The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-22)
We can look back into church history and read about important gatherings that met to discuss doctrinal and practical issues concerning the church. Whenever we are at an induction of officebearers, we hear reference made to the Westminster Confession of Faith which was produced at a famous Assembly in London in the 1640s and which is still the confession of Presbyterian churches all over the world.
Before then, there were important gatherings that involved many of the church fathers as they met to discuss what they believed about the Trinity or about the person of Christ, and we adhere to what they said on those doctrines.
Those meetings to discuss doctrinal matters were not the first Christian gathering to do so. The first was the one recorded in Acts 15. Have you ever wondered what would have happened subsequently if that gathering had made a different decision?
Before Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, it looks as if Paul had sent his letter to the churches in Galatia. He had written it to deal with the same problem as was dealt with by the leaders who met in Jerusalem. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul does not seem to mention this meeting in Jerusalem in his autobiographical section, but he does mention other visits there that had happened previously. The importance of this meeting in Jerusalem can be seen in Paul going to it instead of going with his letter to the Galatians.
The reason for the meeting
It was inevitable that sooner or later a dispute would arise in the New Testament Church in connection with the ceremonial law, and in particular with the practice of circumcision. Circumcision had been the identifying mark of a male Jew since the time of Moses. Therefore, it was a major change for anyone to say that it was no longer necessary as far as Gentiles joining the people of God were concerned.
It is important to see what was being claimed by the false teachers who came from the church in Jerusalem. We might imagine initially that they were wanting a meaningless ritual to continue. The truth was that they were focussing on what it means to be a Christian. For them, it was not enough that sinners repent of their sins and believe in Jesus. Nor was it enough that those sinners join the visible church by the symbolic act of baptism. Instead they were insisting that a person could only be a genuine Christian if he submitted himself to obeying the ceremonial law.
Yet that was the opposite of what Paul and Barnabas had been teaching in Antioch and elsewhere. So it is not surprising to see that a strong disagreement occurred between Paul and Barnabas and the visiting teachers. The outcome was that a special gathering of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem was held to consider the issue, along with representatives from the church in Antioch. The danger was that the Christian movement could split in two over the issue.
On the journey to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas took opportunities to describe how Gentiles in different places had been converted through their ministry. They did the same in Jerusalem before the whole church, including the apostles and elders.
Despite the fact that God was clearly at work, some of the believing Pharisees insisted that circumcision and conformity to the ceremonial law was essential. These Pharisees remind us that a person does not get rid automatically of religious baggage when they are converted and can want others to practice those requirements even although they are not stipulated by God.
The debates at the meeting
Although there were several contributors to the debate Luke focuses on two in particular – Peter and James. Peter’s contribution was important for two reasons. First, he had been instrumental several years previously in taking the gospel to Gentiles connected to the Roman centurion Cornelius. On that occasion, the new converts had become recognised members of the Christian church through baptism and not by circumcision. Second, at the time when there had been trouble in Antioch caused by the teachers from Jerusalem, Peter had sided with the teachers and refused to eat with Gentiles. On that occasion, Paul had rebuked Peter to his face. Barnabas had been adversely affected by Peter’s behaviour at that time, but he had recovered from his error. No doubt, the men from Antioch as they made their way to Jerusalem would wonder what Peter would say.
Contribution of Peter
In his address to the assembly in Jerusalem, Peter explains why Gentiles are not required to adopt Jewish practices. First, God gave the Holy Spirit to those Gentiles. Whatever else can be said about this divine action, it was a sign of approval. Second, those Gentiles by faith had experienced the same cleansing from sin that Jewish believers had experienced when they believed. Obviously, God regarded Jewish and Gentile believers in the same way even although the latter had not been circumcised.
Peter pointed out a danger that those advocating conformity to the ceremonial law were facing – they were endangering themselves by leaving themselves open to divine judgement. He would not approve of compelling the Gentile converts to practice a range of rituals which Jews in the past and in the present found unbearable. The obvious deduction was to accept that God in his providence had revealed that we are saved solely by faith in Jesus and not by conformity to ceremonial requirements.
A sense of awe fell over the gathering and this was a good opportunity for Barnabas and Paul to recount what had occurred during their recent mission to Gentiles in Cyprus and Turkey, especially their emphasis on the fact that God had given numerous confirmatory signs of his involvement and approval.
