Wednesday: The Jerusalem Council
Read Acts 15:1-2 and Galatians 2:11-14. What are the two issues that caused serious conflict in the early church?
The threat to church unity faced by early Christians was real and difficult. Some Jewish Christians thought that salvation was possible only for those who belonged to the covenant people of God, and this implied that circumcision was a requirement. And as part of a faithful lifestyle, these Jewish believers also believed that they were to avoid any contacts with Gentiles that could possibly thwart their own salvation.
Image © Classic Bible Art Goodsalt.com
The Jews had very strict traditions in regard to their association with Gentiles. These traditions quickly became a stumbling block for the new Christian community when the apostles began to reach out to Gentiles who wished to become followers of Jesus. Because the Messiah is the Savior of God’s covenant people, as predicted in the Old Testament, weren’t Gentiles supposed to become Jews first and then follow the same covenant rules if they wanted to be saved?
Read Acts 15:3-22. What were some issues presented during the Jerusalem Council?
The issue here was rooted in conflicts over deeply held interpretations of the Old Testament stories regarding circumcision and relationship with Gentiles. As apostles, elders, and delegates from Antioch sat together, it seems the discussion went on for a long time without any resolution.
But then Peter, Barnabas, and Paul made speeches. Peter’s speech alluded to the visionary revelation that God gave him and to the gift of the Holy Spirit, which opened the way for the mission to the Gentiles. Then Paul and Barnabas shared their stories of what God had done through them for the Gentiles. As a result, many eyes were opened to new truth. Said Peter: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they”, meaning the Gentiles (Acts 15:11, NKJV). Centuries of long-held tradition were unraveling in light of the Gospel.
| Was there ever a time you changed your mind about how you understood a deeply held belief? What did you learn from the experience that could perhaps help you when you might again have to question your understanding of a belief? |
(29)
It is sometimes hard to belief that some "people" would warrant salvation, because we already have condemned them. This may be because of past character issues or a misunderstanding from ourselves of their beliefs or maybe really their earlier beliefs were to us contentious.
The Jewish Christians had for a long time viewed Gentiles as an abomination, and found it hard to belief. Peter's moment with Cornelius had just recently coursed a stir amongst the followers, and Peter had to explain himself, and the "circumcision party" would reluctantly (maybe) concede to Peter's explanation story (probably because of six other witnesses who had accompanied Peter). Acts 10:18 "When they heard these things they fell silent and glorified God saying, "then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life". This problem would through other factions resurface in Antioch and was the "thorn in the flesh" for Paul's mission, even the Jerusalem Conference couldn't resolve this fully. But their is something to learn from this though:-
1) God had expressly given Paul and Barnabas the role of mission to the Gentile world; it would seem then that Paul required no further permission from anyone to conduct his business, but Paul in his humility believed in the unity of "the way"; despite, he and his friends made an effort to seek audience with the main church hq in Jerusalem, to clarify issues and ensure that they were in one page. Shouldn't we take a cue from this today, as we try to address aspects of differences in opinion and interpretation of scripture/mission?
2) Peter's testimony; Paul and Barnabas experience; and witnessing softened the hearts of the "circumcision party". Maybe we need to share our experiences with God and mission to make people see God's work to allow them to make a change of opinion in moments of conflict, or disagreement.
3) At the very end, the council accepted Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but their were conditions to be met by the Gentile world too. These conditions were to serve a double function; to the Gentiles that they may adjust part of their cultures that are totally not acceptable to Jewish customs (and God as well); to the Jews, to make the Gentile introduction easier for them to accept, some basic laws (the 10 Commandments, I guess) were not to be compromised. We can pick a leaf here then, that accepting people or mingling with others, must not require us to compromise our key fundamentals or beliefs especially those that would offend God; though we are saved through Faith and Grace; we cannot shun the purpose of the Law.
