Council of Jerusalem

Historical background

Main article: Historical background of the New Testament

Jerusalem was the first center of the Christian Church according to the Book of Acts and (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) the location of "the first Christian church". The apostles lived and taught there for some time after Pentecost. James the Just, brother of Jesus was leader of the early Christian community in Jerusalem, and his other kinsmen likely held leadership positions in the surrounding area after the destruction of the city until its rebuilding as Aelia Capitolina in , when all Jews were banished from Jerusalem.

The apostles Barnabas and Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the "Pillars of the Church": James the Just, Peter, and John. The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to , roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (between AD 26 and 36). Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate the legitimacy of the evangelizing mission of Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles and the Gentile converts' freedom from most of the Mosaic Law, especially from the circumcision of males, a practice that was considered execrable and repulsive in the Greco-Roman world during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and was especially disdained by both ancient Greeks and Romans, who instead valued the foreskin positively.

At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to as Jewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and even converts would have considered the early Christians as a part of Judaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the contemporary Second Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

Issues and outcome

Main article: History of early Christianity

The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve a disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than just circumcision, since circumcision is considered the "everlasting" sign of the Abrahamic covenant in Judaism (). The Acts say that "certain men which came down from Judaea" were preaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved"; Acts states that furthermore some of the Pharisees who had become believers stated that it was "needful to circumcise [the Gentiles,] and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" (KJV).

The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other important matters arose as well, as the Apostolic Decree indicates. The dispute was between those such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by James, who believed that the church must observe the Torah (i.e. the rules of traditional Judaism ()), and Paul the Apostle, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles", who believed there was no such necessity. The main concern for Paul, which he subsequently expressed in greater detail with his letters directed to the early Christian communities in Asia Minor, was the inclusion of Gentiles into God's New Covenant, sending the message that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation.

At the council, following advice offered by Peter ( and ), Barnabas and Paul gave an account of their ministry among the gentiles (), and James quoted from the words of the prophet Amos (, quoting ). James added his own words to the quotation: "Known to God from eternity are all His works" and then submitted a proposal, which was accepted by the Church and became known as the Apostolic Decree:

sets out the content of the letter written in accordance with James' proposal. The Western version of Acts (see Acts of the Apostles: Manuscripts) 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, particularly dietary questions, fornication, idolatry, and blood, as well as the application of Biblical law to non-Jews. It was stated by the apostles and elders in the council: "the Holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper." (Acts 15:27–28) This Apostolic Decree was considered binding on all the other local Christian congregations in other regions.

The author of Acts gives an account of a restatement by James and the elders in Jerusalem of the contents of the letter on the occasion of Paul's final Jerusalem visit, immediately prior to Paul's arrest at the temple, recounting: "When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present." (Acts 21:17–18, ESV) The elders then proceed to notify Paul of what seems to have been a common concern among Jewish believers, that he was teaching diaspora Jewish converts to Christianity "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs." They remind the assembly that, "as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality". In the view of some scholars, the reminder of James and the elders here is an expression of concern that Paul was not fully teaching the decision of the Jerusalem Council's letter to Gentiles, particularly in regard to non-strangled kosher meat, which contrasts with Paul's advice to Gentiles in Corinth, to "eat whatever is sold in the meat markets" (1 Corinthians 10:25).

Historicity

Main article: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

The description of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2, is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account. The historicity of Luke's account in Acts has been challenged and was rejected by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century. However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event, though this is sometimes expressed with caution. Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994:

Origin of the Council's decision

Main article: Pauline epistles

The Council of Jerusalem retained the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry. The resulting Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 may simply parallel the seven Noahide laws found in the Old Testament, and thus be a commonality rather than a differential. However, modern scholars dispute the connection between Acts 15 and the seven Noahide laws. The Apostolic Decree may have been a major act of differentiation of the early Church from its Jewish roots.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

The Jewish Encyclopedia also states:

The 20th-century American Catholic priest and biblical scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer disputes the claim that the Apostolic Decree is based on the seven Noahide laws (), and instead proposes as the basis for it. (See also: Leviticus 18).

Obsolescence

While the prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree were reiterated in the Apostolic Canons and at the Council in Trullo, it "has been obsolete for centuries in the West", according to the 19th-century German Catholic bishop Karl Josef von Hefele, though it is still nominally recognized and observed by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

The apostolic decree was defined by the Council of Florence to have been obsolete when the distinction between Jewish and gentile converts had disappeared:

This reasoning was repeated in Pope Urban VIII's Creed for Oriental converts of 1642 and Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical Ex Quo of 1756.

