THE MESSAGE OF ACTS

A Commentary by John Stott

(Study 23)

Acts 15:1-4.  The point at issue (continued)  (....The gospel was in dispute. The very foundations of the Christian faith were being undermined.)
The debate in Jerusalem
 Acts 15:13-21  -  James
Acts 15:22-29. The Council's letter
 Acts 16:1-5. Galatia receives the Council's letter
Acts 15:1-16:5.  Permanent lessons

The apostle Paul saw this with great clarity, and was outraged. His indignation increased when the Judaizers won over a notable convert in the apostle Peter, who was also in Antioch at the time. Before they arrived, as Paul explains in Galatians 2:11-14, Peter `used to eat with the Gentiles'. True, they had not been circumcised, but they had been converted. They had believed, received the Spirit and been baptized. So Peter, remembering Cornelius, was entirely happy to associate with them freely, and even eat with them, doubtless including the Lord's supper, recognizing them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. But when the circumcision party arrived in Antioch, they persuaded Peter to withdraw `and separate himself from the Gentiles'.  Unfortunately that was only the beginning. What happened next Paul rehearses in Galatians 2. The rest of the Jewish believers followed Peter's bad example and `joined him in his hypocrisy' (for Paul knew Peter was acting from fear, not conviction), and even Barnabas, in spite of everything he had seen during the first missionary journey, was carried away by the flood and `led astray'. Paul was hot with anger - not from personal pique, because his position was losing ground, but out of concern for the truth. He saw that Peter and his followers were `not acting in line with the truth of the gospel'. So he `opposed him [Peter] to his face, because he was in the wrong', and rebuked him publicly for his inconsistency. His behaviour was a disgraceful contradiction of the gospel. So he said to him:
`We...know [you and I, Peter and Paul, are agreed about this] that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no-one will be justified' (Gal. 2:15-16). How then, if we know this and have ourselves experienced
it, can we preach a different gospel to Gentiles? Further, if God has accepted them by faith, as he has accepted us, how can we break fellowship with one another? How dare we reject those whom
God has accepted? Paul's logic was incontrovertible.  His courageous confrontation of Peter evidently had the desired result. For by the time Peter reached Jerusalem for the Council, he had regained his theological equilibrium and went on to bear fruitful witness during the assembly to the gospel of grace and its consequences for Gentile-Jewish fellowship. Barnabas had recovered too.

The issue can be clarified by a series of questions. Is a sinner saved by the sheer grace of God in and through Christ crucified, when he or she simply believes, that is, flees to Jesus for refuge? Has Jesus Christ by his death and resurrection done everything necessary for our salvation? Or are we saved partly through the grace of Christ and partly through our good works and religious performance? Is justification *sola fide*, `by faith alone', or through a mixture of faith and works, grace and law, Jesus and Moses? Are Gentile believers a sect of Judaism, or authentic members of a multi-national family? It was not some Jewish cultural practices which were at stake, but the truth of the gospel and the future of the church.

We are not surprised, therefore, by the `fierce dissension and controversy' (2,NEB) which arose. We may be thankful that the church of Antioch grasped the nettle, and took practical steps
to ensure a resolution of the issue. The calling of a Council can be extremely valuable, if its purpose is to clarify doctrine, end controversy and promote peace. *So Paul and Barnabas were
appointed along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about the question (2). The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia
and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad (3). When 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* (4).


Acts 15:5-21.  The debate in Jerusalem.

No sooner had the delegation from Antioch been given a warm welcome by the Jerusalem church, especially by the apostles and elders, than the controversy broke out afresh. *Then 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'* (5). They were entirely biblical to value
circumcision and the law as gifts of God to Israel. But they went further and made them obligatory to everyone, including Gentiles.  We note their word `must', as we did the word `cannot' in verse 1. Circumcision and law-observance, they insisted, were essential for salvation. So *the apostles and elders met to consider this question* (6), although others were present also. Luke gives no
details of the *much discussion* (7a) which took place, but he summarizes the decisive speeches which were made successively by the three apostles involved - the apostle Peter (7-11), the
apostle Paul supported by Barnabas (12) and the apostle James (13-21).

