SOME MEN CAME down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16“ ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’
18that have been known for ages.
19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. 33After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. 35But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Original Meaning
“LUKE’S ACCOUNT OF the discussion regarding the relation of the Gentiles to the law of Moses forms the center of Acts both structurally and theologically.”1 Though the church in Jerusalem had accepted that Gentiles also could be saved (11:18), some believed that “the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” (v. 5) in order to be saved (v. 1). We see from Galatians 2 and from the decree that came out of this council (Acts 15:29) that the issue of table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians was also included in this controversy. The decision the church leaders took here would have far-reaching implications for the understanding of who a Christian is, especially in relation to the law of Moses.
Marshall writes, “Probably no section of Acts has aroused such controversy as this one or led to such varied historical reconstructions of the actual situation.”2 The traditional view has been that this chapter is describing the visit to Jerusalem that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:1–10. But there are problems associated with this view. Some reject the historicity of this chapter or say that it is chronologically out of place. One scholar has the events of verses 1–19 occurring at one time (the same as the events of 11:30 and Gal. 2:1–10) and those of verses 20–29 occurring at another time, in the absence of Paul.3 We follow scholars like Bruce, Marshall, and Longenecker in concluding that the theory that Galatians 2:1–10 describes the events of Acts 11:30 and that the Jerusalem Council took place later, fits in best with the evidence, though there are still problems.4 This places the council around A.D. 49.
Paul and Barnabas Go to Jerusalem (15:1–4)
THE EVENTS ARE sparked off by “some men [who] came down from Judea to Antioch” (v. 1). Verse 24 makes clear that they went “without [the] authorization” of the church leaders in Jerusalem. They must have significantly troubled the minds of the Christians in Antioch because they insinuated that the apostles and elders agreed with what they were saying. As is often the case, this heresy aimed at removing the scandal of Christianity. In Galatians 5:11, Paul writes: “Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.” If Paul preached circumcision, there would be no scandal to Christianity. But since he preached that salvation occurs through no work of our own and only through the merits of the death of Christ, such a message was scandalous to the average Jew. The teachers from Judea were trying to remove this scandal.
The church realized that something serious was happening. As a result, Paul and Barnabas were brought “into sharp dispute and debate with them” (v. 2a). It became clear that the issue was so serious that a formal decision had to be taken by the church in Jerusalem. Thus, a team was sent under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas (v. 2b). On the way to Jerusalem they stopped over at the churches in Phoenicia and Samaria and reported on “how the Gentiles had been converted” (v. 3a). “This news made all the brothers very glad” (v. 3b), which seems to be the general response in Jerusalem as well (v. 4).
Settling the Issue of Salvation and the Gentiles (15:5–19)
THE JOY AT Paul and Barnabas’s report was broken by objections regarding the circumcision issue from “some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees” (v. 5). Therefore, “the apostles and elders met to consider this question” (v. 6). We cannot be sure whether the whole church was present at this meeting (cf. vv. 12, 22). If so, the deliberation and decision rested with the leaders.5 It is also possible that a second meeting was called in which the whole assembly gathered after the elders had discussed the issue. If the visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1–10 preceded the council, the issue had already been settled by Peter, James, and John, “those reputed to be pillars” (Gal. 2:9). Yet when the issue came up again, time was given for “much discussion” (v. 7). The theological controversy was not swept under the carpet and allowed to simmer; it was brought into the open and fearlessly discussed.
After the discussion Peter spoke up (v. 7). Oscar Cullmann has argued that Peter was at this council not as the leader of the Jerusalem church but as a missionary. James, clearly the president of this gathering, had taken over that leadership role. Cullmann suggests that Peter interrupted his missionary work to come for this meeting.6 If this council met after the humiliating confrontation in Antioch where Peter was publicly rebuked by the younger Paul (Gal. 2:11–21), as we think it did, it is indeed creditable that Peter should be the first to get up and speak on behalf of Paul’s side in the controversy. This is typical of the honorable commitment to God’s truth rather than to personal preferences and prestige that characterized the attitudes and behavior of the leaders at this council.
