Dennis Tuuri

found in Acts the 15th chapter. Our topic this morning will be the Jerusalem Council. Acts 15 verses 1-22.

And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, “Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.” When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and of the apostles and elders. And they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of the matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they.” Then all the multitude kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, hearken unto me.” Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, after this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down. And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we troubled not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

Let’s pray. Got a lot of material to get through today.

So, I think we’ll go ahead and start even while they’re still taking some of the kids downstairs. We’ll begin by reviewing a little bit of what we said last week. As I said, we’ll be spending at least three, probably four Sundays on Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. We began last week with a historic overview of the city of Antioch and some other matters which we’ll review shortly. Today, we’ll talk about the council decision, the council itself, specifically how it was run and that kind of thing.

Next week we’ll talk about the decision of the Jerusalem Council. The following week we’ll have an Easter service and then the week after that we’ll go back to see the results of the Council of Jerusalem. So we’ll spend several more weeks on this passage of scripture which is a very critical passage of scripture for church government as well as many other things.

We’ll begin this morning by reviewing and then after we do a short review of what we said last week, we’ll talk about the decision to go up to Jerusalem. Then we’ll talk about the pre-council meetings prior to the meeting of the actual council at Jerusalem. Then we’ll talk about the council itself and then finally the decision of the council. Then we’ll make some applications.

So we’ll start: number one with an introduction, two at the decision to go up to Jerusalem, three the pre-council meetings, four the council itself, and five the decision with some applications.

First by way of review, we said last week that it was very important to get a proper perspective of everything that’s going on now at this part of the book of Acts. It’s important to understand the historical significance of the church at Antioch. The city of Antioch, of course, was an important city, one of the three major Roman cities at the time, 500,000 people, big place, became a tremendous base for Christian missionary work. It was the base for the first Christian mission work into the gentile churches into the gentile areas around rather.

It has an extremely important setting, the church in Antioch does, then in terms of the spread of the gospel. We talked about how Antioch Christians were first called Christians at the city of Antioch, the church there, and that we showed a little bit about the motif in the book of Acts following the motif in the book of Joshua where you have the expansion of the kingdom, the preaching of the kingdom going into instead of now a restricted part of land going in now to all the world surrounding where the gospel begins from Jerusalem and then the expansion of that gospel into the whole known world at the time.

And so it’s a time of trial and tribulation, but it’s a time of success and victory for the preaching of the gospel. That’s very important to keep in mind throughout all this that’s the historical context.

I hope none of you mind too much if I mention a rock and roll song I’ve been listening to this last week, but you know, I it might sound a little funny, I suppose, but there’s a song on the airways by a guy named Steve Miller, which is all about spreading a message correcting injustice, turning darkness into light. And you know, I don’t know what Steve Miller’s particular philosophical worldview is. But we should have at least the drive, the motivation that he has as exemplified in that song with the message that God has given us.

God has given us the message of reconciliation of the entire world through Jesus Christ. He has called us to go out to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and by preaching that gospel turn true darkness into true light. We know that gospel is accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit when we preach it. We know that God has an elect group of people out there that are going to hear that message, are going to respond to it. And we know that the end result of all that, as we’ve been told in the book of Acts and other places, that the world will be turned upside down.

We should have that kind of gospel fervor and zeal as members of Christ’s kingdom, recognizing, as we do in this particular church specifically, that kingdom is to grow over the entire face of the world, having been begun reconstructed, as we’ll talk about in a few minutes here, from Jerusalem and through the rebuilding of the true tabernacle of Jesus Christ.

What I’m trying to say is that’s the scenario behind everything that goes on in this Acts passage. And if we miss that, we’re not going to understand the rest of it. And if we miss that, we won’t understand the primary application for us, which is to continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ expecting victory. We’re involved in the reconstruction of the entire earth. That’s our task. That’s our goal is to preach that gospel, which will affect reconstruction.

Our message is not—I want to be careful how I say this. Our message is not primarily a conservative message in the sense of trying to conserve the status quo in this country. Paul when he went into the regions that he went into as a missionary for Jesus Christ did not seek to go to conserve the social order that he found there. He went to create another social order based upon the gospel of Jesus Christ and his kingdom.

