Acts 15

     Acts 15 is a record of the first church council ever held, and certainly there was none more important.  The principle underlying the issue of circumcision went to the very heart of the gospel.  Is a man saved by his own righteousness in keeping the law, or by faith in Christ alone?  The decision on the principle of faith alone was clear, but the issue has never gone away.  It is a major element running through the letters of Paul, and Gal.2 is thought by many to be his account of this council and the events leading up to it (See Gal.2, and notes).

     15:1.  There is more to circumcision than the thing itself, of course.  “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”  (Gal.5:3).  Gal.5 is a plain direct use of the principles agreed on in Acts 15 (see esp. Gal.5:1, 3, 13).

     15:2-5.  The church at Antioch could not resolve the issue, and so appealed to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.  There, the issue was joined because of the strong opinions of “certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees,” (5) who had believed.

     Now the liberty of the gospel works both ways.  If Gentiles have liberty, so do Pharisees.  A Pharisee has every right to keep the Law of Moses as strictly as he is able, and no one has a right to restrict his liberty to do so, or accuse him of legalism.  Legalism only became an issue when the Pharisees insisted that it was necessary to keep the Law to be saved (5).

     15:6-11.  The apostles and elders held the meeting to decide the issue.  There was much open debate.  Peter’s clear defense of salvation by God’s grace alone to all who have faith, without distinction, is brilliant.  He had apparently been in Antioch earlier, and had to be opposed and admonished about these issues by Paul (Gal.2:11 ff.).  It is the measure of the greatness of the man that he received this admonition with humility and repentance, and was now completely clear on the subject.  He reminds the council of what God previously had shown him in his visit to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).

     15:12.  Barnabas and Paul testified that God had approved their work with signs and wonders (cf. John 5:36; 10:25, 38).

     15:13-19.  James (the Lord’s brother) was prominent in the church at Jerusalem, and was apparently the moderator of the meeting.  After all had spoken, he reminded them of all that Peter had said, and supported it with the words of the Prophets (mostly Amos 9:11-12, with additions from Jer.12:15 and Is.45:21).  James basically urges the council to adopt all the principles laid out in Peter’s speech.  God has poured out his Spirit on Jew and Gentile alike, making no distinction between them (8).  Both are saved by grace alone (11) through faith alone (9) apart from the Law, which no man is able to bear (10).  Therefore, those who are troubling the Gentiles who are turning to God, by adding the burdens of the Law should cease doing so (19).

     15:20-29.  James then suggested, and the council approved, the writing of a letter urging certain restrictions (20-21, 28-29).  Do these restrictions compromise the principles stated above?  No.  This is not the imposing of a bit of the Law that must be obeyed for salvation, but the expedient use of the authority of the church.  Under the circumstances, they call for the voluntary surrender of a measure of freedom, out of love for each other, to remove stumbling blocks, and to preserve unity and peace.

     Those who seek to drive a wedge between Paul and James don’t understand either man.  Both say that the law is summed up in this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”  (Lev.19:18; Ro.13:9; James 2:8).  James calls this the perfect law, the royal law, the law of liberty (James 1:25, 2:8, 12).  Paul says, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law”  (Ro.13:10). 

     Paul apparently was pleased with the decision of the council in Acts 15.  He did not see it as a return to a law of works, but as a use of the law of Christ, the giving up of some liberty for the sake of others.  See 1 Cor.8-10.  Key verses are 1 Cor.8:7-13; 9:19-22; 10:23-33.  The law of Christ calls us to give up our own rights for the sake of others.  We have liberty.  Was this meat properly bled?  Was it offered to idols?  We don’t have to ask.  But as soon as this liberty of ours becomes a snare to the weak brother, be he Jew or Gentile, the law of love calls us to forbear.

     Objection:  Doesn’t this prove too much?  If the Christian is free as a matter of conscience to eat blood unless doing so needlessly injures others, what about fornication?  (Acts 15:29).  Can he do that too?

     God forbid!  Shall we sin that grace may abound?  Now it is true that there are two types of laws intermixed here, ceremonial law and moral law.  The ceremonial law pictured and foreshadowed Christ until he came.  This would include the blood law and other dietary laws.  Now, since Christ the substance of these shadows has come, we no longer are to look to these things.  It was not to continue the force of these laws that the Jerusalem council acted.  Rather, for the sake of Jewish consciences trained up in Moses, and for Gentiles just coming out of idol worship, they applied these things as a law of love, in obedience to Christ, by the urging of the Holy Spirit.

     As for fornication, it is singled out of the moral law not because it alone needs to be obeyed but because it was associated with the heathen worship practices as much as the meat from their temples was.  All these associated things together were causing disunity among the brethren, especially at their fellowship meals.  The moral law differs from ceremonial law in that it applies to every man in every age, because it defines what sin is (1 John 3:4).

     But Christ has freed us from the whole law.  Just as the ceremonial law set forth Christ in sundry ways, so the moral law shows forth his righteousness.  Christ himself is the very substance and perfection of that righteousness, and in him we are no longer obligated to law, but to him.  And we are no longer under its curse, but are united to him in the obedience of love.  Outside of Christ, all men are still under the curse of the law, for it finds them guilty.  In him, we no longer try to keep it as a covenant of works, but as a covenant of grace.  Some things are sometimes a sin and sometimes not, depending on how they effect others.  I would classify eating blood like that.  Fornication, on the other hand, is always harmful, not only to others but to ourselves.  Therefore, it is always in every case an injury to Christ, and a grievous violation of the law of love.

     To sum up, the Jerusalem council acted not to put us back under a little bit of works righteousness, but to protect the weak and preserve the unity of the church as they ate together.  All this is in obedience to the law of Christ, i.e., love.

     As to the law of Christ, it does not differ in content from the law of works.  Both say, “Do this.”  But one says, “Do this and live,” which we cannot do.  The other says, “Live, and do this!” which by God’s grace we shall do more and more, but not perfectly in this life.  (Quote from The Marrow of Modern Divinity.  Edward Fisher, c.1646). 

     For OT background, there are a multitude of passages forbidding the people from eating blood.  See Lev.17:10-16.   The blood was important symbolically and sacramentally for what it represented.  The life was in the blood (11, 14).  The blood was poured out that those who shared the meal provided might live.  This was an OT shadow of Christ (cf. Heb.8:13, 10:1).  Lev.17:15-16 shows that when blood was eaten, the law provided a ritual cleansing for a ceremonial uncleanness.  Eating blood was a sin only because of its ceremonial significance under the old covenant law.

     15:24.  Gal.2:12 indicates that the men who had started all this disturbance had been sent to Antioch by James.  But this verse reveals that they had not been instructed by the church to teach the Gentiles there as they had done.  They were not given this authority.  Contrast this with the authority given by the church to Paul and company when they had gone out (13:2-3). 

     15:30-41.  V.34 is apparently a later gloss attempting to explain v.40.  But Paul could easily have sent for Silas to come back again from Jerusalem.

     The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas over Mark was used by God for good.  It no doubt was a stiffener for Mark’s young spine, as well as a reason to double the missionary teams sent out.  Mark was Barnabas’ cousin, and later a comfort to Paul (Col.4:10-11).