Peter’s main point was that the opening of the door of salvation took place through God’s initiative. He referred to the conversion of Cornelius and his friends and pointed out that this whole event had been of God’s choosing (v. 7). We know that Peter only reluctantly accepted God’s teaching to him through the vision (10:14–15). “God, who knows the heart,” confirmed that they had been truly saved “by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to” Peter and his company (15:8). As with Peter and the first disciples at Pentecost (2:2)—but unlike the converts after the Pentecost sermon (2:38)—there was no prior instruction given about receiving the Spirit. The Spirit just fell on them most unexpectedly “while Peter was still speaking” (10:44), as God’s sign of acceptance.
Peter then explicitly stated the great truth that Paul later expounded in Ephesians 2:14–22—that God broke all barriers separating Jews and Gentiles; in purifying the Gentiles’ hearts by faith, God “made no distinction between us and them” (Acts 15:9). With surprising candor Peter admits that the Mosaic law was “a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear” (v. 10). Insisting that Gentiles keep the law is to “try to test God” (v. 10), a serious issue. Peter was saying that “to impose conditions on believers over and above those which God has required is to stretch his patience and invite his judgment.”7
In verse 9 Peter affirmed that Cornelius and his company had been saved “by faith.” In verse 11 he affirmed that salvation “is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is significant that he said “that we are saved, just as they are.” This implies that no Mosaic ritual is needed for the salvation of the Jews.8 With this speech Peter bows out of the book of Acts. As far as Luke is concerned, as Martin Hengel says, “the legitimation of the mission to the Gentiles is Peter’s last work.”9
The next to speak are Barnabas and Paul,10 who tell of “the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (v. 12). In Luke’s writings signs and wonders have an authenticating function.11
James then makes his entrance. He is not introduced here or in 12:17, which records his first appearance in Acts, probably because he was a well-known figure in the early church.12 From what he says and the way he says it, it becomes evident that he is now the leader of the church in Jerusalem. While not all scholars agree, this James is probably the brother of Jesus. He seems to have become the leader of the church in Jerusalem after the apostles were scattered (Acts 8). Peter wanted him to be informed when he left Jerusalem after his miraculous escape from prison (12:17). Paul mentions him first when listing the three pillars of the Jerusalem church, the others mentioned being Peter and John (Gal. 2:9).
Much is told about James in extrabiblical writings of the time. He was respected even among non-Christians, “largely because of his ascetic way of life and his regular participation in the temple services of prayer, where he interceded for the people and their city.”13 He was stoned to death in Jerusalem in A.D. 62, and many of the people were gravely shocked at this. “Some years later some ascribed the calamity which overtook the city and its inhabitants to the cessation of James’ prayers on their behalf.”14 Bruce says that “the church’s readiness to recognize his leadership was due more to his personal character and record than to his blood relationship to the Lord.”15 His role in the council is evidence of this character.
James’s first statement (v. 14) is loaded with significance. When he refers to Peter, he does not use the name “Peter,” as Luke did in verse 7. Peter is the Greek translation of the Aramaic Cephas, meaning rock, which is the name Christ gave him (John 1:42). James calls him Symeon or “Simeon” (NASB), which the NIV renders as “Simon.”16 In the Greek New Testament Peter is called Simon seventy-five times, twenty of which are in Luke’s writings. But he is called Simeon only twice: here and in 2 Peter 1:1. The use of Simeon here probably shows James’s “affinities with the Jewish Christians.”17
Luke is eager to show that James is speaking here as a typical Hebrew. Yet this ardent Jew goes on to make a revolutionary statement: “God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.” In the Old Testament (LXX) the “nations” or “Gentiles” (ethne) stand in contrast to the “people” (laos), which usually refers to the Jews. Deuteronomy 14:2 says, for example, “You are a people [LXX laos] holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples [LXX ethne, nations] on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.” In other words, the Israelites have been called out from the nations to be a people for the Lord God. James says the opposite: From within the nations God has taken a people for himself. As Tannehill says, “The speakers are making the important affirmation that Gentiles can be God’s laos in the full sense that Israel is.”18
In arguing for the full inclusion of Gentiles into the church Peter appealed to direct guidance and intervention from God, and Barnabas and Paul appealed to God’s confirmation of their work through signs and wonders. James appeals to Scripture, showing that “the words of the prophets are in agreement with [symphonousin]” what has happened (v. 15). James quotes Amos 9:11–1219 from the LXX20 and sees its fulfillment in the Gentile mission. The exact meanings of some of the individual clauses in this paragraph are disputed, but the general sense is well summarized by Longenecker:
In the end times, James is saying, God’s people will consist of two concentric groups. At the core will be restored Israel (i.e., David’s rebuilt tent); gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (i.e., the remnant of men) who will share in the messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes.21
James concludes that the church “should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (v. 19)—perhaps referring to not requiring them to go through the painful (esp. for adults) step of circumcision. Below we will see how courageous a statement this is.