The Christian message of course has conservative elements in terms of some particular issues. But what I’m trying to get at here is that there’s a radical dimension to it to preaching the gospel, expecting victory, expecting the world to be turned upside down and turning injustice, which is the fallen plight of the world, into justice and truth, harmony and light. And we can do that as we preach faithfully the gospel of Jesus Christ as instructed by his word.

And we should have that kind of optimism as we go out into the week each one of us.

So that was the context, the growth of the church, the importance of that missionary work coming out of Antioch. And in the midst of all that, there was a controversy. The controversy, as we said last week, had to do with works righteousness. They had gone through these various cities. They had suffered persecution. The gospel had increased. They had miraculously gone back and actually established elders, even though they had been threatened with death and stoned almost to the point of death in one of those cities. They went back to encourage those cities to build them up in the faith to appoint governments in the midst of those churches. And then they come back to Antioch to rest up. But instead of rest, they found controversy and more trouble and strife.

The members of the pharisaical sect who had believed came down from Judea preaching works righteousness. We won’t belabor that point, but I do want to just touch on it briefly once more that the central controversy here that caused the necessity to go to the council of Jerusalem was a controversy about works righteousness. It was not about the use of the law in terms of sanctification. It was about the use of the law in terms of justification.

That’s quite clear from the text that the Judaizers said they had to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul in the book of Galatians you could spend a lot of time reading that and seeing the parallels and the corollaries but suffice it to say that Paul in the book of Galatians at least in three different ways attacks the very thing that they were teaching here by pointing back to the law.

He says that the sign itself after all the sign of circumcision he talked about the law itself teaches us that generation or man’s works are to be cut off. It’s not through man’s works that righteousness comes about. It’s through the righteousness of God. It’s not our offspring that produces righteousness. It’s God’s offspring. It’s not generation. It’s regeneration. It’s the gift of God. Grace is what circumcision originally taught.

He says in Galatians 4:21, you who preach the law, why don’t you listen to the law? The law, he said, gave us two examples, the son of the promise and the son of the flesh. And it’s the son of the promise that inherit the blessings of the covenant. And in Galatians 3:16 is a very important passage of scripture from much of our basic theology.

In Galatians 3, I’ll just turn there for a couple of minutes. Here we have Paul describing the place of the law in terms of the covenant of God, the covenant of grace. Galatians 3. Let’s see. Oh, we’ll start reading at verse 15.

“Brethren, I speak after the matter of men. Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disalloweth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not, Into seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

The central point that he’s trying to make here that he’s making quite clearly if we just read it correctly here is that the law was added after the initiation of grace. The law was not contrary to the covenant of grace. He’s saying these Judaizers are teaching you that the law meant works righteousness. But he said that can’t be. If God has a covenant which cannot be changed, which cannot be altered by one party in this matter, God cannot add terms to that covenant which were not in the original document.

All God does by giving the law after sins had increased was to spell out in detail the condition of that covenant. And the conditions of that covenant were that God himself would fulfill the requirements of that law. And that’s why it’s a covenant of grace. The law, the giving of Mosaic law 430 years afterwards was simply fleshing out as it were instructing the people in the covenant itself of grace. And so the ceremonial portions of that law were given specifics to instruct the people that the coming righteousness of Jesus Christ or the Messiah was their only basis of salvation.

The rest of the terms of the law were to tell them These are the things you’re going to be breaking here and these are the things that my son will make atonement for in terms of your transgressions. What he’s saying in Galatians 3 and throughout the book of Galatians, but in this specific portion in terms of the covenant itself is that the law is not another covenant. The law is part of was originally given as part of that covenant of grace.

And these people were saying this is another covenant. God had set aside this covenant of promise and now had injected this covenant of works and because of that you must be circumcised. must have these works or you won’t be saved. And Paul is saying that cannot be. God does not add terms to a covenant. He does not unilaterally break covenants. He expands or expounds the covenant through the giving of the law.