a)  Peter (15:7-11)
Peter's contribution was to remind the assembly of the Cornelius incident, in which he had been the chief human factor, and which had taken place *some time ago*, probably about ten years previously. He humbly attributed the whole initiative to God. First, he said, *God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and
believe* (7). The choice had been God's, the privilege his. Secondly, *God, who knows the heart (the word *kardiognostes*, `heart-knower', had been used of Jesus in 1:24), showed that he
accepted them* (literally, he `bore witness to them', meaning `showed his approval of them', NEB, JB) *by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us* (8). This proves that Peter's earlier statement that `God ...accepts men from every nation who fear him...' (10:35) meant that there is no racial barrier to conversion; but God `accepted them' in the sense of welcoming them
into his family only when he gave them his Spirit. Thirdly, *God made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith* (9), demonstrating that it is the inward purity
of the heart which makes fellowship possible, not the external purity of diet and ritual. It is also a purification by faith, not works.

This threefold work of God (choosing Peter, giving the Spirit, purifying the heart) led to an unavoidable conclusion. In expressing it, Peter addressed the opposition direct: *Now then,
why do you try to test God* (that is, why do you provoke him by resisting what he has clearly revealed?) *by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?* (10). We Jews have not obtained salvation by obedience to the law; so how can we expect the Gentiles to do so?  `*No*' Peter concludes, `*We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are*' (11).  As he makes this final affirmation, we notice that he is echoing, perhaps quite unconsciously, the gospel statement which Paul had made to him in Antioch, while publicly challenging him. Together they made it plain that salvation is `through the grace of Jesus Christ' and `by faith in Jesus Christ'. Grace and faith cannot be separated.

Paul: `We know that a man is ...justified...by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus' (Gal.2:16).
Peter:  `We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are' (Acts 15:11).

The central theme of Peter's testimony was not just that Gentiles had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, received the Spirit and been purified by faith, but that at each stage God *made no distinction between us and them* (9, cf. 10:15,20,29; 11:9,12,17). Four times in Luke's condensed report of Peter's speech the theme of `us-them' or `we-they' is repeated. God gave the Spirit to them as to us (8) and made no distinction between us and them (9). So why lay on them a yoke we could not bear?(10). We conclude that we are saved by grace as they are (11). If only the Judaizers could grasp that God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but saves both by grace through faith, they would not make a distinction either. Grace and faith level us; they make
fraternal fellowship possible.

b)  Paul and Barnabas (15:12)
*The whole assembly became silent*, evidently out of deep respect, *as they listened to Barnabas and Paul* (perhaps the priority of Barnabas is because he was better known in Jerusalem
than Paul) *telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them*. Previously God was said to work `with' them (*meta* in 14:27 and 15:4, RSV); now `through' them (*dia*) as his agents. This extremely brief resume may be due to the fact that Luke's readers were already fully acquainted with the details of the first missionary journey from having read Acts 13 and 14. And probably the emphasis on the signs and wonders is intended not to denigrate the preaching of the word, but because they confirmed and validated it.


Acts 15:13-21  -  James

The James who spoke next was `James the Just', as he came later to be known because of his reputation for godly righteousness, one of the brothers of Jesus, who had probably come to believe in him through being granted a resurrection appearance (Mk. 6:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 15:7). In his New  Testament letter he would later emphasize that saving faith always issues in good works of love and that heavenly wisdom is `peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere' (Jas. 3:17).  He manifested some of that wisdom now. Almost certainly
an apostle (Gal. 1:19), and already recognized as a (even `the') leader of the Jerusalem church (12:17; Gal.2:9; cf. Acts 21:18), he was evidently the moderator of the assembly. He waited until
the leading missionary apostles Peter and Paul had completed their evidence. Then *when they had finished, he spoke up* (NEB, `summed up'), addressing his audience as *Brothers* and requesting them: *listen to me* (13). Then, referring to Peter by his Hebrew name (an authentic touch), he summarized his testimony in these words `*Simon [literally, Symeon] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself*' (14).  His statement is considerably more significant than it looks at first sight, for the expression `people' *laos* and
`for himself' (literally, `for his name') are regularly applied in the Old Testament to Israel. James was expressing his belief that Gentile believers now belonged to the true Israel, called and
chosen by God to belong to his one and only people and to glorify his name. He did not refer also to the testimony of  Paul and Barnabas, perhaps because it was their mission policy that was on trial. Instead he went straight from the apostolic evidence to the prophetic word: *The words of the prophets are in agreement with this* (15). Councils have no authority in the church unless it can be shown that their conclusions are in accord with Scripture. To substantiate his claim, James quoted
Amos 9:11-12:

