Sixth Sunday of Easter May 9, 2010

(Acts 15:1-2, 22-29; Revelation 21:10-14, 22-23; John 14:23-29)

Discovering how authority in the early Church developed is

not easy. Paul, the “apostle to the gentiles” was often hampered in
his missionary work among them by a faction in the fledgling
church which insisted on strict observance of the Law of Moses,
requiring among other things that men be circumcised. Paul argued
strongly against that requirement. He was often contradicted by
those who came “from Judea” who sought to undo Paul’s practice.
In Sunday’s selection from Acts, Paul and Barnabas go up to
Jerusalem to confront the leaders of the church in Jerusalem (“the
apostles and elders”) to resolve the issue. Sunday’s passage jumps
directly from the decision made in Antioch to go to Jerusalem to
the judgment rendered by the Jerusalem church without presenting
Paul’s arrival nor his argument before the apostles when he got
there.
Paul presents a radically different account of this meeting in
his letter to the Galatians, written in the 50’s AD. Paul wrote that
his decision to go to Jerusalem was based on a personal revelation.
Paul was quite lively in describing how he had confronted the
leaders of the church in Jerusalem and had won the argument
completely. He says the only restriction placed on him was to have
a care for the poor which Paul says he was doing anyway.
Acts suggests it was some converts from among the
Pharisees who were insisting on strict observance of the Law of
Moses. That a number of Pharisees had converted to become
followers of Jesus is quite plausible since they shared a belief with
many things Jesus taught, including a belief in the resurrection. It
is an enlightening remark, made almost in passing in Acts 15:5.
Note that early on, Christians were regarded as a sect of Jews, a
situation which changed gradually in the first 20 years or so after
the resurrection. By the time Acts was written, Christians and Jews
had been alienated for 30 years or so.
 What is included, is a letter that Paul and Barnabas were to
take back to Antioch giving them Jerusalem’s approval to lead the
church in Antioch, but again placing restrictions on them which
Paul would not have endorsed, however limited they were. Acts
lists “abstinence from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
strangled animals (all of which were dietary legal restrictions
which Paul himself had already rejected in 1 Corinthians), and
from unlawful marriage.” The restriction on unlawful marriage has
been debated by scholars but is probably meant to restrict marriage
to Jewish legal limits in regard to degrees of kinship within which
people could marry.
Evidently the division between Paul and the apostles was
much greater than Acts suggests. That gives a false sense of quiet
agreement between all parties whenever there were disputes in the
early church. This is little different from today’s world when we
find ourselves in disagreement with this or that Church teaching. A
developing rift between English-speaking peoples and the Roman
imposed revisions of English translations of the parts of the Mass
might well create similar rifts in coming days. Such disagreements
will be gut-wrenching and emotional, tinged with anger and
hostility. The early church was not much different.
It is impossible to say why Acts and Galatians differ so on
this Jerusalem meeting. Luke, who wrote Acts, was thought to
have known Paul and should have known of this meeting from
Paul himself. It may be that the passage of time played a role...Acts
was written some 30 years after Galatians. Luke may have meant
to emphasize the influence of Jerusalem church leadership by the
time he wrote. We simply do not know.

Fr. Lawrence L. Hummer