|
|
|
|
Council of Jerusalem
|
| |
|
| |
The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied subsequently to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter and probably referred to in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter . The events described there are generally dated to around the year 50, at the latest some time before the death of James the Just in 62, and before the First Roman-Jewish War and destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Council of Jerusalem' Start a new discussion about 'Council of Jerusalem' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied subsequently to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter and probably referred to in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter . The events described there are generally dated to around the year 50, at the latest some time before the death of James the Just in 62, and before the First Roman-Jewish War and destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Paul himself described several meetings with the apostles in Jerusalem, though it is difficult to reconcile any of them fully with the account in Acts (see also Paul of Tarsus—Council of Jerusalem). Paul claims he "went up again to Jerusalem" (i.e., not the first time) with Barnabas and Titus "in response to a revelation", in order to "lay before them the gospel (he) proclaimed among the Gentiles" ; them being according to Paul "those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders" : James, Cephas and John. He describes this as a "private meeting" (not a public council) and notes that Titus, who was Greek, wasn't pressured to be circumcised . However, he refers to "false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us" . Paul claims the "pillars" of the Church had no differences with him. On the contrary, they gave him the "right hand of fellowship", he bound for the mission to "the uncircumcised" and they to "the circumcised", requesting only that he remember the "poor". Whether this was the same meeting as that described in Acts is not universally agreed.
Background
The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to around the year 50, some sixteen years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It was the first known meeting of the new community's leaders. It took place before the First Roman-Jewish War, which broke out in 66 AD and the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 AD. At the time, most followers of Jesus were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to Alister McGrath, a proponent of Paleo-orthodoxy, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of then contemporary (Second Temple) Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. The meeting was called because "certain persons" from Jerusalem and Judea, representing the Jerusalem Church, had come to Antioch, where Paul of Tarsus was preaching , and were telling prospective converts to the new religion that they could not be saved unless they underwent the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Having disputed fiercely with the Judaean Christians to no effect, Paul, his fellow missionary Barnabas and others from Antioch travelled to Jerusalem to consult with "the apostles and elders" of the community.
The issues and outcome
The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve the disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than circumcision. Some of the Pharisees who had become believers demanded that it was "needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" .
The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of biblical circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other matters arose as well, as the Decree by James indicates. The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by James who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see also Supersessionism, New Covenant, Antinomianism).
At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter , James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):
- "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" .
The Western version of Acts (see Acts of the Apostles) adds the negative form of the Golden Rule ("and whatever things ye would not have done to yourselves, do not do to another"). This determined questions wider than that of circumcision, most particularly dietary questions but also fornication and idolatry, and also the application of biblical law to non-Jews, see also biblical law directed at non-Jews and Biblical law in Christianity.
Interpreting the Council's decision
James's Apostolic Decree was that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against Gentile converts eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against "fornication" and idol worship. See also Old Testament Law directed at non-Jews. In effect, however, the Jerusalem Church created a double standard: one for Jewish Christians and one for Gentile converts (for the parallel in Judaism, see Convert to Judaism and Noahides). The Decree may be the first act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots, depending on when Jewish Noachide law was developed, see also List of events in early Christianity. The decision created a category of persons who were members of the Christian community (which still considered itself to be part of the Jewish community) who, in certain situations, would be unacceptable to the wider Jewish community, because they were uncircumcised, besides other objections relating to the 613 mitzvot.
Determining what followed depends on how reliable one believes the various texts to be. Some scholars have taken a very skeptical view of the probity of Acts. Moreover, Paul seems to have refused "to be tied down to particular patterns of behavior and practice." For example, see . He does not engage in a dispute with those Corinthians who apparently feel quite free to eat anything offered to idols, never appealing or even mentioning the Jerusalem council. He rather attempts to persuade them by appealing to the care they should have for other believers who might not feel so free. His attitude towards circumcision varies between his outright hostility to what he calls "mutilation" in to praise in and his willingness that Timothy be circumcised, recorded in . However, such apparent discrepancies have led to a degree of skepticism about the reliability of Acts.
From its position of dominance, due in part to its leadership by James, the Jerusalem Church suffered first persecution and eventual decline, but never total elimination (see for example Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and Jerusalem in Christianity). The question of the relationship with Jews and Jewish Christians continued for some time, indeed it is still debated today.
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on states:
According to Acts, Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytes of the gate [a biblical term, for example see ] and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws .
states:
For great as was the success of Barnabas and Paul in the heathen world, the authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as the condition of admission of members into the church, until, on the initiative of Peter, and of James, the head of the Jerusalem church, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noachian Laws namely, regarding avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal should be demanded of the heathen desirous of entering the Church.
states:
R. Emden , in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on states:
Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required . Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy , and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ( sqq.)
