Council of Jerusalem

"Council of Jerusalem" is a name applied subsequently to a meeting described in Acts of the Apostles chapter and probably referred to in St. Paul's letter to the Galatians. The events described there are generally dated to around the year 50, at the latest some time before the death of James the Just in 62. St.Paul himself described several meetings with the apostles in Jerusalem, though it is difficult to reconcile any of them fully with the account in Acts (see Paul of Tarsus - 'Council of Jerusalem). Paul claims he "went up again to Jerusalem" ( ie a second time) with Barnabas and Titus "in response to a revelation", in order to "lay before them the gospel (he) proclaimed among the Gentiles" (Gal 2:2); them being according to Paul "those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders" (Gal 2:6): James, Cephas and John/ He describes this as a "private meeting" (not a public council) and notes that neither he nor Titus, who was Greek, were pressurised to be circumcised. However, he refers to "false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us" (Gal 2:4). Paul claims the pillars had no differences with him, on the contrary they gave him the "right hand of fellowship", he bound for the mission to the uncircumcised and they to the circumcised, requesting only that he remember the poor of Jerusalem. Whether this was the same meeting as that described in Acts is not universally agreed.

The issues
The purpose of the council, according to Acts,was to resolve a disagreement within the Early Christian community between those, such as the followers of the Pillars of the Church, led by James who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see also Supersessionism, New Covenant (theology)). The primary issue in dispute related to the requirement of circumcision, as the author of Acts relates. The initial confrontation had taken place in Antioch, where Paul had been preaching (Acts 15:1), to which believers from Judaea had argued that without circumcision they could not be saved, but other matters arose as well, as the Decree by James indicates.

Thus according to Acts, Paul and his fellow missionary, Barnabas, having disputed fiercely with the Judaean Christians, went up "to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2). Some of the Pharisees who had become believers came forward with the demand that it was 'needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

At the council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter, whose presence has not otherwise been signalled (Acts 15:7-11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the Apostolic Decree)

The decision reached, again according to Acts was as follows. "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:19-21) (The Western version of Acts substitutes the positive form of the Golden Rule for the prohibition against things strangled.) This determined questions wider than that of circumcision, most particularly dietary questions but also fornication.

Interpreting the Council's decision
James's resolution was that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile followers, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against "fornication" and idol worship.

Determining what followed depends on how reliable one believes the various texts to be. Some scholars have taken a very sceptical view of the probity of Acts. Moreover, Paul seems to have refused 'to be tied down to particular patterns of behaviour and practice'. To the church in Corinth he is much more relaxed and allows that there are situations where one can eat food that hasz been offered to idols -because the idol has no real existence. His attitude towards circumcision varies between his outright hostility to what he calls 'mutilation' in Galatians and his willingness that Timothy be circumcised, recorded in Acts. However, it is discrepances like this which have led to a degree of scepticism about the reliability of Acts.

In fact, from its position of dominance, due, in part to it leadership by James, the Jerusalem church suffered first persecution and eventual decline. The question of the relationship with Jews and Jewish Christians continued for some time.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Saul of Tarsus states:
 * According to Acts ... Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytes of the gate [a biblical term, for example see ] and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws (Acts 15:1-31).

The Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament - Spirit of Jewish Proselytism in Christianity states:
 * 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 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers states:
 * Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required . Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy, and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem ( sqq.).