Homilies

Back to Homilies menu

   Our second lesson for today gives us Luke’s view of the so-called “Apostles’ Council,” a momentous event in early church history, which occurred in the year 48 or, possibly, 49. This same event is referred to by Paul, when, in his letter to the Galatians, he mentions his meeting with the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2:9).

Although there are inconsistencies between the two accounts, they agree on the essential point, that the “council” rejected the demand of some Jewish Christians, or, better, Christian Jews, that Paul’s Gentile converts should be circumcised (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:3-4).

But the perspectives of Paul and Acts on this decision are quite different. Even in Paul’s account, the nature of the agreement with the Jerusalem authorities is extremely limited. He expresses it in terms of a separation between the two spheres of missionary activity: “We (Paul and Barnabas) should go to the Gentiles, and they (James, Peter, and John) should go to the circumcised” ((Galatians 2:9).

The Jerusalem authorities were evidently impressed by the success of Paul’s missionary activity (Galatians 2:7), but Paul does not tell us how they viewed his missionary labors in relation to their own. Their understanding of the two separate missions may be reflected in what James is reported to have said to the “council:” “Simeon (i.e. Peter) has related how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name” (Acts 15:13-14). God’s renewal of his covenant with Israel through the death and resurrection of Jesus has led “the rest of men to seek the Lord” (Acts 15:17).

But where Paul sees one people of God, made up of Jews and Gentiles (Romans 15:7-13), for James Israel is still God’s chosen people and hence still bound by the law which God has given them.

God has now seen fit to visit the Gentiles, in order to make out of them another people for his name. Two eschatological communities have thus come into being: the remnant of Israel (Amos 9:11) and a new people, who share in Israel’s monotheistic faith and in the confession of Jesus as the Messiah, but are not subject to the law and therefore not obliged to undergo circumcision.

Although Paul doubtless welcomed the decision of the Jerusalem authorities not to yield to the demand that his Gentile converts should be circumcised, he was unable to agree that the law remained the way of salvation for Israel, and this inability would lead to further controversy (Galatians 2:11ff).

The two accounts of this important event give us a unique insight into the tensions which, less than twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixion, were already affecting the Christian movement. They also put into perspective the tensions dividing the Anglican Communion today.

In his book Engaging Scripture the Anglican New Testament scholar Stephen Fowl suggestes that Paul’s “counter-conventional” interpretation of scripture may suggest a way out of our most contentious issue. Perhaps the church’s acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles provides an analogy for a move away from Christianity’s traditional condemnation of homosexual practices.

If so, then this issue may one day be consigned to the history of church controversy, just as the circumcision question already is for us today.

July 31, 2005

back to top