NOTES for Act 15:7-21

Today's reading tells us about the event that Church historians usually call the Apostolic Council (v. 6). Evidently the main issue discussed there was religion and its place in the Church. This is hardly surprising: one of the demands some preachers made of new converts was that they must observe the norms and laws of the Jewish religion (vv. 1–2). Apparently these preachers believed that certain religious norms and rules were obligatory for the Kingdom. There is nothing surprising in this: according to the evangelist, they came from Judaea and were therefore, like all its inhabitants, deeply religious people. Jewish religious observance was for them a natural and integral way of life, outside which they apparently could not even imagine the Kingdom. Yet such religious observance was alien to converts from paganism, so Peter asks a reasonable question at the council: can one impose on recent pagans what at times proved beyond even the Jews themselves (v. 10)? But the essential point lay elsewhere. At issue was what is necessary for salvation, for entering the Kingdom. Evidently there were people in the Church convinced that accepting Christ alone was not enough, that without religion one could not enter the Kingdom (v. 5). The apostles and the other participants in the council decided otherwise: religious affiliation is not fundamental to the Kingdom. This decision was expressed in the language then customary in the Church, the language of religious law. Converts from paganism were advised to abstain from food sacrificed to idols and hence from participation in pagan cults, as well as from bloodshed and sexual immorality; the well-known ‘golden rule’ was also reaffirmed: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself (v. 29). Such norms were traditionally proposed to proselytes who did not intend to adopt Judaism but believed in the God of Abraham. Thus the Apostolic Council confirmed that a former pagan who had accepted Christ did not need to adopt Judaism in order to be saved. Religion and spiritual life were clearly distinguished, and the way into the Kingdom was opened to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation. This decision was immensely important: it emphasised once again that Christianity is not a new religion but life in the Kingdom, open to everyone who has faith in Jesus Christ and a personal relationship with Him. Religion remained merely a means that could sometimes help a person on the way into the Kingdom. A place could be found for it both in the Kingdom and in the Church. But on one indispensable condition: it must not obscure Christ from those who seek Him or bar their way into the Kingdom. Not for anyone, ever.

Apparently, the question of religion was quite acute in the early Christian Church. It was even necessary to convene what Church historians usually call the Apostolic Council: an assembly of apostles and elders, or presbyters. In some instances, the text of Acts also mentions certain “brothers,” but here there is a textual variant: early Greek manuscripts of Acts speak not of “presbyters and brothers” but of “brother-presbyters.” This seems quite logical: organizationally, the Church was then a religious brotherhood, and such brotherhoods were usually led by a council of elders. Yet the ministry of the apostles, witnesses of Christ's death and resurrection, played a special role in the Church, so the apostolic community naturally also took part in decisions of fundamental importance to it.

The heart of the question was to determine the place of religion in the Church's life. Of course, it was formulated differently in the language of that time and tradition: it concerned Jews and Gentiles, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, those who observed all the religious prescriptions of Judaism and those who did not consider them binding upon themselves. It is important to remember, however, that paganism in those days was by no means always a religion anymore. In most cases, it simply meant secular people and secular society. Naturally, there was some religiosity in this secular society, and it had religious communities of its own.

As a whole, however, the Hellenistic society of the Roman Empire in the early Christian period was thoroughly secular: religion was present, but did not determine its life. Jewish society, whether in Judea itself or in the diaspora, was different: it was thoroughly and deeply religious, its life determined and directed by religious norms and prescriptions. Secular Jewry did not exist in those days. Thus, the question of Jews and Gentiles, circumcised and uncircumcised, was a question of secular and religious people in the Church. More precisely, it was whether the Church had to consist exclusively of religious people or whether secular, nonreligious people could enter it too.

Naturally, the only possible form of religiosity in the early Christian Church was Jewish religiosity. Yet the Apostolic Council's decision holds true for any religion that might grow—and indeed did grow—on Christian soil. The Council, or more precisely the council of elders and apostles, made a wise decision fully consistent with the Church's experience at that time, particularly the experience of Gentiles sharing in the life of the Kingdom without adopting Judaism, as happened with Cornelius. Everyone was allowed to remain what they were in religious terms: a religious Jew, a religious Jew; a secular person, a secular person.

The decision was expressed in the language of the Torah, or more precisely of Halakhah, Jewish religious law. Gentiles entering the Church were instructed to observe the commandments known in Jewish tradition as the commandments of the Noahides, the spiritual heirs of Noah, who, though remaining a Gentile, was nevertheless righteous and, as the Torah says of him, “walked before God.”

These commandments required faithfulness to the One God—and therefore renunciation of pagan ritual meals, of “food sacrificed to idols”—a minimum of ritual purity, abstention from strangled meat, abstention from violence, or “blood,” and from sexual immorality, as well as observance of the moral “Golden Rule.” In the language of Halakhah, such a ruling meant that Gentiles could enter the Church while remaining what they were in religious terms. The Church thereby bore witness that it was not a religious community, but a community of people seeking the Kingdom and living in it. As for religion, a Christian is free to choose whether or not to retain their religiosity. What matters is not imposing it on others, and making sure it does not hinder what is central: life in the Kingdom.

What do we use as our guide when we consider what a person should or should not do for salvation, when we discuss questions of Church order, or when we ask such questions as: “How and what should one believe?” “Which decision will be pleasing to God?” “What does He expect from me personally?” We usually recall one passage or another from Scripture, the rules of the Church, or the experience of other people. At worst, we do whatever we please. But the Book of Acts presents us with an astonishing example of apostolic faith, when the Holy Spirit clearly enables the apostles to see whether Gentile believers need to be circumcised (for the apostle Peter the answer is simple: since the Spirit descended upon Cornelius, they are Christians in the full sense). That is why the council of the apostles uses such a candid and bold formula: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...” Only one question remains. If the apostles' experience differs greatly from ours, what does that give us—a reason for discouragement and despair, or a reason to plead for the Spirit?

On the way to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas, passing through Phoenicia and Samaria, brought great joy by telling the brothers about the conversion of the Gentiles. Those who lived among Gentiles and people of other faiths rejoiced; these brothers, without delving into legalistic subtleties, rejoiced that new people had joined in salvation. But other believers do not rejoice, those who had recently belonged to the Pharisaic sect and were now trying to bring their own familiar notions into the church. Christ warned His disciples in advance: "...beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6), and now it had begun to show itself.

Peter gives the Pharisees a rebuff. Some interpreters tried to separate Peter and Paul. For a time there even existed a theory that tried to divide "Petrinism" and "Paulinism" as different and supposedly contradictory currents in the early Church, but here we see that Peter and Paul are united. If there were differences between them, they were in their character, appearance, and certain personal traits that showed themselves in ministry; in the essence of their ministry there were no contradictions between them.

The council of the apostles decided that new converts from the Gentiles were obligated to keep the commandments, but not the entire law obligatory for Jews. In this the apostles did not contradict Jewish law, which did not require Gentiles to observe moral norms beyond the Noahide commandments. Therefore even that in the life of the early Church which many consider a break with the Old Testament corresponds to what is written on its pages.