GRACE ON TRIAL
ACTS 15:1-12
NASB
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 [a]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.”
6 The apostles and the elders came together to [a]look into this [b]matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that [a]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.
15:2 [a]Lit not a little 15:6 [a]Lit see about [b]Lit word 15:7 [a]Lit from days of old
NLT
1 While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers[*]: “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent the delegates to Jerusalem, and they stopped along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers. They told them —much to everyone’s joy —that the Gentiles, too, were being converted.
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas and Paul were welcomed by the whole church, including the apostles and elders. They reported everything God had done through them. 5 But then some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and insisted, “The Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to follow the law of Moses.”
6 So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. 7 At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. 8 God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. 10 So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers[*] with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? 11 We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
12 Everyone listened quietly as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
[15:1] Greek brothers; also in 15:3, 23, 32, 33, 36, 40. [15:10] Greek disciples.
Whenever you put people together, contention happens. Even in the church. Some might even say especially in the church. Poorly informed romantics like to talk about the glory days of the early church, as if the era of the apostles didn’t have the same problems we face today . . . but an honest portrait of church history is a study in black and blue. Some of those places we have idealized —places we visit at ancient sites like Antioch, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus —were, in reality, hotbeds of controversy in their time. The question is not whether a church will have contention, but how a church will move to resolve internal conflict.
Paul and Barnabas had just returned from their first missionary journey with amazing stories to tell of Gentiles coming to faith in Christ. With this bold initiative, the church had opened new territory and was poised to expand rapidly. Just as the momentum began to build, however, somebody threw a wrench into the machinery. An old controversy returned, bringing progress to a lurching halt and threatening to undermine the single most important doctrine of the church: salvation by grace.
How this first generation of believers resolved the conflict would not only affect generations of Christians, but it would also set the precedent for how earnest believers would resolve contention within their own communities.
— 15:1-2 —
Although Syrian Antioch had become increasingly important in terms of Christian expansion, Jerusalem remained the center of church authority. Prior to the writing and distribution of the New Testament Scriptures, the leaders in Jerusalem were the church’s primary source of divine revelation and the ultimate authority on orthodox teaching. Consequently, a believer coming from Judea to teach was afforded great respect. Gentile churches especially regarded anyone coming from “headquarters” as authoritative.
Some of these teachers taught that anyone wanting to be saved must be circumcised (15:1). The issue ran deeper than merely submitting to a surgical procedure. How one understood the place of circumcision in the church defined how a person saw Israel and the Mosaic Law in relation to the new covenant. After all, God’s covenants with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-21), Israel (Deut. 28:1-68), and David (2 Sam. 7:8-16) had defined the meaning of “the kingdom of God” for generation upon generation of Hebrews.
Circumcision identified a male as a true “son of the covenant,” heir to the promises of God to the descendants of Abraham and citizens of Israel. Anyone not born Jewish and circumcised on the eighth day had to learn Hebrew history and become sufficiently knowledgeable about the Mosaic Law. After a thorough examination of his knowledge, he would be baptized and then circumcised.[142] Only then would he be considered a true “son of the covenant,” a real citizen of God’s kingdom. Christians with this rich Hebrew background had a couple of valid concerns. How could someone appreciate the meaning of the new covenant without at least some knowledge of the old? How could someone become a citizen of God’s kingdom so easily? And would this person truly be a good citizen without at least some demonstration of sincerity? And what of Israel? How do Gentiles factor into God’s centuries-old plan?
Paul and Barnabas obviously took issue with such a teaching (Acts 15:2). The “circumcision group” posed valid questions, but their teaching contradicted the bottom-line teaching of Jesus Christ. Besides, hadn’t this issue already been addressed adequately with the conversion of Cornelius and his household and the approval of the Holy Spirit a few years earlier (10:34-48; 11:17-18)? At that time, everyone in Jerusalem felt satisfied. Certainly, Peter didn’t circumcise these Gentiles.
In response to the contention between believers, the leaders in Syrian Antioch appealed to their only source of divine authority, the apostles in Jerusalem. They formed a delegation consisting of Paul, Barnabas, and the circumcision teachers and sent them to the apostles and elders for a theological ruling. No threats of excommunication, no violence or threats of violence, no clandestine moves to split the church. They went together to seek the truth. Historians and theologians call this the Jerusalem Council.
