Bible Question #30 - Council of Jerusalem

Greetings, brethren. Welcome to another Wednesday night Bible study. So, we are going to continue with our Bible literacy quiz. We are now on question number 30. And if you have the quiz, if you're not if you're not if you don't have the quiz, you can just go to the if you're you're on the YouTube page, you'll want to go over there to the section that lets you um look at posts and under there, you'll see a post that has the Bible literacy test.

You can download that link and you'll have a copy of the Bible literacy test and you can follow along uh with this series. So, we're on question number 30. And the answer is council at Jerusalem. So, what in your mind, if you're familiar with uh that that phrase, it might evoke uh it might evoke in your mind Acts chapter 15, and that would be correct because that is what we call the council at Jerusalem.

Normally, I would go right there at the beginning of a Bible study like this, and we would uh you know, we would look at whatever the scripture is that answers the question. But if you'll recall, the purpose uh behind each of these studies for me at least my intent is to try to explain why uh why this particular question is important for us to know.

And I want to try to do that again uh this evening with this Bible study here about the council at Jerusalem. you know, the early church, we see that early church formed here in Acts chapter 2. Uh, at the conclusion of Peter's very first sermon, uh, we we see the a a collective 3,000 people are baptized and become part of the church and the church just explodes over the next weeks and months.

But it was but it was a church that uh it it while those first weeks and months look pretty good uh by the time we get to Stephen uh we see that uh they're up against it. And uh uh and what happened to Steven was a was a was a warning for the church. It really woke everyone up and there was a great scattering after Peter's uh martyr after he was killed.

And of course in the wake of all of that, you know, God explodes not only the the church there locally, but then the church begins to grow. And uh and so the questions are going to come up that that will test the understanding of the of the apostles who uh received their commission uh from Jesus Christ as the leaders of the church.

And so they would have to have to wrestle with various different questions and and try to come up with decisions that would resolve those questions. And so one of the big questions would involve these Gentiles that uh had been started to be called by God into the church. And and with those Gentiles, issues, questions uh needed to be addressed.

And so this is why there there is this section in Acts chapter 15 that is I will I will tell you in my opinion it's one of the most consequential readings of our of our Bible in the modern era of the church. This is a very critical uh uh situation that we need to know. We need to understand what happened there and then you'll see how it's important for us today.

Okay. Okay. So, for centuries, there had been a clear answer to who belonged to God. Circumcision, let's give a little bit of a backstory just to make sure we're on the same page here. Circumcision was not a minor ritual under the old covenant. It was an absolute requirement to be a part of that covenant. It was a physical sign that you were in covenant with God.

And so, that mark was passed down from Abraham himself. As you recall, that was the very first thing God asked him to do when he entered into what we call the Abramic covenant. He had Abraham circumcise himself and of course his whole household. And that became the identifying mark of of Israel under the new under the old covenant uh beginning at Mount Si.

And so, of course, that that sign indicated that a person well it gave it gave them their identity. It indicated obedience and of course it also indicated separation from the world because no other peoples on the planet were circumcising their children. That was an Israelite tradition, an Israelite function.

So to many faithful Jews though, the idea that someone could belong to God without being circumcised, well that'd be unthinkable. That it wouldn't make any sense at all. Remember, the early church was Jew. And of course, the Jews at that time consisted more than just of the tribe of Judah. It also included the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. Paul was a Benjamite.

But as we begin to move forward in the wake of Steven's martyrdom, the church begins to advance. People scatter and they bring the truth with them to various places in what we would call modern day Turkey today. Uh but all of those regions of Southeast Asia or Southwest Asia, wherever that is, but places like Antioch and Galatia, reports were coming in that Gentiles were being baptized.

They were transforming their lives, being filled with God's Holy Spirit, but without becoming a Jew first. So some celebrated this as a miracle but others saw it as a dangerous departure from everything they had been taught. So naturally disagreements are going to come up about this. People are going to marshall up on different camps.

Some believe absolutely have to become circumcised. Others did not think that was a requirement. Why why should they have to become circumcised? And that would turn into disagreements within the church and division would naturally be the result of that. So what happens as we begin to get into the story of of our understanding is that some teachers from Jerusalem came into areas like Antioch and Galatia preaching as Jews would that no salvation could be possible without circumcision without in essence you becoming you

Gentiles becoming Jews. Now this obviously becomes a theological concern and what would be a concern turned into a crisis in the church. What does God actually require for salvation? And just as importantly, who has the authority to answer that question? Did did the answer to that question get resolved in Antioch? Did it get resolved in Galatia? The answer is no.

The controversies began there most certainly, but did not get resolved there. So the church is now at a crossroads. If the issue is handled poorly, it could fracture the church permanently, which would divide the church along ethnic lines. Almost surely the Jew would be separate than from the Gentile. Is that what God wanted? But if it's handled right, it would clarify the gospel.

It would preserve unity, and it would shape the future of God's church for generations. This is why this was such an important event in history. So, Acts chapter 15 captures that moment. It's not a footnote in church history. This is essential. This is a defining test of the church, that early church, one that would determine whether the church would remain anchored in God's truth or be torn apart by sincere but misguided conviction.

And the outcome of that moment still matters because the same questions echo today in God's church. Well, this doctrinal crisis that is addressed in Acts chapter 15 did not appear suddenly. Nor was it the result of careless teaching or even rebellion within the church. It's the natural process of God bringing Gentiles in who did not live the way the Jews did.

This this would naturally cause questions to come up. It would have to. But this problem obviously would have would have emerged gradually as God's work expanded geographically and culturally faster than long-held assumptions could actually adjust to. To understand why circumcision became such a defining issue, we have to trace the path that led the church to this moment.

