The Jerusalem
Council: The Church’s Declaration of Independence
Acts 15:1-35
April 23, 2006
Deffinbaugh,Robert L.
Deffinbaugh,Robert L.
Introduction[2]
As I was
preparing this lesson, I was reminded of the healing of Naaman in 2 Kings
5. Naaman was a Gentile,[3]
but even more than this, he was the commander of the Syrian forces that
harassed the people of Israel. Naaman
was also a leper. Thanks to an Israelite
slave girl, Naaman’s wife learned that there was a prophet in Israel who could
heal her husband .
Naaman pursued
a course of action that is very understandable – he sought to use all the power
and influence he could muster to facilitate his healing. And so he had the king of Syria write a
letter to the king of Israel, which virtually demanded that Naaman be
cured. He also came with all the
material incentives he could carry: ten
talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of
clothing. He then arrived in style at
the palace of the king of Israel.
The king of
Israel was greatly distressed. How could
he possibly heal Naaman? Was this just a
cheap trick, another excuse to attack Israel?
When the prophet Elisha learned of Naaman’s arrival and “request,” he
sent word to the king to let Naaman come to him for healing so that he would
know there was a prophet in Israel.
Naaman arrived with a retinue of attendants,[4]
along with some false expectations. He
assumed that he would be personally greeted by the prophet, who would then heal
him in some grand and dramatic fashion.
(And of course the prophet would then collect his fee by accepting all
the gifts he had brought.)
It didn’t work
out that way at all. Naaman received no
“red carpet treatment.” Elisha did not
even go out to meet Naaman. Instead, he
sent out a messenger with instructions for Naaman to dip himself in the river
Jordan seven times, with the assurance that he would be completely healed. Naaman was furious. The river Jordan was dirty, while the rivers
in his country were clear. He expected
to be healed in style, in a dramatic way befitting his position.
Naaman’s
servant was wise. Would Naaman not have
done some great thing to be healed, if only Elisha had asked? Of course he would. Then why would he not do something as simple
as dipping in the river Jordan? And so
Naaman complied with the prophet’s instructions, and he was healed. Naaman returned to the home of Elisha. He was ready to pay for the prophet’s
services. This time Elisha did come out
to speak with Naaman, but he refused to accept any gifts. He granted Naaman’s request for some
Israelite soil, upon which this man would, from now on, worship the God of
Israel in Syria.
Naaman proceeded
toward Syria but Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, could not stand to let all that loot
return with him. Notice Gehazi’s
thinking:
Gehazi, the prophet
Elisha’s servant, thought, “Look, my master did not accept what this Syrian Naaman offered him.
As certainly as the Lord lives, I
will run after him and accept something from him” (2 Kings 5:20, emphasis
mine).
Gehazi could
not stand to allow “this Syrian” to
return home without somehow paying tribute.
Gehazi caught up with Naaman’s chariot and concocted the story that two
young prophets had just arrived and that they were in need of some money and
clothing. Naaman gladly met this
request, and Gehazi made his way back to the house where he hid these gifts. Elisha “saw” it all and confronted his
servant, rebuking him for thinking that this was a time to be acquiring
material wealth. As a result, Gehazi was
stricken with leprosy.
It is easy to
see how Gehazi was wrong to lie to Naaman and to take goods for himself under
false pretenses. But was there not another
reason why Elisha refused the gift that Naaman offered? Is it not for the same reason that Elisha
instructed Naaman to dip seven times in the Jordan? God is not for hire. He gives good gifts to men on the basis of
grace, not works. Naaman could not
purchase what God would only give to men freely. God’s gifts are gifts of grace; they cannot
be merited or purchased.
It is easy to
see why Naaman was happy to grant Gehazi’s request. He was more than grateful for the healing he
had received. And he would probably feel
a lot better thinking that he had some part in it, as his contribution to
Gehazi would suggest. But it was wrong
for Gehazi to receive gifts from Naaman.
It was no favor to allow Naaman to think that he had somehow contributed
toward God’s gracious gift of healing.
Grace cannot be bought or sold.
I see
something similar taking place in our text.
As a result of the first missionary journey, Gentiles had come to faith
in large numbers. While unbelieving Jews
resisted the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles, some Jewish believers were
insisting that Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the Old Testament
Law of Moses. Gentile converts, much
like Naaman, were truly grateful to be included in the salvation God brought
about through the Jews. To some,
grateful Gentile converts submitting to circumcision and to law keeping might
not appear to be such a huge concession.
But they did not understand the implications of circumcision. Paul did, and he, along with Barnabas,
strongly opposed the teaching of these Judaizers – those who believed that
Gentiles must enter into the faith by converting to Judaism. As a result, the first church council was
called, and this is described in the text for this message. This decision is a watershed event, not only
in the Book of Acts, but in the history of the church. Let us listen well to the words of our text,
and let us seek to learn what the Jerusalem Council meant for those in that
day, as well as for Christians today.
