Essentials of Salvation

Jerusalem Counsel

Introduction

The first Christian counsel (the Council of Jerusalem) explored the boundaries of Judaism’s effect on Christian praxis. What could stay, and what was relegated to the past will be examined through the lens of narrative criticism. The book of Acts, chapter 15, verses 1-21 will be our selected pericope, and examined by considering the questions Resseguie poses in Narrative Criticism of the New Testament- An Introduction. Why examine this periscope via narrative criticism? Resseguie offers this: “Like a complex and intriguing puzzle, narrative analysis enlivens the imagination and offers new ways of looking at the familiar.”¹ The first counsel of Christians regarding doctrinal positions to be enforced is of upmost importance to today’s Christian. Examining the selection through the means of narrative criticism will offer valuable insights. The Acts pericope will be examined, based on Resseguie’s questions, in the following areas: Rhetoric, Setting, Characterization, Point of View, Plot, and Reader.

Rhetoric

Repetition

There are two sections in the Council of Jerusalem which repeat. The first is the identification of those opposed to the teachings of Paul and Barnabas regarding circumcision. In verse two, we see that “certain men” disputed with the missionaries, and in verse five, we again see the dispute being highlighted and the certain men identified as converted Pharisees. This repetition is to bring focus and attention to the question of “Why have a council?” It identifies the conflict, and the two parties representing those for and those against holding to Jewish traditions of the Law, known as the Abrahamic Covenant.

The second parallel is drawn between verse three and verse twelve. In verse three we are told of the excitement in which Paul and Barnabas share the news of the conversion of many Gentile believers. This is again repeated in verse twelve as Peter concludes his speech, noting that the Gentiles were sanctified in God’s sight through the giving of the Holy Ghost. Peter notes that this was commuted upon the Gentiles in the same manner that the Holy Ghost was imparted upon the Jews.

The anaphora noted in the passages offers reinforcement of two central ideas in this pericope. Namely that there was a dispute between the application of the Law upon new, Gentile, converts to Christianity. Secondly that there was much rejoicing over the conversion of many Gentiles to Christ. They highlight the main purpose of the Council, which was to decide if the Gentiles were truly sanctified and worthy of inclusion into the ranks of the Jewish converts to Christianity. The overall theme of the passage is to define the requirements for continuing past the salvation experience and into a new life in the Christian faith.

Figures of Speech

The boundaries of this selection from Acts includes the beginning of the narrative describing the start of the divisive teaching of circumcision and the inclusion ends with the sending of four men. The first two are the victors, Paul and Barnabas, the second set are two witnesses who are sent to verify the judgement of the Council. These two are Judas and Silas. This brackets the entire pericope, noting the start and end of the conflict. This bookends the passage and makes it a self-contained narrative.

Another figure of speech, a chiasm, is noted in the passage that James quotes when pronouncing his judgement. As he quotes he says “I will build the tabernacle… which is fallen down; the ruins therof I will set up.” The prophet notes that the Gentiles will be instrumental in the rebuilding of the temple of God.

Temple à Ruins

This chiasm reinforces to the Pharasitical sect of Christians that in order to rebuild the Temple of David, the Gentiles must be grafted in. This will be examined in greater detail later in this paper.

Verse 10 offers a rhetorical question that Peter states in his defense of Paul and Barnabas’s denial of the need for circumcision. Peter states, “why tempt ye … to put a yoke [on them] … which we were not able to bear?” There was no need for the Gentiles to try to fulfil the Law since Christ had already came and fulfilled the Law, ushering in a new dispensation since the old dispensation of the Law was not able to be kept by past generations of the nation of Israel. James adds on to this rhetorical question by quoting the Old Testament. The practice, as noted by Resseguie, of refuting defenders of the law (Judaizers) by quoting scriptures from the Hebrew Bible, was practiced by Jesus himself.² James is merely doing the same as he saw Jesus do.

