Since observant Jews had opportunities every day to see the moral laxity of Gentiles, especially in matters of sex, not to even mention their indifference to specifically Jewish concerns about a God-pleasing kosher diet and ritual purity, there would be quite an obstacle to such Jews becoming Christians if they saw what a large number of Gentile adherents the new faith had. As F. F. Bruce (Paul: Apostle of the Heart 174) observes:
“It was all very well for Barnabas and Paul to forge ahead with Gentile evangelization, but meanwhile the Jerusalem leaders had to discharge their own responsibility to commend the gospel to their fellow-Jews. The discharge of this responsibility would not be rendered any easier by reports that large numbers of Gentiles were entering the new fellowship on what must have seemed to be very easy terms.”It is even possible that the direct evangelizing of Gentiles, such as Peter’s visit to the home of Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10), had seriously eroded the general Jewish goodwill toward the new Jesus movement and made possible Herod Agrippa’s execution of James son of Zebedee and attempted execution of Peter (Acts 12).
Add to this the fact that after the death of Agrippa, and the re-institution of Roman procuratorial government in Judea, there was an outbreak of Jewish acts of terrorism by Zealots against the Roman authorities that was countered by the capture and crucifying of the leaders. This made Jews in Palestine all the more suspicious of any of their number who were too friendly to Romans or even Gentiles.
So direct Gentile evangelism was proving very costly to the Jerusalem believers in terms of persecution and hindering conversions. They had every right to be concerned that it be carried out in a responsible way so as not to alienate potential converts among their fellow Jews. This was the occasion for the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15.
From the perspective of 21st Century Christianity, after 2000 years of a Gentile (and mostly Euro-American) Church, it seems strange to us to see some among the earliest Christians insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised and observe all of the law of Moses, not just its ethical or moral commands but its ritual ones as well. Yet we must put ourselves in the situation of that day to properly understand. At that time what we call “Christianity” was a small branch of Judaism with a recently emerging strong impetus to evangelize Gentiles. The biblical anticipation of this outreach to Gentiles, according to many of the earliest Christians, was the Old Testament prophetic picture of Restored Israel (the Jesus people) in the “last days” welcoming a huge influx of Gentiles. As the IVP Acts Commentary puts it:
“Such a ‘proselyte model’ of Gentile conversion [i.e., requiring circumcision and obedience to the whole Torah] was natural to Jews steeped in the Old Testament, which promises that in the last days Gentiles, through the witness of a restored Israel, will flow to Jerusalem and be incorporated into the one people of God (Is 2:2-3; 25:6-8; 56:6-7; 60:2-22; Zech 8:23).”Similarly the NIV Comm.:
“[They did not] oppose reaching Gentiles through the ministry of the church. But they felt that the outreach to Gentiles should … follow a proselyte model, not … be apart from the law. After all, in the last days, all nations were to flow to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem (cf. Isa 2:2-3; 25:6-8; 56:7; 60:3-22; Zec 8:21-23), not depart from it.”Of the passages just cited, the following has special interest, because of how it describes the conditions for Gentile entry into the Restored People of God:
“And foreigners [i.e., Gentiles] who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”” (Isaiah 56:6-7 NIV)This certainly looks like the conditions demanded by the opponents of Paul and Barnabas. Keeping the Sabbath without desecrating it is clearly a Jewish rite, and “holding fast to [God’s] covenant” with Abraham and Moses would certainly involve circumcision.
So with this background we can understand why there would be Jewish adherents to the earliest Jesus Movement who would be troubled by the admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the community. As for the reason Paul and Barnabas (and eventually Peter and James) decided against such a restriction on Gentile entrance into the Church, one needs to read Paul’s lengthy arguments in Galatians. I would recommend that you read that short book as a background to the study of Acts 15.
1 Luke probably knew the names of the “certain individuals” (NRSV, Greek τινες) who caused the furor in Antioch, but he will not dignify them by naming them. In this he follows Paul’s own example. For even when Paul heatedly denounces opponents in his letters, he usually does not name them. These unnamed men may or may not have been those who later argued the extreme case against Paul in Jerusalem (Gal 2:4), but they almost certainly are the men who proceeded further north from Antioch to “infect” Paul’s new congregations in Galatia (Gal 1:6-7; 3:1) and come under Paul’s curse in Galatians 1:8-9. Paul’s strong language about these “false brothers” probably reflects how fiery was the conflict with them in Antioch, which in classic Greek understatement Luke describes as “no small dissension and debate” (στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης Acts 15:2 NRSV, ESV following KJV, ASV; NIV somewhat obscures Luke’s euphemistic language by paraphrasing the phrase as “sharp dispute and debate”).
