Click Here to see Lesson 13 Photos

Click Here to return to CBS Home Page

The Council of Jerusalem

Today we talk about the Council of Jerusalem, a watershed event in the history of the church. I’ve mentioned the Council of Jerusalem numerous times as events have evolved leading up to it, but I’m betting most of you had never heard of it before these sessions. I think that’s a shame, because it’s the single most important church council meeting in history, dwarfing in importance the 21 subsequent councils (ref http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm). The issue at the Council of Jerusalem was this: "Is the church of Jesus the Messiah a universal church of Jews and Gentiles? . . . or is it a sect of Judaism, including Gentiles only if they become Jews (or like Jews)?"

And there’s another reason why the Council of Jerusalem is so important: the underlying issue is freedom vs legalism: the freedom preached by Jesus and Peter and Paul vs a legalism of formulas and rules. And if you watched the 49ers and the Giants or the Titans and the Steelers playoff games, you saw how imperfect rules and penalties can be.

One more piece of "background" before moving into Acts 15. The most influential person at the Council of Jerusalem seems to be Jesus’ brother James: after he 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 did not become a believer until after the resurrection . . . maybe not until the risen Messiah appeared to him personally (Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 15:7). In Acts 1, Peter insisted that Judas’ replacement be a man who was "with (Jesus) the whole time" (Acts 1:21) . . . yet in Acts 12 James seems to be head of the church of Jerusalem, and in Acts 15 he is the most influential voice in this most important church council. Where did he get such clout?

The same arguments apply whether we believe James is Jesus’ half-brother or Jesus’ cousin. According to Messianic prophesy, the Messiah is king and reigns on the eternal throne of David. Who is legal heir and successor to King Messiah. It is his oldest son . . . or oldest daughter . . . or oldest brother . . . or oldest nearest male cousin. If King Jesus has no children, His legal heir and successor is James: His oldest brother (or oldest nearest male cousin).

King Jesus reigns in heaven where direct access is limited. He left us the Holy Spirit as our counselor, but people usually want a human "leader" . . . to ask for advice . . . or tell us what to do. Whom do we choose as our human leader?

That depends on our theology. Is the Messiah’s kingdom a spiritual kingdom . . . or will the Messiah return soon to establish an earthly kingdom? We 21^st century American Christians know it is a spiritual kingdom . . . so most of us would choose Peter as best equipped to speak for Jesus; Peter was Jesus’ closest disciple, and recipient of the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt 16:19). But 1^st century Jewish Christians believe in Jesus’ imminent return to rule an earthly kingdom . . . so they choose James, Jesus’ legal successor. James’ "time as a believer" and "spiritual condition" don’t matter; only his lineage matters. (In fairness, Christian tradition is that James was very devout; Eusebius said he spent so much time in prayer "that his knees became hard, like those of a camel.")

So with that background . . . let’s go to Acts 15. During Paul’s and Barnabas’ first missionary journey—or shortly after their return—Pharisee-Christians from Jerusalem (Acts 15:1,5) came to Antioch and told the Gentile-Christians: "Unless you are circumcised, . . . you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

See how this is a struggle between legalism and freedom?! These Pharisee-Christians reflect the essence of legalism: an external formula must be followed for salvation—even if it has nothing to do with one’s heart attitude or sinfulness.

Acts doesn’t say why these Pharisee-Christians came to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by the Holy Spirit and the church of Antioch for their first missionary journey (Acts 13) . . . which implies the Jerusalem church was not consulted. Perhaps Jerusalem wants a voice in decisions about Gentile missions and sends emissaries to the leaders of the church in Antioch to discuss that topic. That would make sense . . . and although we know these Pharisee-Christians had not been authorized to deliver their message (Acts 15:24), we also know what they said had wide support in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:5).

Paul and Barnabas "sharply dispute and debate" these Pharisee-Christians. Paul doesn’t pull any punches when he says 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). His intensity is understandable; this viewpoint severely undercuts Gentile evangelism. Moreover, Paul and Barnabas probably resent needing to argue this issue at all; they thought it was resolved when Peter met with the Jerusalem church in Acts 11. Moreover, Paul was just 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!

Paul and Barnabas are unable to change the minds of these Pharisees; so they do the next best thing: they go to Jerusalem to demand that this question be discussed and resolved . . . so there will be a consistent standard of practice within the fledgling Christian church.

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:

Hence begins the Council of Jerusalem . . . finally addressing the "unfinished business" from Acts 11 . . . resolving the misunderstanding when the church agreed to baptize uncircumcised Gentiles in the name of Jesus. The issue is this: are Gentiles who become Christians required to convert fully to Judaism—in fact or in practice—or must they only believe in Jesus without being required to be circumcised or observe the oral law of the Pharisees (Acts 13:38b-39).

Let’s try to look at the situation logically, pretending we’re Pharisee-Christians. Did Jesus say it is unnecessary and/or wrong to follow the Jewish oral law? There are many instances when He said just that; but Matt 5:18 can be interpreted to the contrary. And what was the "oral law"? Essentially it was "traditional" Jewish interpretation of the bible . . . plus what the Jews believed were additional oral instructions from God to Moses. It was years of rabbinical opinions, carefully memorized, applying these "laws" to current situations. (It was not written down until the 2^nd century, when it became known as the Mishnah.) A Pharisee-Christian might argue: if these interpretations of the Bible have stood for hundreds of years, they must still be valid unless Jesus specifically said otherwise. Much of Catholic doctrine is based on similar tradition . . . and though they would deny it, so is fundamentalist Christian legalism. Indeed, tradition does count; the question is how much it counts in comparison to the bible.