The entire passage revolves around the antithesis, or opposition between the Christian Pharisees and the missionaries, Paul and Barnabas. Additionally, the parallelism between the (verse 2,5 and verse 3,12) couplets shows the contention of the main characters contrasted against the joy and happiness expressed in the love God has extended to the Gentiles. This gives a balance to the narrative, allowing the contention between the two parties to be muted with the joy over the Gentiles receiving Jesus.

Structure

The narrative is delineated by opening the scene with the Judaizers arguing against Paul and Barnabas. The scene quickly shifts from the mission field to Jerusalem where the council begins. The ending is just as defined, showing our main characters going forth with Judas and Silas to bring the letter stating the decision of the council to all Christians who were confused by the argument. This places the missionaries back on the mission field. The Jerusalem council was placed between Paul’s first missions’ trip and his second, helping the reader of Acts to demarcate the two expeditions. The passage also gives us new information about the position held by James. James’ leadership role is brought to light by showcasing his influence among the brethren at Jerusalem. He cast the final vote, thereby making the decree official doctrine of the church. This privilege would have been given only to the one who was chief amongst them, and set up as judge. This structural change (noting the coming together of Elders and Apostles) gives this passage it’s unofficial title of “The Jerusalem Council.” It is the first major doctrinal decision and assembly after the resurrection of Christ and has implications for the church today.

Setting

Characterrization

There are several characters in the narrative. The first are Paul and Barnabas. We are not given any speeches made by these two throughout this pericope. While the narrator does tell us that they give news, no quotations are given. They are more in the background in this story. While they are the protagonists, their actual part in the story is diminutive compared to Peter and James’ parts. Paul and Barnabas, we are told, brings forth good news that the Gentiles have received Christ and converted to Christianity. They are the protagonists, with the Judaizers becoming the Antagonists.

The Judaizers are rather flat, stock characters. Not much is said about them, other than they disagreed with Paul and Barnabas about following the Law. The title of Pharisee is placed upon them to paint a picture in the minds of the reader that this group of Christians are being too legalistic in their observance of Jewish praxis. One thing to note in this, however, is that they are not painted to be evil. When we think of Pharisee earlier, i.e. in the Gospels, we conjure a picture of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas, the newly elected high priest, as being those evil, power-hungry men whom crucified our Lord. While the term Pharisee is meant to depict a legalistic nature of these argumentative Christians, the connotation of them being evil is not implied. They travelled with Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem Council, and fellowshipped with the other believers while in the council. The Judaizers are not heard from again, after their argument was laid down before the Council in verse five. This group is a foil, using the title of Pharisee to show the group’s overall attitude of legalism. According to Resseguie, “a foil is literally a contrasting background.”⁴ Although the Pharisees could be considered a flat character, in that they play their part consistently through the narrative, they are also dynamic. They are dynamic in that they do undergo a change, in that they drop their arguments and accept the verdict of the Council in not requiring Gentile converts to bear the weight of the old Law.

Peter is the first fully developed character in this narrative. After hearing both sides of the argument, and having the authority Christ had given him earlier, he stands up and is the first character to speak. His first words are “… [the Gentiles had] by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.”⁵ On Robert Alter’s Scale of Means, Peter, in this passage, is near the top of the scale. The reason is because his thoughts and motives are quite clear. He has heard the arguments from both sides and immediately, through the first direct quotation of speech in the narrative, stands for the defense of Paul and Barnabas’ position. The score on Alter’s scale slides even higher for Peter, because we see the reaction from the audience as Peter concludes his speech. Proctor tells us, “… Simon Peter’s speech was the influential moment in the discussion; it was his testimony that really turned the mind of the company.”⁶ This left the audience in silence, and Paul and Barnabas again retell the great joy of the salvation of the Gentiles. This silence, the reaction from the audience, is another narrative device emphasizing the justness of Paul and Barnabas’ position. Using this scale helps the reader determine the reliability of the character in the story, and Peter is given much credibility and authority.

