Apostolic Decree Research Articles

Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b

The article proposes that Jesus’ parable in Mark 7:14-19a and Mark’s editorial comment in 7:19b uphold the validity of the Torah’s ritual purity system. Prioritization, not abrogation, is the aim of Jesus’ teaching. The Markan insertion was likely intended as a historicaltheological justification for the Jerusalem Council’s exemption of Gentile Christians from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws; Pauline influence is also plausible. The article calls into question the use of revocation terminology by commentators to explicate the parenthesis. From the Jewish Christian perspective, as implied in the Apostolic Decree, the dietary laws remained incumbent on Jews. Against this Acts 15 backdrop, Mark 7:19b is best understood as a matter of Gentile halakhic application and not an apocalyptic pronouncement that all foods are now clean. Recognition of this Jew-Gentile ecclesiological variegation is essential to understanding the early Church’s reading of Mark 7.

Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia: Die "Hellenisten," Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeitliche Gottesvolk

Book Review| December 01 2001 Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia: Die "Hellenisten," Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeitliche Gottesvolk Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia: Die "Hellenisten," Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeitliche Gottesvolk, Wolfgang Kraus. Todd C. Penner Todd C. Penner Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (2001) 120 (4): 774–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268286 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Todd C. Penner; Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia: Die "Hellenisten," Paulus und die Aufnahme der Heiden in das endzeitliche Gottesvolk. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 January 2001; 120 (4): 774–777. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3268286 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

Evangelium, Apostel und Konzil: Das Apostelkonzil in der Sicht Luthers und Melanchthons

Luther accepted the right of a free and Christian Council to speak authoritatively on behalf of the universal church. The Council functioned in a representative way when it spoke in accordance with the doctrine of the apostles. In the controversy with the Roman Catholic theologians the understanding of the authority of the apostles was one of the main topics. This problem did not only include the identification of the core of the apostolic teaching - for Luther this was the doctrine of justification by faith alone - but also the adequate tradition of apostolic authority in the church. In this discussion the understanding of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) played a decisive role. The Roman Catholic theologians saw in this Council the fundamental proof of the spiritual authority of the church. During this Council some moral and religious regulations were established for the life of the gentile Christians, such as the prohibition of eating blood. Today nobody in the church lives up to this regulation. That demonstrates the power of the church to establish, and later on suspend, spiritual rules for the believers, so asserted the Roman Catholic theologians. Luther and Melanchthon dealt with Acts 15, and the passage is discussed in the Augsburg Confession. The reformers held that the witness and the doctrine of the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Acts 15 tells us that in the early church there was a struggle for evangelical freedom. Peter and James protected this freedom against Judaistic attacks and at the same time saved the unity of the church. During the apostolic Council, the apostle Peter gave only scriptural evidence for his view, he did not define any new doctrine, although he had the right to do so. There was no doctrinal conflict among the apostles because Paul and James supported Peter. This Council and the later practice of the apostles show that the church is not the master of Scripture, but that Scripture shall govern the church. In this way t

The Church's Progress to the Council of Jerusalem according to the Book of Acts

Abstract The book of Acts portrays stages of the development of the self-awareness of primitive Christianity. The account has important sociological as well as theological implications for the study of Christian origins. Acts indicates that geographical and cultural expansion exposed and focused attention upon underlying causes of disputes and debates which were a part of the self-definition process. From focus upon "side issues" such as ritual and ethnic practice the church came to the realization that the real struggle lay in varying views of the Christian way of salvation and its relation to Judaism. It was these issues which made necessary the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15.

The Church's Progress to the Council of Jerusalem according to the Book of Acts

Abstract The book of Acts portrays stages of the development of the self-awareness of primitive Christianity. The account has important sociological as well as theological implications for the study of Christian origins. Acts indicates that geographical and cultural expansion exposed and focused attention upon underlying causes of disputes and debates which were a part of the self-definition process. From focus upon "side issues" such as ritual and ethnic practice the church came to the realization that the real struggle lay in varying views of the Christian way of salvation and its relation to Judaism. It was these issues which made necessary the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15.

El contrapunto lucano (Hch 9, 26-30; 11, 27-30; 12, 25 Y 15,1-35) a Gal 1, 18-20 y 2, 1-10

Acts 9.26-30 is based on three authentic pieces of data from Paul's first journey to Jerusalem (Gal 1, 18-19.21), in order to compose an episode which presents the persecutor, converted into a spreader of the Gospel who becomes, in his turn, the persecuted one. Ignoring the fact that the second journey was the one that had to do with the question of circumcision (Gal 2, 1-10), it splits into one o two journeys (Acts 11, 27-30; 12, 25); at an unspecified time, the one which took the collection to Jerusalem. This one could be the same one as Paul remembers only for the private presentation of his gospel and his full agreement with the leaders in Jerusalem (Gal 2, 1-10). Luke has narrated it as a separate journey in order to air the question and obtain recognition in a full assembly (Acts 15). In contrast to Gal 2, 6, he adds here the apostolic decree (Acts 15, 20.28-29; 21, 25) to which one will come, with Paul already far away, after the incident in Antioch (Gal 2, 11-14). Both the pagan mission of Peter (Acts 10, 1-11, 18; 15, 7-9) and the missionary first journey of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13-14) must be later than the Jerusalem agreement.