2 “Debate” (ζήτησις) was common enough within the churches, as it was among the Jewish rabbis. One could argue without producing a breach in fellowship. Paul had several such arguments with Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13; Acts 15:36-39). But when the situation reached the stage of “dissension” (στάσις), a breach of fellowship has occurred (a dangerous situation) and the only solution is conflict resolution in the form of a council of the apostles in Jerusalem.
“The behavior of Paul and Barnabas teaches us that it is right to contend for the truth of the gospel in spite of the debate that may ensue. No local church or denomination should settle for politically expedient peace at the expense of doctrinal purity. At the same time, Antioch's decision to appeal to Jerusalem shows us that doctrinal purity maintained in an atmosphere of contentiousness--at the expense of peace--is an equally wrong situation” (IVP Acts Comm.)When the issue of dispute does not affect the very essence of the gospel, it can and should be handled by conflict resolution. In a sense, this is what Paul often did with his churches in matters such as the speaking in tongues (1Cor 12-14) and the eating of food previously offered to idols (1 Cor 8).
But sometimes — rarely — a doctrinal dispute goes to what both sides regard as the core identity of what is meant by “Christian”. When that happens, conflict resolution will not bring about reconciliation and agreement. Such was the case in the Protestant Reformation (see e.g., Luther). When this is the situation, there is no other course of action open but for the contending parties to become independent bodies.
Paul clearly regarded the teaching of the unnamed men pushing circumcision as a threat to the very essence of the Gospel. The ruling of Peter and James in Acts 15 did not necessarily bring about unity between all the contending parties: but it affirmed the position of Paul’s party as being the Jerusalem church's position as well. But more on that later.
3 As the delegation from the Antioch churches proceeded south through Phoenicia and Samaria on its 250-mile trip to Jerusalem, Luke tells us that Paul and Barnabas excited their hearers with news of “the conversion of the Gentiles” (τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν). The definite article “the conversion” could, of course, have been used merely merely in order to refer to the particular events Luke has just described in Acts 13-14, a kind of missionary report. But since the churches of Phoenicia and Samaria were not the “sending churches” of Paul and Barnabas, and thus were not the proper recipients of such a missionary report, and any such report would also have had to include news of Jews in those cities who had believed in Jesus, another possibility needs to be considered, one which also might explain why Luke says that the news “brought great joy” (ἐποίουν χαρὰν μεγάλην). It is just possible that what Paul and Barnabas were trying to indicate was that what had happened to them in Cyprus and Asia Minor was the first stage of the great turning to God among the Gentiles which was prophesied in Isaiah and other end time prophecies. In other words, this was a sign of the fast-approaching End of All Things, when the Messiah Jesus would return to establish his earthly reign. This response of great joy, then, was much more than “the appropriate response to news that persons of any cultural group have come to salvation” (IVP Commentary). Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Ethiopians would be “cultural groups”. “Gentiles” is not a "cultural" term, but a religious or theological one, for that huge portion of earth’s population which had not been included among God’s chosen people (Israel), but who in the Last Days would experience a massive turning to God through the working of His Spirit.
Witherington (Acts 452) is right in noting that Luke does not say that the missionaries stressed a Law-free conversion of the Gentiles or that the joy shown was an anticipation of a favorable verdict for Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem. Thus we cannot agree with the NIV Commentary, which says of these verses: “The Phoenician and Samaritan Christians, being themselves converts of the Hellenists’ mission after Stephen’s martyrdom (cf. Acts 8:4-25; 11:19), probably took a broader view than that which prevailed at Jerusalem and rejoiced at the news."
