Acts 15… good decision?

Think we have got issues? Given that the fundamental nature of the Gospel is inclusion not exclusion we got a decent starting point to consider issues, but the early church had a big one. Not simply the inclusion of the Gentiles – that hope was always there – but on what basis. [An aside for the curious or more accurately an aside encouraging all readers to purchase ‘The LifeLine’ where I begin looking at the conflict between Peter and Paul, and take it further noting that Peter (!) came close to proclaiming another Gospel, and that Paul declared that pre-Damascus as a ‘blameless Jew as far as the law was concerned’ was actually a blasphemer!! Strong stuff, makes us all look a little sad when we get caught up in petty disagreements.]

I don’t think the solution in Acts 15 was to everyone’s satisfaction. I hear the grumbling that continued in the visit of Paul to Jerusalem when James asked him to get himself to the Temple with his mates and take some clear vows. Headquarters were certainly nervous when Paul was in town!

The good part of the solution is that Paul and Barnabas (later Silas) could continue with their apostolic work to the Gentiles. That aspect seems brilliant. Others (notably Peter) worked among the Jews. A clear division of work – maybe a compromise, but I think God loves to compromise, and when we do, when it is set in a redemptive / eschatological framework. The division was not absolute with some overlap in the middle; the relationships probably remained somewhat strained but they seemed to hold together, or at least make room for some interaction down the line. So good that what is recorded is not perfect… redemption is a bridge to what is here with an eye on what is eschatological – what is not yet here.

There have been those who argue that the Jerusalem Council cut the ties to the root of the plant, opening a separation between Jew and Gentile, and that the Council should in some way be reversed. Maybe though it did not go far enough? That is always the problem with compromises when they are understood as the conclusion rather than a step along the way.

The real separation (my little thought) is not at the Jerusalem Council, for I actually think it did not go far enough, but in the post-New Testament work among the Gentiles, with the adaptation of the earthy Jewish Gospel for an other-worldly Platonic gospel.

For me Acts 15 was a healthy compromise, not the finished product; post-New Testament then accelerated the divide. For those reasons I think the current perspective of Jesus as the Jewish prophet, the true Israel gives us real hope. It de-hellenises the Gospel so it is no longer about ‘going to heaven’ but about transformation of here (hence the need for a belief in the resurrection), and it pulls us back from a Zionism that looks for some restoration of the land (promised land? but Abraham was not promised the land according to Paul…) Maybe the gap can be closed, but until there will be compromises.