Fellowship Between Jewish and Gentile Christians (15:20–35)
ONCE THE ISSUE of the requirements for salvation has been settled, James brings up an important issue that impacts fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. To many Jews maintaining their purity was an extremely important aspect of their survival and identity, especially when they were under foreign rule and had dispersed far and wide into Gentile territory. Thus, the issue of table fellowship with Gentiles and the consumption of non-kosher food was a serious issue.22 But in the early church eating together was also an important element of community life (2:46). If there was going to be openhearted fellowship between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, there would have to be some sensitivity to Jewish scruples by the Gentiles. Thus, James proposes three prohibitions relating to food (v. 20). Two of these prohibitions (meat from animals killed by strangling and blood) had to do with the Jewish practice of draining the blood of animals before eating them.
The prohibition of sexual immorality (porneia) seems to belong to a different category from the rest, and it appears out of place in this list. Surely it goes without saying that sexual immorality is prohibited for Christians. I think that there was so much immorality in some of these places, like Antioch (which was notorious for its immorality),23 that the churches were also affected by the immorality surrounding them. Therefore a special warning was necessary. Perhaps this prohibition was implying that immoral church members should not be extended the privilege of table fellowship with Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–11).24 This explanation would then tie in this prohibition with the other three.
Bruce suggests that porneia may be used here in a more specialized sense of marriage between degrees of blood relationship or affinity expressly forbidden in Leviticus 18:6–18. It is used in this sense elsewhere in the New Testament (1 Cor. 5:1; possibly Matt. 5:32; 19:9).25 In any case, James’s concluding point in verse 21 was probably made to reassure the Christians who had come from the Pharisees and who wanted to see the Torah taught among the Gentiles. He says that this was already happening in the synagogues in every city each Sabbath.
The Jerusalem leaders decide to send some of their own people as a delegation bearing a letter from the council (v. 22). The letter to the churches takes on a conciliatory tone. The trouble caused by certain Christians from Jerusalem is condemned in uncompromising language (v. 24). The word translated “troubling” (from anaskeuazo) is “a military metaphor for plundering a town.”26 Barnabas and Paul are described in endearing and complimentary terms (vv. 25–26). The words describing the final position of the council are prefaced by words that show how unity had won the day after an intensely trying time in the church: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (v. 28).
This letter emphasizes the unity and unanimity of the church in this decision. Verse 25 says, “So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul” (cf. NASB, which translates more lit.: “It seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you . . .”). The word translated “of one mind” (NASB) and “agreed” (NIV) is homothymadon, which often carries the idea of “unanimous.”
Verses 30–35 describe a situation where joy and encouragement have replaced the uncertainty of a few days before. The hard work of the past days had indeed been worth the effort. The church had taken another important step in fulfilling the Great Commission.
Bridging Contexts
THE FALSE TEACHING from Jerusalem. Nearly twenty centuries after the battles with the Judaizers were fought in the church, they may seem rather irrelevant to us. But they were important at the time and won for succeeding generations formulations of Christianity that clarified key issues about the nature of saving faith. The Jerusalem Council affirmed that Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to be Christians. While that fact is no longer disputed, there are many things that we can learn from this passage regarding false teaching.
(1) As in the first century, the issue of people wanting to do something to earn salvation and the church adding to a list of conditions for salvation has been a continuing problem.
(2) The false teaching was powerful because the teachers came from the mother church in Jerusalem, probably claiming the support of the leaders there for their views.
(3) Just as the Judaizers tried to take away the scandal of the gospel, there have always been people who have tried to do this in their efforts to make Christianity more relevant to society.
(4) The church considered this teaching a grave threat and therefore dealt with it in great seriousness. Paul and Barnabas and their team made the long trip to Jerusalem to battle for the gospel. When the resolution was reached, the Jerusalem church sent some of their own leaders to the Gentile churches with an official letter to do all they could to offset the damage.