Contribution of Peter
In his address to the assembly in Jerusalem, Peter explains why Gentiles are not required to adopt Jewish practices. First, God gave the Holy Spirit to those Gentiles. Whatever else can be said about this divine action, it was a sign of approval. Second, those Gentiles by faith had experienced the same cleansing from sin that Jewish believers had experienced when they believed. Obviously, God regarded Jewish and Gentile believers in the same way even although the latter had not been circumcised.
Peter pointed out a danger that those advocating conformity to the ceremonial law were facing – they were endangering themselves by leaving themselves open to divine judgement. He would not approve of compelling the Gentile converts to practice a range of rituals which Jews in the past and in the present found unbearable. The obvious deduction was to accept that God in his providence had revealed that we are saved solely by faith in Jesus and not by conformity to ceremonial requirements.
A sense of awe fell over the gathering and this was a good opportunity for Barnabas and Paul to recount what had occurred during their recent mission to Gentiles in Cyprus and Turkey, especially their emphasis on the fact that God had given numerous confirmatory signs of his involvement and approval.
Contribution of James
Then James, the brother of Jesus, spoke. His opinion would be very important because Paul, when he writes his letter to the Galatians, refers to the men who had come from Antioch and says that they had come from James. This does not mean that James had sent them, but that they had come from the church that he led. So what would he say about the matter? Would he side with Peter and Paul or would he have another view?
James informed the audience that the ingathering of the Gentiles had been predicted in the Old Testament. We might find his choice of passage as unusual, yet we should not overlook the fact that Old Testament scripture was regarded as essential in explaining the situation. He took a passage from Amos (9:11-12) which predicted the recovery of the royal line of David would recover after a period of great decline. God would be the cause of this recovery and when it would take place many Gentiles would seek the Lord. That prophecy predicted the impossibility of having a Jew-only church.
It would have been obvious to all that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were the evidence of the recovery of the Davidic royal line. Jesus, now crowned in heaven, would work to bring Gentiles into his kingdom, and this had been taking place in Antioch and elsewhere. This meant that there was no need for the Gentiles to fulfil the ceremonial law in order to be accepted by Jesus.
Nevertheless, there were four areas connected to Gentile life that were unacceptable to James. They should not participate in pagan feasts connected to idolatry, they should not participate in immoral practices connected to pagan worship, and they should not eat food that came from strangled creatures or which still had blood in it.
It could have seemed that James was adding some rules to the gospel of grace that Paul and Barnabas had been preaching. Yet if that had been the case, Paul and Barnabas would have objected strongly to James’ requirements. So the reasons that James had for making them were not connected to him making rules that were connected to the salvation of Gentiles. In fact, James provides his reason for giving this advice – the Gentiles should be sensitive to the Jews in their communities who read the books of Moses every Sabbath and would not understand why those claiming to believe in Yahweh would engage in activities that were forbidden.
The question that comes to us from this requirement by James is to ask if it is binding in situations where Jews are not present. Probably, the reasons for the prohibitions also were connected to pastoral care of Gentile converts, that they were to avoid situations in which it would be easy for them to fall into sin. The application to us is not whether we are allowed to eat black pudding but whether we are sensitive to the feelings of other believers and whether we keep away from situations that can lead us to sin.
James informed the audience that the ingathering of the Gentiles had been predicted in the Old Testament. We might find his choice of passage as unusual, yet we should not overlook the fact that Old Testament scripture was regarded as essential in explaining the situation. He took a passage from Amos (9:11-12) which predicted the recovery of the royal line of David would recover after a period of great decline. God would be the cause of this recovery and when it would take place many Gentiles would seek the Lord. That prophecy predicted the impossibility of having a Jew-only church.
It would have been obvious to all that the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were the evidence of the recovery of the Davidic royal line. Jesus, now crowned in heaven, would work to bring Gentiles into his kingdom, and this had been taking place in Antioch and elsewhere. This meant that there was no need for the Gentiles to fulfil the ceremonial law in order to be accepted by Jesus.
Nevertheless, there were four areas connected to Gentile life that were unacceptable to James. They should not participate in pagan feasts connected to idolatry, they should not participate in immoral practices connected to pagan worship, and they should not eat food that came from strangled creatures or which still had blood in it.
