The council distinguished salvation from the Christian life and elevated both.
Bible Study Ideas and Commentary for Acts 15
In this most important passage, the inevitable argument of whether Gentile Christians should adopt Jewish lifestyles finally came to a head. The Jerusalem Council, led by Peter and James, acknowledged that if salvation is a free gift from God, Jewish Christians had no place to put such burdens on their new Gentile brethren.
For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—not to place further burdens on you (15:28)
When We Covered This Passage in 2017
I strongly encourage y'all to take a look at the last cycle's post. I covered things I didn't think of this time around.
Here are some topics you'll find in that post:
Navigating "culture shock"
Realizing the consequences of your decisions
How churches "add to" salvation today
Church membership vs. salvation
Congregational church polity
Getting Started: Things to Think About
The Telephone Game
I hope you've played the telephone game before. I hope you've had ridiculous experiences with the telephone game. It's easy to play, and it makes the simple point that communication is very difficult to transmit without corruption.
My new favorite version of this is a box game called "Telestrations", but you can do it with post-its if you have to (it's basically "picture telephone" where you alternate between a written word/phrase, drawing that phrase, and then describing the drawing).
If you have played telephone, you know that it only takes one "bad actor" to ruin the game. It's hard enough without someone deliberately sabotaging it! And that's the lesson that would apply to this week's passage -- the apostles understood that people were misrepresenting their messages and teachings, so they compensated by sending messengers directly to the affected party (or going themselves). Good practice!
Your User Manual Nightmare
This is another one that everybody would understand. If you're a packrat, bring in one of your "some assembly required" purchases that you never finished, and challenge your group to finish it. And if you're a packrat who is also OCD, then just bring in a set of awfully complicated instructions (because you never throw those away and you never leave anything unfinished).
I like to think of myself as a handy guy, but I glazed over when I saw these instructions on a website. Surely putting together a doll toy isn't this complicated!
What's your user manual nightmare, and what made it so terrible? My guess is that a lot of these have to do with "unnecessarily complicated".
That's what I find so impressive about this week's passage -- "The Jerusalem Council". They realized that they had to take an extremely complicated matter (the intersection of salvation, culture, and lifestyle) and make it as simple as possible for some new believers. Their resulting instructions, though they sound kind of strange today, are simple, direct, and encouraging. Good job!
The Value of Encouragement
I enjoy reading stories of the "celebrity sends a note of encouragement" variety. Like in this one where Kirby Smart sent a letter to an ill athlete at another school --
Have you ever gotten a letter from someone that really encouraged you in a time of need? Did you keep it? (And can you bring it in and show it?) The discussion is simply this -- why is it so uplifting to get someone that like when you're in a time of need?
That's exactly what happened in this week's passage. The apostles heard of a significant need, took the time to debate it thoroughly, and then sent a personal letter back to the group affirming and encouraging them. And it was so incredibly uplifting for the group to receive!
This Week's Big Idea: The Most Important Decisions
There are lots of websites that propose "the most important decisions made in history". Some repeated one include:
Henry Ford choosing to double the pay of his line workers
Apple choosing to bring back Steve Jobs
The Louisiana Purchase
Martin Luther choosing to defy the pope
What are the most important decisions you've made, and how have they affected your life?
This makes for a very short and simple "Big Idea" this week. The point I made in the last cycle's post is
If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, then the Gentiles couldn’t have to follow Jewish rules to be saved and thus a part of the church.
The apostles had to stop, think, and make the conscious decision to make salvation the centerpiece of their theological and ecclesiological systems. They allowed their decisions and actions to flow from that commitment, and the church (the world!) was forever changed.
Your challenge: at the end of this week's discussion, talk about the specific ways the church changed as a result of the decision made in this week's passage.
Where We Are in Acts
The events in this week's passage were always inevitable. When the early church was reaching Jews and converts to Judaism, these decisions could be avoided. But last week, we saw the first church planted in an entirely Gentile region -- very few Jews were a part of the first church in Lystra. And that sets up chapter 15:
1 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.”
I am not going to speculate whether or not these men were well-intentioned. They could have been! In their context, every Christian was in fact circumcised, and so they might have just drawn a spurious conclusion. But we also know from elsewhere in Acts that some people were unwilling to let anyone set aside the tenets of Judaism.
