Community Bible Study -- Acts Text of Presentation, Lesson 13, Acts 15:1-35 Click Here to see Lesson 13 Photos . . . Click Here to return to Acts Home Page

The Council of Jerusalem

Last week Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from their first Missionary Journey. Their debriefing no doubt enumerated their substantial success . . . but also their failures.

But prior to their return (or soon thereafter) an insidious cancer implanted itself within the church of Antioch. That cancer was Pharisee-Christians from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1, 5), who came to Antioch and told the Gentile-Christians:  “Unless you are circumcised, . . . you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). These Pharisee-Christians also insisted that new Gentile Christians commit to following the Jewish oral law (Acts 15:5) – essentially convert to Judaism!

This is not a minor point; adult male Gentiles did not readily agree to circumcision – which is painful and (to a Greek) mutilates a beautiful body. Insisting on circumcision will drastically undercut Paul’s evangelism to Gentiles . . . just as if new converts today were required to receive a “Jesus” tattoo. And the oral law was legalistic formulas for ritual purity so complex that not even the Jews could follow it (Acts 15:10).

Paul and Barnabas “sharp(ly) dispute and debate” (Acts 15:2) these Pharisee-Christians. Paul later describes this episode in his letter to the Galatians: “some false brothers infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves” (Gal 2:4). Paul’s intensity is understandable; he’s just been expelled from Pisidian Antioch and stoned in Lystra by legalistic Pharisees with a similar attitude . . . it must be too painful for words to be confronted in his home town by fellow Christians preaching this doctrine! Wasn’t this issue resolved when Peter met with the Jerusalem church in Acts 11?

The elders of the church of Antioch agree with Paul and Barnabas . . . and it is decided they must go – along with some other believers – to Jerusalem to meet with church leaders and discuss the issue. What transpires is called the “Council of Jerusalem” – probably the single most important church council meeting in history, dwarfing in importance the 21 subsequent councils (ref http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm ).

This Council of Jerusalem will decide a fundamental point: “Are the followers of Jesus a universal church of Jews and Gentiles? . . . or are they a sect of Judaism, including Gentiles only if they become Jews (or become like Jews)?”

Before discussing the council meeting itself, consider this: the most influential person at the Council of Jerusalem seems to be Jesus’ half-brother James: when James speaks, the council endorses what he says. Why is James so important?  He was not an early follower of Jesus (Mark 3:21, John 7:5); he became a believer only after the resurrection . . . maybe not until the risen Messiah appeared to him personally (Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 15:7). James does not qualify for consideration when Judas’ replacement is chosen (cf Acts 1:21) . . . yet in Acts 12 James seems head of the church of Jerusalem, and in Acts 15 he is the most influential voice in this most important council. How did he gain such clout?

According to Messianic prophesy, Jesus the Messiah is king and reigns on the eternal throne of David. But the Messiah’s throne is in heaven – not on earth. He left the Holy Spirit as our counselor . . . yet people prefer a human leader – with whom we can communicate more directly. Who should be the human leader of the church? Should it be the man believed most “in sync” with Jesus’ theology? That would be Peter, His closest disciple and recipient of the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt 16:19). Or should the leader be chosen according to the rules of royal succession: the king’s oldest son . . . or oldest daughter . . . or oldest brother . . . or oldest nearest male cousin.  That would be James His oldest half brother (or close cousin, according to some traditions).

That same question caused the split in Islam when Mohammed died. Those known as the Shiites followed Mohammed’s nearest relative; those known as Sunnis followed the man they thought best able to carry on Mohammed’s works.

At Pentecost, when there were only 120 followers of Jesus, Peter was the acknowledged leader. Then the miracles of Peter and John – along with the miracle of the Holy Spirit –brought in thousands of new believers. Apparently these new members, who (generally) did not know Jesus personally, gravitate toward the “royal” line of succession . . . and as a result, it seems Peter goes off to the mission fields, and James becomes leader of the Jerusalem church . . . a position roughly equivalent to Pope today.

Many new believers were Pharisees, and it seems they tried to impose the old traditions of the Jewish oral law on Christianity – changing their theology only to accept Jesus as Messiah. Perhaps this would not have been the case if the Jerusalem church had been led by Peter and John and the disciples who knew Jesus . . . but that was not to be.

Returning to Acts 15 . . . Luke doesn’t say why Pharisee-Christians came to Antioch and told the Gentile-Christians they must be “circumcised” and “obey the law of Moses” (Acts 15:1, 5); it appears they came without the authority of the official church leadership (Acts 15:24). But that isn’t really the point. A substantial number of the Jerusalem Christians believe this, and it’s not something for which diversity can be lovingly tolerated: circumcision is either mandatory, or it’s voluntary; Christianity either includes the purity rituals and dietary restrictions of 1^st century Judaism, or it doesn’t – there’s no middle ground. The church must have an unambiguous policy on both issues.

En route to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas build support for their cause by visiting churches as they “traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria . . . (telling) how the Gentiles had been converted . . . (and making) all the brothers very glad” (Acts 15:3).

Arriving in Jerusalem, they are welcomed warmly.  But it doesn’t take long for their opponents to get down to business:

“Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses’” (Acts 15:5).

Hence begins the Council of Jerusalem . . . finally addressing the “unfinished business” from Acts 11. Recall . . . at that time the Jerusalem church agreed it was “OK” for Peter to have baptized uncircumcised Gentiles in Caesarea (Acts 11:18). But apparently, although Peter felt the decision was that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised, the Pharisee-Christians seem to feel it was understood the new Gentile Christians would be circumcised _, and would agree to follow the oral law.

