The Book of Acts

The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)

Part One

Sermon Twenty-eight in the Series

Jim Bordwine, ThD

Introduction

As we have studied the books of Acts, we have read of several epic moments in the early history of the Church. I'm referring to those events which contributed substantially to the character of the Church and to Her understanding of the gospel. The outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost is one such event. The conversion of Saul is another. A third momentous event occurred when Paul and Barnabas announced that they would turn to the Gentiles with the gospel.

Our examination of this book brings us now to chapter 15; and here we will read of yet another event which shaped the understanding and direction of the Church. I'm referring to what is known as “the Jerusalem Council.” This meeting of the Church leaders determined the relationship between the Law and the Gospel in that all important matter of justification. The importance of this council cannot be overstated.

The date is AD 49. Paul has completed his first missionary journey during which the gospel was carried far out into the Empire. Paul and Barnabas witnessed the work of the Spirit as He confirmed their calling and blessed their labors. Paul, better than anyone in the Church at this point in history, has a correct perspective on the gospel. His experience will become pivotal in the deliberations of the Church leaders in Jerusalem when they consider the most important question yet faced.

We'll examine this historic assembly under three points. The first point will be the issue itself. What was being questioned? Where did the questions come from? What were some of the implications of the issue? The second point will be the resolution. We'll see what the apostles and elders in Jerusalem decided and why; we'll see how Peter and Paul guided the leaders to a conclusion which preserved the gospel delivered to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ. The third point will be the declaration. After arriving at a conclusion and determining what should be the position of the Church, the leaders published a letter in which they declared their judgment. We will see what was in that letter, how it was delivered and how it was received.

01. The Issue (15:1-5)

15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

After returning from their first expedition, Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch where they taught the local congregation. About a year has passed as this next story unfolds. It begins when certain men arrive in Antioch teaching the brethren that they must be circumcised according to the Mosaic Law in order to be saved (v. 1). These men, Luke notes, were from Judea, which, along with a description of their doctrine, indicates that they were Jewish believers. They had professed faith in Christ, but still maintained that the requirements of the old covenant, circumcision in particular, had to be observed for one to be in right standing with God.

Notice how dogmatically this position was held by these men: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” This is a statement which allows for no compromise. In their minds, this was not a question of keeping a ritual simply because it was meaningful or had sentimental value. This was a matter of being redeemed. These men taught that, in addition to believing the gospel, you had to conform to the stipulations which governed the people of God prior to the coming of the Messiah. Two things can be said immediately: one, these men did not rightly understand the significance of circumcision under the old covenant; two, they definitely did not rightly understand the gospel of grace. This will become apparent as we see how the leaders of the Church resolved this conflict.

For now, we read further that “great dissension and debate” occurred between these men and the other teachers in Antioch, namely, Paul and Barnabas (v. 2). The word translated “dissension” (stasis) means such things as “insurrection, uproar, strife.” This word is used to describe the most serious kinds of disputes, the kinds in which riots occur or blood is shed. Luke means to convey, no doubt, that Paul and Barnabas had severe and vocal disagreement with these men from Judea. With Paul's understanding of the gospel of grace, it's no surprise that he would have argued so vigorously against this teaching which maintained that something had to be added to the work of the Savior. Paul's conversion forever dispelled any notions he had about the usefulness of his own efforts when it came to justification before God. In the matter of justification, even the Law of Moses, as Paul makes so clear in his many epistles, does not bind the believer who is free and secure in Christ.

The way in which the believers at Antioch handled this dispute indicates just how serious it was. They determined that Paul and Barnabas should travel to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders located in that city. As they made their way to Jerusalem, Luke records that Paul and company passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, giving testimony along the way concerning the conversion of the Gentiles. This, the text states, brought great joy to all the brethren (v. 3). Again, we have an indication of just how significant was the issue of the Gentile conversions. It was the topic of discussion wherever Paul traveled. Most understood and appreciated the import of this development; most were beginning to grasp what this meant in terms of the work of the Savior. The teaching of those men from Judea, however, indicated that not all were comprehending what was happening in the expansion of the early Church.

