王盈方醫師瘋狂之旅 Dr Yvonne Wang's Blabberings

Abstract:

The Council of Jerusalem was turning point in early church history and the core essence of the Book of Acts. The reasons why this meeting was so important for the development of the early church was because the church was expanding so rapidly that Gentiles were beginning to outnumber the Jews, at a time when the church was still struggling to find its own identity, and despite the conflicts in Gentile-Jew table fellowship, they could not deny the great works of the Holy Spirit which clearly demonstrated that the inclusion of Gentiles in the church was indeed the will of God. Various scholarly explanations for the council decision will then be evaluated including ethical, societal, and cultic explanations. Finally, the application of Acts 15 in dealing with racial and cultural divisions in the modern church will be examined.

In this essay, my aim is to first examine why the Council of Jerusalem was so important for the development of the early church. I will then evaluate the various scholarly explanations for the council decision given in Acts 15:29. Finally, I will explore the principles from Acts 15 for dealing with racial and cultural divisions in the church of today.

The Council of Jerusalem was an imperative historical meeting for several reasons. Firstly, we can see from the book of Acts that the church was growing extremely rapidly, with people from Judea being converted in Acts 3-5, others from Samaria being converted in Acts 8, and then moving out of Israel. The fast growth and massive influx of Gentile Christians also brought about conflicts rapidly due to the drastic differences in the cultural background. One of the foremost conflicts was Gentile association with idolatry. According to Slee^[1], idolatry was such an intrinsic part of life in the Mediterranean world that meat offered pagan deities in the temples was often sold in the market place for consumption at home. Idolatry was an abomination in Jewish eyes. Furthermore, there is always a danger that a Gentile might secretly turn a meal with no obvious connotations of idolatry into a sacred meal by a covert dedication of the wine to an idol. Thus a Jew would have serious reservations about attending a meal in a Gentile home. As a consequence, for Jewish-Gentile table fellowship to take place in a Gentile home, the Jews would have to bring their own food which had no association with idolatry and have it served by Jewish servants or themselves. They would also have had to sit apart from the Gentile companions in order to frustrate any tempted by the Gentile to contaminate the food, wine and vessels with idolatry. We can see that the conflict escalated to such a great extent that if it was not resolved, division would inevitably occur.

Secondly, the First century church was in search of its identity and some questions emerged and these issues needed to be re-examined and defined more clearly. Some of the questions included:[2]What is Christianity? Is it an extension of Judaism? What is essential for salvation? What’s the relevance of Jewish traditions to the Gentiles? Is it essential for the Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes first through circumcision in order to be saved? Slee^[3] illustrates that there were many different Jewish attitudes towards the Gentiles in the first century CE, with some so bitterly hostile that they denied the possibility that Gentiles might ever be saved. Some Jews were of the opinion that Gentiles could only ever be assured of salvation in the eschatological age if they acted in the present by converting to Judaism. Some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem taught that circumcision was essential to salvation and these people became known as “Judaizers”^[4]. It appears from Acts 15:1-2 that “Sharp disputes and debate” followed, and with church unity under threat, Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with certain others from the Antioch congregation, to go up to Jerusalem to meet with “the apostles and elders”. We could see from Acts 2 that Jesus is the Messiah and the way for salvation. Acts 15:8-9 states that see God knows the heart and makes no distinction between them (between Jew and Gentile), as Williams stated^[5], salvation is offered to all. Gentiles, deemed by the Jews as unclean, had been “cleansed”. As Johnson notes^[6], God is able to make judgment on who has been saved in terms of internal dispositions rather than on external criteria. Peter proclaimed in Acts 15:10 that the Mosaic law was a “yoke”. Gooding[7] agrees it was useless and cruel to expect the Gentiles to bear the yoke when the Jews and their ancestors had already failed to do so. In Acts 15:15-17, James responded to the identity crisis by the opening statement that Peter “has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.” Indeed, as Gooding[8] asserts, the patriarchal founder of the nation, Abraham, was originally a Gentile, but God had taken him and his descendants out from the Gentiles in the sense that they had ceased to be Gentiles and had thereby become Israel, a special nation, a people for God’s possession (Exodus 19:5-6). Then he quoted the LXX version of Amos 9:11-12 which describes that there would come a time when God would rebuild David’s fallen tent. The rebuilding of David’s tent would lead to a vast number of Gentiles seeking the Lord (if we follow the exact wording of James’ quote), or to David’s tent “possessing” a large number of Gentile nations (if we follow the reading of the Masoretic text). Barker and Kohlenberger[9] explain that in the end times, James is saying God’s people will consist of two concentric groups. At their core will be restored Israel (i.e. David’s rebuilt tent); gathered around will be a group of Gentiles (i.e. “the remnant of people”) who will share in the messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes. Witherington[10] explains that Christianity is portrayed in Acts as a derivative or form of Judaism. Yet Christianity was a missionary and messianic form of that religion and as such was in direct competition with other forms of Judaism. During the Council of Jerusalem, a clearer sense of identity is beginning to form within the church, and as Scott[11] puts it, although the nation Israel and the Old Testament are not insignificant in God's purpose, proper candidates for Christian salvation are not limited to a particular ethnic, national, nor cultural group. The only requirement is acceptance of this gracious gift of God by faith.