Notes

References

References

1. Bokenkotter, Thomas. (2004). "A Concise History of the Catholic Church". Doubleday.
2. {{Bibleverse. Acts. 15:1-2. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Acts. 15:6-10. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. Galatians. 1:15-16. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Galatians. 2:7-9. NRSV, {{Bibleverse. Galatians. 5:2-3. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Galatians. 5:6-12. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Galatians. 6:12-15. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. Philippians. 3:2-3. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. 1 Corinthians. 7:17-21. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. Romans. 2:17-29. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Romans. 3:9-28. NRSV, {{Bibleverse-nb. Romans. 5:1-11. NRSV, {{Bibleverse. Romans. 11:13. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. 1 Timothy. 2:7. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. 2 Timothy. 1:11. NRSV; {{Bibleverse. Titus. 1:10-16. NRSV.
3. Stendahl, Krister. (July 1963). "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West". [[Cambridge University Press]] on behalf of the [[Harvard Divinity School]].
4. Dunn, James D. G.. (Autumn 1993). "Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul's Letter to the Galatians". [[Society of Biblical Literature]].
5. (2005). "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church". [[Oxford University Press]].
6. (September 2014). "Paul's Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17-29". [[Brill Publishers]].
7. Whether or not {{bibleverse. Galatians. 2:1–10. NRSV is a record of the ''Council of Jerusalem'' or a different event is not agreed. Paul writes of laying his gospel before the others "privately", not in a Council. It has been argued that Galatians was written as Paul was on his way to the Council (see [[Paul the Apostle]]). [[Raymond E. Brown]] in his ''Introduction to the New Testament'' argues that they (Acts 15 and Galatians 2) are the same event but each from a different viewpoint with its own bias.
8. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08355a.htm Jerusalem (A.D. 71–1099)]: "During the first Christian centuries the church at this place was the centre of Christianity in Jerusalem, "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" (Intercession in "[[Liturgy of St. James. St. James' Liturgy]]", ed. Brightman, p. 54). Saint Mark of syriac orthodox church is also known as last supper church and believe first christian church. "
9. (2005). "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church". [[Oxford University Press]].
10. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm St. James the Less] ''Catholic Encyclopedia'': "Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (A.D. 37), went up to Jerusalem. ... On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the [[Right hand of Christian fellowship. right hands of fellowship]]; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" ({{bibleverse. Galatians. 2:9)."
11. Hodges, Frederick M.. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme". [[Johns Hopkins University Press]].
12. (July 1980). "Celsus' Decircumcision Operation: Medical and Historical Implications". [[Elsevier]].
13. Fredriksen, Paula. (2018). "When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation". [[Yale University Press]].
14. (1998). "Uncircumcision: A Historical Review of Preputial Restoration". [[Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]].
15. "Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature". [[Kopelman Foundation]].
16. Neusner, Jacob. (1993). "Approaches to Ancient Judaism, New Series: Religious and Theological Studies". Scholars Press.
17. McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). {{ISBN. 1-4051-0899-1. Page 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief — that Jesus was the Messiah."
18. {{bibleverse. Acts. 15:1–2. NRSV
19. {{bibleverse. Acts. 15:5. KJV
20. (2019). "Anatomy of the New Testament". [[Fortress Press]].
21. (2002). "The Early Christian World". [[Routledge]].
22. Seifrid, Mark A.. (1992). "Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme". [[Brill Publishers]].
23. [[John Gill (theologian). Gill, J.]], [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/acts/15.htm "Acts 15"]. Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible. Accessed 13 September 2015.
24. {{bibleverse. Acts. 15:18. NKJV
25. [http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/apopresby.htm "Apostolic Presbyterianism"] {{Webarchive. link. (2018-09-16 by [[William Cunningham (theologian)). William Cunningham]] and Reg Barrow.
26. Robert McQueen Grant ''Augustus to Constantine: The Rise and triumph of Christianity in the Roman World''. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, p. iv. "According to Acts 21:25, the elders at Jerusalem were still concerned with observance of them when Paul last "
27. Paul Barnett (2004). ''Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament''. p. 292. "He chided Paul later for his failure to require the Gentiles to observe the decree (Acts 21:25). Paul delivered the letter from the Jerusalem meeting expressing James's decree, but only to churches in Syria, Cilicia and Galatia ... Paul did not impose the food requirements for the kosher-killed meat and against the idol-sacrificed meat upon the Corinthians"
28. 1 Corinthians: a new translation Volume 32 Anchor Bible William Fridell Orr, James Arthur Walther – 1976 "Paul's openness regarding dietary restrictions raises again the question of the connection with the decrees of the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:29; Introduction, pp. 63–65). There is no hint here of an apostolic decree involving food."