The Issue at Hand
Acts 15:1-5
1 Now some men came
down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 When Paul and
Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church [lit. they] appointed Paul and Barnabas and
some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in
Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. 3 So they were sent on their way by
the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they were
relating at length the conversion of the Gentiles and bringing great joy to all
the brothers. 4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the
church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God
had done with them. 5 But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who
had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and
to order them to observe the law of Moses” (Acts 15:1-5).
In Old
Testament times, there were a few Gentiles who were “grafted into” Israel’s blessings – people like Rahab, Ruth, and
Naaman. There weren’t many, and they
seemed to pose no threat to the Jews.
But with the coming of Jesus, things began to change. A few believing Gentiles are found in the
Gospels,[5]
and there are clear indications that many more will follow.[6]
The early chapters of the Book of Acts focus on Jewish evangelism, primarily in
Jerusalem. Then, in chapter 8, we find the church being scattered abroad by
persecution, and thus the gospel is proclaimed in Samaria, and even beyond
(such as to the Gentile Ethiopian eunuch).[7] In Acts 10, God dramatically directs Peter to
the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, where he preaches the gospel. As a result of Peter’s preaching, all those
gathered at the home of Cornelius are saved.
While they initially objected to Peter’s actions, his Jewish colleagues
had to conclude from Peter’s explanation of these events that God had purposed
to seek and to save Gentiles as well as Jews.[8]
The birth of
the church at Antioch,[9]
followed by the first missionary journey,[10]
brought many Gentiles into the household of faith. When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, a
very serious theological issue surfaced, because some were insisting that
Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the Law. While Luke describes the setting for the
Jerusalem Council, the Book of Galatians provides some additional background
information. It is my assumption that
our text in Acts 15 must be read in conjunction with the Book of Galatians, and
especially these verses in chapter 2:[11]
11 But when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.
12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.
But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he
was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also
joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with
them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving
consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them
all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew,
how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 15 We are Jews by
birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the
works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to
believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of
Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one
will be justified (Galatians 2:11-16).
The
ambivalence (hypocrisy) of apostles like Peter probably encouraged others who
were even more radical in their views to press their demands publicly, as we
read in Acts 15:
1 Now some men came
down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).
5 But some from the
religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary
to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses” (Acts
15:5).
We should note
that these Judaizers who demanded circumcision and law keeping were not
evangelists who were preaching their message to Gentile pagans. These were Jewish believers (those of the
Pharisee party) who were targeting newly saved Gentiles. It is interesting how some are more than
willing to let others do the evangelizing, only to prey upon these new converts
with their distorted doctrines.
At first glance,
what these Judaizers were demanding may not have seemed that much to ask. They wanted Gentile converts to undergo
circumcision. But the rite of
circumcision, like baptism, was a symbol, and it implied much more.[12] To the Jews, being circumcised was viewed as
a commitment to live under the Law of Moses, as the Old Testament Israelites
did. In our text, the implications of
circumcision will be spelled out by Peter in just a few verses. But that would be getting ahead of our story.
Paul strongly
opposed this added requirement of circumcision as heresy; indeed, it was the
introduction of another gospel:
6 I am astonished
that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ
and are following a different gospel – 7 not that there really is another
gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the
gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a
gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! 9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a
gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell! (Galatians
1:6-9)
Because of this, Paul goes on in his Epistle to the Galatians to
describe how he rebuked Peter (Cephas) and other Jews (including Barnabas) for
their hypocrisy when they separated themselves from Gentile believers at
Antioch.[13] If the events of Galatians 2 took place
before the Jerusalem Council (as I am inclined to think), then Paul’s strong
opposition to error among the saints (including men like Peter) played a
crucial role in helping Peter (and the others who were present at the Jerusalem
Council) to see this matter much more clearly.
To get back to
our text, the church at Antioch wisely determined that this debate had raised a
vitally important theological question, one that the apostles in Jerusalem
needed to answer. And so they sent Paul
and Barnabas, along with others, to Jerusalem.
On their way to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas reported the success of
their ministry among the Gentiles to the saints in Phoenicia and Samaria, which
was met with great rejoicing. (One would
assume that those rejoicing were Gentiles.)
When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and
they gave a similar report concerning the success of their first missionary
journey.
Some did not
find this an occasion for rejoicing, but instead took this as an opportunity to
press their demands that Gentile converts must be required to be circumcised
and to keep the Law of Moses:
But some from the
religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is
necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of
Moses” (Acts 15:5).
The Jerusalem Council
Acts 15:6-21
6 Both the apostles
and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 7 After there had
been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that
some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the
message of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, has
testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he
made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 So
now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples
a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the
contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in
the same way as they are.”
12 The whole group
kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the
miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
13 After they
stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon[14]
has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles
a people for his name. 15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is
written, 16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of
David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the rest of humanity
may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says
the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from long ago. 19 “Therefore I
conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles
who are turning to God, 20 but that we should write them a letter telling them
to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from
what has been strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses has had those who proclaim
him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the
synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:6-21).
