Whenever important issues are involved — as they are with the Truth — and strong-minded people are present, differences of opinion are bound to occur. They did in the first century; they do today. Preserved for our instruction, Acts 15 records such a situation and provides guidelines for settling differences we may face.
Changes cause disagreement
The first missionary journey had resulted in a great wave of Gentile believers and many new ecclesias consisting mainly of converts from paganism. Here was truly the beginning of the gospel to the Gentiles.
Realizing the brotherhood was headed for dramatic change, Jewish Christians from Judea made a special trip to Antioch contending, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts. 15:1). Circumcision was just the beginning; the Jewish believers wanted the whole law kept (cf. v. 5). Paul and Barnabas resisted any such idea, however, and “had no small dissension and disputation with them” (v. 2).
Plausible arguments on both sides
With the advantage of hindsight, we know the truth of the matter. But at the time, many in the brotherhood seriously wondered who was right. Gentile believers were already accepting the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, as the word of God and were baptized into the promises to the patriarchs which provided the framework of Jewish existence. Before baptism, the Gentile converts must believe the first principles regarding God, human nature and the kingdom centered in Israel, all of which were fundamental to a Jew who really believed his Bible. And the moral principles are the same in the gospel and the Old Testament. To the Jew, the gospel could appear very much a Jewish message with Jesus identified as the Messiah.
Given this context, Jewish arguments could sound very reasonable. Circumcision was a vital indicator that one relied on God’s covenants, not pagan deities. Dietary laws were an excellent discipline, providing a constant reminder to put a difference between the holy and profane in everyday life. The sabbath and other holy days provided mandatory breaks in the daily routine, ensuring time for in-depth reflection and worship. The law was of God and had been designed with all the wisdom of the divine.
The other side of the argument was equally compelling. In the first place, it was not factual to say the law must be kept; the Lord Jesus had no such requirement. Second, it was a losing approach as the Jews had already proven they could not keep the law (Acts 15:10). And third, while Jewish believers might keep the law simply as part of their culture and not as seeking salvation by works, imposing it on Gentiles would convey entirely the wrong message; salvation must be seen as coming through the grace of God, not as a reward earned by our actions (v.11).
The one body must be preserved
The Jewish believers could not have their way. But how could they ever be expected to live in full fellowship with Gentiles? By the Jew’s standards, the Gentiles’ eating habits alone rendered them perpetually unclean. No practicing Jew would eat in a Gentile house or of food prepared by Gentiles. To expect full fellowship in the brotherhood would require a change in the basic mind-set of Jewish believers.
Perhaps the best solution was to set up two separate Christian fellowships — one all Jewish, the other all Gentile. Both could live lives devoted to Christ but within their own cultural framework. The idea would be — we’ll go our separate ways now but be with each other in the kingdom.
All the apostles knew this was not an option. Christ had died that “he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” And the Master himself had said, “I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” (John 11:52; 10:15-16). Search for a solution they would, and we do in our difficulties, but the one body must be preserved.
Bible exposition a key factor
Central to the solution was a piece of Bible exposition that is not easy to follow, even with the benefit of hindsight. These brethren were obviously excellent Bible students for James’ words to have immediate impact (Acts 15:13-19).
To be relevant in this difficulty the overall point is evident: James must be proving that in the existing historical circumstances, after Messiah rose from the dead believing Gentiles were to be welcomed into the family of God. To prove this point, James uses Amos 9:11-12 with one phrase, “I will return,” taken from Jeremiah 12:15.
The building up of the “tabernacle,” or house of David, is the resurrection and ascension of Jesus which certified he was the great seed of David referred to in the promises and throughout the Psalms. Thus the future of the house of David, which appeared so bleak under Roman domination, was secured.
This would be done “in that day” when Israel was still not fully dispersed and people were still saying it would not happen (Amos 9:9-11. The key in seeing this point is to recognize that the break in thought is at verse 13, not verse 11, of Amos 9.) This understanding is confirmed by the context of “I will return” in Jeremiah 12:14-17. That prophecy clearly refers to the days of the partial return from captivity which started when Babylon was overthrown and which was still ongoing at the time of Acts 15. Thus scripture confirmed what the Holy Spirit had demonstrated in the conversion of Cornelius and the miracles among the Gentiles (Acts 15:7-12); during this exact period in history a remnant of the Gentiles were to have full standing before God.
Would that in our times we were such capable Bible students that James could make such a quotation and we could immediately see its relevance. We can, however, readily see the guideline: to settle differences on spiritual matters we must do it biblically and we can only do that if we are true students of the word.
Concessions by both sides
With this background, James proposed a solution that gave neither side all it wanted: “I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20 NKJV).
The Jewish brethren were not able to impose their view favoring circumcision, sabbath keeping, holy days and the full dietary regimen. But the decision did not fully accord with Paul’s understanding, for he was “persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself” and exhorted the Corinthians that, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake” (Rom. 14:14; I Cor. 10:25). Paul felt the Gentiles were perfectly free to eat things strangled, cuts of meat that had come from pagan sacrifices and meat not fully drained of blood. He conceded, however, that Gentile believers would voluntarily abide by restrictions that were really not necessary.
Thus each had made concessions. They had moved from their original positions to a common one for the sake of the unity of the body of Christ.
Interestingly, this was a transitional arrangement. In time, Paul’s understanding would prove to be the right one as we fully realize today. But for that day in that circumstance it was right to show some respect for the Jewish scruples without capitulating the critical point that the law was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ.
A third guideline to settling differences is evident: concessions should be considered especially in transitional situations.
Maintaining the unity of the body, depth of Bible exposition and reasonable concessions are thus three critical guidelines to settling differences among us on spiritual issues.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One