Multiculturalism and the Church in Acts
6.15. The Council Of Jerusalem and the Church of Antioch In Dealing with the Problem of Circumcision and Jewish
Jewish Christianity, the Jerusalem community, with its adherence to ritual law and circumcision and its apparent faithfulness to the cult of the Jewish religious community, would doubtlessly have had a commanding role.
6.15. The Council Of Jerusalem and the Church of Antioch
days, the church consisted of Jews, and the Gentile mission was not foreseen in spite of our Lord's commission. Philip took the gospel to the Samaritans, and Peter, after being prepared by God, overcome his Jewish scruples and took the gospel to the Gentiles, entering in to full fellowship with Gentiles. The establishment of a Gentile church in Antioch and the success of the Gentile mission in Galatia now focused attention upon a problem that had to be solved (Wycliffe 1962: 1150).
In the Jerusalem church existed a party which insisted that unless Gentiles were circumcised after the custom of Moses, they could not be saved and received into the church. Verse 5 indicates that these were converts from among the Pharisees, who were the strictest sect of the Jews. This party looked upon Christianity -as a movement within Judaism, they retained all of the practices and customs of the Law, simply adding the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus as the promised Messiah (Wycliffe 1962:1150). It is apparent that no Jewish believers gave up their Jewish practices when they became Christians. However, Pharisees converts insisted that Gentiles must also become Jews in order to become Christians.
Galatians 2:1-10, describes an aspect of the council meeting of Acts 15. The leaders in Jerusalem had approved Paul's mission to the Gentiles and did not insist upon circumcision for Gentile converts. Peter was in agreement with its policy, for some
. .
time later, when they came to Antioch, he showed that he had learned the lesson taught him by his vision from heaven, and freely entered into the table fellowship with Gentile converts (Galatians 2:11,12).
In order to understand the Apostolic Council, it is important to reconstruct the situation in the expansion of Christianity at that time. There were two centres of Christianity at that time, Antioch and Jerusalem, each representing a very different position and orientation. After the expulsion of the Hellenists, the church in Jerusalem was composed of the Law-abiding, Aramaic-speaking Christians. It did apparently engage in any missionary activity among Gentiles (Acts 10). The reason
behind this was that they believed that the coning of the Lord was very imminent;
they self designated themselves as being very 'poor' .
On the other hand the Antioch church consisted for the most part of uncircumcised Gentile Christians; thus the Law was not considered there as binding for Christians.
Greek was the language of this church and of its missionary activities, which went far beyond the boundaries of Antioch itself. If Antioch shared the eschatological expectation with Jerusalem, this did not imply that the eschatological ideal of poverty was also accepted (Koester 1982: 104-105).
The contrast between Jerusalem and Antioch in the question of the law certainly was the reason for the Apostolic Council. But it cannot be assumed that the authorities in Jerusalem convened the conference on order to decide this question because the apostles in Jerusalem never had such powers of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Galatians 2:1 clearly shows that the initiative came form Antioch. The Christians in Antioch desired a clarification, and they apparently had a particular reason, most likely the activities of the people called 'false brethren' in Galatians 2:4. Jewsish-Christians (not simply Jews) were raising a stir against the Gentile Christians' freedom from the law and caused serious difficulties for the Antiochian mission. (paul had to face similar Judaising propaganda in Galatia which seriously endangered his missionary activity there).
According to Koester (1982), Paul and Bamabas, as emissaries of the Antiochan church, wanted to establish unanimity with the Christians in Jerusalem. The goal was to create an create an ecclesiastical unity in which Jewish and Gentile Christians would be bound together in spite of their differences in the question of the Law. In this way the so called 'trouble -makers' could no longer appeal in defence of their cause to the faithful observance of the Law among the Christians in Jerusalem. The main question was whether the Gentile Christian, Titus, whom Paul had brought to Jerusalem, would be accepted as a Christian brother without being circumcised first. Inspite of the opposition of the 'false brothers', the leaders of the
Jerusalem church, James, the Lord's brother, Peter, and John, recognised the independence of the Gentile mission; the church in Antioch had freedom from the Law, and its ecclesiastical integrity.