It’s all part of the covenant of grace. And so their use of the law in terms of works righteousness was against the whole reason the law was given. And if anybody had understood if they had a—let’s put it this way, if they had a moral mindset to obey the law of God, if they had a moral mindset to understand the scriptures and weren’t acting in rebellion to them, they would have understood that the law was never given as a means of works righteousness.

We could probably spend a lot of time on that. It’s a very important passage of scripture for you though to look at and to see what exactly the place of the law in terms of that covenant arrangement is. It’s not given for works righteousness.

Now, this is extremely important to understand that the issue was works righteousness. The same thing is true of people today who insist that there are various works necessary for salvation. Salvation is totally a result of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. It is not contingent upon any works of man. Now, it is demonstrated in various works and there are signs and seals that demonstrate the covenant placement that God has put us into. But none of those signs and seals are to be seen as necessary for salvation.

When we say that anything is necessary for salvation in terms of a work of man, we’ve added we have we have we have disenrolled the covenant of grace as it were and put ourselves under the condemnation of God’s law. And so for instance, if a group teaches that unless you pray a certain prayer, for instance, you won’t be saved. Or unless you get baptized, you won’t be saved. Or unless you unless you go to church x numbers of times, you won’t be saved. Or unless you have membership in an institutional church, you won’t be saved. All those things which are put forward as conditions of salvation reinstitute works righteousness.

The very things the council of Jerusalem was convened to rebut and will do so successfully as we see as we go through this now.

Okay, that’s a little bit by way of review of last week. Important to keep those issues in mind.

Now, let’s go to the actual decision to go up to the council of Jerusalem. In verses 2 and 3, we read in Acts 15:2-3 that it was decided basically by the church that men should go up to Jerusalem about this matter. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question and being brought on their way by the church, they pass through Phoenicia and Samaria.

And so the church itself makes the decision to go ahead and send up the council to the men as a delegation to Jerusalem for the disputation of this question. Paul tells us in Galatians 2:1-2 that he was also determined in terms of his participation in this by revelation from God. And so we have a determination both by the church and by God’s revelation that men should go to Jerusalem and to the council to settle out or thrash out this issue of works righteousness and the place of the ceremonial law in terms of salvation.

Now this implies that the church had an organizational reality to it already. The church in order to send these men up to Jerusalem had to have a group that could make that determination. And so they had some organizational or institutional trappings as it were to their to themselves now. And they’re going to set up a delegation to Jerusalem. And so we know that there was organizational reality in place at the church at Jerusalem as well.

Now why did they send these people up to Jerusalem? Remember there are several reasons why we could think through that contributed to this decision. First of all the church at Antioch had a past connection with the church of Jerusalem. Remember it was when the church of Jerusalem was persecuted and men left and then the church at Antioch got planted basically by members from the church of Jerusalem. And so the church of Jerusalem was like the mother church of this whole group and they had spawned off this other church and so there’s some reason for relationship in that way.

Remember also though that these Judaizers were purporting themselves to have come down from that church. They said that they came down from Judea and from that church of Jerusalem. They seem to be implying here that they represented the apostolic leaders and the elders of the church of Jerusalem. There’s yet another reason to go up and to confront the church of Jerusalem and say is this true or is this not true?

Now some people believe—let me just read a quote here from Bannerman’s Scripture Doctrine of the Church. And I’ll show you what’s what’s done with this passage frequently. Bannerman says the following: It follows from the nature of the case that if the eldership of the church at Antioch had given judgment on the case themselves, as they might have done, say by a majority against the view held by Paul and Barnabas, the minority might have appealed to the apostles and the elders at Jerusalem to review and reverse the erroneous decision.

We have here in short a very clear and suggestive example both of the union of office bearers from different congregations for purposes of common council and government but of the subordination of lower to higher church courts. Bannerman in this quote does what other Presbyterian writers have done. They see this in terms of an appellate decision. Bannerman says, “Well, maybe the church at Antioch decided against Paul and so then Paul appealed it up to Jerusalem.” And we see then that the appropriateness of the appellate process in terms of church courts and jurisdictions.

