The Council of Jerusalem, its Context and Importance

A paper witten for the class,  Acts of the Apostles 65-726

at the Tasmanian College of Ministries, Hobart, Tasmania

June 30th, 1998

Author: Phillip C. Hopwood

I learned a great deal in researching an writing this paper and three others that relate to the book of Acts.   The historical situations, issues and conclusions dealt with here are vital for those of us of the Worldwide Church of God and related churches that have previously, and to our peril, overlooked them.  It is to the glory of God that we have come to know that we are accepted by God as members of his church and are saved, and live as his people, not through works of the law of Moses, but by grace and the Spirit of God. 

It is my hope and prayer that this paper may be of some help to others in more fully comprehending what God has made so clear regarding these elementary issues through his involvement in the events we find recorded in the first half of the book of Acts.

(This paper is long, so you may want to save it and view or print it offline.  I'm also happy to email it. )

The Council of Jerusalem (c.49 AD), was a crossroad for the Christian church. Decisions were made that had a major impact on the church then, and have effected the nature of the church ever since. This paper will discuss the issues and events that led up to the Council, the issues discussed, and the ramifications and results of the conclusion that were reached. The main issue addressed throughout the paper will be the question of the composition and standards of behaviour of the Church; who can be part of the people of God, and what is required of them. Attention will be paid to the role of conservative Jewish Christians in the early church, and the tensions that arose over the admission of Gentiles into the church. This will include their belief that the church was a continuation of Israel, and their consequent insistence that the law of Moses be binding for all church members, Jew and Gentile.

The church began in Jerusalem, on Pentecost around 30 AD. The first members were Jews from Jerusalem and other parts of the then known world (Acts 2:5). The church in Jerusalem was therefore fundamentally Jewish in character.1

The members continued to worship at the temple and conduct their lives according to the laws of Moses.2 What made them different from the rest of the Jews was their belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah. Otherwise they believed the Old Covenant parameters continued, particularly that God was only dealing with Jews or those who converted to Judaism.

Jews from Jerusalem were known as "Hebrews", and those from the diaspora as "Grecian Jews" or "Hellenists." The presence of Hellenists in the early church was in part due to their presence in Jerusalem on pilgrimages to attend the various festivals held there and to worship at the temple.3

The difference between the two groups was fundamentally based on language and culture.4 The language of the Hebrews was Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, originating among the Arameans from the north of Syria, who may have been ancestors of Abraham.5 The Hebrews had continued their traditional Judaic heritage.6 The Hellenists spoke Greek as well as the native language of whatever part of the world they were brought up in. They had, to varying degrees, assimilated the Greek culture. This was abhorrent to the Hebrews who saw it as a betrayal of their covenant with God to be a special people, distinct and separate from the world around them and its customs. The Hebrews had been fighting a battle against the influence of Hellenism (Greek culture) since Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in 167BC.78

Sadly the tensions between the Hebrew and Hellenistic Jews found their way into the Church.9 The views of each group would play a key role in the increasing tension within the Church over the role of Judaism and the law of Moses in the Christian faith.

In Acts 6:1 we see people from these two groups, the "Grecian" and "Hebraic" Jews, within the church. They are, true to character, in dispute. The Hellenistic Jewish Christians were complaining to the Hebraic group that the Hebrews were neglecting the Hellenistic widows in the daily distribution of food. The apostles dealt with the problem by having the church choose seven men to oversee the task. The names mentioned indicate the men were Hellenists (Acts 6:5).10  F.F. Bruce believes they were not just almoners, but may have been elected as leaders of the Hellenistic group in the Church.11

Initially the Jewish authorities, particularly the priests and Sadducees, led by Annas and Caiaphas, acted aggressively against the Church. They were alarmed by the success of the apostles, and their preaching of Jesus and the resurrection, and hence arrested Peter and John (Acts 4:15-21; 5:17-19, 27-33).12 The Pharisees believed in the resurrection. One of their leading teachers, Gamaliel I, spoke to the Sanhedrin during the third arrest of the church leaders. He persuaded his fellow Jews to be more tolerant towards the church. "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39).

As a result, it would appear that many followers of Pharisaism were quite tolerant of Christianity (Act 23:9), and a number ended up joining the Church. However the more radical Jews soon renewed their persecution of the Church.13

The legalistic tendencies of the Pharisees, and other Hebraic Jews who joined the Church, no doubt had an influence on the church in Jerusalem over the years, adding to the problems and tensions that continued to build up to a head and make the Council of Jerusalem necessary.

The teaching of Stephen, much of which is recorded in his defence before the Sanhedrin, is plainly directed at the Jewish religious leaders focus and reliance on the outward features of their religion (Acts 6:8-7:53). This included the temple, their living in the promised land, and strict observance of the law of Moses. They clung to the belief that these outward symbols and observances, such as circumcision, food laws, and observance of the weekly sabbath and annual festivals, made and maintained them upright and accepted by God as his one and only people. These attitudes appear to have been brought into the Church by some of the Hebraic Jews.

In addition to Jewish legalism, the renewal of hostilities against the church by the more militant Jews is also seen clearly through the arrest, trial, and stoning of Stephen. Stephen was probably the leader of the Hellenistic Christians, being mentioned first and most favourably amongst those appointed as deacons (Acts 6:5). Stephen and his Hellenistic group were actively preaching the gospel.14 It would be unlikely they were reaching out to the Hebraic Jews, but rather to the Hellenists (Acts 6:9). These Greek speaking Jews gathered in the synagogue (with the Pharisees), whereas the Hebraic Jews tended more to the temple along with the Priests and Sadducees. Acts 6:7 informs us though, that a large number of priests were also converted and became part of the Church at Jerusalem.