It is not just
the apostles who gather to decide on the issue of circumcision (verse 6). It is the apostles and the elders of the
church at Jerusalem. Those who came to Antioch “from James” were undoubtedly not apostles, but they did give the
impression that they spoke with apostolic approval. It is important that the decision reached in
Jerusalem embrace all the leaders in the church. That way, anyone who taught differently would
be recognized as a rogue, that is, as a false teacher, speaking only for
themselves. This is one of the reasons a
letter was written to the Gentile churches.
Luke makes it
very clear to his readers that he is not reporting every conversation, nor is
he elaborating on the viewpoint of those who are demanding circumcision. He gives a summary of the contribution of
four individuals: Peter (Acts 15:7-11),
Barnabas and Paul[15]
(Acts 15:12), and James (Acts 15:13-21).
An abridged version of the participation of these four is recorded for
us, but only after Luke has told us that there had already been “much debate” (Acts 15:7). I would understand this to mean that Luke
purposely spared his readers from hearing a complete re-hash of the Judaisers’ arguments. They were wrong, after all, and their error
did not need to be publicized. (If these
folks were genuinely convinced by the apostles, and fully endorsed the decision
of the Council, they would not want their arguments to be aired publicly.)
Peter’s
argument is recorded first, and James seems to bring the closing word. Barnabas and Paul speak between Peter and
James. Peter’s argument is five verses
long; James’ argument is somewhat longer (nine verses). Luke grants Barnabas and Paul merely one
verse in his account. Why would this
be? Barnabas and Paul were the ones
under attack. They already had their say
with these Judaisers. The purpose of the
Council was to hear where the Jerusalem leaders stood on this issue.
Peter’s
argument is simple and direct. In
reality, it is merely a reminder of the events of Acts 10 and 11, and the
conclusion which this same group reached.
God directed Peter to go to the home of Cornelius, a Gentile, and there
to preach the gospel. While Peter was
still speaking to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon these Gentiles, indicating
that they were saved, having equal standing with the Jewish believers. As Peter put it earlier,
15 Then as I began
to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning.
16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized
with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 Therefore if God
gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was I to hinder God?” (Acts 11:15-17)
Peter’s Jewish brethren could hardly object to what God was doing:
When they heard
this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has
granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles” (Acts 11:18).
Peter seems to
be saying something like this: “Haven’t
we already dealt with this issue and made our decision? Didn’t we agree that God is saving Gentiles
as well as Jews? Didn’t we agree that
these Gentile saints need only be baptized with water, and not
circumcised? Can’t we see that God did
not distinguish between these Gentiles and us, because in both cases our hearts
were cleansed by faith, and not by works?
If, then, we are all saved by faith, and not by works, why are we
insisting that Gentiles be burdened with law keeping when it did not save us,
nor any of our ancestors?
Peter then
makes a remarkable statement: “We believe that we are saved through the
grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” I am indebted to James Montgomery Boice[16]
for pointing out that this is exactly the opposite of how some Jewish
Christians were thinking. The Jews were
used to thinking that anyone who wanted to be saved must be saved like they
were. In fact, some still were. They were insisting that Gentiles can only
participate in God’s blessings to the seed of Abraham by doing what Abraham did
– be circumcised. But Peter insists that
the Law never saved anyone; it only condemned (compare Romans 3:19-20). He then states that Jews must be saved the
same way Gentiles are saved, by faith, apart from law keeping.
Paul states
this same point in the Book of Romans:
30 What shall we say
then? – that the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that
is, a righteousness that is by faith, 31 but Israel even though pursuing a law
of righteousness did not attain it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by
faith but (as if it were possible) by works. They stumbled over the stumbling
stone, 33 just as it is written, “Look, I am laying in Zion
a stone that will cause people to stumble and a rock that will
make them fall, yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God on behalf of my
fellow Israelites is for their salvation. 2 For I can testify that they are
zealous for God, but their zeal is not in line with the truth. 3 For ignoring
the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their
own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is
the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone
who believes (Romans 9:30—10:4).
Now that Peter
has spoken, Barnabas and Paul speak to a hushed group as they report to them
concerning the many miraculous signs and wonders that God performed through
them as they proclaimed the gospel to the Gentiles. Jesus punctuated His teaching with signs and
wonders and miracles of various kinds (See John 2:11; 4:54; 6:2; 9:16; 11:47;
Acts 2:22). So too God produced [17]
many signs and wonders through the apostles in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria
(see Acts 2:43; 5:12). Now, Barnabas and
Paul describe the same miraculous phenomena when they preached the gospel to
the Gentiles (see also Acts 14:3).
Truly, God did not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles.
In verses
13-21, James steps forward. One does not get the impression that Peter is the
dominant leader here; instead, James seems to play that role. James does something that the three before
him have not done – he cites Scripture. Thus, the decision that is reached is
based both upon Scripture and on experience.