And we also see the subordination of a lower court to a higher court. Well, is that what’s being taught here? I don’t think so. There first of all, in terms of the appellate process itself, there’s no indication from the text at all that there was a decision rendered by the Antioch church contrary to what Paul was teaching. No decision at all. It’s completely reading into the text to say that this was an appellate process.

It was not. At least God has not given us any revelation that says that it was. I don’t believe it was that kind of thing at all.

Now, the appellate process, I’m not denying that the appellate process is certainly implied in various portions of scripture. We have taken a lot of time here to build a base upon the old covenant polity of the church and of the civil government as well. And we know that in Exodus 18, we talked extensively about this several months ago, there were a system of graded courts as it were. There were heads, there were judges over tens, 50s, hundreds, and thousands. And then the more difficult cases were taken up higher to Moses himself. So we know there was this system of graded courts or judges. But was it an appellate system primarily? Well, there’s no evidence in terms of the establishment of the graded courts themselves that was the primary reason for it.

If you remember correctly in Exodus 18, he said that a case that’s too difficult for the heads of tens, he takes it to the heads of 50s and so on and so forth. He doesn’t say when a decision is rendered and then you want to appeal the decision and if you lose then you appeal it to the next guy up. That’s not said at all. The basic reason for those graded courts is does not assume an adversarial relationship.

It assumes a relationship in which we’re all covenant keepers trying to reach covenant answers based upon the covenant word of God. And it’s going to be difficult to sort some of those things out. And so we’re going to have to refer it to men who are somewhat more trained and can meet in a larger group perhaps and have more wisdom and knowledge to discern these things. And so that’s the reason I think for the primary establishment of these great courts.

Now that there was an appellate process is probable also. In fact, we may almost say it’s quite likely if not inevitable. We know that David for instance in terms of the civil side of the courts heard decisions on appeal from various people who did not get what they thought to be good justice from lower courts. That system of graded courts could certainly be used for appealing cases. It would certainly be used when charges were brought against a lower judge which we know from the New Testament that accusations can be brought against elders and so those other courts would certainly be useful for that function as well.

But the point I’m trying to make is that they’re not characterized by an appellate nature. They’re characterized by a nature to hear cases that are difficult to sort through things that are more difficult that have been too difficult for lower courts as it were in terms of this process to hear and to decide. By the way, in 2 Chronicles 19:11, we won’t look at it now, but 2 Chronicles 19:11 shows that there were definitely two sets of courts in the old covenant.

One for church and one for state and that we assume also follows through into the new covenant. Well, in any event, there’s no evidence here of an appeal in this particular case. Secondly, I think Bannerman is incorrect in that he says that this points to the submission of a lower court to a higher court. But in what sense? There’s some sense in which that is true.

But remember Paul in the book of Galatians in chapters 1 and 2 takes great pains to point out the fact that he is not subservient to the other apostles. He declares his full apostolic authority both in Galatians and in other books as well. Of course, and there is no way that Paul would have changed the preaching of his gospel regardless of what the apostles at Jerusalem told him. Remember we pointed out last week in Galatians 1, he says, “If I or an angel, even an angel, preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed.” He’s not about to change.

He’s not about to submit himself to the authority of another apostle in terms of a higher court. He sees himself fully equal with the rest of the apostles. And so we cannot see either in this submission of Paul to the council of Jerusalem a lower court yielding to a higher court. No. Every indication of Paul’s desire to go up and the church at Antioch to send this delegation up to Jerusalem points to a voluntary submission of that church to a broader-based group.

of apostles and elders who had more experience and who had perhaps more ability to sort through and to come up with a definitive question that would be binding upon the whole church in terms of the Judaizing influence that was being felt to the church at Antioch. Everything points to a voluntary yielding over of that question to Jerusalem. Paul as I said had no intent of changing the gospel that he preached.