Arriving in Jerusalem, the representatives from Antioch reported on the situation to the apostles and elders (v. 4). Indicating the wide-spread nature of the errant view which had troubled the church in Antioch, Luke writes that some like-minded men defended the same position before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (v. 5). In this case, Luke identifies them as “of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed.” Referring to Gentile converts, these men declared: “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

We need to understand the perspective of these men, even though we reject their teaching. These men were in a difficult position, to be sure. Their whole lives had been given to the defense of the Law and to promoting absolute obedience to all of the Mosaic precepts. Now, with the arrival of the gospel, they hear that the requirements of the Law, which for generations had held such weight, are met in the gospel-and they are met without a man personally fulfilling those requirements. This conflict is not surprising, given what is going on at this moment in history. Christ is combining the Jews and the Gentiles into one new body and that which is uniting them is the gospel in which it is declared that all work necessary to stand before God without condemnation has been accomplished by Another. This present conflict was not only tremendously serious, it also was absolutely unavoidable. The question of the relationship between the Law and the gospel had to be answered.

The Levitical system which, in its many sacrifices emphasized the idea of substitution, was sufficient to teach the people of God to look outside themselves for One who would and could take their place under the wrath of God. But this concept, as clearly as it was portrayed for generations in Israel, still escaped the Pharisees of this day. They, in particular, as Christ's encounters with them often demonstrated, failed to understand that the requirements of the Law pointed to One who would come and fulfill in a perfect fashion what they could only attempt in an imperfect fashion.

Even after believing the gospel, however, some, like those mentioned in this story, simply could accept the idea that circumcision and other ritualistic observances were no longer integral aspects of life in Covenant. When they heard of Gentiles coming into the Church, they were alarmed because they knew the Gentiles had no inclination to follow Jewish practices. This was, as I've said, a most serious issue and it was one which had to be resolved once and for all for the progress of the Church to continue. This issue went to the heart of the most important question in life: How does a sinner stand before a holy God?

The question, then, facing the participants in this upcoming meeting is this: Should the Gentiles be required to keep the Law of Moses? Asking this question means that another must be asked: What is the relationship between the Law of Moses and the gospel? And we can add: Is anyone, Jew or Gentile, required-that is, required in order to achieve acceptable standing before God-to keep the Law of Moses once the gospel is embraced? Let's remember that this issue affects not only Gentiles, but Jews as well.

02. The Resolution (vv. 6-21)

We now know the issue which precipitated the Jerusalem Council. It may be that the church in Jerusalem had not yet been troubled by this dispute. But when Paul and Barnabas arrived, the church leaders learned of it first-hand. Luke records their reaction:

6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” 12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

You can quickly see that the issue under discussion goes to the heart of justification, as I stated previously. How is a sinner justified before God? Some were saying that one must believe the gospel and keep the Law of Moses-or at least certain aspects of the Law of Moses. In other words, some were saying that the efforts of the sinner must be combined with belief of the gospel. Paul and Barnabas, on the other hand, were teaching that justification is found not by keeping anything, but by believing what God has declared concerning His Son, Jesus Christ. These are two approaches to God which are not, in any fashion or under any scheme, compatible. One places the burden of meeting God's standards on the sinner; the other takes that burden off the sinner and declares it relieved in Christ. A council was necessary to reach a conclusion which would put this dispute to rest (cf. v. 6).

There was some preliminary debate, according to Luke, and then Peter addressed the gathering (v. 7). The first thing he does is remind the brethren of his own experience as an apostle. It's clear that Peter is speaking to his Jewish brethren, even to those who were advocating a combination of human effort and belief in the effort of Christ. Peter recalls that monumentally important experience he had when he was called to the home of Cornelius. It was during that time that he gained insight regarding the glory of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter, therefore, could speak with a unique authority and from a unique perspective. He knew, beyond any doubt, that the Gentiles were to be welcomed into the covenant community. He knew further, also beyond any doubt, that God was not requiring them to keep the Law of Moses. Now, Peter had not only the opportunity, but the responsibility to stand and address those in this assembly. He was particularly qualified to lead these men to the proper conclusion and deliver the Church from the threat of a paralyzing doctrinal error.