Stephen's preaching raised the ire of the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:9). Unable to overcome his arguments, they resorted to underhanded tactics, organising false witnesses to accuse him of blasphemy (Acts 6:11). He was hauled before the Sanhedrin, which consisted of representatives from both the Sadducees and Pharisees. Stephen's attack on Judaism's reliance on the temple, Moses and the law, and their being in the Promised Land, brought those listening to such an emotionally charged fury that they dragged him out of Jerusalem and stoned him to death (Acts 7:54-58).

This led to another significant event in the lead up to the Jerusalem Conference. After Stephen we see a change of attitude towards the church by the Jewish religious leaders, including Saul (Acts 8:1-3). Luke tells us that "a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered." This persecution was apparently directed mostly against Hellenistic christians, no doubt because of their being in Stephen's group.15

It is quite possible that some of the Hebraic Christians were not totally comfortable with Stephen's attack on the sacred elements of Judaism.16 Their affinity for the temple and the rituals and other outward observances of Judaism no doubt held them in better stead with the Jewish authorities than the Hellenistic Christians, who no doubt supported and promulgated Stephen's approach.

For a time most of the church fled Jerusalem for Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1). Many Hellenistic Jews went to Antioch.17 D.W.B. Robinson discusses the results of the Hellenists fleeing, noting:

it was apparently through this Hellenist element that the gospel overflowed the narrow limits of Judaistic Christianity and created fresh streams in alien territories. ...Significantly it was Hellenists who went from Jerusalem to Antioch and there preached to Gentiles without any stipulation about the Mosaic law.18

Later things settled down, and many christians, predominantly Hebraic it would seem, returned to Jerusalem. The NT makes this reestablishment clear through its regular references to the church in Jerusalem in later years. This, significantly, left the Jerusalem church almost totally made up of Hebrews from that time on. Bruce comments of the impact of the persecution on the makeup of the Jerusalem church, saying:

One result of this short but sharp outburst of persecution was that from this time forth the Jerusalem church was predominantly 'Hebrew" in colour, and much more conservative than it might have been had the Hellenists been able to stay and play their full part in it.19

Robinson further comments:

After Stephen, the Hellenistic element in the Jerusalem church seemed to disappear and its Judaic charter to prevail. Some of its members disapproved of the gospel's being offered to Gentiles without obligation to keep the law and went off to press their point of view in the new churches.20

These events and attitudes planted the seeds grew in time to cause the divisions and debates that led to the Council of Jerusalem.

The next significant event in the development of the church was the conversion of Saul. He was on his way to Damascus to round up some of the Christians who had fled Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). His calling was to be the apostle to the Gentiles. But at this point the Church was made up only of Jews and proselytes (Gentiles who had fully converted to Judaism before becoming Christians). 21 Paul was part of the radical group of Jews who violently opposed any compromise with the laws and traditions of Judaism. He had been raised in Tarsus, but had been educated among the Hebraic Jews of Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). He called himself, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews" (Philippians 3:5).

Meanwhile, a momentous event was taking place involving Peter. Apart from Philip's desert road meeting with the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), the gospel had only been taken to Jews and proselytes. Strict Jews, and to this point, Jewish Christians, would not fellowship with anyone who did not keep the laws of Moses. They would not eat with, enter the home of, or associate with unconverted Gentiles.22 To them, salvation was of the Jews and only for the Jews. For a Gentile to become a christian, it was naturally held that they had to undergo the same rite of circumcision, and observance of the law of Moses as those converting to Judaism (termed "proselytes").

At Caesarea, an uncircumcised, god-fearing Gentile named Cornelius, was praying (Acts 10:1-2) when he had a vision of an angel who told him to send to Joppa for a man named Peter (v. 3-6). This he did. About the same time messengers from Cornelius were arriving in Joppa, God spoke to Peter through a vision of a mixture of clean and unclean animals in some sort of sheet (v. 10-12). He was commanded to kill and eat (v. 13), which as any good Jew would, he resolutely refused to do. "Surely not, Lord!" Peter retorted. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean" (v. 14). The voice told him, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (v. 15). This was repeated three times. While Peter was trying to figure it all out (v. 17), the messengers from Cornelius arrived and the Spirit directed Peter to go with them. Peter was told of Cornelius's vision, so he invited them in. He later went with them to meet Cornelius in Caesarea (v. 23-24).

When Peter arrived at the house of Cornelius he immediately discussed the reasons for the division between the Jews and Gentiles that had existed to that point, under the law of Moses. He said to Cornelius and his gentile companions, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean" (Acts 10:28). Peter further explained to them, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35).

This was a critical point, and a momentous pronouncement. However, it would take some time and further events for it to be fully accepted by the whole church.

He went on to preach "the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all (Acts 10:36). Before he could finish his address, God again intervened, miraculously and sovereignly confirming his acceptance of Gentiles into the congregation of his people through faith, and not race or works of the law. We read:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God (Acts 9:44-46).

This radical new message - that God saves all men, Jew and Gentile, purely through faith in Jesus, and that he is Lord of all people, no matter what their race or nationality might be - was the catalyst for the ensuing debate that led to the Jerusalem conference. It was also to be a central part of the solution.

We see initial sparks of the debate when Peter returns to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 10:1-2). Some of the members in Jerusalem criticised Peter because "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 10:3). It was only after giving a full explanation of God's miraculous involvement that he was able to placate some of the conservative members. Apparently this did not last too long.