But Paul readily acknowledged the fact, I think it’s evident from this action that the Jerusalem Council would uphold what he knew to be the truth of the matter. He had that assurance I think based upon the maturity of the apostolic leaders that he recognized and the maturity of the elders also that sat at Jerusalem.

Remember the problem here after all is one really of unity, isn’t it? We have works righteousness coming in being taught amongst the Antioch church and causing dissension and disputation among the church. And so the unity of this church at Antioch that was so important for the missionary work that was going on was being threatened by people who were seeking to break up that unity by introducing legalism and works righteousness into it. It seems to me that the attempt to or that the decision to send the matter up to the Jerusalem Council for adjudication was a masterful stroke of taking the very element by which the Judaizers were trying to prosper the disunity of the church and instead turning that around and creating more unity than ever.

What I’m saying is the Antioch church had potential here of being split up and divided out of question. And instead of allowing that to occur, Paul in a jiu-jitsu like move turns it right around and the church at Antioch does and God by his divine revelation to Paul to bring this up to Jerusalem. God in a jiu-jitsu like fashion then turns it right around, sends them back to the council of Jerusalem, which will then establish the peace and the unity not just of the church at Antioch but of all the gentile churches and of the entire known church at that time as well.

And so we see that when under attack and when under the threat of disunity, the church turns it right around and God brings good and more prosperity out of that by creating an even broader unity than existed prior to that time. The church at Jerusalem would now meet in council. They would meet in council with various representatives from various elements of the controversy and they would settle once for all the question of works righteousness.

That decision would become binding upon all the churches. And so what we see here is the cooperation of churches in the attempt to maintain unity. We see here that no church is truly independent of all the other churches. We see that churches should cooperate together and come up with unified decisions on matters of central doctrine. And we see then the yielding over of authority to a group of men who had convened in council as the greater church had convened this case to settle matters of doctrine and dispute.

We’ll talk more about that in a few minutes. But let’s first look at the constitution of the assembly itself. By the way, before we get into that, notice then is further evidence of this voluntary nature of going up sending this decision up to Jerusalem and not of being compelled in terms of an appellate process or a submission of a lower court to a higher court. Look at the manner in which they were brought on their way by the church in verse three.

Being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria declaring the conversion of the Gentiles and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. Paul’s manner here in the honor of the people who go up to Jerusalem is not by is not characterized by a group of people who are nervous about the decision that’s going to be rendered. They go up proclaiming the conversion of the Gentiles, rejoicing in the work that God has given them to do.

And they go up confidently that work will continue and prosper and the joy will continue upon all the church of God. This also should be a lesson for us personally in the face of persecution, in the face of trial and tribulation and possible great problems for the faith. Yet, that Paul and the delegation from Antioch went up rejoicing, went up working first of all, continuing to preach the gospel and declare the conversion of the Gentiles as a result of that went up rejoicing.

So we when we go out throughout this week in attempt to preach the gospel of Christ and reconstructing everything that we put our hands to do in terms of work, political arena, our families, everything we put our hand to do this week, we should recognize in the face of opposition and persecution yet we should be working. Number one, they didn’t just go up and not do anything on the way up to Jerusalem.

They took the opportunity to work. It’s important to recognize that we should be that same way. We should work when we go. we should keep ourselves busy. Remember the old expression, idle hands are the devil’s workshop. Keep ourselves busy. And as a result of that, we’ll keep ourselves rejoicing the way that the churches rejoice to hear the news of the gospel presentation to the Gentiles and their conversion.

Paul’s working and rejoicing in the face of persecution going to Jerusalem should be a model for us as we go. into the week as a church as well.

So they come up to Jerusalem and in verses 4 and 5 we have some pre-council meetings and the pre-council meetings have an element of good news and they have an element of bad news. The good news is that the delegation is received by the church in verse 4.

When they were come to Jerusalem they were received by the church and of the apostles and elders and they declared all things that God had done with them. No note of controversy in verse 4. They’re welcomed by the church and received by them. Yeah, there’s evidence here of a good reception by the church for this delegation with Antioch. It must have been a great meeting getting together and rejoicing in the faith.