29. Gordon D. Fee (1987). ''The First Epistle to the Corinthians''. p. 480. "Paul's 'rule' for everyday life in Corinth is a simple one: 'Eat anything sold in the meat market{{'".
30. "In spite of the presence of discrepancies between these two accounts, most scholars agree that they do in fact refer to the same event.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
31. "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
32. "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
33. "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
34. "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke describes, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181–182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
35. "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen's view is that the Apostolic Council "is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality" (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius' view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke's treatment is literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.
36. "There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul's account in Gal. 2.1–10, and this accord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.", Philip, "The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: the Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit", Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe, p. 205 (2005). Mohr Siebeck.
37. "The present writer accepts its basic historicity, i.e. that there was an event at Jerusalem concerning the matter of the entry of the Gentiles into the Christian community, but would be circumspect about going much further than that. For a robust defence of its historicity, see Bauckham, "James", and the relevant literature cited there.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
38. For a clarification of "fourfold decree" vs "threefold decree", see [https://books.google.com/books?id=wo8csizDv0gC ''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia'': A-D], 1995, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley ("Apostolic Council"), [https://books.google.com/books?id=wo8csizDv0gC&dq=decree+fourfold+threefold&pg=PA202 page 202].
39. Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd edn, (NY: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 382.
40. Metzger, ''Textual Commentary'', 383n9.
41. Vana, Liliane. (May 2013). "Les lois noaẖides: Une mini-Torah pré-sinaïtique pour l'humanité et pour Israël". Éditions in Press.
42. Bockmuehl, Markus. (January 1995). "The Noachide Commandments and New Testament Ethics: with Special Reference to Acts 15 and Pauline Halakhah". [[Peeters Publishers]].
43. proselyte to Judaism]] (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; 'Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a "seal" (Schlatter, "Die Kirche Jerusalems," 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the [[Laying on of hands. imposition of hands]], which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. [[Anointing]] with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition."
44. Fitzmyer, Joseph A.. (1998). "The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary". [[Yale University Press]].
45. Canon 63: "If any bishop, or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same let him be excommunicated."
46. Canon 67: "Divine Scripture has commanded us to ‘abstain from blood, and strangled flesh and fornication’ (Gen 9:3-4, Lev 17 & 18:3, Acts 15: 28-29). We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If therefore anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated. "
47. [[Karl Josef von Hefele]]'s [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html commentary on canon II of Gangra] 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 [[Canons of the Apostles. 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 [[Augustine of Hippo. 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 III. 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 council. 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."
48. Convent of St. Elisabeth, Minsk, Belarus. [https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2018/01/eating-food-that-has-blood-in-it Eating food that has blood in it]
49. (14 December 1431). "Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts".
50. [https://books.google.com/books?id=kLzGuC5F62IC Professio Orthodoxae Fidei ab orientalibus facienda, Congregatio De Propaganda Fide, 1642]: 18. And [I believe] also that that prohibition of the Apostles of foods sacrificed to idols, and of blood, and of what has been strangled was suited to that time, so that matter for dissension between Jews and Gentiles might be taken away. With the cause of that Apostolic prohibition coming to an end, the effect came to an end also.
51. [https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14exquo.htm Ex Quo, Benedict XIV, 1756]: 62. So the Decree for the [[Jacob Baradaeus. Jacobites]] of the Council of Florence reads: "The holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that every creature of God is good and not to be rejected if it is taken with thanks. According to the Lord's word, a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth. The Church affirms that the distinction made by the Mosaic Law between clean and unclean foods belongs to the ceremonial laws which have passed away with the coming of the Gospel…. So it declares that no kind of food is to be condemned which human society regards as food, and no distinction is to be made between animals on the basis of gender or the manner of their death. However many things which are not forbidden may and should be given up for the health of the body, the practice of virtue, and regular Church discipline. As the Apostle says: 'All things are permitted, but not all are expedient.'