We the People

[Note: I will be on vacation next week, so I won't be posting any new articles until I return the week of August 8.] 

The Council of Jerusalem sits at the center of Acts and marks a turning point in the story. Prior to the council, Luke’s narrative thread darts from one character to another: Peter, Stephen, Philip, Saul, Peter again, and Paul. But after the council, the apostles disappear from the story and the focus is solely on Paul. Not only that, but the author seems to insert himself into the story with an unexpected shift from 3rd person narration to 1st person.

Paul’s New Partner

After the men from James arrived in Antioch and started enforcing the separation of Jewish and Gentile Christians at common meals, Paul decided to hit the road on another missionary journey. Acts explained (15:37-39) that Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them and Paul refused. Whether for that reason or Barnabas siding with Peter in the table-fellowship controversy (Gal 2:13), Paul chose Silas as his new missionary partner.

Silas was first mentioned in Acts 15:22 as a leader in the Jerusalem church who, along with Judas Barsabbas, would carry the Jerusalem council’s decree to Antioch. He is most likely the same person Paul identifies as Silvanus in his letters. Given Silas’ position within the Jerusalem community, he would bring legitimacy to the Pauline mission.

Timothy’s Circumcision

Revisiting the towns from the previous mission, Paul and Silas travelled overland to Lystra where lived a disciple named Timothy (Acts 16:1-4). Timothy was the son of a Jewish Christian mother and a Greek father and was highly recommended by believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to join him on the mission, so he had him circumcised.

Paul’s action here has puzzled many commentators. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy when the Jerusalem council did not require it of Titus (Gal 2:1-3)? The key, I think, is that while Titus was Greek, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. If he was then considered to be Jewish by birth, he needed to be circumcised if he would be accompanying Paul since he did not want Timothy to become a distraction to his mission.

Timothy’s circumcision would also demonstrate that Paul was not opposed to Jewish Christians following the Mosaic law. It was a literal embodiment of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:20:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

The “We” Passages

Leaving the region of Galatia, Paul and his companions were prevented from going to the cities on the west or northern coasts of Asia Minor (16:6-10). They made their way to Troas, a seaport on the northwestern shore and there Paul had a vision one night of a Macedonian man inviting him to come over to Europe. Convinced that God was calling them, “we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia.”

This first use of the 1st-person plural in what had been up to this point 3rd-person narration is quite jarring. It marks the first of four We-Sections (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). The first We-Section covers the journey from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi in Macedonia. The second and third pick up four chapters and several years later and cover the journey from Philippi to Jerusalem. The last We-Section covers the captive Paul’s journey from Caesarea to Rome.

Scholars have debated the meaning behind these “we” passages. The obvious explanation is that the author is recounting experiences that he shared with Paul and the others. The day-by-day detail of the itinerary in the We-Sections reads like the travel journal of an eyewitness. The problem is that Acts paints a different portrait of Paul than what we know from his authentic letters. The alternate theory is that the use of “we” is a stylistic device well-known in sea voyage literature of the time. Critics of this theory argue that the “we” passages do more than simply recount travel by ship.

For the time being, I am inclined to believe the “we” passages are taken from an eyewitness source. Scholars say that the use of language in these passages match that of the rest of Acts, so they either come from the same author or were thoroughly re-written to match his literary style.

In the second century, Irenaeus attributed the Gospel and Acts to Luke, a companion of Paul. Why Luke and not any of the dozen other companions of Paul? Maybe it was a guess or maybe that was the tradition he received. Whatever the case may be, I refer to the author as “Luke” for simplicity’s sake, instead of using a circumlocution such as “the author of the Third Gospel.”

Icon of Lydia of Thyatira. Thyatira is one of the "seven churches" mentioned in Rev 2-3. The message to the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:18-29) warns against a prophetess who teaches the community to practice immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols. We know from Paul's letters (1 Cor 8) that he had no objections to eating meat sacrificed to idols. If Lydia returned to Thyatira and promoted Paul's version of Christianity, could she be the false prophet condemned in Revelation? NT Christianity was not monolithic and one group of faithful believers could be considered false brothers by another group.