Consider first the viewpoint of Pharisee-Christians. Circumcision was given to Abraham as the sign of God’s covenant – the covenant through which God sent the Jesus the Messiah for the salvation of mankind. Jesus never discussed circumcision; He spoke exclusively to Jews, so all of His hearers were circumcised. And the Jewish oral law is essentially the “traditional” Jewish interpretation of the bible . . . including the written word plus what the Jews believed were additional oral instructions from God to Moses. It consisted of years of rabbinical opinions, applying God’s written and oral laws by analogy to new situations. It was carefully memorized – not written down until the 2^nd century, when it became known as the Mishnah.

A Pharisee-Christian might argue:

1.      Jesus never said circumcision was no longer necessary . . . and they are right.

2.      The traditional Jewish interpretations of the Bible – which have stood for hundreds of years – must considered valid unless Jesus specifically said otherwise . . . and in fact, Jesus was often short on specifics – focusing instead in general on the importance of one’s heart attitude over legalistic formulas.

Hence these Pharisee-Christians were neither unreasonable nor illogical: they were just wrong!  They missed the fact that Jesus replaced nit-picky rules of the oral law with the New Covenant of Jeremiah (cf Jer 31:31-34, Luke 22:20): God’ law written on our hearts. And Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism (Matt 18:18-20).

The council engages in extensive debate, because everyone knows this is a fundamental question. Peter recalls the story of Cornelius (cf Acts 10-11) and his discussion with the Jerusalem church five years or so ago.  He reiterates God “made no distinction between” Jews and Gentiles; “He purified (Gentile) hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). Then Peter lays out a great one-liner:  “Why do you (Pharisees) try to test God by putting on the necks of the (Gentiles) a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10).  Everyone in the council knows the legalistic oral law contains so much minutae that no one – Gentile or Jew – is able to follow it completely!

Barnabas and Paul tell of “the miraculous signs and wonders God did among the Gentiles through them” (Acts 15:12). Barnabas is influential within the Jerusalem church as a former member and emissary, a large financial contributor (Acts 4:36), and a relative of John Mark’s probably wealthy and influential family. Luke doesn’t quote what they say, but Paul alludes to the council in his letter to the Galatians; and there he quotes Old Testament justification for salvation by faith in Jesus, apart from following the oral law.

Then James speaks. I really feel for him: he seems to be trying to find a mutually acceptable compromise between two groups in no mood to compromise. James sides with Peter and Paul . . . but tactfully so. He emphasizes Peter as a Hebraic Jew, calling him by his Hebrew name, Simon. He quotes Messianic prophesy from Amos: that Gentiles will become believers after the Messiah restores the throne of David (Acts 15:16-18). He calls on the church to encourage fulfillment of that prophesy by “not mak(ing) it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). Then he proposes a compromise:

1.      Without fully converting to Judaism, Gentile-Christians must set themselves apart to God through a major, observable break with Hellenistic society. They must “abstain . . . from sexual immorality” (Acts 15:20) – openly shunning the free-wheeling sexual hedonism of their neighbors.

2.      Gentile-Christians must refrain from practices that would cause offence to Jewish-Christians: they must “abstain from food polluted by idols, . . . from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood” (Acts 15:20) . . . ie, meat from animals sacrificed in pagan temples and meat not slaughtered according to Jewish tradition. This will allow the entire church to associate socially – even share meals together.

This compromise is acceptable to a majority of the council.  Furthermore, to prevent the kind of misunderstanding that occurred after Acts 11, the decision is documented as official church policy in a formal letter, which is conveyed to the church of Antioch by Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by Judas and Silas, two Jewish-Christians who are both prophets and leaders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22,32). 

Upon arrival in Antioch, the delegation “gathered the church together and delivered the letter” (Acts 15:30). The letter and the visit by Judas and Silas did “much to encourage and strengthen the brothers” (Acts 15:32), some of whom had been needlessly upset by being told they were unsaved.  Paul and Barnabas continue to minister in Antioch (Acts 15:35) under an atmosphere now favorable for attracting new Gentile-Christians.

But many Pharisee-Christians don’t accept the verdict of the Council of Jerusalem. Paul continues to have difficulties with people who claim Gentile-Christians must be circumcised and follow the oral law; he mentions them in his letters to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus. It seems the specter of legalism – which raises its ugly head here in Acts 15 – never goes away.

In fact it seems that over the last 2000 years – including today – one of the greatest challenges to the church is “legalism”: a religion of “formulas,” rather than a religion of the “heart.” Then as now, legalism is usually based on someone’s interpretation of the bible, which becomes “tradition”; eventually people think it’s the literal word of God. Sometimes the bible is taken out of context. Sometimes bible verses intended as advice to a particular culture and time are applied – incorrectly – to all cultures for all time. Sometimes a verse which seems obscure is interpreted as a fundamental truth. Protestants have accused Catholics of a “works gospel”; but ironically, the worst legalists today are Protestant fundamentalists who focus on petty regulations – even as they claim salvation through faith alone!

Nevertheless, the valid purpose of the oral law was to set the Jews apart from their pagan neighbors as a people devoted to God. Jesus demands that, too. So we close with this question: do our morals as modern Christians visibly set us apart from our immoral society, as James suggests? Or are we indistinguishable from the pagans around us?

Next week is the beginning of Paul’s 2^nd Missionary Journey. Together with Silas – one of the emissaries from Jerusalem to Antioch – Paul visits four of the churches formed on his 1^st missionary journey. But the highlight of the trip is that – led by the Holy Spirit – they go to Macedonia . . . to Philippi, in what is now mainland Greece. The story has high drama: casting out evil spirits . . . a violent earthquake . . . a brutal beating . . . jail . . . and a miracle which allows Paul to discuss salvation with a Gentile jailer.