Thirdly, there were clear works of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles during that time period as documented in Acts, and Peter testified regarding his own experience with Cornelius in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12), where “signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them”. Cornelius was both an uncircumcised Gentile and an officer in the Roman army. In Acts 10, he is introduced as a God-fearer, an unofficial class of Gentiles possessing qualities and engaging in deeds of harmony with Jewish piety but who stopped short of becoming full proselytes[12]. Peter's contact with Cornelius came at divine initiative. One day Cornelius had a vision from God telling him to find Peter. At the same time, Peter was prepared for Cornelius's summons by a thrice repeated vision from God. Gooding[13] comments that on this occasion God did not even do it through laying on Peter’s hands, as he had not yet reached the end of his sermon, when the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word (Acts 10:44). There was no ceremony, they were not circumcised and not yet baptized. They had not been counselled; they had signed no decision form or made any public confession. It was the fact that they had already received the Holy Spirit that authorized their baptism, and not their baptism that brought about their receiving of the Spirit. If God had purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith and declared Himself so satisfied that he could give them his Holy Spirit, it was appalling for anyone to imply that the purification God himself had effected by faith was not good enough and must be supplemented by circumcision and keeping of the law. We can see these supernatural happenings clearly demonstrate that the inclusion of Gentiles is the will of God.

James listed four prohibitions in Acts 15:29, also known as the Apostolic decrees which, at first, appear to contradict the previous statement about not putting the yoke on Gentiles. On further exploration into the various scholarly explanations for these decrees, we discover James was not contradicting the previous statement. Bauckham[14] summarises that commentators have generally suggested three potential sources for these prohibitions: rabbinic teachings, the so-called Noahic precepts, and Leviticus 17-18. Savelle[15] suggests the most popular source of the prohibitions is Leviticus 17-18 (the so-called "Holiness Code"), because these two chapters have particular reference to non-Jews, that is, "the foreigner living among you" (Lev 17:8, 10, 12-13; 18:26). To understand why the Council came to their decisions, we need to examine the nature of the prohibitions. Savelle[16] discussed the possible nature of the prohibitions as being ethical, societal, cultic, or some combination thereof. Let us examine the decrees: James first mentioned the decrees in Acts 15:20, and then repeated them in the council letter on 15:29 in a slightly different order and wording. In verse 20, abstaining from: 1) food polluted by idols, 2) sexual immorality, 3) meat of strangled animals, 4) blood, and in verse 29: 1) food sacrificed to idols, 2) blood, 3) meat of strangled animals, 4) sexual immorality. To explore the nature of these decrees, it will be helpful to identify the difference between ritual and moral impurity. According to Klawans[17], ritual and moral impurity can be distinguished as follows: 1) In ritual impurity, the source is from bodily flows, corpses, etc., the effect is temporary, contagious impurity, and the resolution is bathing and waiting. 2) In moral impurity, the source is from sins, the effect is defilement of sinners, and the resolution is punishment.

The first decree is “food polluted by idols” (v20) and in a slightly different wording in v29 “food sacrificed to idols”. Although are advising against association with idolatry, Park[18] contends that the former is more ritualistic, while the latter seemed more to do with worship. The second decree, “blood”, draws out different scholarly views. Proctor[19] suggests this blood should be “a metonymy for violence, wounding or murder, the outcome of human conflict”. Whereas Savelle[20] thinks understanding the original word for this in the sense of murder is unlikely. Park[21] asserts that it is to do with the new blood covenant, and that the council might prohibit Gentile Christians from eating ‘blood’ out of consideration for Jesus’ blood, and that the council may move the ‘blood’ from last to second place so as to lay greater emphasis on the mark of the new covenant. According to Savelle[22], most commentators link the third decree, meat of strangled animals, to the Mosaic regulations that prohibit the eating of animals that had not had their blood drained properly (Lev 17:13-14; Deut 12:16, 23). In a strangled animal the blood is not drained out and remains within the carcass, and animals were sometimes killed by being strangled in pagan sacrifice. The fourth decree is sexual immorality. Savelle[23] states that most New Testament uses of this term refer to literal sexual immorality of various kinds, and is also strongly associated with idolatry, as a number of pagan religions included immoral sexual activities as part of their worship.

In the light of this, it will be useful to reconsider the nature of the prohibitions. Gooding[24] proposes that James was not thinking of the great moral commandments of the law. The listing of things the Gentiles were asked to do, were all negative, things to be abstained from. This list does not even include major moral concerns like murder, lying, theft and covetousness. As Savelle notes[25], even though the prohibitions against idolatry and sexual immorality have obvious ethical components, but if these prohibitions are ethical, then why are other significant ethical prohibitions notably absent? From this, we can conclude that the purpose behind the decrees is not for ethical reasons, and therefore James was not contradicting the previous statement about the yoke when he listed these items. We can also see that items on the decree list are practices that would have been abhorrent to Jewish Christians.