Did Jesus say circumcision of believers is unnecessary? He did not; He never spoke about circumcision! And since circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant with mankind through Abraham, isn’t it illogical to continue to observe it?

These Pharisee-Christians were neither unreasonable nor illogical when they claimed Gentile-Christians must be circumcised and follow the oral law: 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).

But please don’t miss the fine point of what I’m saying: our viewpoint as modern traditional Christians does not come only from the recorded words of Jesus, but also from the interpretations of these words by Peter and Paul, found in Acts and in the letters. What we are witnessing in Acts 15 is the making of Christian doctrine, validating Peter’s and Paul’s interpretations of Jesus’ words . . . and now incorporated into the bible.

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 on 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). That is an especially important point; everyone present knows the legalistic oral law is so rigorous and inflexible that no mere human is able to follow it completely!

Barnabas and Paul tell of "the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them" (Acts 15:12); the point, presumably, is that if God were not with them, he would not have supported their mission like this. Barnabas apparently takes the lead, no doubt based on his position of influence 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. Their comments aren’t quoted in Acts, but Paul alludes to the event in his letter to the Galatians . . . in which he quotes Old Testament justification for salvation by faith in Jesus, apart from following the oral law.

Then James speaks. I really feel for this guy: he seems to be trying to find a mutually acceptable compromise for two groups in no mood to compromise. And he’s walking a tightrope, because—although he might be expected to side with Peter based on his Galilean background—Pharisee-Christians seem dominant in the Jerusalem church.

What James says makes a lot of sense; he sides with Peter and Paul . . . but tactfully so. He appeals to the Hebraic Jews by calling Peter 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 the fulfillment of that prophesy: "We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19). Then he proposes a very reasonable compromise.

First, without fully converting to Judaism, Gentile-Christians must be "holy"—that is, set apart to God through a major, observable break with their immoral Hellenistic society. This can be accomplished by "abstain(ing) . . . from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:20)—by openly shunning the free-wheeling sexual hedonism of their neighbors.

Second, Gentile-Christians must refrain from practices that would cause offence to Jewish-Christians . . . so they can associate socially, and even share meals together. This can be accomplished by "abstain(ing) from food polluted by idols, . . . from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood" (Acts 15:20)—in other words, by avoiding animals sacrificed in pagan temples and meat not slaughtered according to Jewish tradition.

This compromise is acceptable to a majority of the council. Furthermore, to prevent the kind of misunderstanding that occurred after Acts 11, this decision is documented in a formal letter as official church policy. The letter is conveyed to the church of Antioch by Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by Judas and Silas, two Jewish-Christians who were leaders of the Jerusalem church and prophets in their own right (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—incorrectly—they were unsaved. Paul and Barnabas continued to minister in Antioch (Acts 15:35) under a more favorable atmosphere to attract 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 of the Pharisees; he mentions them in his letters to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus.

The specter of legalism which raised 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" . . . and by that I mean a religion of "formulas," rather than a religion of the "heart." There’s lots I could say about legalism, but since our purpose is to study the book of Acts, I’ll confine my comments to what we learn about it from the Council of Jerusalem. Legalism is usually based on someone’s interpretation of the bible, which becomes "tradition," so people think it’s the literal word of God. Sometimes the bible is taken out of context. Sometimes bible verses intended as specific advice to a particular culture and time are applied—incorrectly—to all cultures for all time. Sometimes a relatively minor verse is blown up out of proportion. Sometimes a verse which seems obscure is interpreted as fundamental truth by an "expert." Protestants accuse Catholics of following a works gospel of ritual . . . but Protestants can be very guilty of their own petty regulations. In fact, some Protestants so ritualize salvation through faith that it becomes a rigorous formula . . . just like a works gospel!

Usually underlying legalism is the very argument used by Pharisee-Christians at the Council of Jerusalem: salvation by faith in Jesus is too simple . . . we need to make it harder. James suggested that Gentile Christians refrain from sexual immorality to visibly set them apart from their immoral society. In the 1^st century, such witness for Jesus could cause persecution. But modern legalists—with no threat of real persecution—construct petty rules for a much less noble purpose. But Jesus preached a religion of the heart. And listen to what Paul says in Colossians 2 about petty rules:

Legalism is so sinister, because we must distinguish between God’s wisdom and false wisdom . . . between humility and play acting. That’s not easy. Our only defense against legalism and other false teaching is to understand the bible, and to understand it in context . . . which is what we’re trying to do here.

And I’ll close with this question. Do the morals of modern Christians visibly set us apart from our immoral society as James suggested? Or are we indistinguishable from those around us?

Next week we’ll see the beginning of Paul’s 2^nd Missionary Journey. Together with Silas—one of the emissaries from the Jerusalem church to Antioch—Paul visits four of the churches that were formed on the 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. It should be interesting!