But then the bad news comes in verse 5. There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Apparently from the book of Galatians, Paul had taken up Titus with him on this trip. And it could be that Titus was a test case being uncircumcised. And the Pharisees may have been specifically talking in terms of Titus as an example of the rest of the gentile believers in saying this guy’s got to be circumcised.

But any event, the pre-council meetings show the reception of the church and then also the controversy again raises its head, which is okay cuz that’s what they’re there to talk about anyway.

Immediately after that, then in verse 6, we have the convening of the council itself. The apostles and elders came together for a consider of this matter. First, let’s look at the constituents of the council itself.

First of all, there’s the delegation from Antioch. Obviously, they’re up to represent the church at Antioch to talk about the problems they had been experiencing at the hands of Judaizers in Antioch. That’s an important thing for us to remember that in a controversy like this, the concerned party should be in the midst of the council. They should be being heard by the council. They should have the ability to hear their accusers against them the way that they were given opportunity in this council relationship here.

And so the parties have to be defended in the council itself.

Secondly, the apostles were there. we’re told specifically that Peter spoke. We also know that John was there from the account in Galatians. And so there were apostles there. Remember Peter now is going to be their spokesman for the apostles as it were in this council that occurs. And remember we talked about Peter being like a prolleptic Paul almost in a sense how 10 years prior to this he had been party to the conversion of Cornelius had seen the extension of the grace of God to the gentile Cornelius.

And he’ll be talking about that as we go through this council.

The apostles now have to remember weren’t really part of the specific government of the church of Jerusalem. The apostles were working out of the base of Jerusalem and continue to be sent ones into the areas around Jerusalem and into the dispersion of the Jewish churches as well.

The third group that are there, you got the delegates from Antioch, you have the apostles and then you have the elders themselves. And this is quite important to recognize that this council was primarily a group of elders meeting in session along with the apostles.

Now, we talked about the fact that Paul had appointed elders in the gentile churches last week when he went on the missionary journeys and we talked about the fact that because apostles themselves were chosen by a vote of the congregation the replacement for the 12th apostle—that is we looked at it in Acts 1 several weeks ago—the deacons in Acts 6 were selected by a vote of the congregation Paul and Barnabas were set aside to their work by a vote of the congregation so we have every reason to believe that when the elders were appointed in the gentile churches there were votes of the congregation and then Paul actually ordained those men into office but there’s no mention of these elders at Jerusalem where they came from is there?

There’s no mention that then they decided to make elders in the church at Jerusalem at some point in time and they set apart elders and prayed over them. There’s no mention of that. Why is that? Probably the reason for that is you got to remember that what was going on here was there was not a radical break as it were from the old covenant church into the new covenant church. There were members of the church at Jerusalem and of the people that had convened at Jerusalem at the beginning of the preaching of the gospel in Acts 1.

There were members of the Jewish community then who undoubtedly were elders in their congregations already. And so when these men converted, they would probably remain elders in these synagogues of Christians. Now it’s a very natural thing to assume. Indeed, in 1 Peter 5:1-3, 1 Peter assumes the existence of elders in all the churches of the dispersion. And all the churches that had gone out into the into the dispersed areas, he assumes the existence of elders.

James also in the same way in verse 13 of chapter 5 of the book of James assumes the existence of elders in all the churches of the dispersion. So elders were to be were assumed to be present in the Jewish churches. And so we don’t have a specific mention of their selection or their ordination. And so it is in the passage before us. There were elders of the church at Jerusalem. Undoubtedly Paul probably knew some of these elders.

Remember in Acts 11:30 last week we talked about the fact that Paul had brought up money and relief to Judea. had left it with the elders sometime before. And so there may have been even some personal acquaintance here between Paul and these elders.

Now, James, Jesus’s brother, is the one who will speak as an elder in the council that we’re about to consider. James is readily acknowledged in this passage to be, as I said, the brother of Jesus, not an apostle. We know that James, the brother of John, had been killed by Herod prior to this time. We talked about that last week. And although I must say that Calvin does not believe this was James, brother of Jesus. He thinks it was James the lesser apostle. But every other evidence seems to be that this was not James the lesser apostle. This was indeed James the brother of our Lord who was the leader of the church at Jerusalem.