James follows up on what Peter has said.
God has revealed His purpose to save Gentiles as well as Jews. This is the fulfillment of what the Old
Testament prophets had foretold. James
turns to the words of Amos 9:11-12 to establish his point:
16 ‘After this I
will return,
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David;
I will rebuild its ruins and restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,
namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from long ago (Acts 15:16-17).
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David;
I will rebuild its ruins and restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,
namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from long ago (Acts 15:16-17).
This text
emphasizes two different lines of prophecy, which intersect in the person and
work of Jesus. First, God promises to restore the dynasty of David so as to
fulfill the Davidic Covenant. The Lord
Jesus Christ is the “Son of David,”
who will sit on the throne of His father.[18] The second
promise is that the restoration of the throne to David’s “Son” will fulfill God’s purpose to save those Gentiles God has
chosen for Himself. This, the prophet
tells us, has been made known “from long
ago.”[19]
Do these two
themes (the restoration of the throne to David’s “son” and the salvation of Gentiles) not converge in the person of our
Lord, as seen in the fourth chapter of Luke?
16 Now Jesus came to
Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the
Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the
prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place
where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He
has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to
the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, 19 to
proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 20 Then he
rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of
everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to tell them,
“Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.” 22
All were speaking well of him, and were amazed at the gracious words coming out
of his mouth. They said, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” 23 Jesus said to them, “No
doubt you will quote to me the proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ and say,
‘What we have heard that you did in Capernaum, do here in your hometown too.’”
24 And he added, “I tell you the truth, no prophet is acceptable in his
hometown. 25 But in truth I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in
Elijah’s days, when the sky was shut up three and a half years, and there was a
great famine over all the land. 26 Yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but
only to a woman who was a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 And there were many lepers
in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, yet none of them was cleansed
except Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all the people in the
synagogue were filled with rage. 29 They got up, forced him out of the town,
and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that
they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But he passed through the crowd and
went on his way (Luke 4:16-30).
James is
saying that the salvation of many Gentiles should come as no surprise to his
Jewish brethren. This is what God long
ago promised to do. This is what God has
done, as evidenced by the salvation of Cornelius and his household, and now
many more Gentiles in the first missionary journey. The question is no longer, “Has God chosen to
save many Gentiles?”; the question is, “How should the Jewish saints deal with
these newly-saved Gentile saints?” They
should surely not impose upon these Gentiles burdens that God did not lay on
them. It is interesting that James never
actually uses the word circumcision,
but this is clearly what is in his mind.
They dare not impose the rite of circumcision on Gentile converts. They dare not insist that Gentile converts
place themselves under the Law. Their
Jewish brethren had sought to keep the Law for centuries, finding their efforts
to be futile.
Four Puzzling Prohibitions
Acts 15:20, 29
. . . but that we
should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols
and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood
(Acts 15:20).
. . . that you
abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from
what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from
doing these things, you will do well. Farewell (Acts 15:29).
Students of
Scripture have puzzled over these four prohibitions. Why were these given and
not others? Are these the only “rules” a
Gentile must keep? Are these not issues
that were addressed by the Old Testament Law of Moses? Are these merely cultural sensitivities, so
that Gentiles act one way when they are with Jews, but another when they are
not? Are these sins? Are these the only sins? Are there not other commandments which
Christians should keep? Why does one
prohibition (fornication/sexual immorality) seem like sin, while the others
feel more cultural?
Let me begin
by observing that while we may scratch our heads when we seek to understand
these prohibitions, their meaning seems to be clear to the saints in that day,
both to the Jewish Christians and to the new Gentile believers. They did not require further explanation, and
no one seemed to quibble with the fact that these prohibitions were
imposed. As Cliff Lopez, one of my
colleagues, observed, all four of these prohibited practices were a common part
of the heathen rituals in which these new believers once participated.
I must confess
at this point that what I am saying here in print is not the same as what I
said when I preached this message. In my
sermon, I took the position that these prohibitions were primarily prohibitions
related to table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. Fortunately, I have the privilege of serving
in a church where there are many gifted teachers. After my message, several
spoke with me, suggesting some additional points of interpretation or
application. I am particularly indebted
to David Dean, a friend, missionary, and doctoral student at Dallas Theological
Seminary. He graciously shared some
insights from his experiences and studies which bear on this subject.
Rather than
re-word David’s interpretation of this text, I am simply going to quote it
(with very few edits), because it makes a great deal of sense. David’s first statement counters the argument
I initially made that these prohibitions were really about “table
fellowship.” He then proceeds to show
that each prohibition is not a matter of conscience or fellowship, but rather
is something forbidden by the Scriptures outside
the Law of Moses:[20]
“The entire point of
the Acts 15 letter was that Gentile believers need not be bound by the scruples
of Jewish believers who still felt bound by Mosaic law – and table fellowship
was the primary place where the issue arose in the first place. To argue (as
many have) that the letter insisted that Gentile believers must never eat blood
or strangled meat in order to avoid
scandalizing Jewish Christians is to surrender the whole issue in the wrong
direction.