Amen.In view of the Jerusalem Counciland looking at Adventist administrative church structure ,I felt that as Adventists we need to change our perception about belivers of other denominations lest we be ritualistic and miss the ultimate requirements of receiving the crown when our Lord comes.
The two issues that cause serious conflict to the church today.
1. Should we eat meat?
2. Should women be ordained as pastors?
The question, Cyrus, is this: Are either of the issues you mention salvation issues?
I'm on a plant-based diet myself because I believe it is the best plan for my body temple, but that doesn't mean that I should force my conviction on anyone else. I share the reasons I believe a plant-based diet is best, because I care for people and want them to be healthy and happy. But it would be wrong for me to judge people as being greater sinners than I because they are eating meat, and I have no business telling anyone that eating meat is a sin.
On the other issue, we need to ask the question of whether there is anything in the Bible that tells us that the body of Christ should have a two-tiered ministry. Some clearly think so, others don't. Our theologians are not in complete agreement, but the great majority of our theologians see nothing in the Bible that is against female pastors being treated the same as male pastors.
I see that the Jerusalem Council set an important precedent: By allowing diversity in the practice of circumcision, the leaders maintained the unity of the church. We know from Paul's writings that circumcision had no more meaning after the cross. But the practice was so ingrained in the Jewish Christians that it would feel simply "wrong" not to circumcise their boy babies. The power of culture is that those things opposed to our ingrained culture just naturally feel wrong. It feels like our conscience is telling us it's just "wrong." Thus, if the leaders in Jerusalem had come right out to say that all Christians should refrain from circumcision, it would have divided the church. By accommodating the cultural prejudices of the Jewish believers, unity was preserved while diversity of practice continued.
I think that if we followed the example of the Jerusalem Council in allowing for diversity of practice, it would bring more unity to our church. After all, those things written in the Bible are for our guidance.
What do you think?
Hi Cyrus. I agree that those are two conflicts facing the church today however, my understanding and belief are these:
1. Meat: The Bible is clear that there is absolutely no problem eating clean meats, however, our health message dictates that a plant-based diet is the healthiest diet for us.
2. Women Pastors: The examples in the Bible are that Christ is the head of the church, husbands are the heads of their households/families, and Adam was created first with Eve being created from his rib as a "help meet". Additionally, when Jesus appointed the 12 apostles, they were all men. So, I follow the example of male leadership in the church. By no means am I saying that we (women) cannot contribute within the church, I just believe that God calls us to be the [equally strong and important] supportive element of His church 🙂
When Jesus appointed the 12 Apostles, they were all circumcised.
When Jesus appointed the 12 Apostles, they were also all Jews.
When Jesus appointed the 12 Apostles, none of them were of Asian and African heritage.
Does that mean that pastors today should be all circumcised Jews, not of Asian or African heritage?
Have you considered what the word "ezer" (translated help meet" in the KJV) actually means? From my study, I have learned that it means someone suitable or complementary. In this case, Eve was created as someone suitable to him, to complete him. She would indeed "help" him. The word "ezer" is most often used of God Himself. You can check it out in the Blueletter Bible,
In the biblical sense of the word, it has no connotation of "lesser" or being "under" anyone. So where did we get that idea, if not from the Bible?
The seven deacons were not Jews, were not circumcised, but were all men (Acts 6:2-6 KJV). As a man, I have never had the desire to carry and deliver a baby (ouch!). That is a role God assigned to women and I don't consider myself cheated in any way because God did not allow me that opportunity.
I'm completely fine with the roles and opportunities God gave me. To covet more than God gave me would only lead to ruin and unhappiness.
Ing,
Where does it say that the 12 Apostles were circumcised? Enlighten me.
They were all Jewish men. it goes without saying that they were circumcised.
The real issue that threatened the early church was based on theology v.s tradition. What are some of the issues affecting the modern church along the lines of theology and traditions?
What an interesting and valuable question!
Traditions are not always bad. They can be very helpful, neutral, or they can get in the way of true worship.