"*After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. 
   Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the
   Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things"
   that have been known for ages*

At it stands, this quotation from Amos is a powerful statement of two related truths. God promises first to restore David's fallen tent and rebuild its ruins (which Christian eyes see as a prophecy of the resurrection and exhalation of Christ, the seed of David, and the establishment of his people) so that, secondly, a Gentile remnant will seek the Lord. In other words, through the Davidic Christ Gentiles will be included in his new community.

This James who the circumcision party had claimed as their champion, declared himself in full agreement with Peter, Paul and Barnabas. The inclusion of the Gentiles was not a divine afterthought, but foretold by the prophets. Scripture itself confirmed the facts of the missionaries' experience. There was an `agreement' between what God had done through his apostles
and what he had said through the prophets. This correspondence between Scripture and experience, between the witness of the prophets and apostles, was for James conclusive. He was ready to give his *judgement*. The Greek verb *krino* could mean merely to `express an opinion'. But the context demands something stronger than that. `I rule, then' (JB), on the other hand, is too strong as is Kirsopp Lake's explanation that `it is the definite sentence of a judge, and the *ego* implies that he is acting by an  authority which is personal'. So we need a stronger word than `opinion' and weaker that `decree', perhaps `conviction', since James was making a firm proposal, which in fact the other leaders endorsed, so that the decision was unanimous and the letter went out in the name of `the apostles and elders, with the whole church' (22).
-
What then was the decision?. In general, it was *that we should not make it difficult for* (`impose no irksome restrictions on', NEB) *the Gentiles who are turning to God (19). Instead 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* (20). Putting these two sentences together, James was saying that they must recognize and embrace Gentile believers as brothers and sisters in Christ, and not burden them by asking them to add to their faith in Jesus either circumcision or the whole code of Jewish practices. At the same time, having established the principle that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, without works, it was necessary to appeal to these Gentile believers to respect the consciences of their Jewish fellow-believers by abstaining from a few practices which might offend them. *For*, James went on to explain, *Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is* still being *read in the synagogues on every Sabbath* (21). In such contexts, where Moses' teachings were well known and highly respected, Jewish scruples were sensitive and out of charity should not be violated.

A degree on uncertainly, however, surrounds what is  sometimes referred to, at least in Anglican circles, as `the Jerusalem Quadrilateral', that is, the four requested abstentions.  At first sight, they appear to be an odd mixture of moral and ceremonial matters, since sexual immorality belongs to the former category, and idol-meats, `things strangled' (AV) and blood to the latter. How could James combine them, as if they were of equal importance? Besides, sexual chastity is an elementary ingredient in Christian holiness; so why state the obvious by including it the list? In addition, verse 20 raises complex textual questions, as variant Greek readings reflect variant interpretations. Two main solutions have been proposed, both aimed at separating the ethical from the ritual.