Commentators such as Barker and Kohlenberger[26]; Gooding[27]; and Williams[28] all think the prohibitions are sociological in nature, to enable those who were saved to live in harmony with one another. Slee[29] observes that it would not have been long for the church to realize that a divided church was a weak church and that Gentiles treated as second class citizens were not going to remain in the church for long. We can see therefore, a compromise between the two parties was essential for the church to move forward in unity. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a sociological component to the council decision. Witherington[30] points out that there is "evidence that the choking of the sacrifice, strangling it, and drinking or tasting of blood transpired in pagan temples." And the prohibition against sexual immorality can be understood as referring to temple prostitution. He then concludes that James is not offering advice to Gentiles who wish to have fellowship with Jews; rather, he is urging Gentiles who have turned to the true and living God (Acts 14:15) to shun those practices that are indicative of pagan worship.

Savelle[31] agrees that perhaps the most attractive aspect of this view is its ability to provide a thematic umbrella that covers all four prohibitions, and thinks societal or cultic views seem to present the most likely options. After the list of prohibitions, the decree adds the statement: "If you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well" (v. 29). Savelle[32] interprets this as keeping the prohibitions would be spiritually and relationally beneficial, which I also agree with, since it serves to help Gentiles turn away from idol worship and strengthen their fellowship with the Jews. In summary, both sociological and cultic factors are important behind the Council’s decision.

One of the most important lessons we can learn from Act 15 how this passage of the Bible is applicable to the modern church. First, we can see that even in modern days, conflicts arise in churches, especially rapidly growing ones. After all, there is not just one correct way of doing things and individuals form their own opinions on various issues, which can vary without being in conflict with the biblical truth. Furthermore, with the advent of airplanes and internet, we are facing globalization, with people of all nationalities being able to migrate, and societies becoming increasingly multicultural. Therefore, churches face cultural and racial divisions even as of today and we can derive from Acts 15 the principles for dealing with such conflicts.

In Acts 15:1, we see the conflict was identified. Secondly, individuals with conflicting views debated with each other on a personal level. However, that did not resolve the conflict and this was escalated up to the apostles and elders. The church leaders did not overlook this and we see in verse 3 they called for a meeting involving people from both sides of the conflict, and allowed both sides to express their views openly and make testimonies. Finally, the leader James cited a relevant scripture and declared the final decision based on his interpretation of the scripture. This decision was then summarized into a letter and all churches were communicated about the final outcome.

Story[33] suggests that “When conflicts arise, do not avoid them, but welcome them and take them seriously”. He mentions numerous dynamics that are vital for the process of resolving conflicts: acknowledgement of the divine initiative, celebration of the inclusionary saving-activity of God, commitment to unity, the important role of peoples’ stories, discernment of the Holy Spirit’s activities, direction in Scripture, decision and compromise and clear communication of decisions. There are indeed very important things to keep in mind when we seek to resolve conflicts in the church.

Also, as part of the great commission, the church sends out missionaries to plant churches cross-culturally, and missionaries therefore experience even more intense cross cultural conflicts. Hoefer[34] identified some important principles in cross-cultural ministry based on the principles derived Acts 15: Prayerfully choose and send the best person possible to lead this new work (Barnabas-like). Establish a highly trusted individual or board to supervise this work and keep the mother church informed. Quickly move towards identifying and mentoring ethnic leaders in the new church. The mother church must commit to stick with these new people of God, expecting there will be mistakes and great debates as they move forward in their own way. Church leaders keep the priorities of God in the forefront: seeking and saving the lost. The central point of discernment in the discussions is on what really matters and what are merely adiaphora as the Gospel takes root and finds expression in this new culture. The mother church will recognize this new church as a true church as long as it is rooted in the simple Gospel core: salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.

Knowing the applications of Acts 15 on today’s churches is especially important because when the conflict is managed poorly, it will create division. If managed well, the church will experience growth. May churches of all nations grow in unity so that the bride makes herself ready for the wedding of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7).

Bibliography:

Barker, Kenneth L., and Kohlenberger III, John. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2 New Testament, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Gentiles.” In History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, edited by Ben Witherington III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Chance, J. Bradley. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2007.

DeSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament. Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004.

Gooding, David. True to the Faith, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991.

Hoefer, Herbert E. “Principles of cross-cultural/ethnic ministry: the stories of Barnabas and Paul and the Jerusalem Council”, Missio Apostolica, 13 (2005): 139-153.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles, Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 1992

Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2000.

Park, Hyung Dae. “Drawing ethical principles from the process of the Jerusalem council: a new approach to Acts”, Tyndale Bulletin, 61 (2010): 271-291.

Proctor, John. ‘Proselytes and Pressure Cookers: The Meaning and Application of Acts 15:20’, International Review of Mission, 85 (1996): 469-483.

Savelle, Charles H. “A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15”, Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (2004): 449-468

Scott, J. Julius. “The Church's Progress to the Council of Jerusalem according to the Book of Acts”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 205-224.

Slee, Michelle. The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

Story, Lyle. “Luke's instructive dynamics for resolving conflicts: the Jerusalem Council”, Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research, 3 (2011): 99-118.

Williams, David J. New International Biblical Commentary Acts, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990.

Witherington III, Ben The Acts of the Apostles: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.