It could have seemed that James was adding some rules to the gospel of grace that Paul and Barnabas had been preaching. Yet if that had been the case, Paul and Barnabas would have objected strongly to James’ requirements. So the reasons that James had for making them were not connected to him making rules that were connected to the salvation of Gentiles. In fact, James provides his reason for giving this advice – the Gentiles should be sensitive to the Jews in their communities who read the books of Moses every Sabbath and would not understand why those claiming to believe in Yahweh would engage in activities that were forbidden.
The question that comes to us from this requirement by James is to ask if it is binding in situations where Jews are not present. Probably, the reasons for the prohibitions also were connected to pastoral care of Gentile converts, that they were to avoid situations in which it would be easy for them to fall into sin. The application to us is not whether we are allowed to eat black pudding but whether we are sensitive to the feelings of other believers and whether we keep away from situations that can lead us to sin.
The Letter from the Assembly
Luke includes in his account of events the letter that was sent to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (it is interesting to see that there was contact with the churches in Cilicia where Paul had preached before Barnabas had taken him to work in Antioch). Probably, the church in Antioch would be responsible for sending the letter to churches within its reach.
What can we say about the letter? First, it stresses the reality of Christian unity – the letter is sent from brothers to brothers. Second, it confirms the ministry of Paul and Barnabas and condemns the wrong actions of those within the Jerusalem church who had taught a different message. Third, it sent two representatives (Judas and Silas) who would explain any issues connected to the letter, especially the requirement connected to having nothing to do with pagan practices. Fourth, it stressed that the Holy Spirit does not wish to burden his people with unnecessary requirements.
The outcome, as far as the church in Antioch was concerned, was great blessing. There was rejoicing; there was temporary ministry provided by the two representatives of the Jerusalem church which was very different from that of the false teachers; and there was the ongoing ministry of Paul and Barnabas and others in the church. Truly, a happy outcome.
Luke includes in his account of events the letter that was sent to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (it is interesting to see that there was contact with the churches in Cilicia where Paul had preached before Barnabas had taken him to work in Antioch). Probably, the church in Antioch would be responsible for sending the letter to churches within its reach.
What can we say about the letter? First, it stresses the reality of Christian unity – the letter is sent from brothers to brothers. Second, it confirms the ministry of Paul and Barnabas and condemns the wrong actions of those within the Jerusalem church who had taught a different message. Third, it sent two representatives (Judas and Silas) who would explain any issues connected to the letter, especially the requirement connected to having nothing to do with pagan practices. Fourth, it stressed that the Holy Spirit does not wish to burden his people with unnecessary requirements.
The outcome, as far as the church in Antioch was concerned, was great blessing. There was rejoicing; there was temporary ministry provided by the two representatives of the Jerusalem church which was very different from that of the false teachers; and there was the ongoing ministry of Paul and Barnabas and others in the church. Truly, a happy outcome.
Lessons
One obvious lesson from the decision to have this assembly is that the best way to deal with a problem is to sit down and see what the Bible says about the matter. If the authority of the Bible is accepted, then a solution will be found. But if something else is placed above the authority of the Bible, there never will be a proper solution.
Another lesson from this passage is that we should never accept a message that teaches ‘Jesus plus something’ as the gospel. Back then, it was Jesus and circumcision or Jesus and the ceremonial law. Today, there are numerous ‘Jesus and …’ messages, with most of the add-ons being linked to Bible verses. Yet, if we move away from Jesus-only, we move away from the gospel. It is true that believers should hold to correct doctrine, but the gospel is not Jesus plus correct doctrine. It is true that every Christians has a spiritual gift, but the gospel is not Jesus plus how you use your gift. It is true that some traditions are helpful, but the gospel is not Jesus plus helpful traditions.
Another lesson from this passage is that we should never accept a message that teaches ‘Jesus plus something’ as the gospel. Back then, it was Jesus and circumcision or Jesus and the ceremonial law. Today, there are numerous ‘Jesus and …’ messages, with most of the add-ons being linked to Bible verses. Yet, if we move away from Jesus-only, we move away from the gospel. It is true that believers should hold to correct doctrine, but the gospel is not Jesus plus correct doctrine. It is true that every Christians has a spiritual gift, but the gospel is not Jesus plus how you use your gift. It is true that some traditions are helpful, but the gospel is not Jesus plus helpful traditions.