The first is to regard the requested abstentions as being all moral. Since the third (`the meat of strangled animals') cannot by any feat of imagination or ingenuity be turned into an ethical matter, it is proposed to follow the Western text and omit it. We are then left with three. `Food polluted by idols' (20) or `food sacrificed to idols' (29) is understood as idolatry; `blood'is interpreted as blood-shedding, that is, murder; and sexual immorality retains its moral meaning. These three (idolatry,  murder and immorality) were in Jewish eyes the main moral offences which human beings can commit. It seems a neat solution, but it raises more problems than it solves. (i) the textual warrant for dropping `the meat of strangled animals' is very weak; (ii) the interpretation of the unqualified word `blood' as meaning murder is far-fetched; (iii) the three sins are so grave, that a special apostolic decree was not necessary to outlaw them; (iv)  the choice of only three moral prohibitions raises the question whether Gentile converts were permitted to break the rest of the Ten Commandments, e.g.. to steal, bear false witness and covet. It may be this lacuna which led a scribe to add the Golden Rule in negative form, preserved in the Western text: `and not to do to
others what one would not have done to oneself.'  The alternative solution is the opposite, namely to regard the four abstentions as being all ceremonial, all matters of external purity. In this case, the first is not actual idolatry but the eating of idol-meats, to which Paul was later to refer in
Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. `Blood' refers not to shedding it, but to eating it, which was forbidden in Leviticus, while `the meat of strangled animals' related to `animals killed without
having the blood drained from them, whose flesh the Jews were forbidden to eat (Lv. 17:13-14)'. In place of these two, theGentile believers would be expected to eat `kosher' food, prepared
according to Jewish dietary rules. This leaves the fourth item, sexual immorality. It now seems to be the moral exception to a list of ceremonial requirements, just as `things strangled' was a
ceremonial exception to a list of moral requirements. One way of dealing with the problem is to omit the word, and there seems to have been at least one manuscript in existence which did this, and which was known to Origen in the third century. But the evidence for this is extremely flimsy. The better way is to interpret*porneia* (which covers, in any case, `every kind of unlawful
sexual intercourse', BAGD) as referring here `to all the irregular marriages listed in Leviticus 18' (JB margin), in particular to`marriage within degrees of blood-relationship or affinity forbidden by the legislation of Leviticus 18' . A number of other commentators agree with this interpretation.
If this reconstruction is correct, then all four requested abstentions related to ceremonial laws laid down in Leviticus 17 and 18, and three of them concerned dietary matters which could inhibit Jewish-Gentile common meals. To abstain would be a  courteous and temporary (although in some cases `necessary', 28, RSV) concession to Jewish consciences, once circumcision had been
declared unnecessary, and so the truth of the gospel had been secured and the principle of equality established. `The abstinence here recommended must be understood... not as an essential Christian duty, but as a concession to the consciences of others, i.e.. of the Jewish converts, who still regarded such food as unlawful and abominable in the sight of God'.
-

Acts 15:22-29. The Council's letter.

The Council agreed with James's summary. The combination of prophetic Scripture and apostolic experience seemed conclusive to them, as it had done to him. And James's proposal of Gentile
Christian abstinence in four cultural areas seemed a wise policy to promote mutual tolerance and fellowship. So *then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men* (i.e. members of the Jerusalem church) *and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas)*, evidently a Hebrew-speaking believer, of whom
nothing is known, unless by chance he was a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (1:23), *and Silas*, whose Latin name was Silvanus, a Hellenist who was also a Roman citizen (16:37) and who later
became closely associated with both Paul (Acts. 15:40; 2 Cor.1:19; 1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes.1:1) and Peter (1 Peter 5:12). These *two men* Luke describes as *leaders among the brothers* (22). The church did not decide only to choose emissaries to send to the church of Antioch, however, from whom the request had come to adjudicate in this controversy, but also to write a letter to the churches with a Gentile membership, in order to convey the decisions. A letter can seem impersonal; it was wise to send people with it who could explain its origin, interpret its meaning and secure its acceptance.
The letter was justly been described as `a masterpiece of tact and delicacy'. It began in a markedly brotherly manner: *With them* (sc. Judas Barsabbas and Silas) *they sent the following
letter*:

*The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings*. (23)

The NIV text conceals, however, that the Greek text reads `The apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.' Whenever brothers communicate with  brothers, one has good reason to expect to find a conciliatory spirit. This was the case here. The text of the letter was as follows:

*We have heard that some went out from us without our authorisation and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and  send them to you
with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul - men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we
are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements. You 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*.

The Jerusalem church and its leaders made three important points in their letter. First, they dissociated themselves from the circumcision party and therefore, by clear implication, from the  requirement of circumcision. These men *went out from us* but *without our authorisation* (RSV, `although we gave them no instructions'). The unauthorized message, moreover, had *disturbed* their hearers (24, the verb is *tarasso*, to trouble, upset or throw into confusion, interestingly the very word Paul uses of them in Galatians 1:7 and 5:10). Secondly, they made it abundantly clear that the men they had now *agreed to choose...and send...* (25), namely *Judas and Silas*, did have their  full approval and support. They would not only deliver the letter, but also *confirm by word of mouth* what it contained (27). Thirdly, they enunciated their unanimous decision (made by *the Holy Spirit and ...us) not to burden* Gentile converts *with anything* (certainly not with circumcision) *beyond the following requirements* (28), namely the four specified abstentions, which we have already considered. The letter's conclusion, which expresses more a recommendation that a command, was: *You will do well to avoid these things* (29).

