CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL

We've been having much discussion in recent days on Catholica as to the nature of Church — how do we, as Church, interpret what God asks of his people, and his Church? Different groups of people have different opinions — and they're all prepared to die to defend their interpretations. In today's lead commentary Dr Ian Elmer takes us right back to the First Council of the Church where these sorts of disputes first came to a head — The Council of Jerusalem. Dr Elmer draws the link between those events almost two millenia ago and events happening today right around on the other side of the world in Australia. Will our ecclesial leaders reward the "spies and tattletales" or will they act with courage as the leaders did at the First Council?

21 Ecumenical Councils so far…

In the history of the Catholic Church there have been twenty-one ecumenical councils. An ecumenical council is a conference of all the world's bishops. The word derives from the Greek oikoumene, which literally means "the inhabited world". Initially the "inhabited world" was synonymous with the Roman Empire; but later, as the Church grew and with an increasing plurality, oikoumene came to include not only a greater geographical but a broader theological perspective. Hence, it may not be surprising that councils of this sort are usually convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice.

This week we begin an examination of the first such council, the so-called Apostolic Council or Council of Jerusalem (c. 49 CE). Although it is not listed as one of the twenty-one ecumenical councils, it is recognized as the first instance of the conciliar and collegial processes that remain the hallmarks of Catholic (or more properly, Christian) theological disputation.

We are fortunate in that we possess a firsthand account of this council meeting in Galatians 2:1-10. In this passage, Paul describes his second visit to Jerusalem, the purpose of which was to have a conference with the "Pillars", James, Peter and John. It is usually accepted that Acts 15:1-35 supplies a further report of this meeting.

Interpreting the accounts of the First Council…

Attempts to harmonise the two accounts, however, have met with varying degrees of success. There is a remarkable agreement between the two reports, at least in terms of when, where, and with whom Paul's meeting occurred. But there are also significant differences. We might suspect that Luke's account reflects a later perspective and serves his own theological agenda. However, despite being a first-hand report, Paul's account appears to be no less tendentious.

The first issue that presents itself is the question of purpose. What was the occasion for the conference in Jerusalem and why was Paul there? In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul reports that after fourteen years he went up to confer with the Jerusalem Apostles "in response to a revelation" (2:2) to "set before them the gospel I preach among the Gentiles". Paul does not make clear whether this revelation was to himself directly or to someone else.

What is clear, however, is that the Council was basically a meeting in Jerusalem between delegates of the two centres of the Jesus movement, with representatives from the Antiochene Hellenists travelling to confer with the Hebrew remnant of the Jerusalem church.

It may be possible that Paul is making reference here to some numinous experience, revelation or prophetic pronouncement mediated by one or more other members of the Antiochene community. Paul does not supply sufficient information for us to make any definitive judgement. Despite the variety of possibilities, however, it seems obvious enough that Paul intends to emphasise that his visit to Jerusalem was primarily in obedience to God, not at the behest of any human authority.

Paul doesn't want to be seen to have been summoned to Jerusalem by Peter and/or James, which in turn might suggest that he was subordinate to and under their authority. It is a similar situation to that which we find today in the inherent tensions that exist between Rome and local bishops.

In other words, Paul doesn't want to be seen to have been summoned to Jerusalem by Peter and/or James, which in turn might suggest that he was subordinate to and under their authority. It is a similar situation to that which we find today in the inherent tensions that exist between Rome and local bishops.

So, while Paul claims that he went to Jerusalem via a revelation, that claim alone surely does not explain the precise reasons for the visit, since it was clearly a summit meeting between Antioch and Jerusalem. Paul explicitly mentions the presence of Barnabas at the conference, which indicates that it was not Paul's ministry alone that was in question.

Acts 15:2 speaks of a delegation that included not only Paul and Barnabas but also "some others" from Antioch. Paul (Gal 2:3) specifically names the Gentile Titus as one among that deputation. Similarly, the agreement worked out by the delegates at the meeting is sealed with the "right hand of fellowship", which is extended by James, Peter and John to both Paul and Barnabas (2:9).

We must conclude on the basis of this data that, despite Paul's rather individualistic perspective, he, Barnabas, Titus, and probably others went to Jerusalem as official representatives of the Antiochene church. This brings us back to the question with which we began this present discussion – why did Paul go to Jerusalem?