— 15:3-5 —
The phrase “passing through” (15:3) indicates that the team traveled over land rather than by sea. Naturally, a ship would have been faster and less arduous. Instead, the men took the trouble to journey overland through Phoenicia and Samaria. This means they probably followed along the Orontes River valley south through Phoenicia, took the coastal road through Sidon, Tyre, and Acco, then turned inland to pick up the ancient trade route known as the International Coastal Highway or “great trunk route” (sometimes mislabeled as the Via Maris), which passed east–west through the Jezreel Valley and led them back out toward the coastline again.[143] This highway intersected a major road leading from Joppa to Jerusalem. It was quite a journey —more than 300 miles!
Luke’s description implies that the two factions of the delegation didn’t travel together, if the circumcision group bothered to go at all. Regardless, Paul and Barnabas made an effort to visit churches —predominantly Gentile —telling the story of their success among Gentile churches never before reached with the gospel (15:3). Whether or not they intended this as a campaign to create a grassroots movement, they gained huge anti-circumcision support among the churches outside Judea. When they finally arrived in Jerusalem, they were “received” (15:4). This word means “welcomed.” The apostles and elders embraced the delegation, extending fellowship and hospitality to them as brothers.
At the council, both sides presented their cases to the apostles and elders. Luke’s narrative highlights the fact that churches everywhere rejoiced at the news of Gentiles becoming Christians. Only a relatively small number of believers expressed any concern. Unfortunately, loud minority opinions can appear more significant than they really are. Luke describes the opposition as “Pharisees who had believed” (15:5; cf. John 19:38-39), a phrase that indicates that they were genuine believers. Some might say their faulty theology invalidated their faith in Christ because it interposed works as a condition of salvation. This charge is intriguing because it supposes one must have good theology in order to be saved —exactly the point made by the circumcision group. On the other hand, if someone believes that works contribute to salvation, what does that say about his or her understanding of the gospel and the purity of his trust in Christ? While it might seem that their theology casts doubt on their salvation, a plain reading of Luke supports their status as brothers in Christ.
— 15:6 —
The theological dispute was brought before “the apostles and the elders.” By now, many of the Twelve had undertaken missionary journeys of their own. Church tradition, though not accurate in all respects, is probably correct in suggesting the majority of the Twelve left for various parts of the world and then died serving in these locations. Peter remained in Jerusalem to provide theological guidance, and John, who had been given the care of Jesus’ mother, may have remained there as well. With many of the apostles gone, the responsibility for functional leadership and instruction passed to a number of elders led by James, the Lord’s half brother. James the apostle, the brother of John, had been martyred by this time (12:2).
From My Journal
Divisive Devices
ACTS 15:5
When the status quo meets our personal needs, we will do anything to resist change. Anything.
One of my favorite professors told a story about something that occurred many years ago in a church in Midwestern America —a culture known for its love of tradition —in which a creative Sunday school teacher started using a flannelgraph to depict Bible stories. At the time, some considered her an innovator, others a radical. In those days, only businesses used flannelgraphs as a presentation tool, usually to graph out profit-loss trends or to map out future plans. To many, the woman had introduced a secular device into God’s sacred house. Of course, many from my generation fondly remember the flannelgraph with a sense of childhood nostalgia.
Years later, a good friend of mine told me about a forward-thinking pastor who set up an overhead projector beside the pulpit. Some of the established members of the congregation wanted to know, “Why don’t you just teach from the Bible? Why use all that ‘worldly stuff’?”
Another friend remembered how a favorite youth minister in his hometown church decided to use a film to grab the attention of young people. So, he gathered the teens one evening at the church and ran the movie for a packed house. Mind you, it was a Christian film, a story from the mission field. Still, the leaders of the congregation called him into a private meeting for a confrontation.
“Why are you upset? What’s wrong with showing a Christian film?” he asked. “We show slides of missionaries all the time. We have pictures all over the walls of this place.”
One board member responded, “If it’s still, it’s fine. If it moves, it’s sin.”
— 15:7-9 —
Even though the issue had been discussed at length before and the church authorities in Jerusalem had already embraced the conversion of uncircumcised Gentiles (11:17-18), the apostles and elders committed to reexamining the issue. What a difference from the Sanhedrin! Rather than take a rigid, authoritarian position —“We’ve already made our decision, so shut up and fall into line, or else!” —these spiritually sensitive, wise men of God humbled themselves enough to reconsider their position. They also gave their Pharisaic Christian brothers the dignity of being heard. Rather than dismiss their Pharisaic colleagues outright, the apostles and elders listened carefully, considered seriously, debated thoroughly, and finally arrived at a conclusion. The way they handled the issue influenced Paul profoundly. Near the end of his life, he wrote to his younger colleague Timothy,
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Tim. 2:24-26)
Paul observed how the apostles and elders responded to their theologically wayward brothers, and he modeled their example throughout his own ministry.