It had taken a series of direct revelations and miracles from God to bring Peter to this point. Even he had difficulty in fully understanding and acting on its implications over the next few years (Galatians 2:11-12). According to Thomas R. Schreiner:

The vision showed Peter that the food laws were no longer required. The Jews should fellowship with Gentiles and receive them into the Kingdom without imposing on them food laws and circumcision. The full meaning of the Cornelius event did not dawn on Peter right away. In fact, he does not seem to grasp all the implications of his encounter with Cornelius until the Jerusalem Council (Acts15:7-11).23

It should not be forgotten how central the Cornelius event was to this whole train of events culminating in the Jerusalem Council.

With the number of Hellenistic christian Jews fleeing beyond Judea, the preaching of the gospel spread and the church grew. We read in Acts 11:19-21:

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. 21 The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Robinson comments on the emerging role of the new Antioch church, in contrast to the church in Jerusalem:

Antioch, not Jerusalem, was the model of the 'new church' which was to appear all over the world. It was founded by Hellenist Jews. ...Antioch became the springboard for the expansion of the gospel through the Levant.24

Seeing this growth take place, the Jerusalem church sent one of their number, Barnabas, to help. He was most likely a Hellenist. If an Hebraic Christian had been sent, it is possible they might not have taken so well to the evangelism of Gentiles and the lack of insistence on Jewish law keeping. Consequently, the matters brought to a head at the Council of Jerusalem may have come to the fore earlier, and may not have turned out so well.25

Barnabas, in turn sort out Paul (Acts 11:22, 25-26). In Acts 13 we learn that after a year a great deal of growth had taken place, to the point that the church at Antioch became the launching point and sponsor missionary work further afield. As previously noted, In contrast to the Jerusalem Church, the great majority of members of the church in Antioch were Gentiles.26 As a consequence Bruce observes:

The atmosphere of such a cosmopolitan city as Antioch was vastly different from that of Jerusalem and the atmosphere of the new church of Antioch must have been almost equally different from that of the mother-church of Jerusalem. This state of affairs was bound, sooner or later, to lead to tensions between the two churches.27

We should note, that alongside these growing differences, there continued to be some positives, including visits and communications.28 Jerusalem sort to assist Antioch by providing helpers in the work of the gospel. Antioch contributed aid to the members in famine struck Jerusalem via Barnabas and Paul (Acts 11:27-30). It is unlikely that this visit is the same as recorded in Acts 15, which is known as the Jerusalem Conference, as the issue of circumcision is not mentioned.29

With Antioch as home base, Paul, Barnabas, and later Mark, Luke, Silas, Timothy and others, served to spread the gospel further and further afield into Asia Minor and then Europe. Initially they would meet with and preach the gospel to Jews and Gentile godfearers in the synagogues of the towns they visited (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1-2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8).30 Luke gives us an example of a Pauline sermon in such situations by including an overview of he gave in Psidian Antioch (Acts 13:16-41). It includes a clear statement of Paul's theology on law and salvation. In this sermon he states, "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39-40).

On most occasions his message naturally brought outrage and often persecution from the Jews, but many Gentiles were led to faith (Acts 13:45-48, 50; 14:1-2, 19, 21).

Upon returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas had much to report about the successes God had achieved through them. As Luke tell us, "On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27).

As we have noted, before this the Jerusalem church had had some involvement and "supervision" of the growth of the church. But now events were taking place beyond their control and involvement.31 It was quite likely that Jerusalem would have been concerned about the Gentiles outnumbering the Jews in the church. In fact this may have already happened. A particular concern, according to Bruce, would have been the ethical standards of the church.32 Jews had, a not unjustified, low opinion of Gentile moral behaviour. Jesus had preached a righteousness that was higher than that of the Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 5:21ff.). Would that not be threatened by all these Gentile converts?33

The other dilemna for the leaders of the Jerusalem church was their preaching of the gospel among their own Jewish people. It would place a great limit on its success, they no doubt reasoned, if it was know that christians elsewhere were not keeping the customs and laws of Judaism34. It would more than likely lead to persecution for the Jerusalem church, just has had happened when Stephen preached against Jewish reliance the law of Moses.

The easiest solution from the point of view of many Jerusalem members appears to have been, as Bruce suggests, that:

Gentile converts to Christianity should comply with the same requirement as Gentile converts to Judaism - they should be circumcised (if they were men) and undertake to keep the law of Moses. This would not only limit the intake of Gentiles into the church; it would ensure that those who did enter it would have to observe an acceptable ethical standard.35

In the preface to the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15, we read; "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved'" (Acts 15:1).

This is the controversial teaching that Paul confronts in the book of Galatians. Although there is some dispute as to when it was written, it would seem to fit well into the time period we have now reached. The time after Paul and the others had spent some time evangelising the area of southern Galatia, and before the Jerusalem conference (c. 50 AD).

A study of this letter gives us a good insight into the state of affairs at this time regarding the developing controversy over Gentiles inclusion in the church, and the role of circumcision and the law of Moses. The issue has caused such trouble in Galatian, that Paul writes in an urgent and strident manner, such as is rarely seen in other books. He starts of by saying:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7)

Paul spends time vigorously and exhaustively defending the veracity of his gospel of salvation by faith and not by works of the law his authority as an apostle to teach what he did. He includes a comprehensively argued denial of the need for circumcision. He mentions an earlier visit to Jerusalem (perhaps Acts 11:30).3 He states that on that trip, Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile convert, had not been required to be circumcised by the leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:3). He then mentions that "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you" (2:4-5).