In any event, these men were making a statement not about personal conviction but about salvation itself. And that could not be ignored by Paul and Barnabas.
2 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.
With this as the background, I want us to approach this passage with our own biases in view.
You have probably heard the name William Tyndale. He was willing to die for purpose of creating a translation of the Bible into English, so that "normal people" could read the Bible for themselves (the Roman Catholic Church only used Latin). And yet, when many of the first missionaries went out from England to Africa and Asia, the first thing they did was try to teach the people English, believing that their native tongues were "too vulgar" for the word of God. How far priorities shifted in 300 years!
I'm hoping you can think of ways we have continued to do things like this in our generation. "If you're going to go to church, you should
wear a tie / don't wear a tie
have an organ / have a guitar
meet on Sundays from 11:00-12:00
use the King James / don't use the King James
sing hymns / don't sing hymns
etc."
But not in the sense of personal preference. (We can't avoid personal preferences, and I certainly don't think we should pretend like we can ignore them!) Rather, we approach these in the sense of "you should [wear a tie] to church, not because I prefer it, but because it's the right thing to do (it's the right way to do church)". Do you see the difference in the two approaches?
I'll use a statement from the 2017 to finish making this point. When a person says that "you should wear a tie to church" (or whatever), what I think they're trying to say is, "In my opinion of what it means to be a Christian, I think that wearing a tie to church is most in line with the Christian identity." With some further explanation, that could be a very helpful thing to say to a new believer.
But if what they hear is "all Christians must wear ties to church", the value is likely lost because the world doesn't search for nuance anymore.
That is the issue being debated in this week's passage, so I hope you are prepared to appreciate how consequential our study will be!
Most importantly, realize that there was real disagreement about this matter in Jerusalem.
4 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. 5 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.” 6 The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this matter.
Luke doesn't call them Pharisees but believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. These were true Christians in positions of leadership (or authority of some kind) in Jerusalem who believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
Part 1: Salvation Must Be the Central Truth (Acts 15:7-9)
7 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. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
I said a few weeks ago that chapter 15 would be the last time we hear from Peter in Acts. Do you think that's as big as deal as I do? And what a last appearance! What a handoff from Peter to Paul!
You'll see this reflected in the various artwork about this "Jerusalem Council":
I love how the sun is shining from two positions in that last art. And no, don't think about the stained glass in the first art too much.
And forgive me for having in my head the old Orthodox Icon idea where all of the apostles walked around with glowing yellow circles around their heads.
Peter had had a lot of time to think about his big experience in chapter 10:
I think it keeps coming back to his aha moment,
Now I truly understand that God doesn’t show favoritism.
God validated that realization by letting Peter observe when the Holy Spirit came on Cornelius and his household in salvation. He was there. Cornelius was not circumcised, and God still saved him. This was, of course, the meaning of the words in his vision,
What God has made clean, do not call impure.
Peter rightly realized that if anything else was necessary for salvation (like being circumcised), then they were saying that God's salvation was insufficient. And Peter realized that he could not and must not ever say or think that.
Don't be surprised if someone brings up baptism. "Don't we make people be baptized?" That falls under the category of what the Lifeway material calls "an erroneous belief". We've talked a lot about this in our study of Acts. Baptism is a step of obedience in the Christian faith. In fact, Jesus Himself commanded it in the Great Commission! But read the fine print of that statement -- we only "make" people be baptized if they want to be a member of our church. And you do not have to be a church member to be saved.
Being baptized
Learning about Jesus
Obeying Jesus' commands
those are things that believers do in obedience as a consequence of their salvation, not in order to be saved.
There's a big difference between those two mindsets, and Peter recognized it.
Of course, Paul also recognized it -- this would be a central topic ("law" vs. "faith") in many of his letters. But in this meeting, Peter's voice carried the weight.
Aside: What Comes Next
Our lesson plan skips the next few verses, and I don't blame them. There's some repetition of things already said and that will be said in our next section.
Paul and Barnabas speak. Remember the "some others" from verse 2? They become important here. Paul is more or less saying "these Gentiles are just as saved as we are". How can he "prove" that? By having some of them in the room! "Do you want to know if this Gentile is saved? Talk to him yourself."
