The Council gathers; how it might have been. (Fair Use)
Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15
By Scout
Preface
This is an excerpt from notes that I am making for myself on the disposition of the Law of Moses after Jesus. While my account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 accords with orthodox Christianity, it differs greatly from the Armstrongist interpretation. I had hoped to find material on this topic in an archive of Armstrongist writings but could not locate anything documented. I do recall oral interpretations of the Jerusalem Council from my WCG days. The Jerusalem Council is an important event in church history that should not be neglected. In it is found the view of the early church on the Law of Moses.
Circumcision, the Law and the Council
Paul and Barnabas went through Asia Minor making disciples and establishing a congregational church infrastructure. They taught in these churches and appointed elders. This is chronicled in Acts 15:19-28. But in the wake of all their missionary work, another group of men came along preaching a different gospel. This group is broadly known as the Circumcision Party (Greek, tous ek peritomes, those of the circumcision). Pulling together some fragments of information, one may determine that the group consisted of Jews who had some association with James in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:12) and who were in some cases Pharisees (Acts 15:5). There is no evidence that they were in any way credentialed by James or the Jerusalem church.
The congregations established by Paul and Barnabas would have been taught the Gospel (Acts 14:21). These were Gentile congregations (Acts 15:12) but they apparently had some access to the Hebrew scriptures (Acts 15:21). Other scriptures indicate that there were also some Jews in these early congregations. The Circumcision Party was preaching to them that in order to be saved they had to 1) be circumcised and 2) keep the Law of Moses. They were diligently trying to undo the work that Paul and Barnabas had done. Paul and Barnabas opposed them vehemently (Acts 15: 2). It is obvious from this sequence of events that Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to these newly planted churches and the preaching did not include anything about being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses. This absence of the Law of Moses in Christianity engendered the conflict that led to the Jerusalem Council.
It is worthwhile to consider the playbook that the Circumcision Party was following with these newly planted, mostly Gentile congregations. These scattered congregations had a high view of Jesus. The teaching of Paul and Barnabus would have assured this. Jesus was the way to eternal life and the resurrection and participation in the divine nature. And then the Circumcision Party sought out these congregations and brought them a different message. It is impossible to know the precise message they brought but deductions can be made from Paul’s writings, especially Galatians. They depreciated Jesus. They said that Jesus was not the great person that Paul and Barnabus described. In fact, salvation was not in Jesus alone. Jesus was not an effective Savior. Christians would also have to qualify for salvation by being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses. This shifted attention away from the New Testament and back to the Law and the Prophets. It also tipped the balance of power in the favor of traditional Late Second Temple Judaism and the Pharisees. The new Christian Movement would become Judaized. And if the effort were successful, the Phariseeism which was dominant in Judaism would also be dominant in Christianity.
The Circumcision Party seems to have been very persuasive in their anti-Christian operations in Asia Minor. Paul pointed out to Peter that he buckled to this group in Antioch. Paul observed to Peter that he lived like a Gentile. Paul accused Peter and the other Christian Jews in the Antioch congregation of being hypocrites because they suddenly would not eat with Christian Gentiles. Paul states that in their sudden return to the Law of Moses under the influence of the Circumcision Party, they stood condemned. This is telling language – that taking up the Law of Moses again is worthy of condemnation. Paul, taught by Jesus, believed that the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses were abrogated as we know from his later writing. But the Church as a whole had no official pronouncement on it. The work of Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor occasioned the need for that pronouncement. This was to prevent the newly established congregations from being pressured by two forces at work against Christianity: 1) the activities of the Circumcision Party and 2) the hostile effect of local Jewish synagogues (Acts 14:2, Acts 15:21).
[Note: Paul was taught by Jesus personally and learned that the Law of Moses was cancelled. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed to have been likewise taught by God in the Des Moines Public Library. Yet, Armstrong came up with a view that contradicted Paul completely. Paul taught salvation in Jesus alone with good works as a product of this. Herbert W. Armstrong taught salvation in Jesus plus qualification through a lifetime of law keeping based on the doctrine that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Paul taught that salvation was a real event in the life of the Christian now. Herbert W. Armstrong taught that for the believer salvation was held in suspense until the believer’s life was over and judgment could happen.]
The outcome of the Council deliberations is that there were certain parts of the Law of Moses that Christians should observe with a particular sensitivity towards the Jewish community. This would be in addition to the Law of Christ (later documented as the Sermon on the Mount and other behavioral principles found in the New Testament writings) as taught to them by Paul and Barnabus. But it is important to notice that the Jerusalem Council did not discard the Law of Moses wholly. This suggests that there would be some continuing value of the legislation in Christianity though not in soteriology.
Excerpt Summation
The Jerusalem Council was a milestone event in the cancellation of the Law of Moses as a pathway to salvation. But the Jerusalem Council did not issue a blanket statement wholly discarding the Law of Moses. It reflected, after all, the nature of God for a certain group of people during a certain time in history. It had gravitas in other ways that will be addressed below. [The further discussion “below” is not included in this excerpt.]