Peter states the facts-God gave to the Gentiles the Holy Spirit which was testimony to them that they were acceptable before God (v. 8). This is exactly what happened to the Jews gathered on the Day of Pentecost. By sending the Spirit to both groups, God indicated that both were included in the work of the Savior. There really was no argument to be brought against the idea that the Gentiles were the objects of Christ's saving activity. Beyond the coming of the Spirit to the Gentiles was the fact that they were not subjected to the stipulations of the Law after they received the Spirit. As I noted, Peter knew this himself based upon his contact with the household of Cornelius.

Believing the gospel was sufficient, in other words, for their salvation. This is Peter's point when he declares that God “cleansed their hearts by faith.” (v. 9) This is the stunning truth of the gospel-it is not our efforts that save, it is belief in the efforts of Another, our Savior. This is the truth that gives hope to those who, under no circumstances, could ever meet the standards of God. No teaching can be tolerated for one minute-no matter what the source, no matter what the motivation-if it attacks, subtlety or directly, the central truth of the gospel which is justification by grace through faith alone. Peter communicates the gravity of this matter when he suggests that requiring the Gentiles to follow aspects of the Mosaic Law would be “placing upon [their] neck a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” (v. 10) This is such an appropriate point made by the apostle. Those who were teaching that the Gentiles must be circumcised were, as Peter says, placing a requirement on them which no Jew had ever been able to keep! When you look at it this way, you can see what a powerful argument Peter is making. He is exposing the folly of this false teaching. No Jew has ever achieved justification before God by keeping the Law, Peter declares. In essence, he's saying: “Why, then, would we impose this impossible standard on the Gentiles? We, ourselves, know that it cannot be kept and we know that redemption must be granted because it cannot be merited.”

Peter's speech concludes with a ringing assertion that “we” (i.e., we apostles and elders) believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus…” (v. 11) Grace! That is the response to those who taught faith plus conformity to the Law of Moses. Grace is operative when God gives us what we do not deserve and withholds from us what we do deserve. Grace is operative when our sins are forgiven and God's wrath falls on Christ instead of us, and we are granted eternal life in place of death.

Peter knew that if salvation is not of grace, then there is no salvation. The moment the sinner's abilities enter the picture, hope for redemption vanishes. Grace is God doing for us and to us what we could not do ourselves-and doing it without regard for our merit and without demand of anything from us. Grace means salvation is free; grace means all that I need has been provided in and by Another. Grace is exclusive-it does not ally itself with human effort. And this is what Peter declares to be the conviction of the apostles and elders; and this is how the Gentiles are being saved, he adds. There is no other view, there is no other doctrine, there is no tampering allowed, there is no tolerance for contrary teaching.

Peter's demeanor and the tone of his voice must have been captivating. There was silence after Peter concluded (v. 12). No one raised an objection. Indeed, no one could because when Peter finished speaking, Paul and Barnabas supported his words with stories of what God had done through them among the Gentiles. Peter provided the theology, Paul and Barnabas provided the application. This is what we believe, Peter said; this is how we know this to be the truth, Paul and Barnabas added.

The resolution to this conflict seems plain. There is more to come, however, as James addresses the assembly and provides an incredibly insightful and crucial bit of exegesis which establishes a much broader context for this debate than what has been apparent up to this point.