Tim Hegg, a renowned Messianic teacher and apologist states in :
We conclude, then, that interpreting the edict of the Jerusalem Council on the basis of the later Noachide Laws is both anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the function of the Noachide Laws in the post-destruction rabbinic literature. For not only did the formulation of the Noachide Laws await the post-destruction era, but even when they were formulated within the rabbinic theology of the later Centuries, they did not function as a separate body of laws given to Gentiles as a means of attaining a righteous status, nor even as an actual code of ethics for Gentiles. It is wrong, then, to conclude that the Jerusalem Council gave the gentile believers a minimal list of commandments, exempting them from the full expression of God's will in the Torah. Another explanation for the edict must be sought. Since all the prohibitions in the edict find a connection to practices in the pagan temples, it seems most likely that they were given to assure that the gentile believers had entirely distanced themselves from the idolatry of pagan worship.
Joseph Fitzmyer disputes the claim that the Apostolic Decree is based on Noahide Law and instead proposes as the basis, see also Leviticus 18.
See also
Footnotes
Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus identifies Paul with Josephus Ananias the Jewish merchant (Jewish Antiquities 20.2.34), who proselytized Gentiles teaching them that faith in God is superior to circumcision.
There are two major versions of Acts: Alexandrian and Western; with preference generally given to the Alexandrian, see Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament which has for the Western 15:2, "for Paul spoke maintaining firmly that they should stay as they were when converted; but those who had come from Jerusalem ordered them, Paul and Barnabas and certain others, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders that they might be judged before them about this question."
According to Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: "the Apostolic Decree [15.29, 15.20, 21.25] ... contain many problems concerning text and exegesis"; "it is possible ... (fornication means) marriage within the prohibited Levitical Degrees , which the rabbis described as "forbidden for porneia", or mixed marriages with pagans (; also compare ), or participation in pagan worship which had long been described by Old Testament prophets as spiritual adultery and which, in fact, offered opportunity in many temples for religious prostitution"; "An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis"; NRSV has things polluted by idols, fornication, whatever has been strangled, blood; NIV has food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals, blood; Young's has pollutions of the idols, whoredom, strangled thing, blood; Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament has pollution of idolatrous sacrifices, unchastity, meat of strangled animals, blood; NAB has pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, meat of strangled animals, blood. Karl Josef von Hefele's notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."
Hillel the Elder when asked by a Gentile to teach the whole Torah while standing on one foot cited the negative form of the Golden Rule, also cited in Tobit 4:15. Jesus in , part of the Sermon on the Mount, cited the positive form as summary of the "Law and Prophets."
Whether or not is a record of the Council of Jerusalem but a different event is not agreed. Paul writes of laying his gospel before the others privately, not as in a Council. It has been argued that Galatians was written as Paul was on his way to the Council (see Paul of Tarsus). Raymond E. Brown in Introduction to the New Testament argues that they are the same event but each from a different viewpoint with its own bias.
Acts 16 says Paul personally circumcised Timothy, even though his father was Greek, because his mother was a Jewish believer, i.e. a Jewish Christian.
Some took "freedom in Christ" to mean lawlessness, for example, .
Possibly a reference to the Ebionites
Hans Conzelman
Christopher Rowland, Christian Origins (SPCK 1985) p. 234
External links
Further reading
- Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985 ISBN 0905774930
- Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Anchor Bible Series, 1997. ISBN 0385247672.
- Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Peter, Stephen, James and John: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity
- Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. Men and movements in the primitive church: Studies in early non-Pauline Christianity
- Clark, A.C. The Acts of the Apostles
- Dunn, James D.G. The Incident at Antioch JSNT 18, 1983, pg 95122
- Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law, ISBN 0664250955
- Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians 1993 ISBN 0521359538
- Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle Eerdmans 1997 ISBN 0802838448
- Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew 2003
- Eisenman, Robert, 1997. James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. ISBN 0670869325 A cultural historian's dissenting view based on contemporary texts.
- Elsner, Jas. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: Oxford History of Early Non-Pauline Christianity 1998 ISBN 0192842013
- Gaus, Andy. The Unvarnished New Testament 1991 ISBN 0933999992
- Kim, Seyoon Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel 2001 ISBN 0802849741
- Maccoby, Hyam. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. ISBN 0060155825.
- MacDonald, Dennis Ronald, 1983. The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
- Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 1975 ISBN 3438060108
- Mount, Christopher N. Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul 2001
- Ropes, J.H. The Text of Acts
- Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion 1977 ISBN 0800618998
- Sanders, E.P. Paul the Law and the Jewish People 1983
- Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism, Fortress Press, 1987, ISBN 0800620615
- Simon, Marcel. The Apostolic Decree and its Setting in the Ancient Church. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, LII (196970), pp. 437460
- Telfer, W. The Didache and the Apostolic Synod of Antioch The Journal of Theological Studies, 1939, pp. 133146, 258271
- Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics 2003 ISBN 0802848095
- Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? 1997 ISBN 0802844456
|
| |
|
|
