THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM
The lesson for to-day deals with one of the most important events in apostolic history. At the Jerusalem council the principles of the Gentile mission and of the entire life of the Church were brought to clear expression. If the original apostles had agreed with the Judaizers against Paul, the whole history of the Church would have been different. There would even have been room to doubt whether Paul was really a disciple of Jesus; for if he was, how could he come to differ so radically from those whom Jesus had taught? As a matter of fact, however, these dire consequences were avoided. When the issue was made between Paul and the Judaizers, the original apostles decided whole-heartedly for Paul. The unity of the Church was preserved. God was guiding the deliberations of the council.
1. THE ACTS AND GALATIANS
The treatment of to-day's lesson in the Student's Text Book is based upon the assumption that Gal. 2:1-10 is an account of the same visit of Paul to Jerusalem as the visit which is described in Acts 15:1-29. That assumption is not universally accepted. Some scholars identify the event of Gal. 2:1-10, not with the Apostolic Council of Acts 15:1-29, but with the "famine visit" of Acts 11:30; 12:25. Indeed, some maintain that the Epistle to the Galatians not only contains no account of the Apostolic Council, but was actually written before the council was held—say at Antioch, soon after the first missionary journey. Of course this early dating of Galatians can be adopted only in connection with the "South Galatian theory"; for according to the "North Galatian theory" the churches addressed in the epistle were not founded until after the council, namely at the time of Acts 16:6.
Undoubtedly the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with Acts 11:30; 12:25, avoids some difficulties. If Gal. 2:1-10 be identified with Acts 15:1-29, then Paul in Galatians has passed over the famine visit without mention. Furthermore there are considerable differences between Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-29. For example, if Paul is referring to the Apostolic Council, why has he not mentioned the apostolic decree of Acts 15:23-29? These difficulties, however, are not insuperable, and there are counter difficulties against the identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit.
One such difficulty is connected with chronology. Paul says that his first visit to Jerusalem took place three years after his conversion, Gal. 1:18, and—according to the most natural interpretation of Gal. 2:1—that the visit of Gal. 2:1-10 took place fourteen years after the first visit. The conversion then occurred seventeen years before the time of Gal. 2:1-10. But if Gal. 2:1-10 describes the famine visit, then the time of Gal. 2:1-10 could not have been after about A. D. 46. Counting back seventeen years from A. D. 46 we should get A. D. 29 as the date of the conversion, which is, of course, too early.
This reasoning, it must be admitted, is not quite conclusive. The ancients had an inclusive method of reckoning time. According to this method three years after 1914 would be 1916. Hence, fourteen plus three might be only what we should call about fifteen years, instead of seventeen. Furthermore, Paul may mean in Gal. 2:1 that his conference with the apostles took place fourteen years after the conversion rather than fourteen years after the first visit.
The identification of Gal. 2:1-10 with the famine visit is not impossible. But on the whole the usual view, which identifies the event of Gal. 2:1-10 with the meeting at the time of the Apostolic Council of Acts 15:1-29, must be regarded as more probable. The Apostolic Council probably took place roughly at about A. D. 49. The conversion of Paul then should probably be put at about A. D. 32-34.
2. THE JUDAIZERS
Conceivably the question about the freedom of the Gentiles from the law might have arisen at an earlier time; for Gentiles had already been received into the Church before the first missionary journey. As a matter of fact, indeed, some objection had been raised to the reception of Cornelius. But that objection had easily been silenced by an appeal to the immediate guidance of God. Perhaps the case of Cornelius could be regarded as exceptional; and a similar reflection might possibly have been applied to the Gentile Christians at Antioch. There seemed to be no danger, at any rate, that the predominantly Jewish character of the Church would be lost. Now, however, after a regular Gentile mission had been carried on with signal success, the situation was materially altered. Evidently the influx of Gentile converts, if allowed to go on unhindered, would change the whole character of the Church. Christianity would appear altogether as a new dispensation: the prerogatives of Israel would be gone. The question of Gentile Christianity had existed before, but after the first missionary journey it became acute.
Perhaps, however, there was also another reason why the battle had not been fought out at an earlier time. It looks very much as though this bitter opposition to the Gentile mission had arisen only through the appearance of a new element in the Jerusalem church. Were these extreme legalists, who objected to the work of Paul and Barnabas—were these men present in the Church from the beginning? The question is more than doubtful. It is more probable that these legalists came into the Church during the period of prosperity which followed upon the persecution of Stephen and was only briefly interrupted by the persecution under Herod Agrippa I.
These Jewish Christian opponents of the Gentile mission—these "Judaizers"—must be examined with some care. They are described not only by Luke in The Acts but by Paul himself in Galatians. According to The Acts, some of them at least had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees before they had become Christians. Acts 15:5.