(5) Note too how the false teaching was combated. The incidents in Antioch “brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them” (v. 2). But individuals were respected in the way the issues were discussed at the council. The Judaizers had a chance to say what they wanted to say, for Peter got up to speak only “after much discussion” (v. 7). Yet in the end, the letter to the churches was uncompromising in the way it condemned the false teachers (v. 24). The situation was too serious for polite acceptance of this teaching or for allowing it to stay alongside other teaching as an option, as would be the case in the pluralist model of theologizing. False teaching was roundly condemned after it had been shown to be wrong.
The prohibitions. The four prohibitions are mentioned three times in Acts (15:20, 29; 21:25), but apart from the one about sexual immorality the others do not appear in Paul’s letters. In fact, Paul seems to have adopted a more liberal approach to the issue of food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, which was written six or seven years after the council (c. A.D. 55), and perhaps in Romans 14, which was written eight years after the council (c. A.D. 56). We noted that these prohibitions were made more out of sensitivity for the scruples of the Jews than for theological reasons. Thus we can conclude that in applying this passage, we do not need to slavishly follow the prohibitions regarding food. But we do learn about the need to be sensitive to the consciences and scruples of our fellow believers.
This is the stance that Paul takes in his discussions in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. He recommends sensitivity to people’s consciences, to the weaker brother, and to putting a stumbling block in the way of someone else. Our convictions must always be tempered by love. Love will make us do things that we have fought against legislating. If the gospel is not to be hindered, we will be magnanimous to the weak and to those we seek to win. It is interesting to find the same Paul, who fought so vehemently against legislating circumcision, having Timothy circumcised a short time after the council, before he allowed him to join them on a missionary journey (Acts 16:3). Here, however, the cause seems to have been to open doors for evangelism among unbelieving Jews rather than to appease believing Jews.
The issue of sexual immorality had to be brought up because the society in which the Gentile Christians lived was so pervaded with sexual immorality that the church had also been influenced by it. Isaiah admitted to being influenced by his environment when he said he was a man of unclean lips, who lived among a people of unclean lips (Isa. 6:5). In the same way the church can reflect in its life some of the sins that plague society. This clearly seems to have been the case in the church in Corinth, a city whose name had become “proverbial for licentiousness” partly because “it was a center of the worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love.”27
The principle we glean from this prohibition is that if a church in a given area is particularly susceptible to a certain temptation, then in setting standards for that church, one should be particularly conscientious in mentioning that evil. This is relevant today as this very sin—sexual immorality—has become a serious problem in today’s society.
Keys to theological debate within the church. This passage gives us an example of how the Lord led the people into a theological consensus after serious conflict and debate. As we experience such conflicts in the church, Acts 15 is an important passage for us to consider today. God led the early church through three major means. (1) He spoke through experiences. This includes Peter’s experience with Cornelius (vv. 7–11) and the experiences of Paul and Barnabas through their ministry in the miraculous and in the conversion of Gentiles.
(2) James’ speech gives a most important key in theological debate: the Scriptures. The experiences described earlier were all in harmony with Scripture (vv. 14–18).
(3) The generous Christian character of the leaders shines forth throughout this chapter. If the council took place after Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch, then we see Peter acting in a most honorable way. Paul had publicly rebuked him. But when truth is at stake, personal humiliations are forgotten. The leader Paul also let Barnabas take over the leadership role in speaking (his name is mentioned first in v. 12). And James advocated principles contrary to his own personal preferences. He remained a law-abiding Jew to the end, but he did not push that on others. The trouble in Antioch that had resulted in Paul’s confronting Peter was after men from James had come there and influenced Peter (Gal. 2:12). How disappointed these men must have been when they found that the one they looked to as their leader spoke up for the other side. But Christian leaders do not take sides in a conflict. They battle over issues, not for sides.
The letter and the decree also show how the church was bending over backwards to make peace. Those who disrupted the churches are strongly condemned (v. 24), but the prohibitions show a sensitivity to Jewish scruples. Paul and Barnabas are commended for the work they have done (vv. 25–26), and Judas and Silas from the church in Jerusalem are sent along with the letter to reassure the Gentile Christians.
The end result of the conflict is something that we should all strive to have in our community life today: being of one mind (v. 25) and sensing that the Spirit and the community are agreed about the direction in which the church is headed. It came after much struggle, aided by the statesmanlike behavior of the leaders. But it came, and that is what we should aim at.
Contemporary Significance
ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR salvation. When the Reformers rediscovered the biblical insistence of salvation by faith, they realized that the church had almost completely obliterated this doctrine by adding other requirements for salvation, making it into a salvation by works. John Wesley had to rediscover this doctrine again since he had been trusting in his strict Christian discipline but found no assurance of salvation through it. Even today many people would like to do something so that they may feel satisfied that they have earned their salvation.
