St Theodore's

Wattle Park

Sermon of the Week
Look up the passage

12/6/05

The Council at Jerusalem Acts 15:1-35
Gal 2:11-21

What are we on about as a Church? How do we decide what's central to our life together? What is there that we must have if we're to be a truly Christian Church? What are the guiding principles that govern our life together?

They're the sorts of questions that arise out of today's passage from Acts 15.

No sooner have Paul and Barnabas arrived back at Antioch and reported to the church how God has been working through them and has opened a door of faith for the Gentiles, than trouble arises. Trouble that's, in fact, triggered by their great success in bringing Gentiles to faith. It's ironic isn't it? They've just had a congregational meeting where people have been rejoicing over the great things that have happened on their first missionary journey and suddenly it's all spoiled by these interlopers who come in from Jerusalem with their loaded agenda about what to do with all these Gentile converts.

   At first Gentile conversions had been in their ones and twos. They were in numbers that could be dealt with by the predominantly Jewish church. And there was no problem with them being brought in. The Old Testament had foreshadowed the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. Gentile converts had always been part of the Jewish synagogue. But now that small trickle was becoming a torrent. And these Gentiles weren't the ones who'd been onlookers in the Jewish synagogues, who understood the traditions of Judaism. These were people being converted from paganism, who had no concept of Jewish religious practices; no idea about God's laws; about how God had instructed his people to conduct themselves.

   So this loomed as a major issue for the church. Here they had people being brought into the church through baptism without circumcision. That is, they were becoming Christians without also becoming Jews. They were keeping their Greek or Syrian, or Asian national & cultural identities. Here was a major problem.

   This is a little bit like the controversy that arose in our Anglican circles some 25 years ago when Synod approved the notion of children who had been baptised being admitted to communion prior to confirmation. The old time Anglicans were horrified at this idea because it might undermine the whole basis of what it means to be Anglican.

   Well here it's the original Jewish Christians who were worried that the foundations of Christianity were being undermined by this influx of Gentiles with no real understanding of what had come before.

   And at one level they're right to be worried. This moment is the turning point in the history of the Church. From this moment on the church will never be the same again. Here Peter makes his last appearance. From now on, Paul takes centre stage as the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul would later write, in his letter to the Ephesians, that God had given him a revelation of a 'mystery', previously hidden, but now revealed, "that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." From this moment on the Jewish and Gentile Churches march shoulder to shoulder as equal members of God's Church. The Gentiles are freed from the bonds of Jewish law-keeping. The gospel is freed from it's Jewish heritage to be a message for all of humanity.

   So what happens? First certain individuals come down from Judea to check up on what's happening in Antioch. Perhaps they're unhappy with the decision of Barnabas, the previous envoy, to encourage these Gentiles who were being converted.

   In any case they arrive and begin teaching that new Christians should be circumcised. Their point is that salvation comes through the people of Israel, so obeying the law of Moses is vital.

   Now it seems this is the same event that Paul talks about in Galatians 2. There he talks about how Peter himself was swayed by these men into changing the way he behaved towards the Gentile Christians. As a result Paul stood up and publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. Here we're told that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them.

   We need to stop at this point so we can understand what was at stake here. Luke makes it clear in v.1 doesn't he? These Jews were saying that without circumcision you couldn't be saved. They were going beyond the facts of Jewish history. At this point they were relying on Jewish tradition and religious practice to establish a theology that was in fact false. They'd forgotten that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant that God had made with him previously; a covenant of grace, entered into by faith as Paul goes on to point out in Galatians 3. But they'd turned that sign into a condition, a prerequisite, of salvation; and that struck at the heart of the gospel.

   Paul preached that faith in Christ alone was what was needed for salvation and here were these people saying, "No, that's not enough. You also need to be circumcised."

   But in God's providence Paul and Barnabas just happened to be there when these men arrived. And Paul saw the problem straight off. I imagine him seeing in his mind's eye all those weeks of hard work with new Gentile believers going down the drain as they took a step backwards at the thought that their liberation from pagan practice had just become a new bondage, this time to Jewish law.

   But before we look at what comes out of this, it's interesting to think about Peter's role in this controversy. He's an interesting case. Remember that it was Peter who was the first to take the gospel to a Gentile audience. In fact it's largely his speech in vs7-11 that swings the debate around to Paul and Barnabas' point of view. But according to Paul's report in Galatians 2, Peter is at first led astray by these Judaizers. So why was someone who was obviously a major leader in the church, in fact, some would argue the major leader of the church, led astray so easily by these trouble makers? It's a fascinating question isn't it? What is it that would lead the first of the apostles to abandon his understanding of the gospel?