Paul and Barnabas assured the Christians in Jerusalem that they would remember the special role to the 'poor' in Jerusalem. This included the obligation of intercession for them in prayer and a collection of money for their benefit. Galatians 2: 1-1 0 demonstrate that the agreement was a contract between two equal and independent partners. Nothing is said about a recognition of the Jerusalem authorities as kind of church government. Peter's right to be active as a missionary was explicitly recognised, but only among the Jews (Gal. 2:7). Whoever was concerned with the creation of law-abiding Christian communities- and Paul does not question their legitimacy- should stay away from missionary activity among the Gentiles. Nonetheless this agreement opened the way for future conflicts, as became clear very soon in Antioch. The obligation to collect money for Jerusalem would become a significant ingredient of Paul's missionary activities (Koester 1982: 105).
Two different churches now existed, the Jewish church in Jerusalem, in which Jewish Christians were free to the practice of the Old Testament Law, but as Jews and not as Christians; and the Gentile church in Antioch, where none of the Jewish ceremonial requirements were practiced. Peter approved of Gentile freedom from the Law; and when he was in a Gentile environment, he laid aside his Jewish practices for the sake of Christian fellowship (Wycliffe 1962:1151).
The 'right wing' party in Jerusalem saw something which was not evident to Peter:
that the growth of the Gentile church must mean the inevitable end of the Jewish Church. As intercourse increased between the two churches, Jewish Christians would have to follow Peter's example and lay aside their Jewish practices.
Therefore, when certain men came form James to Antioch (Galatians 2: 12), they accused Peter of forsaking the Law and pointed out to him that his course of action meant the end of Judaism. Peter had not realised the consequences of his action .
Therefore he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles to reflect upon the situation. This immediately caused a beach in the church at Antioch. Paul recognised at once the implication of Peter's withdrawal; it meant nothing less than two separate churches - one Jewish and the other Gentle. Whether Jewish Christians would have to lay aside Jewish practices and eat with Gentiles, or gentiles would have to accept the entire law of Moses; otherwise there would be a divided church. Paul was willing for Jews as Jews to practice the law of Moses. But he insisted that when Jewish Christians came to into a Gentile church they must lay aside their Jewish scruples and enter into free fellowship with Gentiles. A divided church was unthinkable, and Tor Gentiles to accept the Law "meant the end of salvation by grace (Wycliffe 1962: 1151).
Paul's viewpoint apparently prevailed, but those of the Jewish party in Jerusalem were not satisfied. They came to Antioch again and insisted that Gentiles be circumcised to become Christians. This caused such dissension that the church at Antioch found it necessary to have the issue decided in Jerusalem. Therefore a delegation was appointed to go to the apostles and elders and achieve a settlement of the question. We know nothing about the churches in Phoenicia. It was not Luke's purpose to relate a full history of the early church but only to trace the main lines of its rise and development (Wycliffe 1962:1151).
The church in Jerusalem welcomed the delegates and listened to their story of the success of the Gentile mission in Galatia. The criticism was voiced by from the Pharisees, who maintained their position that Gentile converts must become Jews and accept the law of Moses. This led to a formal conference of the apostles and elders with the delegation from Antioch. Verses 12, 22, however show that the church as a whole participated in the decision.
Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11) had been effective. So now Peter as leader of the apostles, reverted to the position taken after his mission to Cornelius - that God had accepted the Gentiles as Gentiles by faith alone and not on Jewish
tenns. Peter spoke about a yoke put on Gentiles. Here Peter asserts that Jewish legalism was an obligation and a burden that the Jews were unable to bear. In contrast to the burden- some-ness of the Law, salvation is through grace both for Gentles and for Jews. When Jews keep the Law, it is not as a means of salvation.
After much discussion, James, the brother ofthe Lord, gave the last word that they should no longer trouble the Gentiles by demanding that they accept circumcision and the law of Moses.