The activity of the Judaizers is described by Luke in complete independence of the account given by Paul. As usual, Luke contents himself with a record of external fact, while Paul uncovers the deeper motives of the Judaizers' actions. Yet the facts as reported by Luke fully justify the harsh words which Paul employs. According to Paul, these Judaizers were "false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Gal. 2:4. By calling them "false brethren" Paul means simply that they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel—the principle of justification by faith. They were still trying to earn their salvation by their works instead of receiving it as a gift of God. At heart they were still Jews rather than Christians. They came in privily into places where they did not belong—perhaps Paul means especially into the church at Antioch—in order to spy out Christian liberty. Gal. 2:4. Compare Acts 15:1.
The rise of this Judaizing party is easy to understand. In some respects the Judaizers were simply following the line of least resistance. By upholding the Mosaic law they would escape persecution and even obtain honor. We have seen that it was the Jews who instigated the early persecutions of the Church. Such persecutions would be avoided by the Judaizers, for they could say to their non-Christian countrymen: "We are engaged simply in one form of the world-wide Jewish mission. We are requiring our converts to keep the Mosaic law and unite themselves definitely with the people of Israel. Every convert that we gain is a convert to Judaism. The cross of Christ that we proclaim is supplementary to the law, not subversive of it. We deserve therefore from the Jews not persecution but honor." Compare what Paul says about the Judaizers in Galatia. Gal. 6:12,13.
3. THE APOSTOLIC DECREE
At first sight it seems rather strange that Paul in Galatians does not mention the apostolic decree. Some have supposed that his words even exclude any decree of that sort. In Gal. 2:6 Paul says that the pillars of the Jerusalem church "imparted nothing" to him. Yet according to The Acts they imparted to him this decree. The decree, moreover, seems to have a direct bearing upon the question that Paul was discussing in Galatians; for it involved the imposition of a part of the ceremonial law upon Gentile Christians. How then, if the decree really was passed as Luke says it was, could it have been left unmentioned by Paul?
There are various ways of overcoming the difficulty. In the first place it is not perfectly certain that any of the prohibitions contained in the decree are ceremonial in character. Three of them are probably ceremonial if the text of most manuscripts of The Acts is correct. Most manuscripts read, at Acts 15:29: "That ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you." Here "things offered to idols" apparently describes not idolatrous worship, but food which had been dedicated to idols; and "blood" describes meat used for food without previous removal of the blood. This meaning of "blood" is apparently fixed by the addition of "things strangled." Since "things strangled" evidently refers to food, probably the two preceding expressions refer to food also. According to the great mass of our witnesses to the text, therefore, the apostolic decree contains a food law. A few witnesses, however, omit all reference to things strangled, not only at Acts 15:29 but also at v. 20 and at ch. 21:25. If this text be original, then it is possible to interpret the prohibitions as simply moral and not at all ceremonial in character. "Things offered to idols" may be interpreted simply of idolatry, and "blood" of murder. But if the prohibitions are prohibitions of immorality, then they cannot be said to have "imparted" anything to Paul; for of course he was as much opposed to immorality as anyone.
However, the more familiar form of the text is probably correct. The witnesses that omit the word "strangled" are those that attest the so-called "Western Text" of The Acts. This Western Text differs rather strikingly from the more familiar text in many places. The question as to how far the Western Text of The Acts is correct is a hotly debated question. On the whole, however, the Western readings are usually at any rate to be discredited.
In the second place, the difficulty about the decree may be overcome by regarding Gal. 2:1-10 as parallel not with Acts 15:1-29 but with Acts 11:30; 12:25. This solution has already been discussed.
In the third place, the difficulty may be overcome by that interpretation of the decree which is proposed in the Student's Text Book. The decree was not an addition to Paul's gospel. It was not imposed upon the Gentile Christians as though a part of the law were necessary to salvation. On the contrary it was simply an attempt to solve the practical problems of certain mixed churches—not the Pauline churches in general, but churches which stood in an especially close relation to Jerusalem. This interpretation of the decree is favored by the difficult verse, Acts 15:21. What James there means is probably that the Gentile Christians should avoid those things which would give the most serious offense to hearers of the law.
In the Library.—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp. 125-166. Lightfoot, "Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians," pp. 123-128 ("The later visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem"), 292-374 ("St. Paul and the Three"). Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," pp. 48-60, 152-175. Lewin, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. ix. Conybeare and Howson, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," ch. vii. Stalker, "The Life of St. Paul," pp. 108-118. Lumby, pp. 185-200. Cook, pp. 451-458. Plumptre, pp. 93-101. Rackham, pp. 238-259, 263-270.