There is a much
simpler and sounder solution. I was driven to study this issue when serving in
the Philippines, because many people came to me regarding the matter of eating
blood (which is common in their culture). Basically, one must reconcile several
teachings of Scripture and one logical necessity in order to come to a coherent
understanding of the issues at hand. (1)
Jesus declared all foods clean (see Mark 7:19). (2) Acts 15 forbids eating
blood “things strangled” simply means meat that has not been intentionally
bled. (3) There is teaching on the matter of avoiding scandalizing others with
regard to food which must be taken into account (see Romans 14:1 – 15:7 and 1
Corinthians 8). (4) The Acts 15 letter cannot be making concessions for Jewish
Christians because that would be backtracking, as noted above. Here’s my solution.
(1) The prohibition
against eating blood is NOT from the Mosaic law. It is from Genesis 9:2-4, which obviously predates Mosaic law. This is
a universal prohibition for the entire human race and for all time. (If you try
to argue that it is not, you must also argue that the prohibition against
murder is not.)
(2) According to
Genesis 9:3-4, blood is not food. It
does not say that blood is a forbidden food; it says that blood is not food
(for, just as God defined food in Genesis 1:29 as plant matter, here He defines
food as plant matter and animal flesh, excluding blood).
(3) Whenever one
bleeds an animal killed for meat, he has fulfilled the command of Genesis 9 not
to eat meat with the blood. (By the way, eating a rare steak is not sin, as
long as the meat was properly bled when it was slaughtered. A small amount of blood always remains in
meat even after bleeding. Further,
cooking meat so that it no longer appears red does not remove the tiny bit of
blood that remains – it simply changes its color.) To put it more precisely, in
Genesis 9 God forbids the INTENTIONAL eating of blood – either by extracting
blood and drinking it, or by intentionally leaving it in meat slaughtered for
consumption. This is because “the life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11).
There is something fundamentally wrong with eating what still has the life in
it. This is related to the whole concept of sacrifice that is so central to
Christ’s redeeming work, for in the spilling of blood there is the taking of
life. It is also one of the reasons why many pagan religions advocate the
eating of blood. (In fact, there is a whole pagan theology of eating one’s
enemies in order to absorb their life-force, but that is a matter for another
time. . . .)
(4) Fornication is
also something that God universally prohibits, though it is more difficult to
find this in Scripture by chapter and verse. I believe that Genesis 2:24
essentially establishes the only context in which sexual relations are approved
by God: marriage. This is not a merely Mosaic regulation; it is universally binding
on all of mankind. It is clear that God
forbids fornication (i.e. sexual immorality – any kind of sex outside of
marriage) even among pagans. Again, the prohibition against fornication is not
a Mosaic prohibition, but a universal one.
(5) Idolatry is
obviously also something that God universally forbids. This hardly needs to be
supported (see Romans 1:22-25 for just one example).
(6) The conclusion
is clear. The four things prohibited in
the Acts 15 letter are all NON-MOSAIC, universal regulations. They are, and
always have been, universally binding on all humans. They are, however, also
strongly emphasized in Mosaic law. Pagan society in the first century was
woefully unaware of these universal regulations – except through the teaching
of the Hebrew Scriptures (hence James’ comment in Acts 15:21). When the
Jerusalem church agreed that Mosaic regulations should not be imposed on the
Gentile believers, they recognized that with the rejection of Mosaic
regulations as binding on Gentile Christians, it might be understood that the
prohibitions against idolatry, eating blood, eating strangled meat, and
fornication should also be thrown out, as they were only generally known
through Mosaic law. The church was
careful to restate these regulations not because they wanted to avoid
scandalizing Jewish believers, but because they were and are and always will be
universally binding on all mankind. They did not want to appear to be
condoning what God had universally condemned.
A couple of
further observations may be helpful.
(A) I am not
suggesting that the Jerusalem decree (as I explain it above) indicates that
Gentile Christians should not be sensitive to the scruples of spiritually
immature (“weak”) Jewish Christians. They should. Paul deals with these matters in Romans 14–15
and 1 Corinthians 8. However, I think that the common interpretation of Acts 15
that argues that the forbidding of eating blood and strangled meat is for the
purpose of making table fellowship possible between Jewish and Gentile
Christians actually undermines the teachings in those passages. It is important to remember that while mature
believers should bear with the scruples of immature believers, the desired goal
is always that the immature believers should come to maturity and become free
of their unscriptural scruples.
(B) Note, too, that
the revelation (and realization) of the non-applicability of Mosiac law to
Gentile converts arose out of conflict – (the debate here in Acts 15 as well as
the questioning of Peter in chapter 11), and the church only came to the
conclusion recorded in the Acts 15 letter after having struggled with the
issues for some time. The dismissal of
the Mosaic law as a binding rule of life for Christians was a monumental
paradigm shift in their thinking, and it seems that God revealed it slowly, and
gently, to the church.”[21]
Those of you
who are diligent students of Scripture will appreciate the difficulty of our
text and the careful thought that David has given to its interpretation. I am privileged to be a member of a church
where iron sharpens iron.