Wycliffe (1962) comments on the Jew and Gentile fellowship:
There remained another problem, that concerning fellowship between Jew and Gentile. Gentile practices were strongly offensive to Jews and to Jewish Christians. Therefore, as amodus vivendiand an expression of Christian charity, James recommended that Gentile Christians abstain from certain practices that would offend their Jewish brethren. Pollution from idols is described in Acts 15:29 as meats offered to idols. Often meat purchased in the market in the market places had been sacrificed in pagan temples to heathen deities. The eating of such meat was offensive to sensitive Jewish consciences, for it smacked of taking part in the worship of the pagan deity. Fornication may refer either to immorality in general or to religious prostitution in pagan temples.
Such immorality was so common among Gentiles that it merited special attention. Meats from which the blood had not been properly removed . Such meat was considered a delicacy by many pagans. Blood refers to the pagan custom of using blood as food. The last requirements involved the same offense for the Jew who believed. The decision of the Jerusalem church and the letter to Antioch apparently solved the problem (Wycliffe 1962: 1150-1152).
For several years the Gentiles had been brought to faith in Christ and welcomed into the Church by baptism. It began with Cornelius. Not only - in quite extraordinary. circumstances- did he come to hear the good news, believe, receive the Spirit and be baptised, but the Jerusalem leaders, once the full facts were presented to them, instead of raising objections, 'praised God' (Acts 11: 18). Next came the remarkable movement in Syrian Antioch when unnamed missionaries 'began to speak to Greeks also' (Acts 11 :20), a great number of whom believed.
The Jerusalem church heard about this too and sent Barnabas to investigate who 'saw the evidence of the grace of God' and rejoiced (Acts 11: 23) (Stott 1990:240).
The third development which Luke chronicles was the first missionary journey, during which the first complete outsider believed (Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus) and later Paul and Bamabas responded to Jewish unbelief with the bold declaration 'we now turn to the Gentile' (Acts 13:46) (Stott 1990:241). Thereafter, wherever they went, both Jews and Gentiles believed (Acts 14: 1), and on their return to Syrian Antioch, the missionaries were able to report that 'God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles'(Acts 14:27).
After the conversion of both Cornelius and the Antiochene Greeks, the Jerusalem leaders had been able to reassure themselves that God was in it. How would they now react to the even more audacious policy of Paul? The Gentile mission was gathering momentum. The trickle of Gentile conversion was fast becoming a torrent. The Jewish leaders had no difficulty with the general concept of believing Gentiles, for many Old Testament passages predict their inclusions.
Stott (1990) adds that the Gentiles were becoming Christian without becoming Jews:
But now a particular question was forming in their minds: what means of incorporation into the believing community did God intend for Gentiles? So far it has been assumed that they would be absorbed into Israel by circumcision, and that by observing the law they would be acknowledged as bona fide members of the covenant people of God Something quite different was now happening, however, something, which disturbed and even alarmed many. Gentile converts were being welcomed into the fellowship by baptism without circumcision. They were becoming Christians without also becoming Jews. They were retaining their own identity and integrity as members of other nations. Itis one thing for the Jerusalem leaders to give their approval to the conversion of Gentiles: but could they approve conversion -without - circumcision, of faith in Jesus without the works of the law, and of commitment to the Messiah without inclusion in Judaism? Was their vision big enough to see the gospel of Christ not as a reform movement within Judaism, but as good news for the whole world, and the church of Christ not as Jewish sect, but as the international family of God? These were the revolutionary questions which some were daring to ask. (Stott, 1990: 240-241) The tranquility of the Christian fellowship in Syrian Antioch was shattered by the arrival of a group Paul later dubs 'trouble makers'.
We need to be clear what they were saying, and what the point at issue was. They were insisting, in Luke's tell-tale summary, that without circumcision converts could not be saved. Of course circumcision was the God-given sign of the covenant, and doubtless the Judaizers were stressing this; but they were going further and making it a condition if salvation.
They were telling Gentile converts that faith in Jesus was not enough, not sufficient for salvation: thy must add to faith circumcision, and to circumcision observance of the law. In other words, they must let Moses complete what Jesus had begun, and the law supplement the gospel, the issue was immense. The way of salvation was at stake. The gospel was in dispute. The very foundations of the Christian faith were being undermined (Stott 1990: 241-243).