James is one of the last characters in the narrative. He is a dynamic and round character as well. Much like Peter, we learn the mind of James, as the head of the Council. When he speaks, he reinforces Peter’s comments. He backs this up by quoting from authority, that is, from the Scriptures. Like Jesus, he uses the scripture to deflect the attacks of the defenders of the old Law regarding the new Christian believer’s requirements for continuing in covenant with Christ. There is also new information obtained from this selection of Scripture. We learn that James was apparently the head of the church in Jerusalem. By this new knowledge his authority is grown, thus making him a dynamic character, or a character that changes during the scene. He authorizes a letter to be written in the authority of the church to all believers everywhere, of which we have a copy today in the succeeding verses following the Jerusalem Council.

Additionally, Tanner notes the significance of James’ use of Amos, stating, “The restoration commences with God raising up the fallen booth of David ( סבת זיויד ). This phrase does not occur elsewhere in the OT.”⁷ Here Tanner shows the significance of the passage James used. No where else was the House of David compared to a “fallen booth.” It was this desolate condition that necessitated the entry of the Gentiles to restore the Davidic house. This is interesting, considering the theme of Amos is mostly a pronouncement of punishment on the Gentile nations. Tanner continues by noting “The status of being God’s ‘people’— a covenant status— had now become the privilege of Gentiles, not on the basis of the Mosaic covenant but rather on the basis of the new covenant (note esp. 1 Pet 2:4-10).”⁸ It was no longer about following the old Law, but rather obeying the new law, written in the heart and interpreted by the Holy Ghost.

Point of View

Luke tells the story from a third person omniscient point of view. He relates the story of the Jerusalem Council as one who had heard the facts from others, and carefully records them. Another point of view is evidenced in the position of the Judaizers. DeSilva notes:

Like Paul, they sought to enable Jew and Gentile to come together in Christ in one worshipping body, the body of the redeemed. Unlike Paul, they believed it was essential that the Gentiles, not the Jews, alter their behavior to make that fellowship possible.”⁹

From their perspective, they were in the right. They were observant Jews who believed on Jesus as the Messiah. From Luke’s perspective, the Judaizers were the antagonists, clearly not in agreement with what God was doing in and amongst the believers. By the brush stroke of “Pharisee”, Luke displays their opposition to a true move of the Spirit in the Gentile church. Rather than sowing harmony, the Judaizers were sowing discord.

Plot

The crux of the plot is the division between those who hold to the Abrahamic covenant and those who do not wish to impose the Law upon Gentile believers. The Council eventually settles on four things for the Gentile Christians to observe. Some call this the Noahic Covenant. Parsons states “This dietary restriction [Noahic Covenant] to avoid meat with blood in it seems to be echoed in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 and provides a compromise between the sect of the Pharisees and the advocates of the Gentile mission.”¹⁰ Wedderburn offers an opposing view to the position of the Jerusalem Creed’s genesis deriving from the Noahic Covenant. He states, “… some suggest that the four prohibitions of the Apostolic Decree were an abbreviated form of the so-called Noachic rules. Yet there is no evidence for the use of these in the first century.”¹¹ While it is debated as to whether a Noahic or Abrahamic Covenant was intended amongst scholars today, Luke affirms the position of the Council. His sculpting of the plot, along with the causation evidenced in the deliberation of the Council, showcases the scene as one of unity amongst believers after the adversity was nullified by the judgement of the Apostles.

When discussing the Spirit’s role in directing the plot, Wiarda notes “According to Thomas, the Spirit directed James and the others at the Jerusalem Council to one particular type¹² of OT text, while bypassing texts that potentially supported an opposing theology.”¹³ The theological implication implied is that the selection of one passage of Scripture by James to defend his position against the Judaizers through the unction of the Holy Ghost reveals a pattern that today’s church can emulate. In other words, the church can select passages of scripture which seems to agree with what the church feels in the Spirit when there are opposing Scriptures which may be used to buttress the opposition’s viewpoint. While I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions of Thomas or Wiarda, it is one conclusion that might be inferred from James’ defense and judgement upon the conflict posited in the Council of Jerusalem.

