The Settlement in Jerusalem

Acts 15:1–35

Overview

It is no exaggeration to say that Acts 15 is the most crucial chapter in the whole book. Marshall is right to note that this chapter is positioned both structurally and theologically at the very heart of the book. It raises all the key questions of what Luke’s relationship to Paul was, what the relationship is between Acts 15 and Galatians 2, and therefore what sort of history Luke is writing. A measure of the importance of this meeting for Luke is shown in hat after it the Jerusalem church virtually disappears from sight in Acts and Peter does not appear again. In any case, after recording the council, Luke’s focus is cleary on the missionary work in points west of Jerusalem from Antioch to Rome. (Witherington & Marshall)

This chapter points us toward an fundamental theme found throughout this book, perhaps one of the most clear stories in the entire volume pointing us toward this finding. This story deals directly with the issue of Jew vs Gentile and come forward to address the ethnic issue head on. The chapter ends in a paradigm-shifting conclusion that allows the Gentiles “equal-footing” with the Jews. They are allowed to eat from the same table as the Jews. The church continues on as one.

Luke’s purpose is not merely to display or explore ethnic diversity in the Empire, as might be the case if he merely intended to entertain or inform the curious, but to show how out of the many could come one, a united people in a saved and saving relationship to the one true God. (Witherington)

Background

Conflict Resolution — The main way to resolve such conflict in antiquit was to call a meeting of the ekklesia, the assembly of the people, and listen to and consider speeches following the conventions of deliberative rhetoric, the aim of which speeches was to overcome ‘stasis’ [standing in place, or dissension] and produce concord or unity. (Witherington)

The procedure followed in decision making as portrayed here involved:

1. A process of discernment and recognition of God’s activity
2. The interpretation of Scripture in such a way as to make sense of what has happened
3. A view that debate and dispute are a part, a necessary part, of the process of discernment — “such disagreement serves to reveal the true bases for fellowship, and elicit the fundamental principles of community identity.” (Johnson)
4. The consent or agreement of the ekklesia [assembly] to the ruling offered by the church leader, in this case James.

Travel Companions — The men from Judea who came down to Antioch appear to have been Jewish Christians who took the former view of Christianity described above. They believed a person could not become a Christian without first becoming a Jew, which included circumcision. Perhaps they based their theology on texts such as Genesis 17:14 and Exodus 12:48–49. Their claim was essentially a denial of the sufficiency of faith in Christ for salvation. They evidently claimed that James, the Lord’s half brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church, endorsed their position (cf. 15:24; Gal. 2:12). (Constable)

Documentation — Though a secular assembly in the Greco-Roman world would not refer to Scripture to resolve matters, it would, however, call upon important witnesses to testify and refer to authoritative documents to resolve the crisis. There would also often be a formal document drawn up at the end of such an assembly indicating the decision arrived at and addressed to those upon whom it would be incumbent to carry it out. Just as with documents from the Emperor or the Roman Senate, it would be sent to those requesting the ruling in the first place. This is why we’re told that the so-called decree was sent to the churches in Antioch and in the region of which it was the major city. They were the ones who had asked the questions and sent the delegation, though of course they were not the only ones for whom the response was relevant or binding. (Garnsey, Saller & Witherington)

Christian Pharisees — Some in that meeting, converted Pharisees who had a high view of the Mosaic Law, repeated the same objection Paul and Barnabas had encountered in Antioch. These were not necessarily ex-Pharisees since a Pharisee could become a Christian without relinquishing his distinctive beliefs concerning Scripture and theology. (Kent) It is possible that nationalist pressure [against Rome] was increasing in Judea, and that [Jewish] Christians were having to tread carefully to avoid being thought of as disloyal to their Jewish heritage.” (Marshall)

Pre-council — Evidently a large group of people observed the meeting that the church convened to debate the issue (vv. 12, 22). Most commentators took the whole passage as describing public proceedings, but a few understood verse 6 as referring to a private meeting that took place during the public forum. (Constable & Kent)

Peter’s Theology & Argument — First, spokesmen for each side presented arguments pro and con. Then Peter rose and reminded those assembled that several years earlier God had chosen him as the person from whom Gentiles (i.e., Cornelius and his friends) should hear the gospel. Then God gave these Gentiles His Spirit as soon as they believed in Jesus Christ. They did nothing but believe and they received the Holy Spirit, the sign of their acceptance by God. This is the same thing that had taken place among the Jews on the day of Pentecost. Requiring that Gentiles become Jews before God would save them would test God in that it would question the rightness of His action in giving the Spirit to Cornelius. When a Gentile became a Jewish proselyte, the Jew in charge of the ceremony said the Gentile now took up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 23:4; Gal. 5:1). Peter said this yoke, the Mosaic Covenant, was an obligation that was both unbearable and unnecessary. By referring to the Jews being saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, instead of vise versa, Peter repudiated any thought of Jewish superiority. Clearly he had recovered from his temporary lapse at Syrian Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). Salvation is by grace (v. 11) through faith (v. 9) plus nothing. (Constable & Bruce)

James Theology — He showed how he felt about the question at issue by speaking of believing Gentiles as a ‘people’ (laos) whom God had taken ‘for himself’ (to onomati autou; lit., ‘for his name’) — thus (1) applying to Gentile Christians a designation formerly used of Israel alone and (2) agreeing with Peter that in the conversion of Cornelius God himself had taken the initiative for a direct Gentile ministry. (Longenecker) James reminded his hearers that the Old Testament prophets supported the salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism. Note that James did not say the salvation of Gentiles then was the fulfillment of these prophecies. He said the prophets’ predictions of future Gentile salvation harmonized with the present salvation of Gentiles apart from Judaism (cf. 2:16). James then quoted Amos 9:11–12 as a representative prophecy. Another view is that by “the prophets” James meant the book of the 12 Minor Prophets of which Amos was a part. Neither Amos nor any other prophet said Gentiles had to become Jews to enjoy the blessings of salvation (cf. Rom. 11:12). (Heater & Constable) James’s major contribution to the decision of the council was to shift the discussion of the conversion of Gentiles from a proselyte model to an eschatological one. . . . James is saying, God’s people will consist of two concentric groups. At their core will be restored Israel (i.e., David’s rebuilt tent); gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (i.e., ‘the remnant of men’) who will share in the messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes. (Longenecker)

“To sum up, we may say that two types of ‘necessary’ questions were raised at the Jerusalem Council. The first had to do with the theological necessity of circumcision and the Jewish law for salvation, and that was rejected. The second had to do with the practical necessity of Gentile Christians abstaining from certain practices for the sake of Jewish-Gentile fellowship within the church and for the sake of the Jewish Christian mission throughout the Diaspora, and that was approved.” — Longenecker

People

James — James was Jesus’ half brother, the writer of the Epistle of James, and the leading figure in the Jerusalem church (12:17; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12).(Bauckham)

Key Ideas

Church — The Greek word ‘ekklesia’ originally meant to goup of people who came together for the purpose of handling and solving an issue, particually a social issue. It comes from the words ‘ek’, meaning ‘out from and to’ and /kaléō meaning ‘to call.’ So, properly, it mean a people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) (HELPS)

Gentiles — Instead of using the typical word ‘ethne,’ the word ‘laos’ is used. What is remarkable about this usage is that this word is typcially used of Israel, but it refers here to the Gentiles. It means a gropu from among whom God chooses a ‘people.’

Laós (the root of the English term, “laity”) means a people, particularly used of “the people of the Lord.” It is the usual term for “the people of God” and thus typically used in the Greek Old Testament and the Gospels, for believing Israel (Jews). (HELPS)

Possible Discussion Points

• The decision was made that the Gentiles were saved by grace alone, but there were still some requests made of them in order to honor their Jewish brothers and sisters. In what ways do you lay down your freedoms to serve your community and keep them from falling?
• When you’re telling people about Jesus, do you make it easy or difficult for people to come into the kingdom? Or better yet, does your life make it easy or difficult for people to come into the kingdom?