Christian gentiles been already settled, he scarcely have been souncertain of his ownposition. It is much likely that Peter ahd joined Paul and Barnabas intheir fellowship, but had recoiled when he was criticized for eating in the company of Gentiles. Later having reconciled himself after Paul’s rebuke, he championed the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15: 7-11)[19]. There seems little evidence to support the theory of some scholars that Peter and Paul represent not merely different emphases in the early church but thoroughly antithetical theological systems. Peter’s future in Antioch was almost certainly a well motivated but ill-judged step aimed at keeping peace in Jerusalem, without adequate reflection on the damage he was doing to Gentile believers[20].
6. THE SPEECHES
The speeches of Peter and James are given in detail in Acts 15. The comments of Barnabas and Paul are summarized unanimity. The unity of events in 15:1 to 15:29 is the one problem not yet solved with any unanimity or agreement. Some scholars maintain that, while there is basic unity, vv 4 to 5 describe preliminary meeting, vv 6 to 21 a formal one among the official, vv 22 to 29 a final pubic session. Others call vv 1to 29 a composite, a literary summary of decision made by the church with regards to two different but related questions. (1). The first concerned the necessity of the Mosaic Law for Gentile Christians. (2) The second centered around the practical demands to be made on the Gentiles for the furtherance of peaceful common life with the Judaic Christians[21].
Peter: He played a crucial role in the meeting (15: 6-11) claiming that the law did not bind the Gentiles. He argued from the fact from the witness of the HolySpirit who descended upon the uncircumcised gentiles (Cornelius and his household) even as he had upon the Apostles. Peter concluded that is very nearly Pauline: “Now then, why do you 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? We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are”(Acts 15:10-11)[22].
Barnabas and Paul: They appealed to the evidence of divine approval implied by the miracles of God had worked among the pagans. They must surely have described the miracles at Iconium (Acts 14:3) and Lystra (Acts 14: 9). The order of the names “Barnabas and Paul”, indicate Luke’s historical accuracy, for at Jerusalem Barnabas would have precedence over Paul.
James: He was the last spokesman (Acts 15: 14-21). As a leader of a church in Jerusalem he could not be accused of partiality to Gentiles, or had his contacts with Paul been so frequent that he would have swayed by Paul’s influence. His decisive words were marked by soberness and fairness. Quoting Amos 9:11,12 from the Greek Septuagint, which differs from the traditional Hebrew text, he asserted that the restoration of David’s tabernacle would induce other men to seek God, even the Gentiles, who had become his worshippers by his use of this text he declared that he anticipated the salvation of the gentiles, whose conversion had been predicated by the prophets. In the light of this prophecy he commended as unnecessary restriction be imposed upon the Gentile converts, and that they be required to observe four rules of comity, they are 1) to abstain from the defilement of idolatry, 2) from sexual promiscuity, 3) from eating the flesh of strangled animals, 4) from blood. Here the four requirements dealt with the practices most repulsive to the Jewish believers. Idolatry was a direct contravention of the first commandments, “thou shall have no other gods before me”(Exodus 20:3). Even if the Gentiles placed no importance on eating meat offered to idols since the images were impotent, they should refrain from any indulgence that would offend their Jewish brethren (1 Cor 10: 25-31). To say fornication was a common sin that violated Jewish standards of chastity and that often accompanied the ecstatic rites of heathen worship “blood” and “things strangled” referred to the dietary laws which were ceremonial rather than moral in essence, but which were so ingrained in the Jewish mode of life that to disregard than would cause needless offense. Here the first two mentioned were both discussed in Paul’s writings to the churches and were a part of the ethical code for Christian and were part of the ethical code for Christian and Jew alike, and the second pair were ceremonial regulations which the church members asked to observe for the sake of maintaining peace. Nowhere in the NT are these two latter stipulations emphasized. They seem to have been forgotten as the separation between Christianity and Judaism became wider[23].
James reminded the church that those who wished to follow the Mosaic Law completely could resort to the synagogues where the content of Torah was expounded every Sabbath. Reiterating the ordinances of the Law would be unessential, since the church existed to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah.[24]It is also clear that from (vv13-18), exclusive of the decree, it also viewed the acceptance of Gentiles into the church as a fulfillment of Amos 9:1 and 2. The crucial part of the citation is “that the rest of mankind may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is invoked” (Acts 15: 17). Such is the text found in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the O.T James, however, would most likely have quoted from the Hebrew, which reads: “that they may conquer what is left of Edom and all the nations that shall bear my name.” The difference makes it appear that the reconstructions of the speech are somewhat artificial. Either James’ word have been made more pertinent by recourse to the Greek versions of Amos or this part of James’ speech owes as much as to Luke, or his source, as to James Himself[25].