Following Through
Acts 15:22-33
22 Then the apostles
and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them,
Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas. 23 They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and
elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria,
and Cilicia, greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from
among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by
what they said, 25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you
along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives
for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and
Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 28 For it seemed
best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than
these necessary rules: 29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed
to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual
immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well.
Farewell.
30 So when they were
dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together,
they delivered the letter. 31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at
its encouragement. 32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves,
encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 33 After they had
spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who
had sent them (Acts 15:22-33).
The first (and
rather amazing) thing we should notice is that the decision reached by the
Jerusalem Council was unanimous. This
decision was reached by the apostles, the elders, and the whole church. This doctrine of justification by faith,
apart from works, is so fundamental that one cannot differ with it and be
considered a Christian.
Since some had
gone out teaching “another gospel”
(salvation by faith plus works), claiming the approval of the Jerusalem
leaders, it was important to distinguish these false teachers from those who
were committed to the truth. The letter
was the first step in this process. It
disavowed those teachers who had gone out, claiming the approval and authority
of their teaching by the Jerusalem leaders.
They were not authorized to teach what they did, and their teaching only
served to create confusion. In general
terms, the Jerusalem leaders renounced the teaching of those who had gone out
without authorization.
These false
teachers are not named, but the Gentile saints would know who they were. Four teachers are designated by the Jerusalem
leaders as authorized to speak with their authority: “Judas
called Barsabbas and Silas” (two men from Jerusalem), and Barnabas and
Paul, who are called their “dear friends.” Paul and Barnabas are identified as men who
have risked their lives for the sake of the gospel. These are men who are proven, and who are
approved by Jerusalem’s leaders.
The more I
have thought about this letter, the less specific it is. Circumcision is not mentioned and neither is
the Law. Only the four prohibitions are
itemized as being necessary rules.
Actually, this makes sense to me.
We know that “much debate”
occurred before the Council reached its decision. Why would we suppose that one brief letter
could adequately clarify all the issues that needed to be addressed? Think of all the Old Testament passages that
needed to be cited. Think of all the
exposition of Scripture that was required.
The purpose of the letter was primarily to identify those who were
authorized to speak for the Jerusalem leaders – and, who were not. This is why the four men were sent to these
churches. They spent considerable time
in these cities:
32 Both Judas and
Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers
with a long speech. 33 After
they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the
brothers to those who had sent them (Acts 15:32-33, emphasis mine).
Even when Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas
remained in Antioch for some time, teaching and preaching the Word (verse
35). Justification by faith was such a
foundational doctrine it required a thorough treatment, and this is what the
letter presupposed.
Conclusion
In many ways,
Acts 15 is a watershed chapter. Peter
virtually disappears after this chapter, and the church in Jerusalem fades to
relative insignificance. But Gentile
evangelism virtually explodes. This is
because the theological basis for Gentile evangelism has now been
established. It is no wonder that from
here on, Gentile converts are in the majority.
Think of how
things might have gone had God not superintended here. The case of Roe v. Wade opened the floodgates
for the slaughter of millions of innocent and helpless human beings (I have
chosen my words carefully here). Had the
Jerusalem Council ruled in favor of the Judaisers, the Great Commission would
have been frustrated, rather than fulfilled.[22] Spiritually speaking, the Jerusalem Council
is the Gentiles’ Declaration of Independence.
Gentile believers are not dependent upon Judaism for their salvation,
even in part; they are dependent only upon Jesus Christ and His work at
Calvary.
The threat which
the Judaisers posed to Christianity in the first century is no isolated
danger. We have seen it all through
history. When God delivered the
Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, there were those who longingly looked
back to their time in Egypt. More than
once, there were those who sought to convince the Israelites that they should
return to Egypt.
3 Why has the Lord brought us into this land only to
be killed by the sword, that our wives and our children should become plunder?
Wouldn’t it be better for us to return to Egypt?” 4 So they said to one
another, “Let’s appoint a leader and return to Egypt” (Numbers 14:3-4).
Imagine
that. The Israelites preferred their
former slavery in Egypt to the freedom into which their God was leading
them. So too there will always be those
who seek to turn us from our freedom in Christ to our former slavery to sin.
7 So you are no
longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir
through God. 8 Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings
that by nature are not gods at all. 9 But now that you have come to know God
(or rather to be known by God), how can you turn back again to the weak and
worthless basic forces? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again?
