NT Overview - Ethnicity and the Jerusalem Council
Ethnicity and The Jerusalem Council
Ethnic Identity and Biblical interpretation
Ethnic Identity
Theories of Ethnicity
Formation of social identity
Ethnicity and social conflict
Jerusalem Council and identity formation
Here the matter must be resolved as to what constitutes the people of God, and how the major ethnic division in the church (Jew/Gentile) shall be dealt with so that both groups may be included in God’s people on equal footing, fellowship may continue, and the church remain one. Luke is eager to demonstrate that ethnic divisions could be and were overcome, despite the objection of very conservative Pharisaic Christians.
Luke’s universalism has often been remarked on, but to my knowledge no one has noted the connection of this theme to ancient ethnography. At least a significant part of Luke’s purpose is not merely to display or explore ethnic diversity in the Empire, as might be the case if he merely intended to entertain or inform the curious, but to show how out of the many could come one, a united people in a saved and saving relationship to the one true God. His social premise is not the pagan one of one emperor and so one Empire,341 but rather one God, and one redeemed people gathered out of the many.
The Jerusalem Council has been described as ‘the turning-point, “centre-piece” and “watershed” of the book, the episode which rounds off and justifies the past developments, and makes those to come intrinsically possible’.1 Contextually, the narrative (15:1–35) is framed by Paul’s first missionary journey (13:1–14:28) and his second campaign (15:36–18:22).2 More broadly, the Gentile mission set in motion by Peter’s preaching to Cornelius, the growth of the church at Antioch in Syria, and Paul’s first missionary journey had created problems about the status of Gentile converts and their relationship with Jewish Christians. These issues had to be resolved before the work of Paul could continue and new initiatives could be taken with the gospel. Various rhetorical and spatial elements have been identified which help to determine the structure of 15:1–35. The narrative begins and ends in Antioch (vv. 1–2, 30–35).
The debate in Jerusalem revolved around the issue of how Gentiles were to be accepted into the Christian fellowship. The more conservative Jewish Christians felt that they should be received on the same basis that Jews had always accepted Gentiles into the covenant community—through proselyte initiation. This involved circumcision of the males and all proselytes taking upon themselves the total provisions of the Mosaic law. For all intents and purposes, a Gentile proselyte to Judaism became a Jew, not only in religious conviction but in lifestyle as well. That was the question the conservative group of Jewish Christians raised: Should not Gentiles be required to become Jews in order to share in the Christian community? It was a natural question. The first Christians were all Jews. Jesus was a Jew and the Jewish Messiah. God had only one covenant people—the Jews. Christianity was a messianic movement within Judaism. Jews had always demanded of all Gentile converts the requirements of circumcision and rituals of the Torah. Why should that change?
Evidently the requirements had changed. There was no indication that Peter had laid such requirements on Cornelius, or the Antioch church on the Gentiles who became a part of their fellowship, or Paul and Barnabas on the Gentiles converted in their mission. This was a cause for serious concern from the more conservative elements. Not only was it a departure from normal proselyte procedure; it also raised serious problems of fellowship. How could law-abiding Jewish Christians who seriously observed all the ritual laws have interaction with Gentile Christians who did not observe those laws? The Jewish Christians would run the risk of defilement from the Gentiles. These were the two issues that were faced and resolved in Jerusalem: (1) whether Gentile converts should submit to Jewish proselyte requirements, especially to circumcision and (2) how fellowship could be maintained between Jewish and Gentile Christians
- Appendix II
The Dissension
(1) whether Gentile converts should submit to Jewish proselyte requirements, especially to circumcision and (2) how fellowship could be maintained between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
In other words, Gentile believers must come into the church under the same terms that govern the entrance of Gentile proselytes into Judaism. Jewish believers and their Gentile followers who hold to such teaching are called Judaizers. The disagreement of Paul and Barnabas with the Judaizers leads the church in Antioch to refer this issue to the mother church in Jerusalem. Historically, the stakes can hardly be higher: p 357 Set up the requirement of circumcision, and Gentiles—for whom the rite mars the Greek ideal of beauty in the human body, especially that of the male—will convert to Christianity in fewer and fewer numbers, so that it will turn into a small Jewish sect; or Gentiles will develop their own form of Christianity, un-Jewish and therefore uninoculated against paganism and degenerating into it.