With this in mind, as well as the context of his authority as a directly appointed apostle of Jesus Christ, he next describes an incident in which Peter was influenced to withdraw from fellowship with uncircumcised Gentile christians.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14).

The circumcision group no doubt intimidated Peter with their erroneous argument insisting that christians must be circumcised, and must not fellowship with those who were not. By his behaviour Peter was dividing the church, offending the Gentiles, and basically putting them in the position where if they didn't get circumcised they were rejected as not being full christians.36 It was hypocritical, in that Peter had, since the time of the vision of the sheet of clean and unclean animals and the conversion of Cornelius, lived free of the demands of Jewish laws and customs.

To Paul this was not some side issue or matter of personal conscience or academic debate. The heart of the gospel was under threat, "they", including Peter, "were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2:14).

Throughout Galatians, as well as in large sections of Romans and other epistles, Paul argues unequivocally "that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law" (Galatians 2:16). He taught that neither Jew nor Gentile are saved by observing the law, but that both Jew and Gentile are saved through the faith in Jesus alone.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29).

He went so far as to tell them that if they swallowed this false gospel of becoming God's people through observance of the Old Covenant laws, they would be making Christ's sacrifice of no value at all.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:2-6).

To Paul, there was no debate. Circumcision was of no use. If it was imposed as a means of gaining merit with God, or being admitted into the congregation of God's people it was a heretical and destructive teaching. Bruce makes the same point regarding Paul's teaching about the role of the rest of the laws of Moses for christians:

Similarly, the observance of certain days or of various food restrictions was neither here nor there, unless it was thought that such observance was necessary to win divine approval. These were features of the old order of law, which had been superseded by the new order of grace... If the law were still in force, as the way of justification, then the age of the Messiah had not yet dawned, and so Jesus could not be the Messiah.37

Circumcision and the observance of other aspects of the Old Covenant law were only outward signs of being God's Old Covenant people, Israel, and not the true sign for God's New Covenant people, the church. The true sign was faith and the Holy Spirit.

Circumcision was the initiatory rite that all Gentiles who were to become proselytes, or converts to Judaism, were required to undergo. Some believe that this controversy was only over circumcision, and fail to recognise that circumcision signified coming into and under the Old Covenant that made Israel God's people. To be circumcised was a beginning, and an entry point, not an end in itself. Through circumcision Gentile entered into Israel, in fact became an Israelite, and took upon himself the obligation to live under the laws of Israel. As M. H. Pope writes, "One could not accept the whole law apart from circumcision, and this final rite obligated him to keep it all (Gal. 5:3)."38 Bruce writes;:

...if justification came through the law, then it must be through the whole law. Let no one imagine that the requirements of the law could be satisfied by such a token performance as circumcision. If a man had himself circumcised as a religious obligation, the obligation which he under took thereby involved the keeping of the law in its entirety. Paul knew from his own experience what that meant: the Galatian Christians had not begun to appreciate it, and even the visitors who were pressing circumcision on them were far from keeping the whole law in any serious sense. One could not pick and choose among the ordinances of the law; it was all or nothing. The law pronounced an explicit curse on all who failed to keep it in its entirety. (Deuteronomy 27:26, quoted in Galatians 3:10).39

Paul explained to the gentile members in Galatia that they were true Israelites, true descendants of Abraham, and inheritors of God's promises, not through blood lines or conversion to Judaism, nor through the Jewish initiation rite of circumcision, but by faith alone (Galatians 3:8-9). They were identified as true sons of God, not through blood or a mark in their flesh, not by the days they kept, nor by the food they ate, but through the Spirit of God living in them (4:6-7).

Paul taught the Galatians that the law did not supersede or contradict the promise of salvation to all peoples through faith (Galatians 3:17). The law of Moses was a temporary "pedagogue" or supervisor (3:24-25), "added because of transgressions" (3:19), "introduced 430 years later" than the covenant with Abraham (v. 17), "until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come" (v. 19). It was "put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (v. 24).

Paul did not, as the detractors accused him and his followers, turn freedom from the law into liberty to sin. He taught that that Christians "live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature" (Galatians 5:15), and that "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires" (5:24).

With these problems and Paul's clear teaching in mind, let us return to the incident at Antioch that Luke records as the catalyst to what has become known as the Council of Jerusalem or the Jerusalem Conference.

Men from Judea, perhaps the same ones who had dogged the Galatian members and thrown them into confusion (Galatians 1:7, 5:10), had come to Antioch (Acts 15:1-2, 24). Their teaching was the same as that which we have just examined in Galatians, that "unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Because of these Judaistic teachings, these teachers are often called "Judaizers." In Acts 15:5, they are identified as "the party of the Pharisees," that we have seen to be an influential part of the church in Jerusalem.

As we read in Acts 15:2, their teachings brought them into "sharp dispute and debate" with Paul, along with Barnabas. We have seen from Galatians how dangerous and heretical Paul knew these teachings were. The Greek terms for "dispute" and "debate" indicate a situation of discord, and conflict caused by strife and disunity.40 Bruce translates verse 2, "Division resulted, and Paul and Barnabas held considerable debate with them."41

Instead of allowing continued confusion and destructive disputings, as the Galatians did (Galatians 1:7; 3:1; 5:10, 15, 26), the seasoned and mature church at Antioch dealt proactively with the matter. No doubt their experienced leadership, and their role as the home and support base for the gentile mission made them very much aware of the potential effects of these teachings. The book of Galatians makes this clear. Trouble was already being caused (Acts 15:24). They had seen, as we examined earlier, the strains and differences between themselves and Jerusalem caused primarily by the different views of their component members, predominantly Hebraic Jews in Jerusalem, and Hellenistic Jews in Antioch.