Religious peddlers are only too willing to accept the gifts that are given to them in order to merit a favor from God. This may be a trap that Satan uses to keep people from surrendering their lives to God. Many who are unwilling to entrust their lives to God to be Lord of their lives are nevertheless willing to give generous gifts for God’s work. Many temples and shrines of other faiths and even some churches thrive on such giving. But we must resist such giving, for it keeps people from the way of faith.
The Judaizers in Jerusalem felt that Gentiles should become Jews if they were to become true Christians. Similarly, some early missionaries felt that converts to Christianity should take on the culture of their own homeland. While they may not have insisted on these things or taught them as conditions for salvation, people assumed that if they became Christians, they would have to take on the English, or German, or American culture, or whatever. Some knew that they would not be able to become leaders of the church if they did not speak the language of the missionary. Often the missionary was from the same country as the colonial rulers, who were imposing their culture in their colonies. Today will Hispanic Christians have to renounce some of their culture if they want to become leaders in churches dominated by Anglo-Saxons? Have we unwittingly made things we are comfortable with, but which are not taught in the Bible, into basic prerequisites for Christian involvement? It can easily happen, and we must constantly be on guard about bringing in extrabiblical requirements into the church.
The appeal of false teaching today. When false teachers came to Antioch, what they said could not be easily dismissed since they had come from the mother church in Judea. In the same way today teachers from reputed seminaries can come and cause great damage in the church by false teaching. This type of thing has happened in this century to many churches in the Third World, when liberal teaching came from the mother churches in the West, either through missionaries or through the seminaries where Third World ministers studied. It has caused havoc in older churches, resulting in spiritual death.
Just as the Judaizers sought to remove the scandal of the gospel, throughout the history of the church people have tried to remove the unpleasant aspects of Christianity. In the aftermath of the scientific revolution, many tried to divest Christianity of its miraculous element, since it did not harmonize with the so-called scientific worldview. Today, when pluralism and religious tolerance hold sway, people have tried to divest Christianity of its claim to uniqueness and its doctrine of eternal punishment.
In situations closer to what happened in Acts, some teachers have avoided the unpleasant doctrine of Christ’s breaking human barriers and encouraged instead the growth of segregated churches or refused to speak up against racism. The message of integration in Christ is one of the most revolutionary features of Christianity in this world torn by strife. Those who proclaim it get into trouble with extremists. Consequently, many choose to play safe and ignore it, and Christians end up with racist attitudes. If there is no exposure to the Christian view on this issue, people will tend to go with the crowd in their racist thinking.
Opposing false teaching. We said that there was no tolerance of false teaching in this passage. This may sound strange to our ears in this age of pluralism, where opposing viewpoints are permitted to stand side by side and the formulators of new theology are praised for their creativity. But as Bishop Stephen Neill has pointed out, in Christianity there is “the awful and necessary intolerance of truth.”28 Christianity is a religion of revelation. We believe that God has spoken a definite and eternal Word to humanity. Any teaching contrary to that Word within the church must be rooted out with utmost urgency.
The practice of contending for the truth, of course, has been abused much in the past, especially when people brought in sharp personal attacks on those whom they were opposing. Therefore people nowadays shy away from such battles. But we can argue for truth without insulting people whose views we oppose. Heretics must not be allowed to continue to influence the church. Thus, when all else fails, disciplinary action must be taken against them, and that may mean excommunication (1 Tim. 1:19–20).
The practice of contending for the truth has also been abused when people have contended for things about which the Bible is not clear—for example, the time of Christ’s coming and the exact interpretation of the signs regarding this coming. Our commitment is to truth, and if God has chosen not to show something clearly to us, we should not be afraid of being tentative in our understandings on that issue.
The New Testament church took immediate steps to attack the false teaching. This is the consistent pattern in Scripture. Galatians 2:11–13 relates how Peter vacillated in Antioch on the same issue of Acts 15 and withdrew from eating with the Gentiles. Paul says, “I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.” There had been a public display of serious error by a top leader, so Paul had to confront him in public, because many would otherwise be led astray. We would like our Christian communities to be places without strife. Indeed, we are committed to peace (Rom. 12:8). But often troubles come that must be confronted head-on if the purity of the church is to be maintained.