(Galatians 4:7-9; see also Romans 6:15-23)
The amazing thing is that those who seek to turn us back to our
former slavery do so in the guise that this is the way to be spiritual. In his Epistle to the Galatians, Paul insists
that we are sanctified by grace, just as we are saved by grace:
1 You foolish
Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was
vividly portrayed as crucified! 2 The only thing I want to learn from you is
this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing
what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are
you now trying to finish by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so many things
for nothing? - if indeed it was for nothing. 5 Does God then give you the
Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by
your believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:1-5)
My point is
simply this: the same danger that
threatened to pervert the gospel and to destroy the church is still alive and
well today. It may assume slightly different forms, and it may change the
vocabulary,[23]
but in the end, it insists that salvation and sanctification are the result of
faith plus works. This is a deadly and
dangerous heresy, and we must constantly be on the alert for its appearance. Paul calls it “another gospel,” and he uses the strongest language to warn
Christians of its dangers:
6 I am astonished
that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ
and are following a different gospel - 7 not that there really is another
gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the
gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a
gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell! 9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a
gospel contrary to what you received, let him be condemned to hell! (Galatians
1:6-9)
The decision
of the Jerusalem Council is really the key to understanding the Epistles. The theme of justification by faith dominates
Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians. The doctrine of the church expounded in texts
like Ephesians 2 and 3 is rooted in the decision of the Jerusalem Council.
It is
interesting to contrast circumcision with baptism in the New Testament. Circumcision was a symbolic act imposed upon
Gentile believers, so that they would be obligated to keep the Old Testament
Law of Moses. The Judaisers could not
conceive of Gentile salvation apart from circumcision, and so circumcision was
the initiatory rite which made the Gentile convert a “virtual Jew,” and thus
obligated to keep the Law. Baptism, on
the other hand, is the Christian initiatory rite, for both Jew and Gentile. It is not a meritorious work that contributes
toward salvation, but an act of obedience signifying one’s salvation by
identification with Jesus in His death, burial and resurrection. (Spirit) baptism into Christ does not make a
Gentile into a Jew; it abolishes the difference between Jews and Gentiles in
Jesus:
For in one Spirit we
were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we
were all made to drink of the one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).
Put differently, circumcision “unifies” Jews and Gentiles by making
all into Jews. Baptism into Christ
(Spirit baptism, symbolized in water baptism) unifies all believers in Jesus,
so that old distinctions do not apply.
Remember Peter’s emphasis on the fact that God makes no distinction
between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:9; see also Romans 10:12).
Adding works
to faith as a requirement for salvation actually undermines the gospel in
another way. Those who are
self-righteous, thinking that their works will bring about their salvation,
fail to attain the salvation for which they have labored because they reject
God’s offer of righteousness in Jesus.
For ignoring the
righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own
righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness (Romans 10:3).
And those who
are sinners and know it are deceived into thinking they are doomed, because
they do not have good works to offer as righteousness.
The gospel of
justification by faith alone, apart from good works, is truly good news to
sinners who know they fail to meet God’s standard of righteousness, and never
will attain it by their own efforts.
They do not need to be told to try harder (by the legalists); they
simply need to be told to trust in Jesus, who offers them His righteousness,
with which God the Father is pleased:
“Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them” (Matthew 5:3).
28 Come to me, all
you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke on
you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will
find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not
hard to carry” (Matthew 11:28-30).
4 But “when the
kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, 5 he saved us not
by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy,
through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6
whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior. 7 And
so, since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the
confident expectation of eternal life” (Titus 3:4-7).
My sin-sick
friend, you do not have to produce the kind of righteousness which pleases God;
in fact, you cannot ever do so. The Law
was not given so that you can earn God’s gift of salvation. The Law was given to show you how sinful you
are, and how far short of His righteousness you fall. The Law was given to point you to Jesus, for
He alone has fulfilled the Law. And by
His death on the cross of Calvary, He has borne the penalty for your sins. He rose from the dead, and He offers you His
righteousness and the gift of salvation if you will simply give up trying to be
good and trust in God’s only provision for salvation – Jesus Christ.
1 And although you
were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you formerly lived
according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom
of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of
disobedience, 3 among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the
cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and
were by nature children of wrath even as the rest… 4 But God, being rich in
mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 even though we were
dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you are
saved! - 6 and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly
realms in Christ Jesus, 7 to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing
wealth of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you
are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of
God; 9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:1-9).
The decision
of the Jerusalem Council confirmed that Law-keeping has not, cannot, and will
never save guilty sinners. Only Jesus
can do that, and only on the basis of grace.
That is because it is by bestowing grace on unworthy sinners that God
brings glory to Himself:
5 He did this by
predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the
pleasure of his will - 6 to the
praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in
his dearly loved Son. . . . 13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel
of your salvation) - when you believed in Christ - you were marked with the
seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our
inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory (Ephesians 1:5-6, 13-14, emphasis
mine).
Grace is a
core truth, central and foundational to all that God is doing in the life of
His children. To reject grace and
embrace works is to seek to rob God of the glory that belongs only to Him, and
to usurp His glory for ourselves. Grace
is not only the heart of the gospel, it is the basis of sanctification. It is the key to Christian service (spiritual
gifts are literally “graces”). It is the
key to our relationships, one with the other.