Their choosing of Paul and Barnabas as their representative to go to Jerusalem makes it clear what the views of the members of Antioch were.42

With the growth of the church now being predominantly among the Gentiles, and that expansion being promulgated by Antioch, with seemingly less and less growth taking place in Judea, perhaps some in the churches in Judea were jealous. It is clear that some of the conservative members from Judea were concerned over the increasing role of Antioch and the Gentiles in the life and theology of the Church.43 The Antiochenes were no doubt concerned about interference and disruption to their evangelism of the Gentiles by teachings such as these. It would have been devastating for the future work of the gospel to insist that all Gentiles be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses. It would have been devastating to all those Gentiles who had already become christians, to be told that they now had to be circumcised and keep the law to be fully acceptable to the church.44

It would appear that the Hebraic christians in Jerusalem, and the Hellenistic and Gentile christians of Antioch, including Paul, Barnabas and the other leaders, had different views of soteriology and ecclesiology (the theology of salvation and of the theology of the church) and the role of the law of Moses. In Acts, Luke seeks to make clear the Holy Spirit's leading in these matters that were vital for the future teaching and growth of the church beyond Judea.45 Marshall writes:

Acts reflects the tremendous tensions which existed in the early church over the basis of the Gentile mission. ...within a few years the church found itself preaching the gospel to Samaritans, uncircumcised God-fearers and finally to pagan Gentiles. This progression is seen by Luke as divinely willed and prophesied; it was a turn of events that came about apart from any conscious planning by the church. The church had to come to terms with this fact.

The essence of the problem was whether the rise of the church had produced a new society that was different from Judaism. Since the first Christians were Jews, it was natural for them to live as Jews - to circumcise their children and to live according to the law of Moses. ... The same way of life could be expected of Jewish proselytes who were converted to Christianity.46

The entry of Gentiles into the church disturbed the Hebraic Jews view of the nature of the church.47 Was the church a continuation, albeit at a higher level, of Israel? Was it the people of God, a body of believing Israelites, to which believing Gentiles could be joined? Or, on the other hand, was the church a new entity, a new Israel, made up of Jews and Gentiles, but separated more and more from Judaism? 48 In concurrence with Marshall, it would seem clear that Luke is inspired to show that the church indeed had Jewish origins "and its roots in Old Testament prophecy, but... that it is a people of God, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, in which Jews may find the fulfilment of Judaism and Gentiles are not required to become Jews."49

The natural question then becomes, how does a body that is composed of a mix of Jews and Gentiles function in every day life. Do the Jews keep or give up their observance of the law of Moses? After all, there seemed to be little to suggest that the law, "which represented the will of God for his covenant people, had been repealed".50 Do the Gentiles need to be circumcised to become christians as they had to to become converted to Judaism? Was the Old Covenant the standard of ethics and life for both groups, for the Jews only, or for neither?

Included in this dilemma were two more questions:

First, could Jewish Christians have fellowship with Gentiles without becoming 'unclean' through contact with people who did not observe the law of Moses? Secondly, could Gentiles come into a true relationship with God and his people merely by accepting Jesus as the Messiah? Were they not required to accept the Jewish law, including circumcision?51

As we have seen, the Holy Spirit had been leading the church to understand the answers to these questions. But a group of Jews from Judea, probably from Jerusalem (Acts 15:24), were not only resisting those answers, but trying to impose their view that Gentiles must become Jews, or at least be circumcised and behave in a manner which would make them "clean" in accordance with the law of Moses.

This was not only a matter of being included in the people of God, as many modern scholars claim,52 53 but a matter of salvation, of justification by works. This is established in Galatians, as we have seen, and Acts 15:1, "unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

If the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15 is that visit which Paul refers to in Galatians 2:2,54 one of the reasons Paul went to have the dispute settled was, "for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain". It was not that Paul felt he was wrong in his teachings that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised nor keep the law of Moses to be saved, or to be legitimate members of the people of God. His concern was that all his work would be "in vain" if the church in Jerusalem did not agree, and if it insisted on teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law. In that case, he even more than those in Antioch, knew that there would be destructive division in the church,55 as was looming in Galatia (Galatians 5:15).

With these urgent concerns in mind, Paul and Barnabas were sent by the church at Antioch to Jerusalem "to see the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15:2). They went, as Galatians makes clear, not to discover the truth on the matter from those in Jerusalem, but to endeavour to have the truth Paul already knew, agreed to in order to stop the destructiveness of the continued false teachings coming from Jerusalem and Judea into the Gentile churches (Galatians 2:2-7).56

The Conference

On their way to, and on arrival at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas and their companions reported on the success of the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15:3-4). The members in Phoenicia and Samaria were made "very glad" by the reports. We read (v. 4) that they were "welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders" in Jerusalem. As Arrington observes, "such a warm welcome would not have been possible if the church had sympathised with the Judaizers".57 58

It would seem that as "they reported everything God had done through them" (Acts 15:4), which would have included making clear "that the great success of their preaching mission was attested by both miracles and the conversion of large numbers of Gentiles,"59 they were interrupted by the party of the Pharisees. They were perhaps emotionally unable to restrain their interjection due to their alarm at what they no doubt perceived as outright liberalism and antinomianism being perpetrated outside of Judea by Paul and his colleagues. They stood up in the gathering and insisted, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (v. 5).

