Accounts of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles (chapter 15 in two different forms, theAlexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly inPaul'sletter to the Galatians (chapter 2).[5][6][3][8] Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem, while others have defended this identification.[9]
At the time, most followers of Jesus (which historians refer to asJewish Christians) were Jewish by birth and evenconverts would have considered theearly Christians as a part ofJudaism. According to scholars, the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of the contemporarySecond Temple Judaism with the addition of the belief that Jesus was theJewish Messiah.[19]
The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve a disagreement inAntioch, which had wider implications than just circumcision, since circumcision is considered the "everlasting" sign of theAbrahamic covenant in Judaism (Genesis 17:9–14). The Acts say that "certain men which came down fromJudaea" were preaching that"[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom ofMoses, you cannot be saved";[20] Acts states that furthermore some of thePharisees who had become believers stated that it was "needful to circumcise [the Gentiles,] and to command [them] to keep thelaw of Moses" (KJV).[21]
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.[1] 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 theTorah (i.e. the rules of traditional Judaism (Galatians 2:12)), and Paul the Apostle, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles",[22] who believed there was no such necessity.[1][2][23][24] The main concern for Paul, which he subsequently expressed in greater detail withhis letters directed to theearly Christian communities inAsia Minor, was the inclusion of Gentiles into God'sNew Covenant, sending the message thatfaith in Christ is sufficient forsalvation.[1][23][24]
At the council, following advice offered by Peter (Acts 15:7–11 andActs 15:14), Barnabas and Paul gave an account of their ministry among the gentiles (Acts 15:12), and James quoted from the words of the prophetAmos (Acts 15:16–17, quotingAmos 9:11–12). James added his own words[25] to the quotation: "Known to God from eternity are all His works"[26] and then submitted a proposal, which was accepted by the Church and became known as the Apostolic Decree:
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.[a] For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.
This determined questions wider than that of circumcision, particularly dietary questions, fornication, idolatry, and blood, as well as the application ofBiblical law to non-Jews. It was stated by theapostles andelders in the council: "theHoly 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.[27]
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 teachingdiaspora 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,[28] particularly in regard to non-strangledkosher meat,[29] which contrasts with Paul's advice to Gentiles inCorinth,[30] to "eat whatever is sold in the meat markets" (1 Corinthians 10:25).[31]
The description of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[32] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[33] The historicity of Luke's account in Acts has been challenged[34][35][36] and was rejected by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[37] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[9] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[38]Bruce Metzger'sTextual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994:
In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree[39] as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity—whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree[39] in some such way as those suggested above.[40] An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" [Les problèmes du Livre des Actes d'après les travaux récents (Louvain, 1950), p.70].[41]
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 theseven Noahide laws found in theOld Testament, and thus be a commonality rather than a differential.[7][42][43] However, modern scholars dispute the connection between Acts 15 and the seven Noahide laws.[7] The Apostolic Decree may have been amajor act of differentiation of the early Churchfrom its Jewish roots.[44]
For great as was the success of Barnabas and Paul in the heathen world, the authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as the condition of admission of members into the church, until, on the initiative of Peter, and of James, the head of the Jerusalem church, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noachian Laws—namely, regarding avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal—should be demanded of the heathen desirous of entering the Church.
The Jewish Encyclopedia also states:
R. Emden [...] gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to theseven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding thelaws of Moses and theSabbath.
The 20th-century American Catholic priest and biblical scholarJoseph A. FitzmyerSJ disputes the claim that the Apostolic Decree is based on the seven Noahide laws (Gen 9), and instead proposesLev 17–18 as the basis for it.[7] (See also:Leviticus 18).
The apostolic decree was defined by theCouncil of Florence to have been obsolete when the distinction between Jewish and gentile converts had disappeared:
[The council] also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased.
^According to Bruce Metzger'sTextual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: "the Apostolic Decree [15.29, 15.20, 21.25] [...] contain many problems concerning text and exegesis"; "it is possible [...] (fornication means) marriage within the prohibitedLevitical Degrees (Leviticus 18:6–18), which the rabbis described as "forbidden forporneia", or mixed marriages with pagans (Numbers 25:1; also compare2Corinthians 6.14), or participation in pagan worship which had long been described by Old Testament prophets as spiritual adultery and which, in fact, offered opportunity in many temples for religious prostitution"; "An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis";NRSV has things polluted by idols, fornication, whatever has been strangled, blood;NIV has food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals, blood;Young's has pollutions of the idols, whoredom, strangled thing, blood; Gaus'Unvarnished New Testament has pollution of idolatrous sacrifices, unchastity, meat of strangled animals, blood;NAB has pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, meat of strangled animals, blood.Karl Josef von Hefele'scommentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of theSynod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With theGreeks, 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-thirdApostolic 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 bySt. Augustine in his workContra 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 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 undisputedEcumenical 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."
^Whether or notGalatians 2:1–10 is a record of theCouncil 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 (seePaul the Apostle).Raymond E. Brown in hisIntroduction 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.
^ab"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.
^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 "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. "
^St. James the LessCatholic 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 theright hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9)."
^Kohler, Kaufmann;Hirsch, Emil G.;Jacobs, Joseph; Friedenwald, Aaron;Broydé, Isaac."Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature".Jewish Encyclopedia.Kopelman Foundation. Retrieved3 January 2020.Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involvednudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict ofAntiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons.
^Neusner, Jacob (1993).Approaches to Ancient Judaism, New Series: Religious and Theological Studies. Scholars Press. p. 149.Circumcisedbarbarians, along with any others who revealed theglans penis, were the butt of ribaldhumor. ForGreek art portrays the foreskin, often drawn in meticulous detail, as an emblem of male beauty; and children with congenitally short foreskins were sometimes subjected to a treatment, known asepispasm, that was aimed at elongation.
^McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006).ISBN1-4051-0899-1. 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."
^Robert McQueen GrantAugustus 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 "
^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"
^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."
^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'".
^"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.
^"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.
^"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.
^"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.
^"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.
^"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.
^"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.
^Jewish Encyclopedia: Baptism: "According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8),Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by aproselyte 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 theimposition 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."
^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."
^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. "
^Karl Josef von Hefele'scommentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod ofGangra, 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-thirdApostolic 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 bySt. Augustine in his workContra 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 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 undisputedEcumenical 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."
^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.
^Ex Quo, Benedict XIV, 1756: 62. So the Decree for theJacobites 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.'
Ehrman, Bart D.Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew 2003
Eisenman, Robert, 1997.James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.ISBN0-670-86932-5 A cultural historian's dissenting view based on contemporary texts.
Elsner, Jas.Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph: Oxford History of Early Non-Pauline Christianity 1998ISBN0-19-284201-3
Bible portal