But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them,
5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them,
It is not surprising that some Pharisees came to embrace Christ as the Messiah in whom they had hoped. For all their emphasis on law, it is also not surprising that they would be reticent to receive anyone into the fellowship in a manner not in accordance with tradition. That tradition was well-established for proselytes—circumcision and the whole yoke of the law.
The Proclamation
The Proclamation
The Persuasion
The Promulgation
The decree of the Jerusalem Council tells Gentile Christians that to avoid setting up barriers to social interchange with Jewish believers
the question of venue and not just of menu is important. All refer or allude to activities that take place in temples. That is, the social context conjured up by the decree needs to be taken into account.
Furthermore, the issue is not just where one might find one or another of the four elements of the decree in isolation, but in what social setting one might find them together. Here the answer is again likely to be in a temple, not in a home, and in particular at a temple feast.
James says he is not troubling the Gentiles in what he is about to announce.422 Clearly, however, if he imposed food laws on Gentiles, in particular food laws meant originally to apply to Gentiles dwelling in the Holy Land in the midst of God’s people (e.g., Leviticus 17–18), he would indeed be troubling or burdening them. (4) It is natural to see a simple contrast between v. 19 and vv. 20–21. The Gentiles have turned to the living and true God; what they are being asked to turn from is idolatry and the accompanying acts of immorality. Abstaining from idolatry and immorality were after all the most basic things required by the Mosaic Law, and the cryptic v. 21 need no longer be seen as cryptic. The point is that the Mosaic Law, and not least the Ten Commandments, is already proclaimed throughout the Empire in synagogues. The witness of Gentile Christians was important to James. They must not give Jews in the Diaspora the opportunity to complain that Gentile Christians were still practicing idolatry and immorality by going to pagan feasts even after beginning to follow Christ.
The Commission
The Content
We learn in v. 27 that the function of Silas and Judas on this trip will be to confirm orally the written report, since documents could be forged, and in many places in the first century an oral testimony was valued more highly than a written one.
The Conclusion
So the Spirit’s work in the Council was to enable the participants to acknowledge these historical and scriptural evidences and to come together to the right conclusions about the practical implications. This text, therefore, cannot simply be applied to any meeting of Christians claiming the Spirit’s guidance for their decisions.79 Only when Christians are united in interpreting the acts of God in the light of Scripture can it be said that the Spirit has been leading like this. The Spirit’s work in leading the Jerusalem Council was to provide a solution consistent with the truth of the gospel, enabling Jewish and Gentile Christians to live together in love.
The Jerusalem Council acknowledged that Gentile Christians were not obligated to live under the yoke of the law. At the same time, it challenged them to exercise their liberty with wisdom, restraint, and love, recognising the concerns of some Jewish Christians about contamination through any association with idolatrous practices.
The Conclusion
V. 30 records the trip by the delegation to Antioch, the gathering of the Christian assembly there, and the first delivery of the letter. The result of the reading of the letter was rejoicing at the exhortation, which reaction may suggest that the decree was not understood to impose additional ritual requirements on the Gentiles in regard to food laws.
After the satisfactory resolution of the important doctrinal and practical issues raised by the Judaizers, there was a notable advance in gospel work (cf. 6:1–7, where there is the same pattern of conflict, resolution, and gospel growth).
Practical Applications
shape a new definition of “the people of God” as one based on messianic faith rather than on ethnic origin or ritual observance’.
The narrative forcefully highlights a theological message, that God’s purpose for the Gentiles is salvation without circumcision.
Witherington observes first the teaching in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 about the demand for Gentiles to turn from idolatry to serve the living and true God, coupled with instructions about avoiding all forms of sexual immorality in 4:1–8. More extensively, Paul deals with porneia in 1 Corinthians 5–6 and then the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8–10, where the word eidōlothyton is used several times (8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19; cf. Acts 15:29). A specific connection between sexual sin and dining at a pagan temple feast is made in 1 Corinthians 10:7–22. ‘For Paul, the issue is clearly one of venue rather than menu, as the advice in 1 Cor. 10:23–28 shows.… In short, Paul, p 446 like James, insists that pagans flee idolatry and immorality and the temple context where such things are thought to be prevalent.’