Acts 15:30-16:5. The sequel to the Council.

Having shared with his readers the text of the letter, Luke now documents its reception by the largely Gentile churches, first in Syrian Antioch (15:30-35), secondly in Syria and Cilicia
(15:36-40), and thirdly in Galatia (16:1-5).

a). Antioch received the letter (15:30-35).
Antioch was named at the head of the letter as the first recipient, because it was there that the original controversy had broken out and from there that the appeal for help had come.  This gathering together of the church in Antioch must have reminded them of a similar meeting some time previously  (14:27). Paul and Barnabas were present on both occasions.  Then it had been to receive a report of the first missionary journey with its wonderful news of the conversion of Gentiles; now it was to receive the Jerusalem letter with its equally wonderful news that Gentiles who had believed in Jesus were to be accepted as Christians, without the need to become Jews
as well. Small wonder that, on hearing the contents of the letter, *the people...were glad for its encouraging message (31). Judas and Silas*, now identified as *prophets*, stayed on for some
time *and said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers* (32), but they then returned to Jerusalem, sent on their way *with the blessing of peace* (33). The statement of verse 34 that `Silas decided to remain there' (NIV margin cf. AV) is obviously a gloss. The best manuscripts omit it. It was probably added to explain how in verse 40 Silas was in Antioch, but it contradicts
the plain statement of verse 33 that he and Judas both left. *Paul and Barnabas* stayed, however, and with *many others taught and preached* (literally, `evangelized') *the word of the Lord* (35).

b). Syria and Cilicia receive the letter (15:36-41.
The single province of Syria (to which Antioch belonged) and Ciliica (in which Tarsus was situated) had been the scene of some of Paul's earliest evangelistic endeavours (9:30; Gal. 1:21, 23). It evidently had some Gentile churches, for they are specifically named at the head of the Jerusalem letter (23). But before Luke can narrate how the letter reached them, he is obliged in his honesty to tell the sad story of how Paul and Barnabas came to separate. (vv. 36-41)  We observe that it was *some time later* (perhaps when winter gave place to spring and travel became feasible
again) that Paul made his proposal to Barnabas that they should revisit the Galatian converts and see how they were getting on (36). Barnabas agreed, but wanted to take his cousin John Mark with them, perhaps to give him a second chance (37). But  Paul considered this unwise, for he took a serious view of Mark's desertion and lack of perseverance (38). The disagreement between
them was so sharp that they parted company, Barnabas taking Mark and sailing for his home country Cyprus (39), while Paul chose Silas, whose recent ministry in Antioch had evidently impressed him, and they were *commended*  by the church *to the grace of the Lord* (40), just as Paul and Barnabas had been for their missionary journey (14:26). God certainly overruled `this
melancholy disagreement', since as a result of it `out of one pair two were made', as Bengel commented. But this example of God's providence may not be used as an excuse for Christian quarrelling. It was now that *he* (Paul, though with Silas, as we have justlearned) *went through Syria and Cilicia*, which would involve their walking through the majestic, narrow pass in the Taurus mountains known as the `Cilician Gates', *strengthening (JB, `consolidating') the churches* (41), without doubt by delivering the letter as well as by their teaching and encouragement.



Acts 16:1-5. Galatia receives the Council's letter.