This is a wonderful presentation method, one that I see used in every state convention meeting. Thomas Hammond is our state convention's executive director, and in his annual address, he does a series of "mini-interviews" with people affected by the topic at hand.
It takes a lot of prep work, and it's not always smooth, but I think it's very effective. "This budget vote we're debating? Here's someone directly impacted by it." "This policy change we're proposing? Here's someone directly impacted by it." You get it.
Christians from Antioch -- and I'm assuming they were Gentile Christians -- were there with Paul helping him "show" the work of God in the lives of Gentiles. Nice work!
Anyway, the focus then shifts to James, Jesus' half-brother, who proposes a specific plan. This is Luke's way of declaring the leadership shift in Jerusalem. James is now the "last voice" to speak. His suggestion has a Jewish bent to it, but we'll get to that in a bit.
Part 2: No Strings to Salvation (Acts 15:22-26)
22 Then the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, decided to select men who were among them and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas, both leading men among the brothers. 23 They wrote:
“From the apostles and the elders, your brothers, To the brothers and sisters among the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some without our authorization went out from us and troubled you with their words and unsettled your hearts, 25 we have unanimously decided to select men and send them to you along with our dearly loved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here's how I read the "with the whole church": the Pharisee Christians realized they were wrong and assented to this letter. Of course, Luke doesn't have to mean "unanimous" in a modern sense (see below), but I think it clearly refers to a real consensus.
To demonstrate how important (1) this decision was and (2) the Antioch church was, the Jerusalem council sent two personal messengers with Paul and Barnabas.
Silas, who is the Silas you're thinking of right now, and
Barsabbas, named Judas, who is not the same man up for selection as an apostle in chapter 1, and whom we don't know anything else about.
"Your brothers" is an important symbolic greeting for all the reasons you think it is.
Verse 24 is an appropriate damage control statement. "We did not suggest nor do we condone the statements made to you." They need to distance themselves from the teaching in question (even if some of the once supported it).
"Unanimously" -- the Greek word means "of one mind". I think of this as a written consensus -- "we are making one statement and one statement only to you, and all of us are behind it". Think of it like the Baptist Faith and Message. There are regular debates about the exact meaning of specific words, but we are in our Baptist church because we are comfortable with it. The Jerusalem Council was "of one mind" in this declaration.
Note that they also show their support for Paul and Barnabas, acknowledging the personal risks they had taken in the name of the mission.
Just a lot of really good examples of "church letter writing" in these verses.
Part 3: Some Wise Suggestions (Acts 15:27-31)
27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who will personally report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—not to place further burdens on you beyond these requirements: 29 that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. You will do well if you keep yourselves from these things. Farewell.”
30 So they were sent off and went down to Antioch, and after gathering the assembly, they delivered the letter. 31 When they read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.
Verse 27 is our telephone game reference -- the Jerusalem Council did not want to take any chances of someone misrepresenting or miscommunicating their clear message.
I don't particularly like how the CSB handled verse 28 though they aren't wrong. In the Greek, "Holy Spirit" comes before "ours", so the emphasis is on the Holy Spirit's role in the decision. But the way the CSB set apart "and ours" actually draws attention to it (in my opinion). Straight up, it would be "The Holy Spirit and we have decided..." which is not good grammar. So perhaps we would use something like "it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us". This acknowledges the Christians' role in recognizing and agreeing with the teaching of the Spirit.
"Beyond these requirements" is interesting wording. At first glance, does it seem to be setting aside everything I have been saying about salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
The Greek for "requirements" is "indispensables" (some translate it as "necessary") -- a strong word. "We are not putting any burdens on you apart from these rules: ..."
So, again, are they adding to salvation? No. Remember that they have already acknowledged these people in Antioch as fellow Christians. This letter is not about how to be saved but how to live as saved people. (Do you have to live like a Jew? No!)
See the difference?
Now, turn this into a challenge: if you met somebody who had just become a Christian, and you only had 60 seconds to talk to them, how would you try to describe the Christian life?
Oh, and they don't have a Bible.
Not so easy, eh?
The general consensus on these particular rules is that they focus on pagan religion, which is probably the most common stumbling block those Christians would run into.