Near the end of the deliberations, Peter took the floor to address the assembly. Luke doesn’t reveal the theological points considered by both sides of the issue; none of that was important. Luke recounts only the speech by Peter, who rested his defense on the one important factor in the whole debate: What does God say concerning the Gentiles? He took his peers back several years to his experience in Joppa, where the Lord spoke to him directly, saying, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:15). He reminded them that God had given these uncircumcised Gentiles His Spirit: “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (11:17). At the end of the day, God had spoken by giving His Spirit without requiring circumcision.
The key phrase in Peter’s address is “cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:9; cf. 10:43). The concept of salvation by grace through faith was not new. God had always wanted His people to have “circumcised hearts” (see Deut. 10:16; 30:6), instructing them to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). The concept of salvation through faith applied to their patriarch, Abraham, of whom the Scriptures say, “he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Besides, the outward symbol of circumcision applied to Abraham and his descendants as part of a specific kind of covenant. This was a new covenant, one with different terms and applicable to a broader group of people —with “no distinction” (Acts 15:9).
— 15:10-11 —
Peter then challenged the circumcision group to consider the implications of their demand. As with the circumcision of Jewish proselytes (see comments on 15:1-2), the outward symbol of circumcision was to reflect an inner commitment to obey every point of the Law (Gal. 5:3) —including sacrificial and purification rites, food prohibitions, and appointed festivals. Any Hebrew willing to be honest had to admit that even with the advantages of biblical training, theological knowledge, and a supportive culture, he had not kept that commitment —in a sense negating the value of the symbol itself (see Rom. 2:25-26). More importantly, as Peter would point out, observing the Law is not the basis of salvation.
Rather, as Peter reiterated, the basis of salvation is the grace of God alone received through faith alone, made possible by Jesus Christ alone (Acts 15:11). Grace plus works isn’t grace!
— 15:12 —
Luke notes that by the end of the discussion, “all the people” were listening to Paul and Barnabas. The duo had been telling these stories since their return, and they told stories of Gentiles saved in the churches between Antioch and Jerusalem, and the believers had responded with rejoicing. Now, however, “all the people” listened. The presence of “signs and wonders” affirmed what God had declared earlier by giving His Spirit to the Gentile believers. Therefore, no one could deny the conclusion: Nothing, not even circumcision, can improve upon God’s grace; He requires nothing more than trust in His Son.
APPLICATION: ACTS 15:1-12
The Blessings of Conflicts
My observation of this unpleasant episode in the life of the church yields three enduring lessons. I first examined this passage in depth back in the 1970s, soon after I became a senior pastor in Fullerton, California, and through the years, these lessons have influenced my selection of staff members and have guided how I conduct meetings.
First lesson: Conflict is inevitable; expect it. Issues that should have already been settled will resurface. People who should get along will knock heads every once in a while. Good-hearted, capable people will arrive at completely different conclusions. This is not a sign that something’s wrong with your organization; it’s normal. Your group shouldn’t be characterized by contention; harmony should be the rule, not the exception. But if you never see disagreements, something has gone wrong. Communication has broken down or people have stopped being honest or the conflict has gone underground —or people have stopped caring.
Second lesson: No conflict is ever easy; endure it. Conflict is always unpleasant, always difficult. Contention brings out the worst in everybody. Consequently, many leaders try to end a disagreement by any means possible rather than let constructive conflict run its course. Difficult as it feels, maintain order and keep all contention within the bounds of mutual respect and unconditional love, but trust people enough to work through their difficulties.
Third lesson: Any conflict can benefit the people involved; let it. Chicago journalist Sydney J. Harris once wrote, “Agreement makes us soft and complacent; disagreement brings out our strength. Our real enemies are the people who make us feel so good that we are slowly, but inexorably, pulled down into the quicksand of smugness and self-satisfaction.” If you’re filling your staff positions only with yes-men, you have doomed your organization to failure and yourself to perpetual ignorance. You will soon become complacent and arrogant and obsolete. People who think, question, challenge, and evaluate are your benefactors. Encourage, praise, appreciate, and reward their respectful honesty. No conflict is easy. Contention with the right motives calls for honest appraisal, which rarely feels good but always creates an opportunity for improvement.