JERUSALEM, COUNCIL OF

Name given to the meeting described in Acts 15.1 to 15.35, which determined that Gentile Christians were not bound by the Mosaic Law. Acceptance of the date c. a.d. 50 is based on the fact that Gallio, to whose tribunal in Corinth Paul was summoned during his second missionary journey (Acts 18.12–17), was proconsul of Achaia in a.d. 51 to 53. If the Council was held, as Acts implies, shortly before that journey started, it must be dated c. 50.

Occasion. According to Acts 15.1, the meeting was occasioned by the arrival at Antioch of Judaic Christians from Jerusalem who insisted that Gentiles must observe the Mosaic Law. A vigorous controversy ensued, and Paul and Barnabas, with some others, were sent to Jerusalem to present the issue to the Apostles and other leaders. The question was settled after the defense of Gentile freedom from the Law was made by Peter, Barnabas, and Paul. James's confirmation of the defense made this view unanimous. The importance of James with regard to this question stemmed from three factors. He was "the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1.19), one of Jesus's relatives. He was also the head of the Jerusalem Church since Peter's departure (Acts 12.17). Finally, he was a devout observer of the Mosaic Law, a man to whom the most fanatically Jewish of the Christians would listen with respect. The Council did not consider, much less decide, the question of the binding force of the Law on Judaic Christians.

The main source of information about the Council is Acts 15. It is possible that Gal 2.1 to 2.10 describes the same meeting from a different viewpoint. However, the identification of Acts 15 with Galatians is disputed (see galatians, epistle to the).

The Speeches. Two speeches, those of Peter and James, are given in detail in Acts 15. The comments of Barnabas and Paul are simply summarized. One problem here, not yet solved with any unanimity, concerns the unity of events in 15.1 to 15.29. Some scholars maintain that, while there is basic unity, vv. 4 to 5 describe a preliminary meeting, vv. 6 to 21 a formal one among the officials, vv. 22 to 29 a final public session. Others call vv. 1 to 29 a composite, a literary summary of decisions made by the Church with regard to two different but related questions. The first concerned the necessity of the Mosaic Law for Gentile Christians; the second centered around the practical demands to be made on the Gentiles for the furtherance of peaceful common life with the Judaic Christians.

Peter claimed the Gentiles were not bound by the Law. He argued from fact—from the witness of the Holy Spirit who descended upon uncircumcised Gentiles (Cornelius and his household) even as He had upon the Apostles. Peter's final words, "We are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are," stated a principle from which would follow the freeing of even Judaic Christians from the Law.

Barnabas and Paul also appealed to the evidence of divine approval implied by the miracles God had worked among the pagans. They must surely have described the miracles at Iconium (Acts 14.3) and Lystra (Acts 14.9). The order of the names, "Barnabbas and Paul," indicate Luke's historical accuracy, for at Jerusalem Barnabas would have precedence over Paul.

James's speech (vv. 13–18), exclusive of the decree, viewed the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church as a fulfillment of Am 9.11 to 9.12. The crucial part of the citation is: "That the rest of mankind may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is invoked" (Acts 15.17). Such is the text found in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT. James, however, would most likely have quoted from the Hebrew, which reads: "That they may conquer what is left of Edom and all the nations that shall bear my name." The difference makes it appear that the reconstruction of the speech is somewhat artificial. Either James's words have been made more pertinent by recourse to the Greek version of Amos or this part of James's speech owes as much to Luke, or his source, as to James himself.

The Decree and Its Meaning. The decree is listed three times in Acts: fully in vv. 19 to 20 and vv. 28 to 29 and partially in vv. 21, 25. Its all-important point was the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Law. The formula, "For the Holy Spirit and we have decided"(15.28), states the Apostles' conviction that important Church decisions were assisted by the Holy Spirit.

The secondary element in the decree was an injunction to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia intended to make communal life between them and the Judaic Christians less difficult. There are variants in the text at this point, but it is certain that the so-called Eastern text, "to abstain from anything that has been contaminated by idols and from immorality and from anything strangled and from blood," is correct. The partaking of food offered to idols would imply a participation in pagan cults. The eating of meat from which the blood had not been properly drained would have offended the Judaic Christians, since for the Jews blood was the symbol of life and hence something which pertained to the divine (see blood, religious significance of). The "immorality" mentioned probably means marriage within forbidden degrees of kinship. This interpretation is based on the striking similarity between these conciliar injunctions and those of Lv 17 to 18.

In conclusion, the total decree of the Council was a compromise. It must be interpreted according to its historical setting. The main point was the exemption of Gentiles from the Law. The rest of the injunctions were given in the interest of peaceful unity and were applied only in localities where many Judaic Christians were to be found. Outside of Acts no mention is made of them; Paul never refers to them (cf. 1 Cor 8.1–10.30) in his Epistles, an indication that they were only of local and temporary importance.

Bibliography: j. geweiss, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, ed. j. hofer and k. rahner, 10 v. (2d, new ed. Freiburg 1957–65) 1:742, 754–55. a. lemonnyer, Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. ed. l. pirot et al. (Paris 1928–) 113–20. l. marchal, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant et al., 15 v. (Paris 1903–50) 8.2:1682–85. h. waitz, "Das Problem des sog. Aposteldekrets," Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschicte 55 (1936) 227–63. j. r. porter, "The 'Apostolic Decree' and Paul's Second Visit to Jerusalem," Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946) 169–74. m. dibelius, "Das Apostelkonzil," Theologische Literaturzeitung 72 (1947) 193–98. j. dupont, "Pierre et Paul à Antioch et à Jérusalem," Recherches de science religieuse 45 (1957) 42–60, 225–39; "λαὸς ἐξ ἐθν[symbol omitted]ν," New Testament Studies 3 (1956) 47–50. n. a. dahl, "A People for His Name," New Testament Studies 4 (1958) 319–27. c. n. jefford, "Tradition and Witness in Antioch: Acts 15 and Didache 6," Perspectives in Religious Studies 19 (1992) 409–19. j. a. wood, "The Ethics of the Jerusalem Council," in With Steadfast Purpose (Waco, Tex. 1990) 239–58. o. kalu, "Luke and the Gentile Mission: A Study on Acts 15," American Journal of Biblical Studies 1 (1986): 59–65. p. j. achtemeier, "An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986) 1–26. f. f. bruce, "The Church of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67 (1985) 641–61. c. k. barrett, "Apostles in Council and in Conflict: [Acts 15; Gal 2]," Australian Biblical Review 31 (1983) 14–32. p.-h. menoud, "Justification by Faith according to the Book of Acts," Jesus Christ and the Faith: A Collection of Studies (Pittsburgh 1978) 202–27. g. zuntz, "An Analysis of the Report about the 'Apostolic Council,"' Opuscula selecta: Classica, Hellenistica, Christiana (Manchester, England 1972) 216–51.

[n. m. flanagan]