From the Comments: The Connection of the Church with Israel, Part 7 (The Jerusalem Council’s Decision)

graftedolivetreeIn the last post, we considered the process by which the Jerusalem church’s leadership came up with an answer to the circumcision question: whether Gentiles must convert to Judaism to be saved.

Peter and Paul both addressed the council, pointing out that God himself had done miracles and accepted Gentiles based on faith in Jesus, without works of the law, such as circumcision.

James, the brother of Jesus, evidently acting as chairman, concluded,

(Act 15:20-21 ESV)  20 “[We] should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.  21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

This is a bit surprising to us Westerners. After all, what does strangulation by a butcher have to do with conversion to Judaism?

One clue is found in v. 21: “For Moses … has had in every city those who proclaim him.” Who are these? Surely the Jews. Therefore, it sounds like James is speaking of Jewish sensibilities — because if he were speaking of eternal law, why would it matter whether Jews might be around in every city? This sounds to me very much like a Romans 14 sort of decision — which bothers many who are looking for simple black and white rules.

But I just learned that N.T. Wright agrees —

The letter then gives the instructions which were mooted in James’s speech. Gentile believers are not to be required to undergo circumcision; that is the meaning of the rather vague ‘not to lay any burden on you’ (from the very beginning, it seems, official church documents lapsed by some kind of inexorable law into abstractions!). And they, the Gentile believers, are requested to make sure that they stay well clear of the main areas in which pagan culture, particularly pagan temples and what went on there, would give offence to Jews, whether believers or not. The final flourish, ‘if you abstain from these, you will do well’, could sound a little grudging, but again it should be understood as ‘official-ese’. The real meaning is: ‘That’s all we ask, and if that’s in place we are delighted to regard you as full members of the family.’ We should note that this doesn’t mean, ‘If you find it hard to comply with these, your very salvation is in doubt’, but ‘If you cannot comply, it would make things much, much harder for all of us on this side of the fence.’

Tom Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 13-28 (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008), 50. Thus, Wright concludes that the letter is seeking to bring about peace between Jews and Gentiles, taking into account Jewish sensibilities, without requiring the Gentiles to convert.

The New International Commentary by F. F. Bruce is to much the same effect —

There remained, however, a practical problem. In most cities Gentile believers had to live alongside Jewish believers, who had been brought up to observe the levitical food restrictions and to avoid contact with Gentiles as far as possible. If there was to be free association between these two groups, certain guidelines must be laid down, especially with regard to table fellowship. Members of the church of Jerusalem might have little experience of this social problem at home, but it disturbed them to hear of Jewish Christians elsewhere who associated with Gentile Christians in a totally relaxed manner, as though the time-honored food restrictions were no longer valid. Peter’s initial breach with convention in entering the house of Cornelius had been overlooked, since he acted under divine compulsion; but his sitting at table with Gentile Christians in Antioch caused grave scandal in Jerusalem. Readers of the New Testament today are familiar with Paul’s totally emancipated attitude in such matters, and may be tempted to suppose that it was generally shared; in fact, Paul was probably quite exceptional in this regard (as in several others) among Jewish believers.

James therefore gave it as his considered judgment that Gentile Christians should be directed to avoid food which had idolatrous associations and the flesh of animals from which the blood had not been completely drained, and that they should conform to the Jewish code of relations between the sexes instead of remaining content with the pagan standards to which they had been accustomed.

It is natural that, when the stumbling block of circumcision had been removed, an effort should have been made to provide a practical modus vivendi for two groups of people drawn from such different ways of life. The modus vivendi was probably similar to the terms on which Jews of the dispersion found it possible to have a measure of fellowship with God-fearing Gentiles. The prohibition against eating flesh with the blood still in it (including the flesh of strangled animals) was based on the “Noachian decree” of Gen. 9:4.

F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 295–296.

R.J.Utley agrees,

All of these “essentials” relate not to salvation, but to fellowship within mixed churches and expanded opportunities for Jewish evangelism.

Robert James Utley, Luke the Historian: The Book of Acts, vol. Volume 3B, Study Guide Commentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2003), 186.