Women’s Liberation

The first convert in Philippi – indeed, the first Christian convert in all of Europe – is Lydia (16:11-15), a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. Royal purple cloth was a luxury item that only royalty and the wealthy could afford. Since Lydia had a household large enough to accommodate both servants and guests, she was probably a financially independent woman. Acts calls her “a worshipper of God,” so she was a Gentile God-fearer.

The author writes that on the Sabbath day Paul and his companions went outside the city to a place along the river where the Jewish women gathered for prayer. This suggests there were not enough men in Philippi to form a proper synagogue. After her baptism, Lydia welcomed Paul and his companions to her home, ignoring the restrictive customs of the day that would not allow a woman talk to a man, let alone invite him into her home. By the end of the chapter (v. 40), Lydia’s home had become a house-church for the Christian community in Philippi.

Luke’s subtle point here is that Jewish women could not be founding members of a Jewish synagogue. But as Christians, women like Lydia could be the founding members of a local church. The freedom of the Gospel empowers women and frees them from the restraints placed on them by their faith and culture. It calls to mind the statement of absolute equality in my favorite passage from Scripture (Gal 3:28):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus.

A Painful Issue

The Christian church of the first-half of the first century was not a monolithic entity. We have seen how divisions arose between “Hebrew” (Hebrew-speaking) and “Hellenist” (Greek-speaking) believers. Besides following Greek – instead of Jewish – customs, the Hellenists may also have felt less of an attachment to the Temple and the sacrificial cult. After persecution drove them out of Jerusalem, Hellenists like Philip found kindred spirits in the Samaritans who also devalued Temple worship.

The Gentile Problem

Jewish monotheism and ethical practices were attractive to a certain segment of Gentiles known as God-fearers, but a full embrace of the Mosaic law which included circumcision and dietary restrictions was beyond them. So when Peter baptized Cornelius and his family, God-fearers like these could be accepted into the church as if they were Jewish converts.

But it was one thing to for a church comprised largely of Jews to accept a few Gentiles knowledgeable of Jewish law and practices, and quite another to be faced with entire congregations of Gentile Christians who knew almost nothing of Jewish scriptures and traditions. If church leaders insisted on circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law for these new Gentile Christians, most would not accept it and the budding Christian church would become just another Jewish sect. On the other hand, if the Gentiles were accepted without insistence on circumcision and following the law, then the church would lose all of its Jewish character and become a separate religion.

Four Factions

Such was the dilemma facing church authorities at the so-called “Council of Jerusalem” described in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10. To the question of “What is required of the Gentile Christian?” there were four basic answers, each represented by a faction within the church:

1. Full observance of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. Believers in this group were headed by former Pharisees (Acts 15:5) who saw Christianity as just another way of being Jewish. They could point to the example of Jesus who followed the Mosaic law and preached only to Jews. Therefore, Gentile followers of Jesus needed to become Jewish.
2. No circumcision, but adherence to some Jewish practices. Jews were chosen by God and were required to follow the Mosaic law, but that was not a burden that needed to be laid on Gentile converts. Lev 17-18 provided rules for Gentiles living among the people of Israel that could be applied in this situation. Peter and James were proponents of this view.
3. No circumcision and no insistence on Jewish food laws. In the view of Paul, the law served as a disciplinarian until Christ came (Gal 3:24). But Christ removed the curse for failing to fully follow the Mosaic law (Gal 3:10-13). If the risen Lord chose Paul while he was still a persecutor of the church, this proved that a person is not justified through works of the law.
4. No circumcision, no food laws, and no significance in Jewish cults and feasts. This view was held by Hellenists like Stephen, the author of the Gospel of John, and the author of Hebrews. The Temple is rejected as a place where God dwells and Jesus is seen as the replacement for the Jewish high priesthood and sacrificial offerings. More radical members would teach that Jewish Christians no longer needed to circumcise their children or observe Jewish traditions (Acts 21:21).

The Jerusalem Conference and Its Aftermath

With this background in mind, we can turn to Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Conference in Gal 2:1-10. Paul says that, “in response to a revelation,” he and Barnabas travelled to Jerusalem and brought along Titus, an uncircumcised Christian. Concerned that the church authorities could shut down his ministry, Paul laid out the gospel he proclaimed to the Gentiles. Although he was opposed by members of the “circumcision party” (group #1 above), the “pillars” of the church – James, Peter and John –– did not insist Titus be circumcised and authorized continued outreach to the Gentiles. To hear Paul tell the story, he got everything he wanted.

