Did Paul compromise in the Council of Jerusalem? The Council of Jerusalem, as the meeting of major apostles in Acts 15 being customarily termed, was called to address a dissension in the Antioch church caused by the “circumcision party” who came from Judea and were teaching that “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” The debate was initially between Paul and Barnabas on one side, and the circumcision party on the other. No conclusion was reached so the issue was brought to the Jerusalem church, which was the first church and where the apostles ministered. The outcome of the council was a letter to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The letter had two parts: first, it clarified that circumcision was not needed for salvation; second, it required that the Gentiles should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood and estranged animals, and from sexuality. The requirements were proposed by James and agreed upon by all other participants. Luke gave no indication of Paul disagreeing any part of the proposal. In the end, Paul was one of the group given charge to bear this letter and explain the decision.
The requirements were about unclean food and sexual ethics, all of which can be found in Mosaic Law. The texts and meanings of the letter are not difficult to understand. But what do they mean? To the Christians who immediately receiving the letter and to Christians in the universal church?
First of all, the requirements are not about how one is to be saved. No serious reader argues that James was talking about doing these things in order to be saved, since Peter moments earlier spoke about “he made no distinction between us and them , having cleansed their hearts by faith” (v.9), “we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (v.11). It would be unimaginable to think that James overthrew what Peter had just said or Peter and Paul would allow the cardinal doctrine of salvation by grace through faith being rejected. James was talking about Christian ethics here, not directly about the gospel.
Second, the prohibition against sexual immorality poses no problem for almost all Christian readers, since sextual immorality is universally condemned in the OT/NT and throughout church history. The question lies in the food prohibitions. Shall all Christians abide by this rule? If not, why was this rule given here?
Many remember the teaching of Paul in his letters to the Colossians, Timothy and Titus:
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:20-23)
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1Tim. 4:1-5)
To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. (Tit. 1:15)
These clearly teach that there is no food prohibition for Christians. It is no longer required, nor is it beneficial. Some readers interpret the requirements of the Council of Jerusalem (as proposed by James) and the denouncement of similar requirements by Paul as the conflict between the Jewish wing and the Gentile wing of the early church. Some would further define this as the conflict between James/Peter and Paul (as the dialectic school had argued from the 19th century). This means Paul was a compromiser of his true conviction or he had to hide his conviction before the strong Jewish party. There are even greater issues at stake here: if either the Council of Jerusalem sinned or Paul sinned, the Bible would have contradictions since the Bible presents both sides positively. It also means that the first major theological debate in the Christian church was not resolved by a clear conviction of truth, nor was any apostolic consensus. The very apostles, supposed to be the foundation of the NT church, did not know the answer to a simple question concerning food prohibition. If they did not know this answer, can we trust that they knew the answers to more profound questions concerning salvation and Christian life?
We are not saying that there were no Jewish and Gentiles distinctions in the apostolic church. There were, and there were even distinctions between Palestinian Jews and Greek Jews in the Jewish church, which caused not a small trouble in Acts 6. Paul addressed the Gentile/Jew related topics explicitly in the letters of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and Titus. The early heresies came from both the Jews and Gentiles, and one group may be more vulnerable to some particular sins. We do acknowledge all these facts, but to say there was contradiction in the Scriptures or between the official teachings of the apostles is of another nature. Such contradiction, if exists in any form, changes the very character of the Bible and the Christian faith.
If there was contradiction between James and Paul, you may say that there was contradiction between Paul and Paul, because in some places, Paul did not say that food prohibition does not matter. Actually he said it matters and matters a lot.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1Cor. 8:7-13)
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. (1Cor. 15:23-29)
What example does he use here? Food offered to idols, exactly. Paul is saying we have the freedom to eat anything, but there is something else that restraints this liberty. At certain times, you better not to eat certain food, and you shall not eat certain food. For what? For love, for the edification of the weak brothers, who yet to understand and appreciate the freedom in Christ. This is consistent with his teaching in Romans.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. (Rom. 14:1-8)
Everyone thinks and acts according to his level of faith and understanding, from his own conviction. There are weak brothers, and Paul grants sufficient freedom to them as long as they do not make the rule universal (as in Colossians, 1Tim. Titus). The strong brothers shall not impose their understanding on the weak either. The weak brothers in the Roman church are different from the Judaizers in Colossae, Ephesus, and Grete. Thus Paul speak in different tones. The churches are complicated. There may be many people who think I should abstain from blood, but they may come out of various reasons. Paul is addressing to particular people and particular reasons. He does not shift his position from one letter to another, but he does shape his arguments according to the nature of the problem in his mind.
This is how the Council of Jerusalem and Paul in this council should be understood. This was the early apostolic era, when most Christians were Jewish and customarily continued in the Jewish manner of life, just as the apostles continued to go the temple. This was a developing and transitioning period for the church (the period ended gradually as more Gentiles come into the church; the destruction of the Temple was a milestone). The requirements of the Council of Jerusalem were given against this predominantly Jewish background. James mentioned, “For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” James’ concern was for the conscience Jewish Christians (as was Paul in 1Cor. 8, 10), the unity of the church (so was Paul in Rom. 14), and probably also for the evangelizing of the Jewish people (as in Acts 21, so was Paul, 1Cor. 9:20).
Paul did not compromise in the Council of Jerusalem. James did not side with the Judaizers in the Council of Jerusalem. There were no disagreements between the apostles. The letter issued said “it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, …” (Acts 15:25). Are we ready to say that the letter lied, or the author of Acts lied by fabricating the letter or reconstructing the event? These are serious implications one need to complete before making assertions.
