The Jerusalem Diet

The English word diet is derived from a Latin word meaning both “parliamentary assembly” and “daily food allowance.” Although the political use of the word may not be very familiar to us today, it was used for the governing body of the Holy Roman Empire and the most famous Diet was one held in Worms, a city in the German Rhineland. The Diet of Worms was called by Emperor Charles V in 1521 to demand Martin Luther either recant his views or be declared a heretic. He didn’t recant.

The Jerusalem Conference in Acts

Both senses of the word apply to the Jerusalem conference (c. 49 CE) described in Acts 15:1-21. It was a general assembly of the apostles and elders (first- and second-generation leaders of the church) and its final decree dealt with food restrictions on Gentile converts. Paul’s account of the Jerusalem conference and its aftermath are reported in Gal 2:1-14.

In the opening verses of the account in Acts (vv. 1-2), Luke explains that the crisis was precipitated in the Antiochene church when members of the circumcision party arrived teaching that circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law were requirements for salvation. This generated confusion and dissension, so Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders there.

After both sides presented their case (vv. 4-5), Peter spoke of his experience with converts like Cornelius and how he witnessed the Holy Spirit poured out on the Gentile Christians (vv. 7-11). James concluded the conference when he announced his decision (“I have reached the decision,” v. 19) that Gentiles will only be required to abstain from certain foods and improper sexual relations (vv. 13-21). Curiously, both James’ decree and the resulting letter (vv. 22-29) said nothing of circumcision, the driving issue for the conference.

The main image in the St. Peter Window (c. 1870) of the Cologne Cathedral in Germany shows the Council of Jerusalem. Sts. Peter and Paul are the central figures. Peter's stance and gestures indicate he is the more significant figure in the window..

Two Separate Decisions

Biblical scholars believe that Luke is conflating two different decisions by the Jerusalem authorities. In Paul’s description of the council in Gal 2:1-10, the apostolic leaders decided that circumcision would not required of Gentile believers. But in a later decision where Paul was not present, some ground rules based on Lev 17-18 were established for Gentile Christians that would allow them to live and worship alongside observant Jewish Christians.

What evidence do we have for this? Paul reported (Gal 2:11-14) how table fellowship in Antioch was disrupted by insistence from the “men from James” that Jewish believers could not eat with Gentile believers. But the whole point of James’ decision in Acts 15:19-20 was to lay down minimum dietary rules for Gentiles that would allow Jews to be able to join them in table fellowship. It doesn’t make any sense for the James party to insist on separation at meals if the decision of the Jerusalem conference had established rules to eliminate the need for separation.

Not only that, but according to Acts 21:25, on a later visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) Paul is informed by James that a letter was sent listing the four restrictions on Gentile Christians, the same letter that he and Barnabas were supposed to have carried to Antioch (15:25)! But it all makes perfect sense if there were two decrees from the Jerusalem authorities made a few years apart and Luke combined them as the product of one council.

Why No Circumcision?

Why did the pro-circumcision faction lose? The best explanation I’ve seen is that James realized that forcing circumcision and the Mosaic law would have driven away many potential Gentile converts. Although they might then be considered nominal Jews, the Gentiles’ allegiance would be to Christ and not to Moses. When push came to shove and outside persecutions against Jews arose again, the Gentile believers would consider themselves Christians and not Jews, in spite of any circumcision they received. They would not be willing to die rather than denounce the Mosaic law that was forced upon them.

The unspoken flip side of the Council’s decree meant no relaxation of the Mosaic law for Jewish Christians. This was not something Paul agreed to and Peter only accepted grudgingly. By ending the joint table fellowship between Jew and Gentile Christians, it dissolved the glue that held together churches like those in Antioch.

The Second Decree

Something had to be done to avoid schism. The result was a second decision holding Gentiles to the same rules spelled out in Leviticus 17 and 18 for Gentiles who are resident aliens in Israel. Acts 15:20 spells it out:

“We should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” (NRSV)

Three of these are clearly dietary regulations: abstinence from (1) meat that was part of a pagan sacrifice (Lev 17:8-9); (2) meat from an animal that was not butchered by having the blood drained from it (17:14-15); and (3) food made from the blood of animals (17:10-12).

The odd man out in this list is porneia in Greek, translated variously as “fornication”, “unlawful marriage” (NABRE), “sexual immorality” (NIV), and “unchastity” (RSV). It is a vague term, so we look to the context to understand it. The other three restrictions come from Lev 17, and Lev 18:6-18 lists a variety of sexual unions among kin that are forbidden. As with the dietary rules, these incestuous unions are not just demanded of Jews, but also of resident aliens (Lev 18:26).

James’ cryptic statement in Acts 15:21 regarding how Moses has been read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath must be his way of saying that these are not rules that he has invented but are rules that were set forth by Moses for Gentiles living with Jews. Any Gentile familiar with the Torah would also be familiar with the regulations in the Holiness Code. In short, if it was good enough for Moses, it was good enough for James.

Finally, these were rules imposed for a mixed community. If the local church consisted of none but Gentiles, the dietary restrictions would not need to be followed. Gentile Christians in those areas, like Christians today, could still enjoy black pudding or eat their steaks rare.

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.