Note: the Lifeway material suggests that these rules were primarily designed to build a bridge between the Gentile believers and the Jewish believers. I certainly don't disagree -- it was "very Jewish" to avoid idol worship, blood and sexual immorality! But I think they are equally designed to build a wall of separation between the Gentile believers and their former ways of life.
(1) Abstain from food offered to idols. Later, Paul will acknowledge that there's nothing wrong with the food itself. Because the idol is just a hunk of wood, it really doesn't make any difference. But to new Christians, the idol represents another religion, another way of life. (And it supports the economy based on pagan worship.) If you want to declare your allegiance to Christ alone, put complete distance between yourself and paganism.
(2) From blood, from eating anything that has been strangled. I combine these because they're the same. You strangle an animal (instead of slaughtering it) to keep the blood. Why would you do that? Because you believe that the blood contains the lifeforce of an animal (or human), and by drinking that blood you can absorb the lifeforce into yourself. Other than being gross and unsanitary, it's also extremely pagan. Don't do it!
(3) From sexual immorality. The Lifeway material focuses on the existence of temple prostitutes and the connection between paganism and sexual promiscuity. I don't disagree! But part of the reason pagan worship involved sexual acts is how sexually depraved the Greco-Roman culture was! I think this is a powerful (and useful!) catch-all statement.
In other words, this might be similar to us today telling a new Christian something like, "First, you need to move out of your boyfriend's apartment" or "First, you need to completely separate from your old drug culture" or the like. Sure, living the Christian life is a lot more complicated than that, but if you start there, it will make things a lot easier for you to connect with a church and start living for Jesus.
But let me get to the most important thing in verse 29: "you will do well if".
This letter is not actually a command. It is a suggestion. (A very strong suggestion from the most respected people in the Christian life.) The Jerusalem Council has submitted this proposal to the Christians in Antioch for their consideration, believing that they will see the wisdom in it and live by it -- not because they are told to do so but because they agree it is the right thing to do.
Do you see the difference? It's a big difference and a big deal. The only absolute is salvation. (There's only one way to be saved and we aren't given a choice in that.) The rest is the outflow of the Great Commission:
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.
Can you be saved and not be baptized? Yes. Can you be saved and not learn the Bible? Yes. Can you be saved and not obey Jesus? Yes.
That is a consequence of "grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone".
But... as the rest of the New Testament makes clear, salvation is not transactional but transformational. It's not "words that you say" but an actual change in your heart. And a person who has a changed heart will always live a changed life.
This is why we talk about "spiritual fruit". If there's zero evidence in your life that you are a Christian, we have no choice but to fear that you might not actually be a Christian.
These new Christians in Antioch -- they didn't need to know how to be saved; they wanted to know how to live for Jesus. They were hungry to live for Jesus. And the Jerusalem Council understood that they needed to help point these believers in the right direction.
"We, the apostles who followed Jesus-in-the-flesh, acknowledge and affirm that you are our brothers and sisters in salvation. And, based on your unique life circumstance, strongly encourage you to follow these simple rules."
What a great letter, and what a great job by these church leaders.
No, it didn't prevent future problems from arising, but it sure set the churches (and Paul's future church plants) on a great path.
Do you know anyone who is struggling under some "unauthorized commands" given to them by another Christian (true or false)? What can you do to help them?
Aside: Top-Down Models of Church
In the 2017 post, I described the difference between top-down models of church like Episcopalianism (where a pope or a bishop tells churches what to do and believe), Presbyterianism (where a council does the same), and Pastor-Ruled churches (where a pastor does the same) and a biblical Congregational model of the church where the members of the church take full responsibility and accountability for working with their church leaders in making those decisions. Some top-down proponents use Acts 15 to defend their stance: "see? the people in Jerusalem told that church what to do and believe!" But I think it is very clear that the church in Antioch was given full responsibility to accept or reject the word of the apostles.
Closing Thoughts: Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater
I have made a big deal about salvation being the primary absolute, and I stand by that.
But please realize the importance of the fact that the Jerusalem Council still felt it necessary to offer some "strongly worded" suggestions for Christian living to the believers in Antioch. Just because salvation is free doesn't mean that it comes without a cost. There are changes that should take place in every Christian's life.
This passage simply reminds us to consider the difference between "you must do this in order to be saved" and "I really think this would be a good idea for your Christian walk and witness".