In Acts 21:18 there’s mention of James and the elders. in the context of the elders legend has it or tradition has it that James this is James the Just. You might have heard that term. He was called the just because of his personal holiness. Says that it was written by some that his knees had become callous like a camel from long prayers. So he was a very devout man and as a result of that devotion and of his service to the church at Jerusalem, he was accorded a place of honor in terms of presiding over as it were this council.

So we have the delegates from Antioch, the apostles and the elders. participating in this council.

Now, it’s also probable that the church itself, various members from the church at Jerusalem were at the council, although it says specifically in verse 6, the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Now, that’s very important to recognize as well. The whole church itself didn’t really participate in this council. They may have been there witnessing the council, but when the decision is made to go into council to consider matters of doctrine, to come up with a definitive statement in terms of works righteousness and circumcision for the church, The decision is turned over to the presbyters of the church, the elders along with the apostles.

Let’s look now at the procedure of the council. In verse 7, we see that the procedure begins with much debate. There’s apparently a free reign to speak here on the part, I’m sure, of the Judaizers and also on the part of the people that were trying to defend the Antioch church. There’s a lot of discussion and debate amongst this. And then as a good council should operate, the leaders come forth to sort of quell everything to put everything in a proper perspective.

After much debate, we see Peter then taking the floor at verse 7-11 and giving a very important critique of the whole dissension that have been occurring with the Judaizing element. Peter in his speech through verse 7 through verse 11 begins with verse 7 with a discussion of God’s election. And that election has to do both of the Gentiles as believers. And it also means that He also points out the fact that God had chosen himself Peter to preach that message to the Gentiles. And so God elects Gentiles and he also elects the means by which the Gentiles are reached.

This has implications of course for the very thing to be considering. Remember that the Gentiles election itself is being questioned as is the authority of the gospel that Paul is preaching. And so Peter immediately points out that God has elected Gentiles. He’s elected the means by which the Gentiles believe referring to himself primarily but also having implication for Paul and for the church at Antioch. By the way, the council itself, of course, will also one of God’s elected means whereby he will resolve this dispute at the church at Antioch.

In verse 8, Peter says that God’s witness has been placed upon these believing Gentiles. And he relates how the gift of the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles that he had preached the gospel to. And then he says some things very important in verses 8 and 9 about the heart of the Gentiles. He says in verse 8, “God which knoweth the hearts beareth them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us and put no difference between us and them purifying their hearts by faith.”

Remember the issue of circumcision and what Peter is saying here is that these men have pure hearts because God has given them cleansed hearts. In Romans 2:23-29 we read the following:

“Thou that makest thy boast of the law through breaking the law dishonest thou God for the name of God is blessed passing among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keepest the law. But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision does transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh.

But he is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God.”

Now this echoes the same thing that Peter was saying. He was saying that circumcision is not a matter of outside fleshy acts. Circumcision, godly circumcision, true circumcision is circumcision of the heart. And that’s not accomplished by a knife of man. That’s accomplished by the spirit of God. And that accomplishment will yield itself forward into keeping the law of God, keeping the moral commandments of God, but it won’t be based upon the keeping of that law. And that’s what Peter is saying here when he says that these Gentiles were cleansed by God.

God knows the heart. God’s spirit had cleansed their heart. They had circumcised hearts. To claim to kick now about their uncircumcision is completely contrary to what God teaches in terms of true circumcision.

So God’s witness is upon these Gentiles. And if God’s witness is upon these Gentiles, then how can anybody deny the fact that we have a new man here comprised of both Gentile and non-gentile Christians? And that’s his thrust in verse 9. There is no difference now between us and them. Their hearts have been purified by faith. We have one new man now is what God has done in terms of bringing the Gentile and Jewish Christians together into one new man.

He doesn’t make us all Jews. He doesn’t make us all Gentiles. He makes us one new man in Jesus Christ by purifying our hearts.