Notice the
emphasis Luke has on grace thus far in the Book of Acts:
With great power the
apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great
grace was on them all (Acts 4:33).
Now Stephen, full of
grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the
people (Acts 6:8).
When he came and saw
the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain true to the
Lord with devoted hearts (Acts 11:23).
When the meeting of
the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and God-fearing proselytes
followed Paul and Barnabas, who were speaking with them and were persuading
them to continue in the grace of God (Acts 13:43).
So they stayed there
for a considerable time, speaking out courageously for the Lord, who testified
to the message of his grace, granting miraculous signs and wonders to be
performed through their hands (Acts 14:3).
From there they
sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for
the work they had now completed (Acts 14:26).
On the contrary, we
believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way
as they are” (Acts 15:11).
In the books
that are indisputably written by Paul, he uses the word “grace” 78 times. Grace is
something God gives, but it is also something from which Satan seeks to keep
us. Let grace be as important to us as
it was to Paul and to the apostles.
To Timothy, my
genuine child in the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Lord! (1 Timothy 1:2)
Therefore let us
confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace
whenever we need help (Hebrews 4:16).
Grace, mercy, and peace will be
with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in
truth and love (2 John 3).
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the
NET Bible. The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, also known as THE NET BIBLE, is a
completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a
previous English version. It was
completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the
best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as
an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for
electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD (compact disk). Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet
connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for
personal study. In addition, anyone who
wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them
away free to others. It is available on
the Internet at: www.netbible.org.
[2] Copyright © 2006 by Community Bible Chapel, 418 E. Main Street,
Richardson, TX 75081. This is the edited manuscript of Lesson 21 in the Studies
in the Book of Acts series prepared by Robert L. Deffinbaugh on April 23,
2006. Anyone is at liberty to use this
lesson for educational purposes only, with or without credit. The Chapel believes the material presented herein
to be true to the teaching of Scripture, and desires to further, not restrict,
its potential use as an aid in the study of God’s Word. The publication of this material is a grace
ministry of Community Bible Chapel.
[3] As our Lord was sure to point out (see Luke 4:27).
[4] 2 Kings 5:9.
[5] See Matthew 8:5-13.
[6] Luke 4:16-30; Matthew 28:18-20.
[7] Acts 8.
[8] Acts 11:18.
[9] Acts 11:19-25.
[10] Acts 13-14.
[11] I would agree with John R.W. Stott when he writes, “Before going on
. . . I need to share with my readers that I hold the so-called ‘South
Galatian’ view, namely that Paul’s Letter to the Galatians was written to the
South Galatian churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which
he and Barnabas had just visited on their first missionary journey; that he
dictated it during the height of this theological crisis before the Council
settled it (for he does not refer in his letter to the ‘apostolic decree’);
that he was writing it probably on his way up to Jerusalem for the Council,
which would be his third visit to the city, although he does not mention it in Galatians because it has not yet taken
place; and that therefore the situation Luke describes at the beginning of Acts
15 is the same as that to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:11-16.” John R.W. Stott, The Message of Acts: the Spirit,
the Church, and the World (Downers Grove, Illinois, U.S.A.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), pp. 241-242. This is a very helpful commentary, which has
been most useful to me.
[12] We can see that this was the case for baptism in Romans 6, and for
circumcision in Galatians, especially in 5:2ff.
[13] Galatians 2:11-16.
[14] James Boice points out that James makes no reference to Paul and
Barnabas, but he does refer to Peter, using the most Jewish name possible (not
Simon, but Simeon). He points to a
footnote in the NIV which calls attention to this in Acts 15:14. James Montgomery Boice, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Books, 1997), p. 265.
[15] Notice how Luke reverts to “Barnabas
and Paul” here. I believe Barnabas
is named first here because he is still regarded as the leader by this group
(who initially commissioned Barnabas to go to Antioch in Acts 11:22).
[16] J. M. Boice, op cit., pp. 264-265.
[17] See 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
[18] See Matthew 1:1; 9:27; Luke 1:32-33; 18:38-39.
[19] See Genesis 12:3, for example.
[20] You will note that at the end of his argument, David recognizes
that these prohibitions are also dealt with within the Law of Moses. His point is that they are universal because
they are also taught outside the Law of Moses.
[21] David Dean is a member of Community Bible Chapel, where he is
frequently invited to preach. David is
also a full-time doctoral student at Dallas Theological Seminary.
[22] I do not mean that the Great Commission was completely and finally
fulfilled by the completion of the Book of Acts. I would say that so far as
Paul was concerned, his task in fulfilling the Great Commission was completed
(2 Timothy 4:7).
[23] For example, it may not be circumcision that is required for
salvation, but baptism. But those who
require baptism as a necessary act of man in addition to faith also tend to burden
believers with various forms of legalism and law-keeping.