The role of women in the early church: Indications from the New Testament for the practice of a modern Spirit movement

This article approaches the question of women in church ministry from a Pentecostal perspective. This movement stresses the priesthood of all believers, and recognises individual charismatic ministry. Key references in the New Testament show that women were active and accepted both in the occasional charismatic working of the Spirit and in ongoing ministries such as teaching and church-planting. It is argued that they served not only as deaconesses, but also as elders. The apparent proscriptions against women's ministry are locality- and culture-specific regulations, not Christian absolutes. Note is taken of the Wesleyan approach to Scripture, as this group is one of the historical antecedents of Pentecostalism. A suggestion by J. C. Thomas on a distinctive Pentecostal approach to the problem, based on the procedure adopted by the Apostolic Council of Acts 15, concludes the discussion.

Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree

The problem of the original setting of the Apostolic decree (Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25) is still with us, in spite of the epoch-making and powerfully influential work of M. Dibelius and E. Haenchen on Acts xv as a whole. After analysing that chapter in detail, Dibelius concluded that the Decree stemmed from pre-Lukan documentary tradition but denied that the events described by Paul in Gal. ii. 1–10 could be the setting for the creation of the tradition Haenchen went still further, endorsing Dibelius' reservations about source criticism and veering decisively towards the view that Luke himself, dependent no doubt upon a contemporary and non-literary tradition, was responsible for the material He too disputed any connection with Gal. ii. 1–10 and followed C. von Weizsäcker in tracing the Decree to an attempt to cement together Jewish/Gentile Christian relations, certainly later in time than the controversy in Antioch described in Gal. ii. 11–14. The history of research into this problem during the last few decades has shown a quite remarkable degree of unanimity in accepting two basic conclusions: (I) Lukan theology is quite sufficient to explain the presence of the Decree in the Acts narrative of the so-called Apostolic Council, i.e. Luke's view that Gentile converts participate in that true Judaism set out by Moses and fulfilled in Jesus, provided they respect the law. (2) The Decree is the product of a process of conciliation. While scholars disagree as to whether Jerusalem was involved in the process, it is widely agreed that the conciliation was in time later, not earlier, than the clash in Antioch.

The Apostolic Decree and its setting in the ancient church

The Apostolic Decree and its setting in the ancient church

The Pseudo-Clementines and the Apostolic Decree

In a number of articles published recently the significance of certain passages in the Pseudo-Clementines for our understanding of the origin and development of the canonical Apostolic Decree (Acts xv 20 29 and xxi 25) has been pointed out. It seems to be agreed that in these writings the significance of the words at[oarzo and xvxzTov have been extended in an halachic way 1) and that the word Tropvetocq has to be understood as sexual impurity2). It is even said that the Pseudo-Clementines can help us to trace the original meaning of the much debated passages in Acts 3). Generally speaking, however, we do not get the impression that conclusions have been based on a thorough investigation of the relevant passages in the Pseudo-Clementines. We do not usually find more than a simple reference to Hon. vii 8 and viii 19 4). In addition to these two passages Schoeps mentions Hom. vii 4/Rec. ii 56 5). It is only in an article written by Molland that we find an investigation of the relation between the Pseudo-Clementines and the canonical Acts based upon all passages which are important for the subject 6).

The Pseudo-Clementines and the Apostolic Decree

The Pseudo-Clementines and the Apostolic Decree

The Council of Jerusalem

The Council of Jerusalem

Chrysostom and Symeon (Acts XV, 14)

The circumstances and the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem, as they are presented in the Acts of the Apostles, will come readily to every reader's mind. Gentile converts at Antioch had been disturbed by Judaeo-Christians who insisted on the rite of circumcision; so that a delegation was sent from the Syrian community to consult the apostles and presbyters of the mother church. Paul and Barnabas, veteran missionaries now, were chosen to lead the band. The session in the Holy City opened with a general discussion, which subsided when St. Peter rose to speak:Brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among you that the Gentiles should hear from my lips the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, the Knower of hearts, bore them witness, giving to them the Holy Spirit, just as to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, having purified their hearts with the faith.…

THE ‘APOSTOLIC DECREE’ AND PAUL'S SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM

Journal Article THE ‘APOSTOLIC DECREE’ AND PAUL'S SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM Get access J. R. PORTER J. R. PORTER Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume os-XLVII, Issue 187-188, July-October 1946, Pages 169–174, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/os-XLVII.187-188.169 Published: 01 October 1946

Jewish Christianity: The Apostolic Decree of Acts XV. and the Apostolic Church Orders—I

Jewish Christianity: The Apostolic Decree of Acts XV. and the Apostolic Church Orders—I

The Text of the Apostolic Decree. W. Sanday

Previous articleNext article FreePeriodical LiteratureThe Text of the Apostolic Decree. W. Sanday PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 18, Number 1Jan., 1914 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/479334 Views: 94Total views on this site Journal History This article was published in The American Journal of Theology (1897-1920), which is continued by The Journal of Religion (1921-present). PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Historicity of the Apostolic Decree

Adventurous as well as balanced attempts have been made to reconcile the fifteenth chapter of Acts and Paul's summary in the second chapter of Galatians. As the commentaries on Acts and Galatians and histories of the apostolic age appear, the debate becomes more involved. The questions at issue constantly demand discussion. For the Apostolic Conference, so called, is of primary importance to any adequate appreciation of the apostolic era. There is a widespread conviction that the solutions hitherto attempted upon the basis of the usually accepted text have ended in failure. But many now agree that the essential point of difference that remains is the apostolic decree.' We propose to discuss the historicity of this resolution adopted at Jerusalem.