Rather than engaging in a debate, the apostles and elders met to consider the question raised by the Pharisee group, and the same issue that the delegation had come from Antioch about. Apparently the whole church was present once again (vv. 12, 22)60 61, although the deliberations and decision making appear to have been made by the leaders (vv. 6-21). Although the meeting was primarily a council meeting of the church in Jerusalem,62 Paul and Barnabas and probably the other representatives from Antioch were also present (v. 13).

The apostles and elders were no doubt concerned about both issues we have previously examined; 1. The conditions of Gentile membership of the church and 2. And fellowship between Jewish and Gentile christians, particularly in relation to the Jewish concerns about Gentiles being uncircumcised, and unclean because of their disregard of the law of Moses.63 64

After a long time of discussion of these vital issues, Peter stood up and spoke (Acts 15:7). Apparently "speech and counter speech alternated in the assembly."65 The western text adds "in the Spirit" after, "he stood up." If this text is correct it would mean that God led Peter to speak what he did.66 Whether the reading is correct or not, Peter spoke truthfully of the commonly known history of how God had actively and deliberately led him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles so that they might hear "and believe". In clear reference to the Cornelius event, he continued, "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9).

As Arrington says, "The hearts of Cornelius and his friends had been purified from heathen defilement, not, however, by circumcision and obedience to the law. God himself was responsible; he granted the inward purity by their act of faith and he also baptized them in the Holy Spirit."67

Peter was making the same point he had made in Acts 11, and very much the same points that Paul stood for and taught so clearly in Galatians. Salvation and inclusion in the church, the New Covenant people of God, was totally through faith alone. God was no longer making a difference between Jew and Gentile. Both were purified, made clean in his sight, and acceptable the same way, through faith. It was also clearly implied, if not stated (this is probably just a summary that Luke is giving us, so it may have actually been stated), that these Gentiles were accepted by God without being circumcised. Their receiving of the Holy Spirit showed plainly God's decision on the matter - it showed he had accepted them.68 Insisting on any other conditions for salvation and membership of the church would be going against God's will.69 R. H. Stein further comments:

The fact that the Spirit came upon the believing Gentiles reveals to the church that God has accepted them. Since the Spirit is the seal and first fruits of divine salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30), the church can only conclude that those who have received the Spirit have been accepted by God into the eschatological community as they are, apart from circumcision.70

Peter then became blunt in his rejection and condemnation of the views of the party of the Pharisees, and those other Jews who had been insisting on circumcision and law keeping.

Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11).

Peter calls the imposition of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses "a yoke". It was said that the act of Gentile proselytes converting to Judaism and undertaking to keep the law of Moses, was to "take up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven."71 He claimed it was a yoke that even they as Jews were unable to bear (v. 10). He then went on to reiterate that salvation for both Jew and Gentile is through the grace of Jesus (v. 11).

Marshall sums up much of Peter's argument by saying:

what mattered in God's sight was the cleansing of the heart, and that outward legal observances, such as circumcision were a matter of indifference. Moreover, to seek to impose the law on the Gentiles was to test God, in the sense of questioning his judgment...72

In effect he was answering the two questions underlying the debate, showing that God had already declared that; 1. the condition of Gentile membership of the church was faith alone, 2. And that having been made truly pure and "clean" by faith, there should be no distinction or separation between Jews and Gentiles who share a common faith in Jesus Christ.

Peter's words left the assembled group in silence, (v. 12). The western text includes the "when the elders had consented to the words spoken by Peter." If this is correct, then Peter's words settled the matter in the minds of the elders. If not, (this text is not generally accepted) it would still seem that his argument met no retort, and left the assembly absorbed in what he had said, most likely accepting it and perhaps contemplating the implications of his words for the future of the church.

Peter may have had his time of equivocation at the time Paul rebuked him for withdrawing from table fellowship with the Gentiles in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14), but there is no doubt here of his position. He was not about to be intimidated by the conservative element of the church again, even at the cost of persecution from the surrounding Jewish community. God's will was clear and it needed to be understood and upheld without fear or favour.

After Peter's statement and witness to God's direction on the matter at hand, it was appropriate that Barnabas and Paul should then tell the gathering of "the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them" (v. 12), thus further attesting to God's support of the approach that they had been taking towards the Gentiles, which further reinforced what Peter had espoused.

The third and conclusive speech (Acts 15:13-21), was by James, who was according to many commentators, the brother of Jesus.73 74 75 He had become recognised perhaps as the "foremost leader" of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; Galatians 1:19).76

James was reputed to be a law keeping Jewish Christian, and was perhaps the one called "James the Just", "because of his piety, he was ascetic and scrupulous in keeping the law."77 If this was true, then his reputation and standing amongst the conservative Hebraic Jewish Christians of Jerusalem would have greatly help persuade that group make the difficult step of accepting what was being said.78 Even his reference to Peter, calling him "Simeon" the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek name Peter, says something of his intrinsic Hebraic nature.

James was probably playing the role of moderator or meeting chairman.79 If the church council was patterned on the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, he would have been serving as the president.80

James sums up the overall consensus of the meeting, focusing first on Peter's description of "how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself" (Acts 15:14), and then going to the Scriptures to show that this had always been God's plan.

