Replies

Acts [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely. From here to the end of Acts, Paul and the Gentile mission become the focus of Luke’s writing.

Paradosis or tradition falls into two categories. The difference can be seen in Acts 15. Besides the issue of following the Mosaic Law for gentile converts, which meant primarily circumcision, the Council of Jerusalem also decreed that converts had "to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood" (Acts 15:20).

There are clearly distinguished paradosis or traditions which are considered irrevocable, unchangeable, even to our day, e.g. circumcision is not a requirement for new Christians. On the other hand, today we would not be concerned with "pollution from idols," how an animal is killed for meat, or whether blood is in our food. These appear to be different traditions from the former--changeable and not binding in the same way as non-circumcision.

The Roman Catholic Church also follows this biblical model in her approach to paradosis/traditions.

Hence, there are paradosis/traditions which are unchangeable, capital letter "T", "Traditions." These are the defined faith or moral teachings based on the Bible but revealed by the Holy Spirit as an authority in the Church (Acts 15:28).

==============================================

As to the council itself,

However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.

So, why does James speak? We think there are three reasons:

He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor. What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes: “Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.

They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says: “It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”

Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.

And so, at Jerusalem, we see Peter as Head of the Church, speaking for the Church, making decisions for the Church, acting unilaterally on behalf of the Church. He does not share this authority with other bishops. He does not participate in the debate. Rather, it says: “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up …” His teaching ENDS the debate. He acts as father (Pope) to all.

It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place — even over the resident reigning bishop (James).

Btw, I didn't know you, Elsie, held to the Council of bishops!

n ecumenical councils, "there is much discussion" among the bishops; the pope, typically, only confirms the decision

with respect to the interplay between James and Peter, it can be pointed out that James is making a decision about how to put Peter's beliefs into practice, while Peter is laying down what 'we believe' (which is exactly what a Pope would do). Note that in verse 14 he says:

"Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written ..."

Acts 15:14

In other words, James is not settling the theological argument, he is turning to how to enforce what Peter has declared.