Notice the emphatic statement of what the Gentiles in Thessalonica gave up when they became, and in order to become, Christians—they turned to God from idols, they turned to serving a living and true God (1 Thess. 1:9).432 This is the theological component of the decree, but there p 466 was of course also an ethical component—that πορνεια should be avoided. This subject is addressed in 1 Thess. 4:1–9. The fuller discussion of Paul’s understanding of the decree comes, however, in 1 Corinthians, especially chapters 5–10, where, as here, ειδολωθυτον refers to meat sacrificed and eaten in the presence of idols. We may see the prohibition of πορνεια already in 1 Cor. 5:1–8, but Paul deals more specifically with the connection of sexual sin with dining in a pagan temple feast in 1 Cor. 10:7–8. For Paul, the issue is clearly one of venue rather than menu, as the advice in 1 Cor. 10:23–28 shows. It was okay to eat food sacrificed in a pagan temple at home. Paul specifically chooses a different term to refer to food that comes from the temple and is eaten elsewhere—ιεροθυτον (1 Cor. 10:28). In short, Paul, like James, insists that pagans flee idolatry and immorality and the temple context where such things are thought to be prevalent.
In this historical framework, Luke presented conflict and debate as legitimate and necessary elements in the process of discerning God’s will. He showed how such disagreement ‘serves to reveal the true bases for fellowship, and elicit the fundamental principles of community identity’.
Appendix I: Definition of ethnicity
Appendix II:
The main way to resolve such conflict in antiquity was to call a meeting of the εκκλησια, the assembly of the people (cf. vv. 12, 22), and listen to and consider speeches following the conventions of deliberative rhetoric, the aim of which speeches was to overcome στασις and produce concord or unity.369 It is no accident, then, that Luke portrays both Peter and Paul as presenting p 451 deliberative speeches to resolve this conflict. Theophilus would have recognized the appropriateness of this procedure, and the need for calling a large assembly to settle the matter, regardless of who and how many spoke.
We are told at v. 2 that Paul and Barnabas are appointed to go up to Jerusalem as representatives of the Antioch church to discuss the problem with both the apostles and the elders—in short, the Jerusalem leadership. Luke is tacitly acknowledging that the Jerusalem church was still seen as the mother church at this time, and that any agreement produced could not leave the Jerusalem church out of the discussion. As Johnson has ably pointed out, the “attention Luke gives to how the Church makes the decision required of it is an intrinsic part of his narrative message.”370 The procedure followed in decision making as portrayed here involved: (1) a process of discernment and recognition of God’s activity; (2) the interpretation of Scripture in such a way as to make sense of what has happened; (3) a view that debate and dispute are a part, necessary part, of the process of discernment—“such disagreement serves to reveal the true bases for fellowship, and elicit the fundamental principles of community identity”;371 and (4) finally, the consent or agreement of the εκκλησια to the ruling offered by the church leader, in this case James.
On this last point I would demur. V. 22 is about the decision to send representatives of the Jerusalem church with Paul and Barnabas with the decree. It is not about a confirming of the decree by the assembly’s consent.372 Though a secular assembly in the Greco-Roman world would not refer to Scripture to resolve matters, it would, however, call upon important witnesses to testify and refer to authoritative documents to resolve crisis. There would also often be a formal document drawn up at the end of such an assembly indicating the decision arrived at and addressed to those upon whom it would be incumbent to carry it out. Just as with documents from the emperor or the Roman Senate, it would be sent to those requesting the ruling in the first place. This is why it is that we are told that the so-called decree was sent to the churches in Antioch and in the region of which it was the major city (15:23). They were the ones who had asked the questions and sent the delegation, though of course they were not the only ones for whom the response was relevant or binding (cf. 16:4).373 Theophilus is being presented here with a picture of the church as selfgoverning entity, a subculture in the Roman Empire, a people living in orderly fashion by their own rules, but nonetheless following procedures not unlike those recognized in the larger culture to be proper.