The thought of politics in ecclesial life strikes a sour note. In our day, the very word “political” evokes the idea of that which is expedient rather than principled, that which is manipulative rather than straightforward. Yet the synonyms for “politic” include not only “cunning” but also “wise, provident and judicious.” There is surely nothing wrong with being provident.
New Testament politics
Used in its best sense, Acts 15 records an example of ecclesial politics at work.
After Paul’s first missionary journey, a conflict arose over the necessity of circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses. Most early believers were Jewish and it was inevitable that this issue would surface. Any settlement was going to affect the day-to-day lives of ecclesial members, thus the matter was practical as well as theoretical. Here was a situation where a political solution, in its best sense, must be wisely devised.
The issues
An initial assumption could be made: Every baptized member of the New Testament ecclesia believed that, “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). If they did not believe that, they would not have been accepted for baptism into the name of Christ. Any solution could assume agreement on this and other basic first principles.
Second, there was nothing wrong with the works of the law as such. The dietary regulations were healthy, as were the laws regarding physical uncleanness. Not working on the sabbath and various holy days provided needed time for worship, Bible study and family association. Jewish practices were good for developing self-discipline, an attribute invaluable to life in Christ. Even circumcision was useful in that it drew attention to the Abrahamic basis of the everlasting covenant ratified in Christ. There was a danger that keeping the law would promote a sense of self-merit and reliance upon one’s own actions as the basis of justification before God. As long as that did not happen, however, there was no point in requiring a Jew to forsake harmless practices that he had grown up observing.
Third, Gentiles could not be required to be circumcised or required to follow the works of the law. That would violate the very principles of salvation through faith and of freedom in Christ from external rituals.
Fourth, if the Jews observed the dietary and cleanness rituals but the Gentiles did not, they could not realistically share the fellowship of eating together.
Fifth, there is only one body in Christ. It was intolerable for there to be separate ecclesias based on ethnic lines, one for Jews, one for Gentiles. Yet if Jews and Gentiles were going to truly function as one in the same ecclesia, they must be able to share meals with each other.
With these issues before them, a conference was convened at Jerusalem.
Seeking agreement
Paul could have stood on principle and refused to attend the conference. The evidence was perfectly plain that the Gentiles were to be accepted into the ecclesia as well as Jews.
The Holy Spirit had fallen on Cornelius and those with him (Acts 11:15). God had wrought miracles and wonders among the Gentiles by Paul and Barnabas. When Jesus was but an infant, the spirit spoke through Simeon that Messiah would provide salvation to “all people” and would be “alight to lighten the Gentiles” (Luke 2:31-32).
There was nothing to discuss. What were they going to do, resist God? Let the Jewish believers submit to the plain evidence and realize they had no basis for insisting that circumcision and the law must still be practiced.
The apostle was more prudent than to be so adamant. He knew there must be a way of preserving the commitment of Jewish brethren while still upholding the truth of the gospel.
He was not alone in seeking for peace. The party of believers traveling from Antioch to Jerusalem no doubt included certain of the agitated Jews as well as Paul and Barnabas. There was no hostile rancor on the trip, however, as the group stopped at the various ecclesias “declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren” (15:3). Even those advocating circumcision were more interested in including, rather than excluding, the Gentiles. They were delighted in their conversion and were later to show their sincerity by submitting to the resulting agreement (v.22).
There was a lovely spirit of seeking agreement evidenced by these early brethren that serves as an exhortation for our own day.
Temporary accommodation
It may puzzle us that what resulted from the Jerusalem conference was a temporary, not permanent, set of guidelines for the ecclesias. The agreement that the Gentile converts were to abstain from blood and things strangled is not applicable today. Even in that time, only the ecclesias in Syria and Cilicia seem to be involved. When addressing the same difficulties in Corinth and Rome, no reference is made to the Jerusalem letter (Rom. 14; I Cor. 8, 10).
Here was an agreement designed for a specific set of circumstances. This was a transition period from all-Jewish ecclesias to ones that were virtually all-Gentile. Until the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the Jewish believers could understandably be unclear as to the end of the Jewish era. Furthermore, the ecclesias in Syria and Cilicia were closer to Jerusalem and might have to make concessions that would not be asked of those in Greece and Italy.
Accordingly, there is clear precedent in Acts 15 for preserving the principles of the Truth while adjusting ecclesial policies to the circumstances we face.
Possible problems
From the Jewish point of view, they could well claim that the agreement did not go far enough.
What about washing before meals? Why wasn’t that included? The Gentiles could be considered ritually unclean and the Jews would feel contaminated by eating with them. Furthermore, the language about “pollution’s of idols” was too vague. Too much trust was being put in the Gentile believers! What if they gave the language a broad interpretation and weakened the distinctions between believers and pagans?
From the Gentile point of view, strong objections were also possible.
The agreement required eating kosher meat all the time, not just when dining with Jewish believers. And the inclusion of “fornication” was absolutely insulting. Didn’t their brethren have enough respect for their sincerity to trust them to abstain from this gross sin? Why should they make assurances just to satisfy the Jewish believers?
A lovely spirit
Thankfully, neither side reacted with petty criticism or panic that the Truth soon would be lost. For their part, “the whole church” at Jerusalem was pleased with the accord (v.22). And the Gentile believers “rejoiced for the consolation” (v.31).
All involved evidently had great respect for preserving the one body in Christ and were prepared to give and take to that end. They were thus delighted with a solution that was political in the very best sense of the word. It was wise and judicious for that time and in that place.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One