The Dispute at Antioch: Saints Peter and Paul by Jusepe de Ribera (1591-1652) aka “Lo Spagnoletto” (“the Little Spaniard”). Peter is the one holding the big key.

Thus it is something of a surprise when Paul continues to tells us the story of what happened when Peter visited the Antiochene church (Gal 2:11-14). After his arrival in Antioch, Peter enjoyed communal meals with the Gentile members of the church, but once members of the pro-circumcision faction arrived, he no longer shared in the communal meals with the Gentiles. Peter’s position within the Jerusalem church led other circumcised Christians and even Barnabas to isolate themselves from the Gentiles as well. Paul called out Peter on his hypocrisy but does not report what happened next. We can only conclude that Paul realized he lost the battle and severed his ties with the Antiochene church. (This episode may also explain why Paul chose Silas instead of Barnabas to accompany him on his next missionary journey.)

Was Peter really the hypocrite Paul made him out to be? At the Jerusalem Conference Peter and James were trying to split the difference between the pro-circumcision and Pauline factions. The circumcisers insisted that full observance of the law was the price of admission to the Christian church. Paul had no objection to a Christian – Jewish or Gentile – following the Mosaic law as long as they understood that justification came through belief in Jesus, not adherence to the law. Peter and James did not want to impose the Mosaic law on Gentiles but considered it necessary for Jewish Christians.

The Dietary Problem

Unwittingly, Peter and James had solved one problem only to introduce another. With no requirement that Gentiles follow Jewish dietary laws, the circumcised Christians had no way of knowing if a communal meal prepared by a Gentile Christian was kosher or not. There had to be some element of trust that a Gentile would not knowingly serve ritually unclean food to his circumcised Christian brother. Peter had first-hand experience of Jesus’ table fellowship with outcasts like tax collectors and prostitutes, so he didn’t have a problem eating with Gentiles.

But when the party from James arrived from Jerusalem, they planted seeds of distrust in the minds of the circumcised Christians. James still required Jewish Christians to fully observe the law of and part of that law required them to eat separately from Gentile Christians (Acts 10:28a). Peter was caught in the middle but had to side with James because separation at meals was the logical consequence of the decision of the Jerusalem Conference that he was party to.

Paul, though, saw it as both a betrayal and counter-productive. Without shared table fellowship, there was nothing to hold the Antiochene church together and the two sides would grow further apart, perhaps leading to a schism. The Jerusalem church would need to take action to ward off such a disaster.

The Gentile Pentecost

How is Acts of the Apostles like the television series The Walking Dead? In terms of story-telling, both are sprawling tales with a vast cast of characters. When those characters become separated due to a traumatic event, the narrative thread splits to follow individual characters as they cope with new challenges.

Following Multiple Storylines

In the middle of the fourth season of The Walking Dead, the main cast of characters are separated into five groups when their home comes under attack. For the rest of the season, each episode focused on one of the five groups struggling to reunite with their friends and find a safe haven in the zombie apocalypse.

In Acts, the shattering event that drives the characters apart is the persecution of the Jerusalem church first mentioned in Acts 8:1. The rest of Acts 8 focused on the evangelist Philip in Samaria and Judea. Acts 9:1-31 rewound back to the persecution with Saul pursuing Christians to Damascus and his conversion there. He eventually returns to Jerusalem to meet with Peter, and in 9:32-43 we follow Peter healing the paralyzed Aeneas and raising Tabitha from the dead, miracles reminiscent of those Jesus performed in Luke’s gospel. Although this passage appears after Saul’s return to Jerusalem, due to the story-telling technique, the events may have occurred during the three years Saul was in Damascus.

Peter’s two miracles are merely a prelude to the more important story of the baptism of the centurion Cornelius and his family in 10:1-11-18. The story is recounted in five acts:

1. Cornelius has a vision of an angel who instructs him to send his servants to Joppa to find Peter (10:1-8); 
2. Peter has a vision instructing him to eat clean and unclean animals (10:9-16);
3. Peter greets the messengers from Cornelius and invites them to spend the night (10:17-23a);
4. Peter sets off to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea. Finally understanding his vision, Peter begins to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles and they receive the Holy Spirit. Peter then has them baptized. (10:23b-48);
5. Peter is asked to give an account of his actions (11:1-18).