G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson take largely the same view, although a bit more nuanced —

That, however, is not the end of the matter. The Gentiles are required to abstain from foods sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood. Behind this list many scholars detect the influence of Lev. 17–18, which contains various regulations that are binding also on aliens “living among you” in Israel (Pesch 1986: 2:81; Jervell 1998: 397–98). In Leviticus only sacrifices offered at the tent of meeting are acceptable, with the implication that only the meat of these may be consumed; hence the text can be taken as indirectly forbidding the consumption of sacrificial meat offered to idols (Lev. 17:8–9). The consumption of blood is expressly forbidden (Lev. 17:10–12). The blood must be drained from any animal that is eaten; hence it can be argued that implicitly the eating of animals killed by strangulation (without draining off the blood) is forbidden (Lev. 17:13–14). Sexual immorality of all kinds is said to be forbidden in Lev. 18:26 (but the reference is to the preceding list of forbidden relationships, and prostitution is not mentioned). These four items occur in the same order in Acts 15:29 (though not in 15:20). In Leviticus these regulations are bound up with the fact that such actions pollute the land. The statement in Acts does not reflect specifically LXX phraseology at this point. The word alisgēma (“pollution”) occurs in the Greek Bible only here in Acts 15:20 (although the cognate verb alisgeō occurs in Dan. 1:8; Mal. 1:7, 12; Sir. 40:29). The word porneia (“sexual immorality”) is not used in Leviticus, but many examples of it are given. Bauckham (1996: 174–78) argues that the choice of these restrictions (excluding the Sabbath requirement on resident aliens in Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14) reflects the prophecies about the Gentiles joining the people of God and living “in the midst of them,” specifically Jer. 12:16; Zech. 2:11. Only the pentateuchal rules for aliens “in the midst” are applied here to Gentiles in the new people of God. The gezerah shavah link (use of a common word creating a link) between the passages depends on the MT and not on the LXX. So Gentiles do not have to become Jews (i.e., proselytes) when they come into the new people of God, but they are required to keep the commandments that applied to Gentiles living in Israel. Thus certain aspects of the OT law were applied to Gentiles. Nevertheless, the prohibition of nonkosher food has been quietly dropped from most Christian practice. On this, see the comment by Calvin (Calvin 1965–1966: 2:51–52, cited in Barrett 1994–1998: 738).

This interpretation is not universally accepted. The proposal to find the origin of the requirements elsewhere, specifically in the “Noachian precepts” that developed in Judaism as God’s law for all peoples (cf. Gen. 9:4–6; Jub. 7:20; see Str-B 3:37–38), is less convincing, but the broad similarities are not surprising. Barrett (1994–1998: 734–35) notes that Jews under persecution faced three issues on which compromise was impossible—idolatry, the shedding of blood, and incest—and thinks that these are the basis of the requirements here, but the parallel is much less close, and the rationale for the adoption of these points here is not clear. Turner (1982: 114–19) and Witherington (1998: 464–65) are skeptical of the appeal to Lev. 17–18. Turner argues that Luke did not expect believing Gentiles to keep the law and that Jewish law required more from the Gentiles than simply the four requirements listed; these are ad hoc requirements, the minimum needed to enable fellowship with scrupulous believing Jews. Witherington draws attention to the points where the requirements do not correspond very precisely with those in Leviticus and develops an alternative understanding of the passage as prohibiting the eating of sacrificial food in pagan temples. It can be seen that these regulations would in fact deal on a practical level with the problem of fellowship at the table in mixed churches (similarly, Blomberg 1984: 65–66).

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI;  Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;  Apollos, 2007), 593–594.

In short, the consensus of some of the greatest conservative scholars is that James and the council agreed with Peter and Paul that faith in Jesus is sufficient to save without works of the Law, but James also understood that the infant church would struggle for Gentiles and Jews to eat together unless the Gentiles were to yield on certain sensitive matters, such such as meat sacrificed to idols and eating blood or the flesh of strangled animals.

Hence, as important as this passage is, we usually draw the wrong conclusions here. This is not the drawing of the line between those parts of the Law that survived Pentecost and those that did not, but another excellent and important example of how the strong in the church must sometimes give up their freedom for the sake of the consciences of the weak.