Reader

The Apostolic Pentecostal reader can find the work of the Holy Spirit in the Jerusalem Council’s decree. Johnston notes “In the letter, James credited both the Spirit and the community of believers for successfully arriving at the solution.”¹⁴ The work of the Spirit is apparent to many theologians when examining the method for arriving at the correct answer to the problem for which the Council was formed. Not only does Johnston agree, but McIntosh reaffirms this thought. McIntosh discusses the use of Amos by James, noting, “… the prophets agree with Peter, James cites what is by common agreement, Spirit-breathed, proof.”¹⁵ Basically, McIntosh notes that the Holy Ghost was the primary method used in using Amos for concluding the debate.

Most Jews had a preconceived idea of what applied to the Jewish nation and what applied to humankind as a whole. Instone-Brewer notes “The Apostolic Decree may originate from the list of so-called Noachian commandments which Jews regarded as universal.”¹⁶ This background knowledge, which the Jewish reader would have known, explains why the four conditions the Council placed upon the Gentile believers were left in place and the others which were of the Abrahamic Covenant, were left out. The Elders and Apostles believed these four things were universally applied to all of humankind.

In contrast to the narrative criticism approach we have used for the interpretation of the Scriptures, we can also employ Wall’s Canonical Context methodology. Wall states regarding Acts 15, “Not only do these controversies acquire a permanent value within Scripture, but Scripture in turn commends these same controversies to its current readers, who are invited to engage in similar acts of what Karl Popper calls ‘mutual criticism.’”¹⁷ While we no doubt will have controversies in today’s age, we can use canonical context to interpret the Scriptures and arrive at a stable, scripturally sound conclusion.

Conclusion

The narrative from Acts 15 provides the reader with an example of Christians with differing views coming together to resolve differences in a peaceful and productive manner. DeSilva states, “In this episode Luke has effectively tied the Gentile mission to the Jerusalem apostles, the core around which God was forming and renewing his people.”¹⁸ As believers today, we can use the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit as our guides for productive Christian living and avoid placing legalistic conditions on people that were never intended.

Footnotes

[1] James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament- An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 241.
[2] Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament- An Introduction, 61.
[3] Herbert Hoefer, “Principles of Cross-Cultural/Ethnic Ministry: The Stories of Barnabas and Paul and the Jerusalem Council.,” Missio Apostol., 22:1 (2005): 21.
[4] Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament- An Introduction, 124.
[5] Acts 15:7b
[6] John Proctor, “Proselytes and Pressure Cookers: The Meaning and Application of Acts 15:20,” Int. Rev. Mission 85.339 (1996): 470.
[7] J Paul Tanner, “James’s Quotation of Amos 9 to Settle the Jerusalem Council Debate in Acts 15,” J. Evang. Theol. Soc. 55.1 (2012): 67.
[8] Tanner, “James’s Quotation of Amos 9 to Settle the Jerusalem Council Debate in Acts 15”, 75.
[9] David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament- Contexts, Methods, & Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 498.
[10] Mikeal C. Parsons, Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), 151.
[11] A J M Wedderburn, “The ‘Apostolic Decree’: Tradition and Redaction,” Novum Testam. 35.4 (1993): 365.
[12] Italics are his.
[13] Timothy Wiarda, “The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task,” J. Evang. Theol. Soc. 46.2 (2003): 237.
[14] Robin Johnston, Handbook on the Book of Acts (Weldon Spring: WAP Academic, 2017), 154.
[15] John A McIntosh, “‘For It Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit’ Acts 15:28: How Did the Members of the Jerusalem Council Know This?,” Reform. Theol. Rev. 61.3 (2002): 144.
[16] David Instone-Brewer, “Infanticide and the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15,” J. Evang. Theol. Soc. 52.2 (2009): 307.
[17] Robert W. Wall, Hearing the New Testament- Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green, Second Ed. (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2010), 384.
[18] DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 366.

Bibliography