The vision of Peter and the conversion of Saul are both pivotal events for Luke because he narrates each three separate times. Another similar feature is the “double vision” of the convert and his sponsor (Cornelius and Peter, Saul and Ananias) which is more common in Greek than Jewish literature. Luke wants to be clear to his readers that these foundational events were under divine direction.

God-Fearers

Cornelius is described as a “God-fearing man” (10:2), a term referring to non-Jews sympathetic to Judaism. The God-fearers agreed with Jewish ethical principles and attended synagogue services, but did not submit to circumcision or observe the Torah in its entirety. In modern parlance, I suppose you could call them “Jew-curious.” But Cornelius was more than that. In v. 22, he is also called “upright,” meaning that he actually followed Mosaic law.

In addition to circumcision, one of the religious practices that dissuaded God-fearers from conversion to Judaism was the dietary restrictions. Certain food items – like pork – were forbidden to Jews. Peter explains in 10:28a that it was actually unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. This rule was probably adopted to eliminate the possibility of the Jew unintentionally bringing ritual impurity upon himself through contact with a Gentile.

Peter’s Vision, engraving from the Dutch theology text History of the Old and New Testament by David Martin (1639-1721)

In this context, we can understand Peter’s vision of “all kinds” of animals and the instruction that God has declared them all to be clean (kosher). Scholars are divided on whether Peter’s vision is an integral part of the Cornelius story or something Luke took from a separate strand of tradition – for example, a dispute story about whether Christians are allowed to eat non-kosher foods – and introduced into the Cornelius narrative. In 10:28b Peter interprets the vision of various animals as an allegory for people: “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”

After Peter arrives at Cornelius’ house, he delivers a missionary speech. After a brief introduction (vv. 34-36), he launches into the Christian kerygma (vv. 37-41), before reaching his conclusion (vv. 42-43). Kerygma is a Greek word used to refer to the initial and essential proclamation of the gospel message. You can think of it as “the gospel in a nutshell.” Luke usually writes Greek that indicates he is cultured and educated, but portions of this passage are written in a “miserable Greek” that is not at all his style. This indicates to biblical scholars that Luke is incorporating very old material. Some scholars believe that apostolic preaching such as this eventually developed into the synoptic gospels.

The Gentile Problem

At this point in Acts, we have seen the word of Jesus spread among Jews (both Hebrew and Hellenists), Samaritans, and Gentile converts to Judaism like the Ethiopian eunuch. Being a follower of Jesus was seen as just a different way of being Jewish, certainly not a separate religion. It just didn’t make sense that one could be a believer in Christ without also being Jewish.

Cornelius presents an interesting case. He’s a Gentile God-fearer who follows Mosaic law and attends synagogue, but he isn’t circumcised and therefore not Jewish. Fortunately for Peter, God takes the initiative and sends the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his relatives and friends who have gathered in his household. Seeing the Gentiles “speaking in tongues and extolling God,” Peter decides there is no reason not to baptize them with water as well.

Word of what happened in Cornelius’ house got out and the next time Peter was in Jerusalem, he was confronted by the “circumcised believers” and asked to explain why he visited and ate with the uncircumcised. The term “circumcised believers” is apparently being used to describe Jewish Christians, in distinction from Gentile Christians like Cornelius who would be “uncircumcised believers.” Interestingly, the Jewish Christians seem to be more concerned about Peter visiting Gentiles than with him baptizing them as Christians. For the time being, they are satisfied with Peter’s explanation of the divine initiative in pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles. Soon, however, the church will have to decide on expectations for the newly baptized Gentiles.

The thought that Peter’s fraternization with Gentiles was considered scandalous among the Jewish Christians tells us that there was no episode in Jesus’ public ministry that could be referenced as justification for such a ministry. The church had no blueprint for how to address questions such as: Do Gentiles need to be circumcised to become followers of Jesus? Do Gentile Christians need to follow Jewish dietary restrictions? Without clear statements from Jesus to lead them, the early church had to rely on insights gained through the Holy Spirit to guide them on what Christ wanted for his church.