The real unifying thought in James’ conclusion is not how to rightly divide the Law of Moses or the Noahide (or “Noachide”) laws — but how to eat together.  And sexual immorality was a routine part of Grecian formal dinners. Hetairai — courtesans who provided sexual favors, that is, high class prostitutes — were standard after-dinner entertainment.

Hence, James is worried about something that we don’t even think about: how to conduct oneself at the dinner table with fellow Christians. Every single element mentioned by James could have been part of a common meal in the Grecian world of Asia Minor. And the centrality of common meals is shown by the fact that Peter refused to eat with the uncircumcised converts in Antioch (Gal 2). The early church was all about eating together.

We don’t eat together in the same sense that the early church did. The love feast is not a routine part of our weekly church life. And we certainly aren’t worried about eating with people of another race or ethnicity — they attend a different church where they are “more comfortable.” (Sorry for the cynicism. It’s also true that racially mixed dining is not the taboo it once was in the US.)

But James and Paul — over and over — see being together at the same table as near the core of the gospel. Indeed, Romans 14 appears to have been written with the common table in mind.

We’ve definitely missed something — something so central to the life of a Christian that we struggle to interpret many passages because “church” is just so different for us.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Connection of Church with Israel, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to From the Comments: The Connection of the Church with Israel, Part 7 (The Jerusalem Council’s Decision)

  1. laymond says:

    “In the last post, we considered the process by which the Jerusalem church’s leadership came up with an answer to the circumcision question: whether Gentiles must convert to Judaism to be saved.”
    Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    I don’t understand why these people decided against using the wisdom of the holy ghost, and decided to consult the council. Even if as I believe the apostles only were the receipent of the holy ghost, that should be sufficent to conclude the question, but if as others believe, this holy ghost was given to all Christians then it should be a given, where to go for the answer. Why did they not go there.?
    We seem to think every book in the bible stands independent of the others. And sometimes it seems we have to ignore one book in order to understand the other. If these people had only to call on the holy ghost and receive the correct answer, why did they not do that? If you ask the Father in my name , he will give it to you. paraphrase but close.

  2. rich constant says:

    Jay ?
    David SAYS
    11:9 And David says,
    “Let their table become a snare and trap,
    a stumbling block and a retribution for them;

    The operative word, for me being “THEIR”… commandments of ”clean and unclean”?
    as of late i am leaning to table fellowship of the Jew’s on this…
    what u got .
    🙂

    12:1 These are the statutes and ordinances you must be careful to obey as long as you live in the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors,1 has given you to possess.2

    Deuteronomy 12
    The Central Sanctuary
    Regulations for Profane Slaughter
    The Sanctity of Blood
    The Abomination of Pagan Gods

    although their are the tablets of stone which i think Paul was referring to in ROM. 7

    7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I14 would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else15

    if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”16

    so ?
    rich

  3. Ray Downen says:

    It seems sensible to consult apostolic writings when we want to hear advice from God through His Spirit. How else are we to know? Are there among us today people who receive knowledge of God’s will and Word in some other way than through what was revealed in apostolic writings? I think not. I greatly appreciate the writing of some men/women today, and their advice is sensible and helpful. But their best counsel is when they point to the apostolic writings which apply to the question before us. Jay’s pointing us to the fact that the early church ate meals together is helpful indeed. There’s no record of their ever sharing the Lord’s SUPPER except during a meal. “Breaking bread” is not speaking of a ceremonial bit and sip but instead of speaking of sharing food and table talk. It was during meals that the needs of some were most likely made known so that the church people who had could share with those who had need. A comparative few could sit around one table, so obviously “small groups” fellowship began as soon as a church grew beyond a few people.

  4. Ralph says:

    Lamond: I don’t understand why you think the apostles didn’t use the wisdom of the holy ghost in this situation. Or do you think that the apostles and church leaders in Jerusalem were somehow divorced from the Holy Spirit in their collective wisdom?

  5. John Fewkes says:

    Lamond, elsewhere I posted thought on the gift/gifts of the Holy Spirit; you might lok at those.