   You see, Peter understands the gospel. Paul's account of the incident in Gal 2 makes that clear. His argument to Peter is this: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? ¹⁵We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law." The 'we' there is inclusive. It refers to Paul and Peter together. They worked out this bit of theology years before. Yet now Peter's pulling back from it. So why does he do it?

   It appears to be from fear doesn't it? Not fear of persecution. Rather fear of what the Jerusalem Christians might think of him. This is peer pressure at its worst, isn't it? Perhaps they've caught him out and he's on the back foot, a bit embarrassed perhaps that they've come in and found him eating at the same table as these Gentiles. So he reacts by instinct rather than by theological conviction. That's easy enough to do isn't it?

   You may have found yourself in a situation like that. Perhaps someone at work or in one of your social groups has commented on something you've said or done that shows your Christian convictions and you're a bit embarrassed; a bit worried that they'll think less of you because you're a Christian. So you make excuses or you draw back. Or worse still, perhaps you begin to adopt some of their behaviour, their language perhaps. Or do you instead capitalise on the opportunity they've presented of explaining why you hold those Christian convictions?

   Well, Peter draws back and starts eating only with Jews, just as he would have done in the old days. But Paul isn't having a bar of it. This is a major gospel issue. What is the central message of the gospel? Isn't it that salvation is given as a free gift of God? That it comes through faith alone? And isn't the result of that that we're all one in Jesus Christ? As he says in Gal 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all ... are one in Christ Jesus."

   But Peter's error doesn't end there. Notice what happens next according to Gal 2: "The other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy." Being a leader in the church carries great responsibility, because people tend to follow your example. When Peter drew back from fellowship with the Gentiles, so did the other Jewish Christians. Even Barnabas was led astray for a while, though from the Acts passage it seems that he may have been one of the first to realise his error since it was Paul and Barnabas who engaged in debate with these Judaizers.

   And notice how Paul deals with this disagreement. In Matt 18 Jesus says "If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. ¹⁶But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses." But that isn't how Paul acts here, is it? No, he confronts Peter in public. So why does he do it like that? Why not just take him aside and have a quiet word about the gospel issues involved in the way he's behaving. Why cause a fuss?

   I guess the point is that this isn't just a disagreement between the two of them. This is a major gospel issue for the whole church. The whole congregation needs to understand the principles at stake here. This action by Peter has already caused some to act wrongly. So it needs to be aired publicly.

   In fact, as we see, as the passage progresses, this is such an important issue that it requires the whole church to be involved in resolving it. This isn't just an issue for Antioch. The church throughout the world needs to know what principles it should be going by. So the question is sent to Jerusalem, to a council of elders of the worldwide church. This is the first of a series of Church councils that were called during the first few centuries of the church to settle issues of theology and principle and its great importance comes from the fact that it's the first time that the church meets in council to clarify doctrine, to end controversy and to establish peace within the church.

   What happens when they get to Jerusalem is that first Peter reminds the council of his own experience with the household of Cornelius. You may remember that when that incident occurred Peter got into trouble from the Jerusalem Christians for entering a Gentile house and preaching the gospel. But his answer was that if God had made them clean, and that was shown by the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on them, then how could anyone consider them unclean. So he reminds them of that and especially that it's through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we're saved. So he opens the way for Paul and Barnabas to tell of the way God has blessed their mission into Asia Minor.

   Finally James, as leader of the Church speaks. His conclusion is a wise and Godly compromise based on his clear reading of Scripture and his understanding of the theology of salvation. He quotes the words of Amos 9 where God says he'll restore Israel, at the same time including in it those Gentiles who bear his name. So the inclusion of the Gentiles isn't some divine afterthought, or a mistake by Paul, but part of God's salvation plan foretold by the prophets. Then he concludes "we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." In other words he asks them to keep away from things that would make them unacceptable to their Jewish brothers and sisters, idolatry, fornication, which was itself often associated with idolatry and non-kosher food. These things aren't meant as a condition of salvation. Rather they're to do with the fellowship to be enjoyed between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

   Well, James' wisdom is accepted by the council and so Paul and Barnabas are sent back to Antioch with a letter containing the judgement of the council, accompanied though, by Judas and Silas, who are sent as representatives of the leadership of the Church in Jerusalem. Again we can see the wisdom of James in sending these two leaders to back up Paul and Barnabas, to ensure that there'll be no more undermining of their authority in the Church. And as a result the church rejoices, particularly, I guess, the Gentile members of the church.