What was the purpose of the Council?

Acts 15:1 suggests that the Jerusalem Council was preceded by an earlier controversy at Antioch. So it might appear that other factors must be taken into account.

There seems no reason to doubt Luke's assertion that the conference was precipitated by certain men from Judea who had previously arrived in Antioch teaching the Gentile converts to the movement that they must adhere to the Mosaic Law in order to be saved. Paul speaks of "false brothers" who "had been secretly brought in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves" (Gal 2:4).

Presumably, Paul is implying that these false brothers were allowed access to his meeting with the Pillars and that they were advocating that the Gentile members of the Christian community must submit to the demands of the Law. Elsewhere in Galatians, Paul claims that Jerusalem is in slavery with her children to the Law (Gal 4:25) and, therefore, draws a direct analogy between Law-observance and slavery.

Luke confirms that the problem concerning the demands of the pro-circumcision putsch were raised at the meeting in Jerusalem, this time in the shape of the Pharisaic members of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:5). The constituents of the "Pharisee party" demanded that "the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses" (15:5).

So while Luke and Paul agree that the issues at stake concerned the imposition of Law-observance upon the Gentile converts, they offer ambiguous data about the location of the initial dispute. Accordingly, it is not entirely clear as to whether these false brothers appeared at Antioch prior to the Jerusalem Conference or at the meeting itself.

In Galatians the appearance of the false brothers is related to the question of whether or not the Gentile Titus, who accompanied Paul and Barnabas, should be circumcised. The reference to the false brothers being "secretly brought in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus" clearly suggests that the incursion of the false brothers occurred at Jerusalem. But this need not preclude an earlier infiltration by the false brothers into the Law-free community at Antioch.

As noted previously, it is difficult to accept at face value Paul's claim that it was only via a revelation that he came to Jerusalem with a delegation from Antioch. It makes eminent sense to assume that the dispute must have begun in Antioch and continued in Jerusalem, and this reading is to be preferred to Paul's claim that he went to Jerusalem only because of a revelation.

A question of authority…

We must note that Antioch sent a delegation to Jerusalem to seek a ruling on the issues, and this must add weight to the speculation that the Antiochene church was seeking to resolve the issue at its source. This raises the further issue of authority. Under whose authority were the troublemakers acting?

It seems reasonable to assume that the false brothers were acting under the authority of the Jerusalem church. Why else would they have been allowed into a private meeting between the delegates if they were not acting with, at least the tacit, approval of the apostolic authorities? This probably explains why Paul then is very dismissive of the "so-called Pillars" of the Church, subtly accusing them of self-aggrandisement (Gal 2:6, 9).

St Mary's, South Brisbane — Will our ecclesial leaders reward the "spies and tattletales" or will they act with courage as the leaders did at the First Council?

Spies and tattletales — then and now…

The lesson to be learned here is that such subversive groups can only function with the (tacit or overt) sanction of the authorities. One might even reasonably draw parallels between the situation faced by Paul and the present situation with St Mary's in South Brisbane. Apart from the broad principles concerning authority and local communities, there is a very specific parallel to the St Mary's situation in Galatians 2:1-10, especially in terms of the role played by spies and tattletales.

If we truly want a united Church such subversion and espionage must be roundly and unequivocally condemned by the authorities. Moreover, the use of spies only undermines the authority of those who sanction their activities. Just as Paul seems to have reconsidered his appreciation of the apostles after their alliance with the false brothers, so too many in the Church today may reassess their allegiance to Rome (or Sydney) if such nonsense is allowed to continue. The ramifications here are far wider than they at first appear.

CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL

Bibliography and Further Reading:
For those who are looking for resources on Paul that are both reliable and readable, I can recommend the following:
J. D. G. Dunn (1991), The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM Press.
M. Hengel (1983), Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity, tr. J. Bowden. London: SCM Press.
G. Lüdemann (1987), Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary. London: SCM Press.
Photo Credits:
The headline image of St Paul has been sourced from an icon which you will find at: www.airmaria.com. Clicking on the other images will take you to the original source.

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

©2008 Ian Elmer

[Ian's Take Archive]