AP

Studies in Acts

The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-21)

The gospel had already penetrated Asia Minor. Both Jews and Gentiles had been converted to Messiah Jesus through Paul’s preaching. How would the mixed churches now develop? Into a new Jewish sect with first- and second-class members? Or into the holy, catholic Christian church, consisting of both Messiah-confessing Jews and Gentiles converted to him?

Both had been freed by the gospel from a religious prison, from Jewish religious bonds and from pagan religious bonds. Would they continue standing firm in the freedom of Christ, or allow themselves to be put into bondage once again, this time with Christian religious fetters? In other words: would they continue freely and joyfully in the grace of the Lord Jesus, or become slaves of a new version of the “Law”?

Verse 1 Several Jewish Christians came from Judea. In Galatians 2:4, Paul characterized them or their sympathizers as “false brothers,” who had “slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.” They led the Gentile believers to believe: “Brothers, if you do not follow the custom of Moses and get circumcised, then you cannot be saved!” For they had indeed been incorporated into Israel through faith in Messiah Jesus, but the Jewish Christians thought that the Gentile believers still had to be distinguished from the unbelieving Gentiles by means of the sign of circumcision. Apart from circumcision, they could not possibly be saved, or so they claimed.

Although they were laying the emphasis on circumcision, with that claim they were requiring obedience to the entire Law of Moses, including the food and purity laws of Leviticus 11-15. Paul would later call this mode of action: to compel Gentiles to make us slaves (of the Jewish law) (Galatians 2:4). Hence, we call these false teachers Judaizers. Evidently, they, together with their sympathizers in Jerusalem, had formerly been Pharisees (cf. Acts 15:5).

The Pharisees had not abandoned their doctrine of law when they made the transition into the Christian church, but instead brought it with them. They did not see that through Christ’s work, the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles had been taken down (Ephesians 2:14-16) so that uncircumcised Gentiles were now allowed to enter Christ’s church without circumcision, through faith in Christ alone. In short, these Judaizers were not satisfied that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for our salvation. When the church chose their first deacons, there were already Greek speaking God-fearers in that group who would have been circumcised when they converted to Judaism (Acts 6:5).

The Antiochian church struggle was fundamentally about the core of the gospel: are we saved through faith alone, that is, through the Lord Jesus alone and through grace alone? Or must human religious works be added to that?

Acts 15:2-5 For unsuspecting Gentiles, the Judaizing requirement appeared to be scriptural. Was not the Law of Moses the Word of God, and did it not continue to be so? Had not God clearly commanded circumcision in that Law, and commanded the removal from God’s people of those who neglected it? (Genesis 17:9-14). And were not those who were pointing this out taking the way of salvation much more seriously? And were they not much more faithful to Scripture than such an easy-going preacher as Barnabas, who had not issued this demand when he preached (Acts 11:22-24)? To say nothing about that “Johnny come lately apostle” like Paul.

God granted Paul and Barnabas two gifts that were indispensable in this situation: a capacity for making clear distinctions, and a confident heart. (1) they discerned that the Judaizers had cut the heart out of the gospel, and (2), they dared to oppose this error powerfully, even though in doing so, they ran the risk of being viewed as liberal teachers who were not respecting God’s Word. The dispute erupted. To be sure, Paul would write later, “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome” (2 Timothy 2:24). But the core of the gospel was at stake here: Jesus alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. Here they were not permitted to remain silent for the sake of keeping the peace. Paul and Barnabas entered the debate in defence of the truth of the gospel.

The Judaizers were telling the Gentile believers: “If you are not circumcised, you cannot be saved” (v. 1). But Paul squarely opposed that and proclaimed that the exact reverse was true: “If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing” (Galatians 5:2). For then circumcision functions as a contribution to your salvation. And any who want to supplement Christ’s work with their own work is denying him as the all-sufficient Saviour. In this connection he would have proclaimed the same message in Antioch that he had proclaimed to the Galatians: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. . . Every man who accepts circumcision . . . is obligated to keep the whole law” (Galatians 5:1, 3). Satan’s strategy was for these liberated Gentiles to be tied up again with religious chains, so that their lives would again be ruled by fear and slavery, if not in a pagan manner, then in a “Christian” manner.

When Paul and Barnabas defended the gospel powerfully in vigorous debates against the false teachers, people commissioned both to go together with several other church members to Jerusalem to lay this issue before the apostles and elders there (cf. Galatians 2:1, 9). It was not because people in Antioch could not figure it out themselves and were wanting the apostles to decide the matter. Paul did not doubt the truth of his proclamation for a moment, and he did not need any new light on the subject. Not even from other apostles. He wrote to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8) For he “did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,” but he had “received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12). Therefore, after his call to preach, he had not consulted any apostle (Galatians 1:15-17). God had called and commissioned him. What, then, could any mere man add to that?

They travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, visiting the young churches on the way.

Verses 4-5: Note that the Church in Jerusalem welcomed them. No doubt they were delighted with what they were told about the conversion of many people and the establishment of churches in various cities. But then the mood changed as some Pharisees made their point about not only circumcision, but also obeying the law of Moses. Earlier (Acts 15:1) it was just circumcision; these converted Pharisees wanted the Gentiles to take on the whole Jewish way of life. When they came to faith in the Lord Jesus, they had not radically eliminated the legalism of Pharisaism. They evidently refused to live by God’s grace alone.

Verses 6-11: A lively debate began but did not seem to come to any conclusions until Peter stood up to give an explanation and a narrative. He had already seen Cornelius and his household brought into the church in a dramatic way (v.7). The Holy Spirit made no distinction: He purified their hearts by faith. Peter also reminded his audience that they had not been able to bear the yoke of the law, so why expect the Gentiles to do so? Jewish believers had been spoon-fed Pharisaic legalism. They had grown up around Pharisaic strictness: not only following food laws, observing purity laws, celebrating new moon festivals, observing Sabbaths, but also keeping the many (613!) commands that the rabbis had added to God’s commandments.

Verses 12-18: Paul and Barnabas are given another opportunity to talk about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles. Then James spoke to clinch the argument, quoting Amos. He concluded (“It is my judgement…”) that they should not make it difficult for the Gentiles. Then he gave some suggestions about what to instruct the Gentiles (to be discussed in the next study).

Questions:

Can you think of other forms of legalism and Judaizing tendencies in the history of the church?

How is the liberty we have in the Gospel to be defended against antinomians – those who say that if you are saved you can do what you like, God will forgive you?

– Alida Sewell