   So what have we seen in this first of 2 incidents where disagreement arose among the ranks of the church? Well, we've seen that when a disagreement over theology occurs that affects the church as a whole it needs to be dealt with by the church as a whole. We've seen the importance of letting Scripture speak to the issue, of using our theological minds work out the right approach.

   This actually reminds me of what Alan Nichols did with us last week. He opened up the question; he thought about the choices the question creates; then he addressed the ethical principle, in other words the theological principle; he looked at what the Bible has to say that might enlighten us on the issue; and using those pieces of input came up with a recommended action. That sounds like just the approach taken by the leaders of the church in this case doesn't it?

   So what were the theological principles that were vital in this case? What will we do when differences occur as they inevitably will?

   First we'll rely on God's word to establish the foundations of our belief. The first thing we should do when we're faced with an issue in the church is to ask "What does the Bible say that might help us resolve this?"

   Second we'll return to the basis of our salvation. What is it that brings salvation? Is it faith in God alone or is it a combination of faith and law keeping? It's faith alone, isn't it?

   Last week we read Jesus words to the Pharisees: "You can't put new wine into old wineskins." And here are those words being worked out in the early church. The old ways of the Pharisees, of law keeping as the means of salvation, are no longer relevant. Now the grace of the gospel has superseded the old way. We now discover that the preaching of the gospel brings freedom because the gospel is all about the grace of God, the freely given forgiveness won by Christ on the cross.

   Questions for Discussion: Acts 15



What brings these men to Antioch?

Was this a serious issue for the Church?

Why does the Church send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for a resolution to this disagreement?

Read Gal 2:11-16. Why did Peter draw back from fellowship with Gentiles?

In what way was this behaviour not in line with the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14)?

What things might we or others impose today that would be similarly out of line with the gospel?

Why does the Church send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for a resolution to this disagreement?

Contact us

Check our Mission Statement

Our Mission Strategy

Our 5-Year Plan

Preaching Program

Home

Last Week's Sermon

Nexts Sermon in series

Index of Sermons

	Sermon of the Week	Look up the passage
	12/6/05
	The Council at Jerusalem	Acts 15:1-35 Gal 2:11-21