4 The delegation from Antioch was warmly received by the Jerusalem leaders (apostles and elders) and church body.
5 Luke’s “but” (or “on the other hand” δέ), introduces the opposing point of view held by Christians who had been part of the Jewish school of thought described by the word “Pharisees”. Although the word "Pharisees" takes on unavoidably negative overtones in the New Testament, due to Jesus’ criticism of the group in the gospels, there is no necessary negative connotation to the word here. In fact, one should also probably avoid using the translation “sect” for the Greek term αἵρεσις Luke employs here to describe the Pharisees. That term (αἵρεσις) is used by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus to describe the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and the other groups within normative Judaism, which he likes to call “philosophies”. They represented alternative, sometimes heatedly competing, ways of interpreting the Law and its application to daily life. They were schools of thought, or parties, but hardly “sects” (although this English term is sometimes used of them). The English word “sect” too often describes a group with views so aberrant from the norm that it has no proper place within the greater group of Christianity (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.). this was not true of groups like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.
6 According to NIV Comm.:
“While Luke says only that the apostles and elders met to consider these questions, his mention of ‘the whole assembly’ in v. 12 and ‘the whole church’ in v. 22 shows that other members of the congregation were also present.“But the “whole assembly” (v. 12) can simply refer to the group comprised by the apostles and elders. And “ with the consent of the whole church” (v. 22) comes at the very end of the closed door deliberations, so that the “whole church” could have heard the recommendations of the smaller deliberative body and concurred with their ruling.
7 The mention of “much (i.e., lengthy) discussion” shows that such an important issue required that every aspect be explored and every point of view heard. Only then does a prominent figure like Peter weigh in with his own experience (i.e., Cornelius, Acts 10-11) and its relevance to the issue.
The choosing of Peter (“made a choice among you”) as the instrument for opening the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles as a group is indeed shown by Acts 10-11, but was foreshadowed much earlier, when Jesus promised the “keys of the kingdom” to Simon Peter (Mat 16:19), which many scholars understand to mean his privilege to open the access to salvation by faith first to Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), then to Samaritans (Acts 8), and finally to Roman Gentiles (Acts 10-11).
8-9 The crucial evidence that God requires no circumcision or keeping of Jewish ritual law was the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius’ group the moment they believed. This argument of Peter’s is the same as that of Paul in his letter to the Galatians (Gal 3:2, 5). And Paul later bolsters it by adding the example of Abraham, who was still uncircumcised when God called him out of Mesopotamia and gave him the promises (Rom 4:11).
10-11 Peter’s conclusion/application comes in the form of a question or challenge to those present who advocated requiring full observance of OT law by the new Gentile converts: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?“ What is meant by “trying to test God”? This expression is used in the Greek translation of the OT texts describing the rebellions of Israel against God and Moses during the desert wanderings. It refers to something very much like what a little child does when its mother says “Don’t touch this newly baked cake”, and as soon as Mother is out of the room, it reaches out to touch it -- just to see if Mother will enforce her rule. See also Acts 5:7-11, where it describes the actions of Ananias and Sapphira. For Paul’s use of the expression see 1Cor 10:9. In other words, Peter was warning that God’s punitive wrath might come upon the Jerusalem Church, if they opposed His clear intention of welcoming Gentiles on the basis of simple faith in Jesus the Messiah, without taking upon themselves all of the obligations of OT law.
Peter goes on the make a statement regarding Jewish experience under the Law which would be contradicted by not only the rabbis of his time but by most of the “establishment” New Testament scholars today! The latter claim that Jews in Paul’s day did not consider law-keeping to be the means of entering God’s covenant family, but merely the way one expressed one’s gratitude to God as a secure member of that family. They also say that bearing the “yoke of the law” was not a burden, but a delight (see quotes from IVP Acts Comm.: “Taking on the yoke of the law and carrying it was a positive image in Judaism (m. Berakot 2:2; m. 'Abot 3:5)”).
Apparently, Peter would respectfully differ! His entire argument depended for its acceptance by all those present (including the Pharisee Christians!) that bearing the yoke of the Law was neither easy nor a delight, but a burden that neither his hearers nor their ancestors could carry. Contrast Jesus’ own promise to those who would become his disciples: “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mat 11:28-30).
12 Peter’s cogent argument reduced the noisy chamber to absolute silence: no one could object. Now it was the turn of Barnabas and Paul to report all that God had accomplished through them on their recent mission. In making this report they not only offer an argument in support of Peter’s conclusion, but fulfill a command of Jesus recorded by Luke himself (Luke 8:39; 9:10). Since Barnabas’ name comes first, it is likely that, because he had closer connections in the Jerusalem church and was widely respected there, he was chosen to speak first.