His statement about God "taking from the Gentiles a people for himself" immediately reveals James's beliefs on the matter under debate as being in concert with Peter's. In this statement, he was taking the term, "people" (laos), that had previously been used only of Israel, in contrast to the Gentiles, and actually applying it to Gentiles.81 82 He was saying that God, through the calling of Cornelius and his household, was taking a direct hand in events, and fulfilling prophecy (Acts 15:15). God's people now includes Gentiles, whereas under the Old Covenant, Israel was his people to the exclusion of Gentiles.83

James's quote from the prophets comes largely from Amos 9:11-12:

'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18 that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18).

The passage discusses how God would at a later time rebuild and restore the fallen and ruined tabernacle of David. It would be a sovereign action of God, and the whole purpose would be so that "the remnant of men" and "all the Gentiles who bear my name" might seek God.

The version of the text from Amos quoted by James does not agree with later versions of the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. It reads in part, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name."84 James is quoting a text similar to the Septuagint (the then current Greek translation of the Old Testament),85 which reads, "that the remainder of humanity may seek", the unmentioned, but implied, object of their seeking being God.86 Longenecker refers to the studies of de Waard, in offering a further alternative, saying that James's text has been shown to be "exactly identical with that of 4Qflor," a variant Hebrew text extant at that time.87

Walvoord and Zuck note some of the differences between James's text and the Masoretic text, saying:

According to Bruce, the main sense of this reading was in line "with Israel's mission to bring the knowledge of the true God to the Gentiles. It thus paved the way for James's application of the prophecy to the church's Gentile mission."89

Marshall gives an overall summary of James's text:

This prophecy speaks of the way in which God will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, so that other men (sc. than the Jews) may seek the Lord, namely the Gentiles over whom God's name has been named. Probably the rebuilding of the tabernacle is to be understood as a reference to the raising up of the church as the new place of divine worship which replaced the temple. The church is then the means by which the Gentiles may come to know the Lord.90

From this reference to prophecy, James draws his conclusion, "that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." In other words, he agrees with Peter that the church should not burden the Gentiles by insisting they take on the yoke of circumcision and law keeping as conditions of salvation and fellowship. Marshall believes the point James is drawing from his text that leads to this conclusion is that:

God is doing something new in raising up the church; it is an event of the last days, and therefore the old rules of the Jewish religion no longer apply: God is making a people out of the nations and nothing in the text suggest that they are to become Jews in order to become God's people. So there are no entrance 'conditions' to be imposed upon them.91

However, in answer to the problems being experienced in fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church, James suggests the Gentiles by asked to follow four guidelines, 1. To abstain from food polluted by idols, 2. from sexual immorality, 3. from the meat of strangled animals and 4. from blood (Acts 15:20). This was his "judgement" (v. 19), not on the same level as what God had boldly confirmed as his will regarding acceptance and admission of Gentiles by faith alone. This additional instruction was a leadership decision, not doctrine like the first part.

All put together, the conclusion of James, that was subsequently accepted by the council (Acts 15:28-29), was that the Jews are to accept the Gentiles into fellowship, as full members of the church, accepted by God based on faith alone. The Gentiles, not as a basis for fellowship, but in the interests of fellowship, out of love and concern for the religious scruples and concerns of the Hebraic Jews in particular, are being asked to refrain from these four issues that were repulsive to the Jews.92 As Bruce comments, these terms "were probably similar to the terms on which Jews of the dispersion found it possible to have a measure of fellowship with God-fearing Gentiles.

The request that they "abstain ...from sexual immorality" most likely means, to follow the Old Covenant law forbidding marriage between family members (Leviticus 18:6-18).93 The same meaning is found in I Corinthians 5:1, and perhaps as well in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.94 Bruce adds, "Ordinary fornication...was ruled out by the most elementary principles of Christian instruction.95

Regarding the impact of these four stipulations on the Gentiles, Arrington comments:

God had accepted both Jews and Gentiles. Recognizing that, James recommended that each should make concessions to accept the other. ...The restrictions would not have been seen by the Gentile believers as arbitrary and burdensome. From the beginning of the dispersion of the Jews ('from the earliest of times') the practice was to preach the law in the synagogues every sabbath (v. 21). Therefore the Gentile Christians ought to have know the law as a standard of conduct and the requirements demanded of them. The attempt was not to revive the ritual and ceremonial law, but the immediate concern was the relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the church.96

The comment in verse 21, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath," probably refers to the fact that because law keeping Jews (including christian ones) are to be found in every Gentile city, "their scruples are to be respected by Gentile believers."97

To communicate the council's conclusion, the group, including, apostles, elders, and the whole church (Acts 15:22), chose suitable representatives to take a letter to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. According to Bruce, though not mentioned, the letter may have also gone to Galatian churches located in south Galatia.98

They sent Judas (Barsabbas), who we don't have any information about, and Silas, otherwise known as Silvanus, who later a companion of Paul and Peter (I Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:19; I Peter 5:12). No doubt these men, who were probably elders in the Jerusalem church,99 would help communicate this information that was so vital for the future unity of the church (Acts 15:27), and help build better bonds between Jerusalem and these Gentile churches.

Acts 15:23-29, outlines the contents of the letter. It is made clear that those who had been troubling them by insisting on circumcision did not have the backing of the church in Jerusalem. The official representatives now accompanying the letter would now remedy that misrepresentation and the subsequent contention.100 Warm comments are made about their relationship with Barnabas and Paul. The stipulations agreed to at the council meeting were included.