    DECISION MAKING IN ACTS 6 (15) look at the process
    1) need presented, 15:1 (6:1)
    2) need considered 15:.2 (6:2)
    3) involvement solicited 15:2 (6:3)
    4) decision making criteria established 15:2,6 (6:3)
    5) searching for solutions 15:7 (6:3) “Though the apostles and elders were under the inspiration of the Almighty, and could by this inspiration have immediately determined the question, yet it was highly necessary that the objecting party should be permitted to come forward and allege their reasons for the doctrines they preached; and that these reasons should be fairly met by argument, and the thing proved to be useless in itself, inexpedient in the present case, and unsupported by any express authority from God,” (from Adam Clarke’s Commentary,) Sometimes the “old men” make more sense the the “new kids”.
    6) solutions considered for acceptance 15:7-21 (6:5)
    7) decision implemented 15:22-23 (6:6)
    If we look at verses 4-7 we can see the process:
    4: Paul and Barnabas rec’d. by apostles, elders, and brethren, and share their message with the entire group
    5: Judaizing teachers make their pitch
    6: Apostles and elders meet in small setting;
    7: much debate: must have been a much larger setting than v.6 for the apostles and elders were surely not debating among themselves – the HS had/was guiding them into the truth of the matter; thus the debate would have been with the Judaizing teachers. That this is so is clear from Peter’s address: “Brethren” and from verse 12, also verse 22.
    How do we handle doctrinal problems – differing opinions – what decides the difference between DIVINE DOCTRINE and mans’ opinion? Who decides? On what basis of authority? This chapter should really be the basis for considering differences among brothers.

  6. laymond says:

    Ralph, what I am saying, is would not just one of the apostles, who received the holy ghost be a sufficient number to decide the truth of the matter.
    Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

    I believe Jesus said he was going to send them out just as the Father had sent him out , and I can’t remember one time where Jesus was deficient in knowledge, of right and wrong.

  7. The gist of Jay’s article is that the eating of meat offered to idols or blood was not a matter of “right” or “wrong” but of easing the scrupulous Jews’ squeamishness about the Gentile diet. Can you imagine sitting down to eat with someone who relished a good meal of dog – or cat? How many people in our squeamish North American churches could even stomach the escargot that sophisticated Frenchmen relish? If you were a Jew to whom even the smell of bacon frying, how willing would you be to have pork’n’beans served at the church love feast? This counsel was about finding a way the Jews and Gentiles could become family, even though they came from radically different cultures. Romans 14 is directly in line with this understanding of Acts 15! When we take Acts 15 as law instead of guidelines for active fellowship, we get into a real quagmire.

  8. Should have written, “even the smell of bacon frying was revolting….”

  9. The real unifying thought in James’ conclusion is not how to rightly divide the Law of Moses or the Noahide (or “Noachide”) laws – but how to eat together.

    I did a little happy dance when I read this. Thanks, Jay, for pointing out the simplicity we often lose when we start our usual dissection of scripture. Sometimes I think we have developed the assumption that the more complex and abstruse we can make something, the wiser and more spiritual we are. “Today’s sermon is ‘Twelve Reasons Why Elisha Made The Axhead Float’ with footnotes in Hebrew and a comprehensive analysis of the use of the word “stick” and its connection to the cross!”

    Meanwhile, the kid in the third row says, “I thought he did that so they could get the axhead back.”

  10. Jay Guin says:

    Charles wrote,

    I did a little happy dance when I read this.

    🙂

  11. Ray Downen says:

    N. T. Wright is quoted “We should note that this doesn’t mean, ‘If you find it hard to comply with these, your very salvation is in doubt’, but ‘If you cannot comply, it would make things much, much harder for all of us on this side of the fence.’”

    But indeed their salvation WAS in doubt if they dared to add to what was necessary and claimed to be speaking for God. And the conference was held because some had come to the Gentile churches claiming to represent the Jerusalem leaders and had stated that Christians needed to be circumcised and keep the Jewish Law. That’s why the conference was held. It was to clarify whether or not Gentile Christians had to become Jews in order to be Christians.

    Paul was teaching there was no need to keep Jewish laws of any kind in order to be a Christian. His enemies came there teaching Paul was wrong and claiming to represent the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. We all should rejoice that we are NOT under law, whether it regards what we do in our assemblies or what we do elsewhere.

Comments are closed.