	What are we on about as a Church? How do we decide what's central to our life together? What is there that we must have if we're to be a truly Christian Church? What are the guiding principles that govern our life together?
	They're the sorts of questions that arise out of today's passage from Acts 15.
	No sooner have Paul and Barnabas arrived back at Antioch and reported to the church how God has been working through them and has opened a door of faith for the Gentiles, than trouble arises. Trouble that's, in fact, triggered by their great success in bringing Gentiles to faith. It's ironic isn't it? They've just had a congregational meeting where people have been rejoicing over the great things that have happened on their first missionary journey and suddenly it's all spoiled by these interlopers who come in from Jerusalem with their loaded agenda about what to do with all these Gentile converts.
	At first Gentile conversions had been in their ones and twos. They were in numbers that could be dealt with by the predominantly Jewish church. And there was no problem with them being brought in. The Old Testament had foreshadowed the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. Gentile converts had always been part of the Jewish synagogue. But now that small trickle was becoming a torrent. And these Gentiles weren't the ones who'd been onlookers in the Jewish synagogues, who understood the traditions of Judaism. These were people being converted from paganism, who had no concept of Jewish religious practices; no idea about God's laws; about how God had instructed his people to conduct themselves.
	So this loomed as a major issue for the church. Here they had people being brought into the church through baptism without circumcision. That is, they were becoming Christians without also becoming Jews. They were keeping their Greek or Syrian, or Asian national & cultural identities. Here was a major problem.
	This is a little bit like the controversy that arose in our Anglican circles some 25 years ago when Synod approved the notion of children who had been baptised being admitted to communion prior to confirmation. The old time Anglicans were horrified at this idea because it might undermine the whole basis of what it means to be Anglican.
	Well here it's the original Jewish Christians who were worried that the foundations of Christianity were being undermined by this influx of Gentiles with no real understanding of what had come before.
	And at one level they're right to be worried. This moment is the turning point in the history of the Church. From this moment on the church will never be the same again. Here Peter makes his last appearance. From now on, Paul takes centre stage as the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul would later write, in his letter to the Ephesians, that God had given him a revelation of a 'mystery', previously hidden, but now revealed, "that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." From this moment on the Jewish and Gentile Churches march shoulder to shoulder as equal members of God's Church. The Gentiles are freed from the bonds of Jewish law-keeping. The gospel is freed from it's Jewish heritage to be a message for all of humanity.
	So what happens? First certain individuals come down from Judea to check up on what's happening in Antioch. Perhaps they're unhappy with the decision of Barnabas, the previous envoy, to encourage these Gentiles who were being converted.
	In any case they arrive and begin teaching that new Christians should be circumcised. Their point is that salvation comes through the people of Israel, so obeying the law of Moses is vital.
	Now it seems this is the same event that Paul talks about in Galatians 2. There he talks about how Peter himself was swayed by these men into changing the way he behaved towards the Gentile Christians. As a result Paul stood up and publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. Here we're told that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them.
	We need to stop at this point so we can understand what was at stake here. Luke makes it clear in v.1 doesn't he? These Jews were saying that without circumcision you couldn't be saved. They were going beyond the facts of Jewish history. At this point they were relying on Jewish tradition and religious practice to establish a theology that was in fact false. They'd forgotten that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant that God had made with him previously; a covenant of grace, entered into by faith as Paul goes on to point out in Galatians 3. But they'd turned that sign into a condition, a prerequisite, of salvation; and that struck at the heart of the gospel.
	Paul preached that faith in Christ alone was what was needed for salvation and here were these people saying, "No, that's not enough. You also need to be circumcised."
	But in God's providence Paul and Barnabas just happened to be there when these men arrived. And Paul saw the problem straight off. I imagine him seeing in his mind's eye all those weeks of hard work with new Gentile believers going down the drain as they took a step backwards at the thought that their liberation from pagan practice had just become a new bondage, this time to Jewish law.
	But before we look at what comes out of this, it's interesting to think about Peter's role in this controversy. He's an interesting case. Remember that it was Peter who was the first to take the gospel to a Gentile audience. In fact it's largely his speech in vs7-11 that swings the debate around to Paul and Barnabas' point of view. But according to Paul's report in Galatians 2, Peter is at first led astray by these Judaizers. So why was someone who was obviously a major leader in the church, in fact, some would argue the major leader of the church, led astray so easily by these trouble makers? It's a fascinating question isn't it? What is it that would lead the first of the apostles to abandon his understanding of the gospel?
	You see, Peter understands the gospel. Paul's account of the incident in Gal 2 makes that clear. His argument to Peter is this: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? ¹⁵We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law." The 'we' there is inclusive. It refers to Paul and Peter together. They worked out this bit of theology years before. Yet now Peter's pulling back from it. So why does he do it?
	It appears to be from fear doesn't it? Not fear of persecution. Rather fear of what the Jerusalem Christians might think of him. This is peer pressure at its worst, isn't it? Perhaps they've caught him out and he's on the back foot, a bit embarrassed perhaps that they've come in and found him eating at the same table as these Gentiles. So he reacts by instinct rather than by theological conviction. That's easy enough to do isn't it?
	You may have found yourself in a situation like that. Perhaps someone at work or in one of your social groups has commented on something you've said or done that shows your Christian convictions and you're a bit embarrassed; a bit worried that they'll think less of you because you're a Christian. So you make excuses or you draw back. Or worse still, perhaps you begin to adopt some of their behaviour, their language perhaps. Or do you instead capitalise on the opportunity they've presented of explaining why you hold those Christian convictions?