If we do not confront these problems, we may be able to keep the peace for a time by ignoring the problem. But if we fail to confront serious issues at all, we plunge the church along a path downward, which is increasingly more difficult to arrest. Note how many denominations allowed people to remain in leadership after they departed from the truth. By the time they dealt with it, it was too late. As a result, the church had to develop a structure that allowed people with such views and practices to remain.
There is a warning for leaders here. It is painful to confront error in doctrine and behavior. But we must do it if we think about error as God does. And because of love for God and his church, we must be willing to confront the error and pay the price of it. This is painful, and often we come out of the battle with wounds that take time to heal. But should we not be willing to be wounded in order to maintain the purity of the church, which Christ bought with his own blood (20:28)? Christ himself said, “Love each other as I have loved you.” But immediately after that he went on to describe what he meant by this love: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12–13). We must be willing to lay down our lives for the church by confronting error and paying the price of that confrontation.
Sensitivity to others’ scruples. The prohibitions developed by the Jerusalem Council show us that theological convictions aside, Christians should be sensitive to the scruples of those whose consciences are offended by certain practices. This is particularly important for people who have been recently “liberated” from a legalistic demand that others still hold. For example, once many evangelicals held to a strong prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Now many have come to sense that there is no scriptural ground for such total prohibition. But they need to be sensitive to the scruples of those who still feel that total abstinence is the only suitable approach.
This is particularly significant in countries like Sri Lanka, where the other three major religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam) officially condemn the consumption of alcohol as a sin. In this context, it is wise for Christians to consider seriously how they can avoid being a stumbling block to those of other faiths vis-à-vis their attitude toward strong drink. Whereas earlier abstinence was considered as an evidence of the genuineness of one’s conversion, now it is recommended as expedient in order not to be a stumbling block in the way of some people.
Sometimes we have the situation where those who have been “liberated” from a prohibition of the past become almost evangelistic in their promotion of this practice and even make things difficult for those who still hold to the old prohibition. This pattern of behavior contradicts the spirit of the Jerusalem accord, which was characterized by the willingness of Christians on both sides to make concessions on behalf of the other.
Prohibition of immorality today. We can apply the prohibition of sexual immorality directly to the present. As in Antioch (and Corinth) many today no longer consider immorality as evil. What Christians call immorality the society around us calls love. The power of the media is such that it is difficult to avoid the impact of this onslaught.
This problem is not confined just to cities known for licentiousness. It is a problem even in conservative Asian societies. These attitudes have even influenced the church. The extent of the problem in the United States is expressed by the results of a recent study claiming that 56 percent of single “fundamentalists” engage in sex outside marriage.29 The pastor of a large evangelical church in North America told a friend of mine that about half the members of his church that get married there have already had sexual relations with each other. According to Gene Edward Veith Jr., polls suggest that whereas earlier if Christians indulged in sex outside marriage, there was a sense of shame and remorse over sin, which is missing in today’s church. But Christians seem to have accepted that immorality is not as serious as was once thought.30
In this environment is the church taking a strong stand against immorality from the pulpit and in its disciplinary procedures? I don’t think so. We do not recoil with the horror that Paul expressed when he wrote to the Corinthians about their permitting immoral people to remain in the church (1 Cor. 5). Many church leaders prefer to ignore these issues, saying that these are personal issues. If, as some have suggested (see above), the prohibition in our passage related to table fellowship, then it may be suggesting that we should not eat with Christians who persist in immorality—a Pauline teaching clearly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9–11.
I believe that we should be warning our people about the dangers of the new lax attitude to immorality. Paul said that the sexually immoral and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10). Today we seem so eager to increase our attendance at church that we leave these issues for another forum rather than the pulpit. That makes the pulpit what it was not in the Bible. We must take a firm stand against immorality when it is manifested in the church. Loving sinners Christianly involves the pain of thoroughgoing confrontation of sin, followed by faithful nursing during the time of healing.
Experience and Scripture in theological formulation. Scripture and experience both played a role in arriving at the doctrinal formulation that emerged from the Jerusalem Council. God spoke through the experiences of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas. But James showed that what they had experienced was in keeping with the Scriptures, so that it should become normative. The Scriptures are such a vast resource that we will never plumb its depths or scale its heights this side of heaven. There is always more to discover, and we are often hindered from knowing it by our lack of knowledge of all of Scripture or by our cultural blinds.