Lystra and Derbe were the last Galatian towns to be visited on the first missionary journey. So now, as Paul approached them from the east, Derbe and Lystra were of course the first to be
revisited. The most notable event took place in Lystra. Here lived Timothy (*a disciple*) and his mother Eunice (2 Tim.1:5; cf. 2 Tim. 3:15), who was a Jewess, but had become a believer.
Presumably both mother and son had been converted during Paul's previous visit about five years previously (1 Cor.4:17). Timothy's father, however, was a Greek (1), and because in verse 3 the verb `was' (*hyperchen*) is in the imperfect tense, some commentators surmise that he was now dead. Since Timothy had an excellent reputation with the Christians in both Iconium and Lystra (2),
Paul wanted to recruit him into his mission team, not just as a companion, but as a worker, perhaps to take Mark's place, as Silas had taken Barnabas'. His Jewish-Greek parentage would give him an
entree into both communities. But, although he will have been brought up by his mother in the Jewish faith, he had never been circumcised. So Paul circumcised him *because of* (NEB, `out of
consideration for') *the Jews who lived in that area*, and to make his ministry acceptable to them, since they knew about his Greek father (3) and would have guessed that he was circumcised. It is
really marvellous that, so soon after Paul's hot indignation over the Judaizers in Antioch (15:1), and his vehement statements against circumcision in his letter to the Galatians (e.g. Gal.1:6-9; 3:1-5; 5:2-6), he should now be prepared to circumcise Timothy. Little minds would have condemned him for inconsistency. But there was a deep consistency in his thought and action. Once the principle had been established that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, he was ready to make concessions in policy. What was unnecessary for acceptance with God was advisable for acceptance by some human beings. Probably Timothy was also `ordained' before leaving Lystra. At least Paul and the church elders laid their hands on him (1 Tim.4:14; 2 Tim.1:6), presumably to commission him for his ministry. Now, as Paul, Silas and Timothy *travelled from town to town, they delivered the decisions* contained in the letter, and in consequence the churches *were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers* (as in 2:47).

It is noteworthy that in each of these three paragraphs which describe the reception of the Jerusalem letter, Luke makes a similar statement about the church. In Antioch Judas and Silas
spoke the word in order to *strengthen the brothers* (15:32). Then Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia, *strengthening the churches* (15:41), and as they journeyed on through and beyond Galatia, *the churches were strengthened* (16:5). The first two verbs were both *episterizo*, as in 14:22, where we noted that it is almost a technical term for the establishing or consolidating of Christian individuals and churches; the third is a similar verb *stereoo*, to make strong or firm, So wise and healthy was the Jerusalem Council's decision, incorporated in their letter, that wherever its good news went, the churches grew in stability and steadfastness.


Acts 15:1-16:5.  Permanent lessons.

Students who read Acts 15 today are tempted to dismiss it impatiently as being of purely antiquarian interest. There is no circumcision party nowadays trying to impose Mosaic rituals on
anybody, and it would be ludicrous to expect any contemporary Christian group to accept the four apostolic abstentions, although some of them (like eating kosher food) could still apply to
Christians living among conservative Jews. Otherwise, the whole incident appears remote, even irrelevant. Yet it contains at least two lessons of permanent value, the first relating to salvation,
and the second to fellowship.

a). Salvation: an issue of Christian truth.
The Judaizers were arguing that circumcision was necessary for salvation (1). There was, therefore, a danger of the church breaking up into competing theological factions, with different
apostles teaching different gospels, and the church's unity destroyed. The danger was real enough. The Judaizers claimed the authority of James and contradicted Paul. Peter was led astray and
was opposed by Paul. The three apostles appeared to be at loggerheads, with James and Paul on opposite sides and Peter oscillating between them. The situation was critical. So Luke was at great pains to describe how in the Council Peter spoke first,  then Paul, then James; how Scripture and experience coincided; and how the apostles (Peter, Paul and James), the elders and the whole church reached a unanimous decision (22, 28). Thus the unity of the gospel preserved the unity of the church. In spite of its rich diversity of formulation and emphasis in the New Testament, there is only one apostolic gospel. We must resist  modern theologians who set the New Testament writers at variance with each other, and who talk about Pauline, Petrine and Johannine positions as if they were incompatible gospels. Even Paul and James, who were reconciled at the Council, can be
reconciled in their New Testament letters too. They taught the same way of salvation.

Moreover the gospel of Christ's apostles is the gospel of God's free grace, of his undeserved love for sinners in the death of his Son in our place. Further, it is the gospel of God's sufficient grace. It cannot be regarded either as a supplement to something else (e.g. Judaism) or as needing to be supplemented by something else (e.g. circumcision), without being undermined. Yet this was exactly the Judaizer's mistake. To them faith in Jesus was not enough; circumcision and law works had to be added. Today people try to add works of a different kind, philanthropy perhaps or religious observances, or a particular ceremony or experience. In each case it is a  `Jesus plus' gospel, which is derogatory to the adequacy of his work. We need to echo Peter: `We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they' (11). We and they, Jews and Gentiles, are saved in the same way, through the one and only apostolic gospel of God's grace.

Next  b) Fellowship: an issue of Christian love

--