	Well, Peter draws back and starts eating only with Jews, just as he would have done in the old days. But Paul isn't having a bar of it. This is a major gospel issue. What is the central message of the gospel? Isn't it that salvation is given as a free gift of God? That it comes through faith alone? And isn't the result of that that we're all one in Jesus Christ? As he says in Gal 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all ... are one in Christ Jesus."
	But Peter's error doesn't end there. Notice what happens next according to Gal 2: "The other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy." Being a leader in the church carries great responsibility, because people tend to follow your example. When Peter drew back from fellowship with the Gentiles, so did the other Jewish Christians. Even Barnabas was led astray for a while, though from the Acts passage it seems that he may have been one of the first to realise his error since it was Paul and Barnabas who engaged in debate with these Judaizers.
	And notice how Paul deals with this disagreement. In Matt 18 Jesus says "If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. ¹⁶But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses." But that isn't how Paul acts here, is it? No, he confronts Peter in public. So why does he do it like that? Why not just take him aside and have a quiet word about the gospel issues involved in the way he's behaving. Why cause a fuss?
	I guess the point is that this isn't just a disagreement between the two of them. This is a major gospel issue for the whole church. The whole congregation needs to understand the principles at stake here. This action by Peter has already caused some to act wrongly. So it needs to be aired publicly.
	In fact, as we see, as the passage progresses, this is such an important issue that it requires the whole church to be involved in resolving it. This isn't just an issue for Antioch. The church throughout the world needs to know what principles it should be going by. So the question is sent to Jerusalem, to a council of elders of the worldwide church. This is the first of a series of Church councils that were called during the first few centuries of the church to settle issues of theology and principle and its great importance comes from the fact that it's the first time that the church meets in council to clarify doctrine, to end controversy and to establish peace within the church.
	What happens when they get to Jerusalem is that first Peter reminds the council of his own experience with the household of Cornelius. You may remember that when that incident occurred Peter got into trouble from the Jerusalem Christians for entering a Gentile house and preaching the gospel. But his answer was that if God had made them clean, and that was shown by the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on them, then how could anyone consider them unclean. So he reminds them of that and especially that it's through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we're saved. So he opens the way for Paul and Barnabas to tell of the way God has blessed their mission into Asia Minor.
	Finally James, as leader of the Church speaks. His conclusion is a wise and Godly compromise based on his clear reading of Scripture and his understanding of the theology of salvation. He quotes the words of Amos 9 where God says he'll restore Israel, at the same time including in it those Gentiles who bear his name. So the inclusion of the Gentiles isn't some divine afterthought, or a mistake by Paul, but part of God's salvation plan foretold by the prophets. Then he concludes "we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." In other words he asks them to keep away from things that would make them unacceptable to their Jewish brothers and sisters, idolatry, fornication, which was itself often associated with idolatry and non-kosher food. These things aren't meant as a condition of salvation. Rather they're to do with the fellowship to be enjoyed between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
	Well, James' wisdom is accepted by the council and so Paul and Barnabas are sent back to Antioch with a letter containing the judgement of the council, accompanied though, by Judas and Silas, who are sent as representatives of the leadership of the Church in Jerusalem. Again we can see the wisdom of James in sending these two leaders to back up Paul and Barnabas, to ensure that there'll be no more undermining of their authority in the Church. And as a result the church rejoices, particularly, I guess, the Gentile members of the church.
	So what have we seen in this first of 2 incidents where disagreement arose among the ranks of the church? Well, we've seen that when a disagreement over theology occurs that affects the church as a whole it needs to be dealt with by the church as a whole. We've seen the importance of letting Scripture speak to the issue, of using our theological minds work out the right approach.
	This actually reminds me of what Alan Nichols did with us last week. He opened up the question; he thought about the choices the question creates; then he addressed the ethical principle, in other words the theological principle; he looked at what the Bible has to say that might enlighten us on the issue; and using those pieces of input came up with a recommended action. That sounds like just the approach taken by the leaders of the church in this case doesn't it?
	So what were the theological principles that were vital in this case? What will we do when differences occur as they inevitably will?
	First we'll rely on God's word to establish the foundations of our belief. The first thing we should do when we're faced with an issue in the church is to ask "What does the Bible say that might help us resolve this?"
	Second we'll return to the basis of our salvation. What is it that brings salvation? Is it faith in God alone or is it a combination of faith and law keeping? It's faith alone, isn't it?
	Last week we read Jesus words to the Pharisees: "You can't put new wine into old wineskins." And here are those words being worked out in the early church. The old ways of the Pharisees, of law keeping as the means of salvation, are no longer relevant. Now the grace of the gospel has superseded the old way. We now discover that the preaching of the gospel brings freedom because the gospel is all about the grace of God, the freely given forgiveness won by Christ on the cross.
	Questions for Discussion: Acts 15
	What brings these men to Antioch? Was this a serious issue for the Church? Why does the Church send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for a resolution to this disagreement? Read Gal 2:11-16. Why did Peter draw back from fellowship with Gentiles? In what way was this behaviour not in line with the truth of the gospel (Gal 2:14)? What things might we or others impose today that would be similarly out of line with the gospel? Why does the Church send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for a resolution to this disagreement?