13-21 As the recognized leader of the Jerusalem Church, it is James (Hebrew Jacob), the brother of Jesus, who has the final word. Since James was extremely strict in his personal observance of OT law, doubtless the opponents of Paul and Barnabas hoped for support from him. He summarizes the most important arguments and expresses what was fast becoming the consensus view, which supported Peter, Paul and Barnabas.
James provides us here with a good example: be as ascetic and self-denying as you want in your private life. But do not become a Pharisee in judging others in the church whose private lives seem to you less rigorous and self-denying.
14 See New Documents 1:94, where it is rightly observed that Luke’s use of the name-form “Simeon” instead of "Peter" in James’ speech (Acts 15:14) shows that the latter was using Aramaic. It also accords with the theory that this part of ch. 15 derives from a Jerusalem source rather than being a free composition of Luke’s.
James refers to Peter’s experience with Cornelius and the former’s observation that the spontaneous giving of the Spirit to these Gentiles showed God’s acceptance of them as Gentiles. But he adds that this accords with OT prophecy (v. 15-18, quoting Amos 9:11-12 [see footnote "b" in the translation] in the Greek LXX).
One can be too fine in reconstructing the particulars of James’ interpretation of the Amos passage and its application to his times. Perhaps a more general understanding can be agreed upon by all interpreters today: the prophets predict that in the “last days”, meaning just “in the future” as this phrase often means in the Hebrew OT, God will bring many Gentiles into his fold. James sees in this passage that God wishes to facilitate that entry, not make it more difficult. Hence, he concludes that this council also not make it more difficult (v. 19).
20 Still, there have to be minimal standards. And James suggests here what they should be. The three selected make up a strange-looking group. As usually interpreted, the first — abstaining from eating meats purchased in the public market which had first been presented in pagan temples — was to guard against even the suggestion that Christians believed in more than one God. The second — abstaining from (usually translated “sexual immorality” or “fornication”) — was to keep monogamy and marital fidelity (sacred since Genesis 2!) unsullied and protected. But the third seems to be involving Jewish kosher practices, seemingly at odds with James’ own verdict just given!
You should not, however, regard these three prescriptions as conditions for salvation, as though anyone who once or twice might engage in such a practice would lose his status as a saved person. Paul’s own advice to the church at Corinth about some members who eat meat previously offered in pagan temples (Rom 14-15; 1 Cor 8) shows what was also James’ intention here. It was the Church’s strong recommendation that these three practices be avoided. A Gentile must regard his Jewish fellow-believer as what Paul called the “weaker” fellow believer (1Cor 8:7-8), who has more scruples against eating non-kosher food. You should not invite such a man to your house and serve him meat from an animal which was not properly drained of its blood when slaughtered. This would be an offense against that person’s sincere scruples. Many Christians today voluntarily abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages when sharing a meal with fellow Christians who are tee-totalers out of conscience.
22-35 The final action of the Jerusalem Council was to draft a resolution and a ruling to be sent back to the inquiring church at Antioch, and to be relayed to any of the Gentile-dominated churches of Cyprus and Asia Minor affected by the previous missionary journey. To assure the church at Antioch that what they heard was not just Paul and Barnabas’ version of the proceedings (v. 27), highly respected members of the Jerusalem church were sent with them (v. 25-27). Verse 24 deliberately repudiates the earlier group from Jerusalem who had caused such anxiety in Antioch.
31-35 As is his custom, Luke closes this section with a description of the beneficial effects of the whole incident and its judicious resolution upon the Church as a whole, and in this case, upon the local church at Antioch where the disturbance began. the results are: joy, encouragement, stability, and the effective propagation of the gospel message.
But not all was settled. About later years Henry Chadwick (The Church in Ancient Society) notes sadly:
The first-century aspiration to keep Jewish and uncircumcised Gentile believers within one single community was difficult to maintain. The epistle to the Ephesians already presupposes that the problems were severe. In the middle years of the second century Justin Martyr (Dialogue 46–48) knew of Jewish Christian communities who believed Jesus to be Messiah and observed the prescriptions of the Torah, perhaps also the traditions of the elders, and did not expect Gentile Christians to be circumcised or to observe the sabbath and food laws. He also knew of other Jewish groups whose only point of difference from the synagogue was belief in Jesus the Messiah. Justin was sad that Jewish and Gentile believers had ceased to be able to worship together, and that the numerous Gentile Christians were in many cases failing to grant full recognition to their Jewish brethren.
No comments:
Post a Comment