It would appear Jerusalem felt they had authority to make such a ruling for the church beyond Judea, undoubtedly because of the number of original apostles who were still there.101 They encourage the acceptance of their ruling, saying that "you will do well" to avoid these four designated areas. In other words, things will go well for you and the church, there will be harmony and peace which will lead to growth and prosperity.102

The letter, the decision and the delegates were warmly and joyfully received by the Gentiles (Acts 15:31-34). Judas and Silas were able to spend time with, and "encourage and strengthen" the members (v. 32), after which they returned to Jerusalem, no doubt being able to encourage the Jerusalem church with the positive results their trip, and the conclusions of the council, had had among the Gentiles.

The Decision

In actual fact, the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem was not a decision. The church recognised God's the decision that God had already made, that circumcision was not required for salvation or membership of the people of God.103 The letter sent to the Gentiles makes the comment, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements" (Acts 15:28).

Bruce refers to the above verse and writes that they stress:

...the church's role as the vehicle of the Spirit. 'There is no parallel,' says Wilfred Knox, 'for such a phrase to pronounce a corporate decision by a deliberative body.' So conscious were the church leaders of being possessed and controlled by the Spirit that he was given prior mention as chief author of their decision.104

As Stein adds:

God had revealed that he had accepted the Gentiles apart from circumcision on the basis of faith alone. There was thus nothing to vote on or decide. They could only recognize what God had done and was doing. In the new covenant God accepts all who repent and believe in Jesus, whether Jew of Greek (Acts 15:14-21). Thus Paul's message was vindicated, and the circumcision party was refuted. The church had one gospel (cf. I Cor 15:11). Both Jew and Greek are justified by faith alone (Acts 15:11).105

Marshall sums up the council's conclusion:

In principle the need for Gentile Christians to accept the Jewish law was firmly rejected, and it was recognised that faith in Jesus was the sole condition for the reception of salvation and entry into the people of God. Luke says this as clearly as Paul.106

There is remarkable agreement between the view of the church presented by Luke in Acts, and that presented by Paul in his writings, particularly in Galatians and Romans.

Conclusion

In the century or so leading up to the formation of the church, the scattering of so many Jews through so many nations had quite some impact in their attack on polytheism and idolatry amongst the Gentiles. However, their insistence on circumcision and the observance of the ritual laws of Moses restricted their success. They gained only small numbers of proselytes, but a fair number of God fearers in cities and towns throughout the Roman Empire.107

These efforts of Judaism served instrumentally to substantially prepare the ground in these areas for the church for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.108

With Paul's preaching of salvation for all men, through baptism and faith, without the need for circumcision and works of the law, and the confirmation of this by the Jerusalem council, the church's preaching was on much more fertile and less rocky ground, and bore much greater fruit than Judaism did amongst the Gentiles. According to W. H. Pope, and in fitting harmony with James's quotation from Amos (Acts 15:16-18):

the God-seekers and God-fearers welcomed the new faith. Christianity, in proclaiming a universal faith not restricted to any people or nation or set of rules, fulfilled the purpose for which God had scattered Israel among the nations.109

The Council of Jerusalem fits into the centre of the book of Acts, and was a vital event in unifying the church in Jerusalem with the fast growing Gentile church in Antioch and beyond. As we have seen, in writing the book of Acts, Luke made a concerted effort to illustrate the growth of the church, from a Jewish group that almost seemed to be a sect of Judaism, to a new and distinctive entity. He shows the tensions and challenges that were part of that growth process.

He shows how the Council of Jerusalem was the event that calmed a rising and potentially destructive storm over the Gentiles' part in the church. It served as a dampener upon further debate and uncertainty about whether Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, and laid a foundation for positive fellowship between Jewish and Gentile church members, as well as avoiding a separation between the Jewish churches of Judea and the Gentile churches of Asia Minor and beyond.

It was significant that James's judgment appears to have received the support of the whole council (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).110 This would imply that even those who had caused the debate in the firstplace had been persuaded to "follow a more liberal policy. They apparently accepted their defeat without bitterness of recrimination."111

James, it appears, paid for his "liberal" decision with his life, being murdered at the by hostile Jews around AD 62.112 113 His, and the church's teachings and practice regarding fellowship with Gentiles were undoubtedly more than the Jews could stand. But what he died for, brought life to the church. (This bears some thought, with the knowledge that he was the brother of our Saviour).

With the insurrection and war against the Romans in AD 66, the Jerusalem church apparently fled to Pella in Transjordan. They subsequently divided into two groups, "the Nazarenes, who keeping the law themselves, had a tolerant attitude towards the Gentile fellow-believers, and the Ebionites."114 The latter were Judaizers, believing the law of Moses was binding. They became viewed by the church as heretics.115 They viewed Paul as a "destroyer of the law of Moses."116

Paul in fact was the central figure not only in the evangelisation of the Gentiles and the spread of the church further and further afield, he was, and remains the central proponent of the theology that the Spirit led the church to understand and live by regarding the nature of the church itself. Ephesians 2:11-20 is a clear summation of this teaching that we have seen develop in the church historically in Acts, and which was, and remains today, the theological underpinning for the growth of the church beyond Israel, into all nations:

11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)- 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Howard Marshall comments serve as a suitable conclusion reflecting the importance of the principles confirmed by James and the Jerusalem council, for the church, then and now:

The principle was of basic significance for the future of the early church, and it remains basic for all time; no national, racial or social requirements can ever be made conditions for salvation and membership of the church alongside the single and sole requirement of faith in Jesus Christ, through whom the grace of God is brought to sinners (15:11).117