We can usually find our misunderstandings of Scripture by studying the Bible with an open mind or by hearing or reading the fruit of someone else’s study of Scripture. We sometimes also discover this through an experience that opens our eyes to a hitherto neglected truth. Once we are open, we “diligently study the Scriptures” (John 5:39), examining them like the noble Bereans to see whether what we have been exposed to is true (17:11). Then we realize that what we thought was new was taught in the Scriptures all along without our being aware of it.
Sometimes, however, what we have experienced is not unmistakably taught in the Scriptures. If so, it cannot become normative to us. If such experiences do not contradict Scripture and if they can be seen as applications of principles taught in the Bible, then we can accept them as legitimate; but we must not insist on them for everyone. This has often happened in the church, that people had a particular experience that enriched their lives and did not seem to contradict Scripture. While it was legitimate for those who had this experience, it would have been wrong for them to insist on everyone having the same experience.
In other words, Scripture is always our only standard for faith and practice. But our experiences can help us see things in the Scripture to which we have been blind. John Wesley, actually talks of the quadrilateral—Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience—which influences the formulation of theology.31 But the foundation, the ultimate source of raw material for constructing theology, is Scripture.
Honorable leadership. Conflicts in the church today are often marred by a partisanship that reduces debate to the level of politicking. People take sides depending on their experiences. A person who has humiliated someone else must be opposed and humiliated in return. Though the issues discussed seem to be principles, deep down a hurt self is causing havoc in the church. How different Peter was! He refused to let the past humiliation in Antioch color his actions at the council. Instead, he spoke up on behalf of the cause of Paul and Barnabas even before they themselves spoke.
Leaders who have crucified self battle the tendency to let the humiliation of previous confrontations influence their actions. They fight the desire that wells up within to “teach that upstart a lesson,” and their actions are determined only with the progress of the kingdom and the honor of God in mind. How many unpleasant situations in the church could have been avoided if hurt leaders had been a little more like Peter! So many of the flames of the so-called “battles over principles” are fanned by leaders who have not crucified the flesh. What goes as a battle for principles is really a clash of personalities.
We noted that James did not take sides in the conflict, and he went against his own preference. Wise leaders often have to do that. We may personally not like a certain kind of modern music that others feel is effective when working with a certain group of people. But we must not let our tastes influence what is best for the kingdom. We must instead work hard at acquiring a taste for this music so that we can spread the gospel more effectively.
James also did not consider loyalty to people who looked to him as their leader a factor that should affect whose side he would champion in the conflict. How politicized the church has become today! Acts speaks of a church where people were of one heart and one mind (2:44; 4:32). But in contemporary conflict situations, some Christians associate only with people on their side. Cliques form in the church, which view each other as competitors. People from one clique try to outmaneuver those from the other. Politics, rather than the overriding desire for the glory of God, rules in such situations.
Acts 14 records an event when party spirit was defeated and theology won the day. At the heart of it was godly leadership. Conflicts are often spurred on by leaders. They may place the responsibility for the angry actions upon the people and claim that the people are angry about what has happened. But it is the leaders who have influenced these people to act in this way. Ultimately the blame for conflict gone out of control lies with the leaders.
Coming to being of one mind. The church as it met in Jerusalem did not start with unanimity, but as the proceedings went on, some felt led to change their positions, so that unity emerged. There was serious discussion and urgent meetings, involving people having to travel long distances. The unity of the church is so important that such a price had to be paid. Would that we too could work like that in our communities.
Instead, we use the voting method today, which is (I admit) much quicker. But the problem with the voting method is that some people are always dissatisfied with the decision, and thus there is no unity as believers work on a given project. When problems come, those against the project say, “I told you this won’t work” and become a discouragement to everyone. Campbell Morgan says, “An overwhelming majority often leaves behind it a minority disaffected and dangerous.”32 Other times the leader makes a decision and others are forced to comply out of respect for his or her position. But that means that there may be many who comply whose hearts are not in the course of action taken. The power of a united body is missing.
It takes much longer to arrive at a situation where the people are of one mind. Many are impatient with a consensus method of decision making, fearing that they won’t get much done that way. But the price is worth paying in the long run. Even though it may take a longer time to reach a decision, when it is being executed, better results can be expected. Everyone will be enthusiastic about it and will be motivated to work hard to see it through. The loss of time caused by waiting for unanimity will be more than compensated for.