… to be continued

Application

For the application, I have several thoughts which I want to pass along. First, let me remind you of something I said in connection with the false teachers who showed up in Antioch. You'll recall that they maintained: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” I noted that this is a statement which leaves no room for compromise. They were not saying that it s advisable to keep the Law of Moses along with belief in the gospel, they were saying one must keep the Law of Moses in addition to believing in the work of Christ. The perspective demonstrated by these men communicates to us something of incredible significance and that is the incompatibility of the gospel with any scheme which says that human effort plays a part in justification. I mention this only to emphasize the serious nature of the debate which took place in Jerusalem and, by way of implication, the serious nature of any debate we may have today in which someone is suggesting that the efforts of the sinner contribute to the sinner's justification. Whenever such a thing is said or even implied, it must be challenged immediately and forcefully. Our first application, then, is a warning to us all to be on guard against teaching which seeks to combine human merit with what Christ has provided for us.

A second application is related to the first and has to do with the intensity of the debate in Antioch. Luke wrote that there was “great dissension and debate” between those advocating the keeping of the Law, on the one side, and Paul and Barnabas, on the other side. Remember that Luke uses a term which refers to the most extreme form of disagreement. Why was there such passionate argument in Antioch? The answer is found in what was at stake. Paul and Barnabas understood that a proper understanding of salvation was on the line. If they allowed the idea that the sinner can contribute to his justification to be incorporated into the preaching of the Church, they knew that the way of salvation would be lost. So, they were willing to enter into the most vigorous kind of disagreement with their opponents.

It seems to me that the behavior of Paul and Barnabas serves as a challenge to us. Christians don't appear to get as upset when the gospel is attacked these days as has been true in the past. The gospel hasn't changed. The gospel which Paul preached and by which the Gentiles entered the Church is the same today. So I would think we should respond with equal energy when we hear someone or some institution say that, in the matter of justification before God, the sinner can add something or the sinner must add something to the work of Christ. Such a notion ought to cause us to drop everything else and pour ourselves into a defense of what we know to be true-namely, that we are justified by faith in finished work of Christ. This should be the most important matter in our lives-more important than anything else. I say that because without this great truth, without the truth that God justifies by grace, not by our merit, nothing else matters.

Third, I want to emphasize one short statement that was made by Luke. In v. 3, he wrote that, as Paul and Barnabas related their experience, they brought great joy to all the brethren. It is the gospel of grace which brings joy to the sinner. I am not made joyful by a doctrine which says that I must add something to Christ's work. Such a teaching only brings me grief because it means that my salvation depends on me and I know that I must, therefore, fail because I cannot meet God's standards. But, when I hear that all that is necessary for my justification has been accomplished by Another, and when I hear that God is willing to let that Substitute die for my sins and impute His righteousness to me, and when I hear this all happens without regard for my merit or my ability to repay, that is what brings me joy. This truth is what has brought joy to countless numbers of sinners. Joy comes when we hear that God saves us, not when we hear that we must save ourselves.

Fourth, I want to say a word about our responsibility to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ. Again we have worthy examples in Paul and, in this case, Peter. Both men stood their ground because they realized what was at stake. Briefly then, let me say that when it comes to the gospel, the only Friend I have is Jesus Christ. My loyalty is to Him and Him alone in the matter of His work and what He accomplished for me. I hope you can say the same. I hope that no earthly alliance could ever cause you to look the other way as the gospel of grace is tampered with, even in the least.

Fifth, I want to note that just as the position of those false teachers in Antioch was an exclusive position, as I noted in the first application, so is the position of those who believe the Bible. In a discussion of a sinner's justification before a holy God, grace is our response and grace is exclusive. Salvation is either all of grace or there is no salvation. We must not hesitate, therefore, to defend this notion. We must not hesitate to take our stand upon God's grace to us in Christ. In the gospel, there is no room for my efforts or your efforts, no matter how small. I am saved by grace, through faith alone. That is a position which allows for no compromise, no additions, no subtractions. We are saved by grace or we are not saved.

Conclusion

I am thankful for the weekly reminder of this truth as we come to the Table. But this sacrament is not only a reminder, or sign, of what has been done for us, it also is a seal in that our participation in it confirms that we have received what is pictured. And this should give us cause for rejoicing. Salvation is ours, though we did not earn it. Salvation is ours, though we did not deserve it. How can we not be glad about that?