And then he enters into a rebuke against those people that would deny this the Judaizing element. Verse 10. “Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they.”

So he issues here a strong rebuke to those people who would deny that the Gentiles are part of the church of Jesus Christ and who would attempt to institute works righteousness over them. He says that they’re tempting God. He says that they have attempted to call cursed what God has blessed. They have done what God commanded him not to do when God let down the sheet. Remember God let down the sheet in the vision to Peter and he said, “What I’ve cleansed, don’t call unclean.” And he was talking in reference to the gentile believers at Cornelius of Cornelius himself.

And so Peter is saying God told us he has cleansed these Gentiles. He’s told us by his witness of the Holy Spirit coming upon them the same when we had our the Holy Spirit come upon us on the day of Pentecost. And if God’s witness is upon these people and he knows their hearts, then if we deny that, then we’re denying the voice of God and we’re tempting God and we’re calling his curse upon our own heads.

And so he is a strong rebuke then against the Judaizing element. And finally, he reminds that there has always been and always will be one way of salvation. “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved. even as they.”

Now, the “they” there can be we’re not exactly sure what that refers to, but it could very well be the fact that he’s referring back to the fathers who were not able to bear the yoke either. He reminds them in verse 10 that Moses, Abraham, none of those men had the yoke of works righteousness upon them. They could not bear it. He’s saying that we were saved by the grace of Jesus Christ even as they as the fathers and as the Gentiles themselves were saved. There’s one way of salvation now, not two. There is no yoke of the law that God intends to place upon people through works righteousness.

That’s a yoke that men create for themselves. And these men were then trying to create that burden for the gentile believers as well.

Now, this speech of Peter’s is followed by a silence in verse 12. Remember that we had just been talking about much debate and discussion in verse 7. And now in verse 12, after Peter’s speech, we see that all the multitude kept silence. And then the delegation from Antioch recite more of God’s miracles and his witness to the conversion of the Gentiles by Paul and Barnabas.

As I said, this is another example of proper leadership at work. Much discussion and debate at first. Some definitive elements coming from an apostle of Jesus Christ, talking about the work that God had done through his election of the Gentiles salvation, his election of the means, the importance of not going against the will of God. And that then brings a silence to the congregation. Now they hear the Gentiles conversion being witnessed to by Paul and Barnabas.

And then finally, The council is concluded by James—the James the Just—the elder one of the elders of the church of Jerusalem beginning at verse 13.

“After they had held their peace, James answered, saying, ‘Men and brethren, hearken unto me.’ Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name and to this agree the words of the prophet as it is written.”

And he then quotes from Amos the 9th chapter verses 11 and 12.

And so now, in addition to the authority of God’s witness of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles. Now, James brings up the authority of God’s word in terms of the council itself. And again, this is proper council proceedings. We rely upon the written word of God and James quotes from that written word to confirm what Peter has said in terms of the expansion of the gospel into the gentile church and the creation of one new man.

Now, it’s interesting that James chooses this particular passage of scripture. There are many of them that he could have chosen to demonstrate what he’s going to be saying here, but he chooses a passage out of Amos 9 that talks about the context of that passage is judgment upon men who had rejected the salvation of God. Amos 9 talks about the shaking of men who pervert the truth of God’s word. Earlier in the book of Amos there the phrase seek the Lord that you may live. They were attempting to live apart from seeking God. And so the judgment in Amos chapter 9 comes upon the men who seek righteousness or living apart from God. Our righteousness not God’s is what the people in Amos 9 were being judged for. And that’s the context of the passage that James brings up. And I’m sure one of the reasons for that was to talk to the Judaizers. If they now were going to try to turn apart from the righteousness of God and seek to live by some way other than God’s prescribed method, James would convict them through this passage in terms of their persecution, their shaking, and the judgment of God coming upon them.

Prepare to meet your God, O Israel, was the message to those members of the congregation in the days of Amos who rejected God’s righteousness and instead tried to have their own righteousness before God. And that was the same message that was told to the Judaizers if they insisted on salvation apart from anything but faith in Jesus Christ.