7. THE DECREE AND ITS MEANING
The decree is listed three times in Acts: fully in vv 19 to 20 and vv28 to 29 and partially in vv. 21 and 25. The central focus and its importance was the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Law. The formulae, “For the Holy Spirit and we have decided” (15:28), states the apostolic conviction that important church decisions were assisted by the HolySpirit.
The secondary element in the decree was an injunction to the gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, Cilica indented to make communal life between them and the Judaic Christians less difficult. There are variants in the text at this point, but it is certain that the so- called Eastern text, “to abstain from anything that has been contaminated by idols and from immorality and from anything strangled and from blood, is correct. The partaking of food offered to idols would imply a participation in pagan cults. The eating of meat from which the blood had not bee properly drained would have offended the Judaic Christians, since for the Jews blood was the symbol of life and hence something which pertained to the divine. The “immorality” mentioned probably means marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship. The interpretation is based on the striking similarity between these conciliar injunctions and those of vv17 to 18[26].
8. EVALUATION
Thus it is very clear from Acts 15: 28- 29, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”, that everything was decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, explaining that which had been impossible burden for Jews, should not be required of gentiles. This made the church to have a free access upon a larger work for the bringing of all people, of every race, and in every land under the realm of Jesus Christ. Jewish members of the church were expected to continue in their obedience to the Jewish Law, though such leaders interpreted the regulations broadly as St. Paul. But Gentiles could enter the Christian fold by simple faith in Christ and a righteous life, without submission to legal requirements. If one counts the membership after the twenty years one can find that increasingly gentile and decreasingly Jewish; for as the gospel took momentum towards the gentiles and thus left the Jews to grow more and more bitter in their hatred and that is why in this period almost every where it was the Jews who instigated persecutions against the Christians. Therefore it is very clear that the council also had smelled a bit of offensive nature.
CONCLUSION
Therefore it is clear that the total decree of the council was a compromise. It must be interpreted according to its historical setting. The main point was the exemption of gentiles from the law. The rest of the injunctions were given in the interest of peaceful unity and were applied only in localities where many Judaic Christians were to be found outline of Acts no mention is made of them. Paul never refers to them (cf. 1Cor 8: 1- 10 -30) in his epistles, an indication they were only of local and temporary importance. Thus the decision of the council of Jerusalem opened a new era in the expansion of the church. The barrier between the circumcised Jew and the uncircumcised gentiles had been broken by the concession that Gentiles need not keep the law to obtain salvation. The emissaries of the gentile church at Antioch no longer felt under constraint and were able to preach freely anywhere the doctrine of salvation of faith in Christ. As theologians we should also think that the same problem was faced by the reformers, who saw that the Roman church also demanded man-made works in addition to faith as the condition for salvation. To say that the problem of the Jerusalem council was a persistent one, and the principles that were victorious and that was related throughout the history of the church and thereby we can also implement the same principles to the dilemmas in the generation to come.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Fisher, George Park, History of the Christian Church. London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887.
Freedman, David Noel, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol-3. New York: Doubleday 1997.
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary. Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990.
Marthaler, Berard L. (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7.Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Times. London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965.
Woodbridge, John D. Great Leaders of the Christian Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
[1] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries, (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 67.
[2] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 772.
[3] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Times, (London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965), 239.
[4] George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887), 22, 23.
[5] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 548.
[6] Ibid, 23, 25.
[7] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 766.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 767.
[10] Ibid.
[11] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 766.
[12] Ibid, 767.
[13] Ibid.
[14] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 768.
[15] Ibid, 768.
[16] Ibid.
[17] David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday 1997), 768.
[18] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1990), 543.
[19] Ibid.
[20] John D. Woodbridge, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 18.
[21] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 771.
[22] John D. Woodbridge, Great Leaders of the Christian Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988), 17-18.
[23] George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (London: Printed by the Trow Directory, 1887), 22, 23.
[24] Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Times, (London: Wm B. Eerdmans Company, 1965), 249-50.
[25] Berard L. Marthaler (Ed), New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol-7, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2003), 772.
[26] Ibid.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment