How can we be cooperative when our group is splintered from the inside? This devotion looks at how the Jerusalem Council helped mend the torn group.
Nuggets
- We have to let people talk things through – to process.
- Peter was also saying — without really saying it — that circumcision of the heart was much more important than circumcision of the body.
- Those we are witnessing to want to know what a God has done lately.
- By Gentiles doing these four things recommended, Jews may not see Gentiles as unclean.
The Council Has Spoken
Coordinating Spiritual Gifts
Collecting for Others
It is difficult to be cooperative when we are face threats from outside our group. However, when our group is splintered, cooperation is even more difficult to maintain.
Peter, Paul, and James handled one such time in the life of the early church. They did so by conducting what is called the Jerusalem Council.
Let’s see what we can learn from the process.
Let's Put It into Context #1
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines cooperation as “the actions of someone who is being helpful by doing what is wanted or asked for” and “association of persons for common benefit.”
Resource
Let's Put It into Context #2
“Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved.” After Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue. When they had been sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and they brought great joy to all the brothers and sisters. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Ac. 15: 1-5 CSB)
Don’t you hate it when outsiders come in and stir up trouble? Things are going well, but no. They have to come in and plant doubt and negativity.
But let’s face. There is always going to be controversies.
And controversies can be a good thing sometimes. Schaff wrote, “It is through controversy that truth is developed and error defeated.”
So, the issue isn’t that we have controversy. The issue is how we handle it.
The church at Antioch had controversies. Antioch was one of the first churches where the gospel was preached to the Gentiles (Ac. 11: 19-23). Up until this time, however, the congregation was unified.
The problem was some of the Jews couldn’t — wouldn’t give up some Jewish traditions. They had a real problem with circumcision. Circumcision was the outward representation of the acceptance of God’s covenant with Abraham.
The problem went deeper than just the physical keeping of the covenant. What the controversialists were saying is that all of the laws — including the requirements and penalties — had to be kept.
Oh, yes. We still have to keep God’s laws and commandments — the moral laws. We do not have to keep the ceremonial laws — the sacrifices and the circumcision.
Paul, a very vocal opponent, labeled them false teachers. He spent a lot of ink warning the converts not to fall into their line of thinking.
Don’t skim over “… Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue” in Ac. 15: 2 (CSB). Their viewpoint would have been known. They were sent to represent the “no circumcision” side of the debate.
Where they were sent was the Jerusalem Council. They were going to the top to get the definitive answer. While Paul and Barnabas were well received, the debate on circumcision began.
Council Established
“The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you are aware that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel message and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now then, why are you testing God by putting a yoke on the disciples’ necks that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are” (Ac. 15: 6-11)
We can pull several things out of this passage. The matter was considered by the apostles and elders — the leadership.
Fraser pointed out that we know this was now a council by the terminology used. Before, the terminology used was apostles and brethren. Now, it is apostles and elders.
I, personally, don’t think that means they cut out the followers. We aren’t there yet, but verse 12 says, “The whole assembly became silent and listened …” (Ac. 15: 12 CSB). I don’t think it was just “the apostles and the elders gathered …” (Ac. 15: 6 CSB).
I don’t think it was an executive session meeting. I think it was a public, open meeting. We have to let people talk things through – to process.
But the decision was made by the higher ups.
They talked it out. They considered all sides. This wasn’t something they entered into lightly.
I have always been surprised that it didn’t include a line about prayer and supplication. Paul himself was the one who said, “do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4: 6 ESV).
But when Peter had enough of the debate, he got up (being the leader he had always been) and focused the discussion. He brought it down to what God had already decreed. I don’t think it is coincidence that Acts 15: 1-35 happens after Acts 10: 1-48.
Peter’s argument contains three points — all of which are facts.
1. God has already spoken.
2. The law wasn’t the answer.
3. Grace is the answer.
The Gentiles no longer had to change to be what the Jews wanted them to be. They needed to change and be what God wanted them to be.
Yes, God wants us to remember the past. We always have to evaluate where we are to make sure we are navigating in the right direction on the sanctification road.
God wants us to use the past to help us grow. He wants us to move on to where He is calling us.
Thomas made an interesting point. He wrote, “On the other hand, Christianity was preeminently progressive; it made the old a mere starting point. It left Palestine for the world, the Jew for the race, the temple of Jerusalem for the temple of the universe, teaching men everywhere that ‘God is a Spirit,’ etc.”
Peter said it loud and clear that the former rituals did not save them. Instead, he called them a yoke (Ac. 15: 10) — a hindrance.
That is what God designed the laws to do. They show us that we cannot save ourselves.
We all break the laws. Who among us hasn’t told the exact truth when asked if a certain article of clothing was flattering when on someone else — and it really wasn’t?
Wasn’t that what was being debated? The application of the faith?
The laws were something we could do to show our love for God. The laws had nothing to do with salvation itself. Salvation is deliverance from evil and the consequences of sins to replace them with eternal life and good.
We have to make a genuine profession of faith in order to gain salvation. We can’t do anything else.
What I think was ultimately being discussed here was truth and love. Did they believe salvation was only dependent on the truth that Jesus is our Savior? Did they love enough to accept those who were not like them into the fellowship?
Peter was also saying — without really saying it — that circumcision of the heart was much more important than circumcision of the body. God wants us to change our character to be like Him, not just our mindset to follow His rules.
God wants us regenerated. Regeneration is the change in us that God brings about when we go from being spiritually dead to spiritually alive.
The President Spoke
“The whole assembly became silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul describe all the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they stopped speaking, James responded, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has reported how God first intervened to take from the Gentiles a people for his name. And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: After these things I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. I will rebuild its ruins and set it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord — even all the Gentiles who are called by my name — declares the Lord who makes these things known from long ago” (Ac. 15: 22-18 CSB)
Peter shut the debate down. He showed what God had said.
Barnabas and Paul silenced them. They showed what God had done. How could they argue against God?
Don’t we need that sometimes? It is great to read the Bible stories, but those we are witnessing to want to know what a God has done lately. What has he done in our lives on a certain topic?
James would have been considered the president of the council. Fraser pointed out that he was the best man in that position for this debate because he didn’t have a dog in the fight. Peter did; Paul did; James didn’t.
James summarized what Peter had said. God had spoken to Peter.
If they had any doubts after that, James took them back to the Old Testament and the words of the prophets. He quoted Amos 9: 11-12. “… and all the nations that bear my name …” (Amos 9: 12 CSB).
It was really important that James stressed that this was God’s Plan A from the beginning. How many times have we already talked about Paul using a lot of ink to get the Jews and the Gentiles to play nicely with each other?
To read a related devotion, click on the appropriate button below.
Decision Reached
“Therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those among the Gentiles who turn to God, but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood. For since ancient times, Moses has had those who proclaim him in every city, and every Sabbath day he is read aloud in the synagogues” (Ac. 15: 19-21 CSB)
These verses have always kind of confused me. Yes, they get to the decision that circumcision of the body is not required.
But then James brings up some things that weren’t discussed before. Plus, to me, it seems like he is bringing up laws again. He said they should abstain from the following.
- Eating foods presented to idols
- Sexual immorality
- Eating things that had been strangled
- Eating blood
Fraser argued that, by Gentiles doing these four things recommended, Jews may not see Gentiles as unclean. That is a pretty good compromise.
Making the Connections
It would be easy to say that there should be no controversies. There should be no division within the church.
Ooo, baby. Not going to happen.
We have to know how God wants us to work through the controversies. How does God want us to cooperate? To compromise?
God does want us to work out compromises to disciples’ problems. We can’t compromise on His laws and commandments, but we can work together for peace of the fellowship.
Parker brought up another good point. This not only addressed the issue of what was expected by God, but it also showed how new converts would be treated. Was it going to be the Jewish way or the highway?
Making the Connections to Self-Discipline
Worldview people may want to debate disciples, thinking they can show us as hypocrites. How can we proclaim the gospel message without sounding like we are “preaching to them” but not getting into an all-out debate?
We’ve been looking at defending our beliefs when we are witnessing. That means we have to be secure enough to convince someone to accept our beliefs.
Our questions should still serve us to determine on what we need to focus.
- What does the Scriptures say?
- What do I believe?
- Why do I believe the same/differently than the Scriptures?
- What are the talking points when witnessing to a non-believer?
Related Links
I have created a worksheet of the questions above. Click on the button below to access it.
How Do We Apply This?
We have to settle controversies with discussion and cooperation. Top-down edicts (while sometimes are necessary) rarely defuse the contentious situation.
Coming together to think it through and hash it out is vital. We must always determine what God wants us to do in the situation.
Look at the model Paul gave us. Most of the time we would think he was a stubborn, opinionated man. Parker wrote, “The man who saved the Church was Paul. There was in him a fine spirit of conciliation as to methods and usages; but when it came to the liberty of Christ, and the independence of the Church, he stiffened into inflexibility, and he ‘gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.’” Paul knew when to be stubborn and when to be conciliatory.
Bradford mentioned that the apostles and elders did not rely on letters to settle the issue. They conducted the discussion face to face.
How many times these days have we gotten an email from a coworker that threw the match on a situation? There are times we need the connection to discuss the situation rather than being at an arm’s length.
The council came to the correct decision. Only God has the authority to determine how He wants us to operate His church. God isn’t looking for ritual in religion. He is looking for relationship.
Father. We commit to do Your Will — together as one body of Christ. Help us to do just that. Amen.
What do you think?
Leave me a comment below (about this or anything else) or head over to my Facebook group for some interactive discussion.
If you don’t understand something and would like further clarification, please contact me.
If you have not signed up for the email daily or weekly providing the link to the devotions and the newsletter, do so below.
If God has used this devotion to speak with you, consider sharing it on social media.