I remember Sabbath-keeping traditions in North America that were downright ridiculous, but I won't go into them.
But it seems to me that another tradition has been so embedded in our church culture that it has created a lot of division.
When our pioneers considered church organization, they were afraid of it. They didn't want to become like the other churches of "Babylon."
But then, some people traveled around preaching in the name of "Seventh-day Adventists," when they were not representative of the group of believers. So the core group figured out a way to deal with the situation. They began with following the practice of the churches from which they came by "ordaining" pastors by the laying on of hands. They did not invest the "ordination" with the same significance as the Catholic Church which got the practice from the Roman practice of "ordaining" commoners into a higher class of citizens.
For the early Adventist Church, ordination was simply a way of verifying that the persons "ordained" were official representatives of the church - much like our "commissioning" service now.
However, as time went on, Seventh-day Adventists started viewing "ordination" more in the tradition of Roman Catholicism and some other Protestant churches, investing it with something like sacramental value, giving the recipient authority over the rest of the church body. And it seems to me that that is what is causing the current conflict over ordaining women to the gospel ministry, resulting in a two-tiered ministry with no biblical precedent.
To me, this is especially ironic since a rather significant founder of our church was a woman who carried the credentials of an ordained minister of the gospel. She used these credentials without having men's hands laid on her because she was ordained by God, not men.
This general conference's discussion of whether the Gentile convert must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved is interesting.
Why was the discussion only about the Gentile converts it should also have been about the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah not having to "keep the law of Moses"
Jesus had told the parable of the vineyard and he ended it saying to the Jews "Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation (Gentiles) bringing out its fruits"
This meant the Jews, as a group, were no longer God's chosen people, this should have been the answer to the question - "Should the Gentiles become Jews first before they can become Christian".
It's palpably and demonstrably clear that there was doctrinal confusion among converted Jews in the early church. Some believers had clearly not understood the mission of Jesus Christ and failed to appreciate fundamental issues of biblical truth. First, the law of Moses was never intended to remain in place forever. It was therefore an error that was both an egregious and contradictory belief that circumcision was ever envisioned to be a requirement for salvation. Second, given that circumcision only applied to men, the irresistible conclusion was that Jewish women were already condemned to death and destruction for they could not fulfil the circumcision requirement neither were they expected to. Clearly this was and remains utterly without biblical foundation.
The sinless Christ went to Calvary, suffered, shed His precious blood and died. In this way the Lord fulfilled the purpose and demands of the law. If this fact is not true, then we must say that Jesus failed to fulfill the law, failed to do what He came to do and by definition failed in His mission. Of course such a view is spectacularly untrue. The converted Jews in the early church did not fully understand the gospel.They had to be taught patiently something similar in some way to Christian converts today.
Was there ever a time you changed your mind about how you understood a belief?...yes. in africa (kenya) Adventists strongly believe a woman should never put on a long pant.reason the bible forbids such. I happened to travel for job to arab world and found that its a must for a woman to put on a long pant to completely cover her body. Infact i feel more warm and comfortable on this one. I no longer hold that belief anymore. After all some ladies put on very tight dresses exposing more than even long pants. Am yet to understand more about this. Any advice will be highly appreciated.
The Jerusalem Council allowed the HolySpirit to guide them. Thus it behooves us to do the same. Until we allow the HolySpirit to take over; we'll still be like the others who weren't happy with the J Council's decision. May God help me/us that we don't be an hindrance to anyone's salvation in this modern age.
The Bible says s woman shouldn't put on a man's wear,,,And so according to Kenya's culture a long pant is a man's wear, Unlike in Arab countries where a long pant is a woman's wear,there nobody will question you,,If it is everybody should put on what makes them comfirtable like you have said, a long pant makes you comfirtable, then even those who put on tight and mini dresses will claim to be comfirtable in them,But that isn't the case .We follow the word of God not what people are doing unless it's matching with God's word,,GOD BLESS YOU