Note: The photo at top is a picture of Mizrahi Jewish men having a discussion. They are the most like ancient Jews in appearance. I believe the artifact in the center is the scroll of the Torah wrapped in cloth. I have chosen this because the art work showing scenes from the Bible in Western Christianity invariably portrays Western Europeans instead of Jews.
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203In the case of Colossians 2:16-17, the issue of translation pivots on the last clause of v. 17. Armstrongists would have these two verses read something like this:
”Therefore, let no one judge you for eating and drinking, or for taking part in a festival or in a new moon celebration or in Sabbaths, these are a shadow of things to come, but the Church of God.”
Hart’s New Testament translation renders “but the Church of God” as “but the solid body thereof is that of the Annointed.” The “body of Christ” in Greek is “soma tou Christou”. And as we know, the metaphor “body of Christ” can refer to the church. All the translations I have seen regard the last clause as a completion of the thought about the “shadow of things to come.” But Armstrongists regard it as a completion of the thought about “let no one judge you”. So, for Armstrongists, this is Paul’s statement validating the Sabbath, the holy days, the dietary laws (and apparently the new moons) as required for Christians. And nobody can judge Christians on this issue but the church of God.
This translation of the “body of Christ” as the “church of God” seems to be an Armstrongist peculiarity. I cannot find it in any source. This controversy would appear to be a stalemate – the Armstrongist translation against the orthodox translation. But there is a context that must be given consideration.
Apparently, Armstrongists do not dispute the clause “these are a shadow of things to come" (Hart). This standalone phrase relegates the sabbaths to a metaphorical status without dependency on the disputed following phrase. If we follow the Armstrongist interpretation, would just not know what the sabbaths are a shadow of based on this passage alone. They are without a doubt shadows but of what? The Book of Hebrews helps us in this:
“For the Law – containing a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of those realities – can never, through those same sacrifices that they continually offer every year, perfect those who approach.”
This introduces a detailed exposition of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, and the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant. Notice that it says The Law is a shadow. It does not limit this to sacrifices only. Then the text goes on to speak broadly of the New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant.
I believe that orthodoxy can let the Armstrongists have their one-off interpretation of “the body of Christ” as the church of God rather than the accepted meaning “the substance of Christ”. This one dubious point does not alter the general flow of joint logic in Colossians 2 and Hebrews 10. Even if Colossians 2:16-17 states that it is the church that should somehow be the judge concerning the sabbaths, and by extension the application of the of Moses in general, the church cannot operate outside the careful explanation found in Hebrews 10.
Scout
....church, which is his body (soma)....Eph 1::23. ....but the body (soma) of Christ. Col 2:17.
My paraphrase: Let no man, because they have philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (v.8, cf22)......judge you in matters of clean and unclean meats, meats offered to idols, when and what to drink, or in respect of the holy days of God and not of man, or of the Jewish/Hebrew calendar, or of the sabbath days of God and not of man, which are a faint indication of things to come in the future, but only the church of Christ is to judge you.
Anonymous 12:09
Thank you for your paraphrase. I believe that it likely states the Armstrongist case very well based on my recollections. It does have merit and I am glad to see someone who is fluent in Armstrongist theology make a contribution to the debate.
So, now my counterpoint. Following David Bentley Hart, I believe the Colossian Christians were engaged to some extent in Jewish practice – like the Jerusalem Church, for instance. Perhaps, under the influence of Christian Jews in the congregation. In Colossians 2:16, Paul was not saying that the Colossians should or should not be involved in Jewish practice. He only says let no man judge you in what you are doing.
So, what was the nature of this judging? I think this is implicit in the context. The Colossian Heretics were advocating a philosophy that consisted of observing the Law of Moses, circumcision, asceticism and worshipping angels and maybe Jesus, all as the road to salvation. This is reflected in the concerns Paul expresses to the Colossian Christians who must have begun to be influenced by this heresy. In Colossians 2:6-15, Paul gives a short but pointed discourse on salvation in Jesus alone. Then in verse 16 and 17, he mentions the fact that the Colossian Christians are engaged in Judaic practices.
If the Colossian Christians were already engaged in practices from the Law of Moses and the Colossian Heretics were advocating the Law of Moses, why were the Colossian Heretics judging the Colossian Christians? Paul’s emphasis on salvation in Jesus alone leads us to the answer. The Colossian Heretics were attempting to persuade the Colossian Christians that the pathway to salvation was through the Law of Moses and other practices, with Jesus being either irrelevant or an adjunct.
So, the Epistle to the Colossians is not about whether or not the Colossian Christians were keeping the Law of Moses and being judged for it. It is about whether or not Jesus is the sole pathway to salvation. In this context Paul clarifies that the Judaic practices were just shadows of Jesus. The practices are not a causation of salvation.
As regards, the metaphor that Paul uses in v. 17, the idea that Jesus is the real figure and the Law of Moses is only a shadow of this real figure works nicely in a literary/poetic sense. So nicely that it is difficult to imagine that the Armstrongist interpretation would fit. And further, if the church is supposed to judge concerning the Sabbath, holy days and other Mosaic practices, why is there no great body of decision making written up in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul for the Gentile congregations? Instead, v. 16 is the only place where Paul mentions the Sabbath.
Scout
Post a Comment