The turning point begins with persecution. Following the death of Steven as I began with here, pressure against the church in Jerusalem intensified which forced many believers to flee that city. What followed was not it wasn't a planned missionary effort. It was people fleeing I mean rightly or wrongly to some degree out of fear of what would happen to them if they stayed.

uh because the Jews who were not being called and converted still had a system in place, still had a high priest, still had courts, still had judgment. And those judgments were coming down against these people of the way. These people who were u who were teaching this figure Jesus Christ that the Jews themselves, the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not accept as the Messiah.

So these believers carried the message of Christ with them wherever they went. But they also carried centuries of old covenant understanding that determine how they shared the truth. Acts 11, let's notice here, Acts 11 uh in verse 19. Acts 11:1 19 it says, "Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Steven traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.

" There wasn't a universal understanding within this very early church that the God was calling Gentiles. Here we are. Here we are not long after Peter gets done reporting what happened to him. In Acts chapter 10, his story, which we just covered in our previous Bible study, the blanket descending, all manner of unclean food, unclean animals, insects, whatever are on this.

And God tells him to rise, kill, and eat. And Peter says, "No, sir. I have never eaten anything unclean." And so God reveals to him, of course, that he was never talking about food. He was talking about people. And therefore, God showed him Cornelius and his household. And Peter, having seen and realized that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, had to accept that God was going to be calling Gentiles and they could no longer treat the Gentile population as an ethma.

They had to accept that God would be calling Gentiles. That was a big profound event. It's massive in the church. Earth shaking for the church to have to realize that. But here we are. Here we are in Acts chapter 11 after that. And what do we see? Well, these people who were scattered after the death of Stevens, they didn't get the uh they didn't get the memo apparently because they're preaching to the Jews.

That's who they think is being called. So, we're we're here now. I want you to notice the the wording that's used here because it's very precise by Luke and it's very deliberate. Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch were gentile dominated regions within the Roman world. Yet, the message was intentionally limited to Jewish audiences.

This reveals a very important distinction. The church had crossed geograph geographic borders but not theological ones because for generations circumcision had functioned as the visible sign of covenant relationship between a people and their god. So given originally to Abraham it marked participation in God's promises and it separated Israel from the nations.

No other nation was doing that. [sighs and gasps] In second temple Judaism, circumcision became even more central, particularly as Jews lived among Gentiles. Now, of course, the Gentiles mocked and and rejected this idea of circumcision. But Jewish identity, their obedience, and their covenant faithfulness were all bound tightly together.

The earliest believers understood Jesus as Israel's Messiah, the fulfillment of the promises made to the father. So when fleeing the persecution of that was happening in Jerusalem and that led to the martyr of Steven, they sought their own people wherever they went. It was just inconceivable for them to contemplate bringing the truth to the Gentiles.

But at the same time, God was preparing the church for that exact reality. Mentioned already that in in Acts chapter 10, Peter's experience, but let's notice let's notice his conclusion. Acts 10:es 34 and35. Acts 10:es 34 and35 where Peter says, "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, "In truth, I perceive that God shows no partiality.

But in every nation, whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him." That was a watershed moment, but it did not come easily. Peter himself hesitated and even after witnessing the Holy Spirit poured out on Gentiles, he was astonished. The real test came when he returned to Jerusalem. Notice here at the beginning of Acts 11 now verses 2 and three.

And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision, now that means the Jews converted of, yes, they were in the church, but Jews nonetheless, they contended with him, saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them." The objection was based on well, as you can imagine, centuries of covenant observance. Even up to that point, even though it was corrupted by the Pharisees, it was still their observance that you did not go in and eat with Gentiles.

Eating with uncircumcised Gentiles implied fellowship and acceptance. For Jewish believers, this raised unavoidable questions about holiness and obedience. Peter's response was to carefully recount what God had done. Notice verses 15-1 17. Verse 15 of chapter 11. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us at the beginning.

Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Verse 17. If therefore God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? Well, that's uh throwing the gauntlet down as the as they say.

While confronted with God's direct action, the Jerusalem leadership reached a sober conclusion. Verse 18, it says, "When they heard these things, they became silent." What are you going to say? And they glorified God saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." Okay, so we see then that they recognized that this is happening.

So how come it is we get to verse 19, which we already read and it said that they went to places as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. That's cultural. And uh you know in the corporate world we I became very familiar with this because I lived it. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

You you you may think well we'll just strategically we'll just we'll just eat it this we'll just write a quick note and everyone will just fall in line and I will say no they won't. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. But this statement is critical because it affirms verse 18 that they understood that Gentiles could receive repentance leading to life without circumcision.

But affirmation at the leadership level did not automatically change acceptance throughout the church for reasons I just said. But Luke, the author of Acts here, makes this clear by returning immediately after to the earlier pattern. Believers still preached only to Jews. The truth had been acknowledged.

Yes, by the leadership, but enforcing that understanding broadly throughout the church, that's going to take some time. That absolutely did take time. So, Antioch becomes the proving ground. Notice verses 20 and 21. We're still in chapter 11. It said, "But for some of them, excuse me, but some of them were men from Cyprus and Sirene, who when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists preaching the Lord Jesus.

and the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. This was new. Gentiles were being directly addressed, responding in faith and being accepted by God without first becoming a Jew. The situation demanded attention, that's for sure. So, we look here in verses 22 and 23. Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem.

And they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. And when he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. So Barnabas sees what any of us would see. You you go into a congregation you've never been to before.

You feel, you know, when you're in the presence of those who whom God has given his spirit to. Barnabas recognized God's spirit in these people right away. And he blessed them. So his role is very significant. He did not redefine the doctrine. He didn't stop everybody and say, "Hey, all you Gentiles, just one thing you got to get done here first.

Now that you've been called, you got to go get circumcised." He didn't say that. He confirmed that what was happening without forcing immediate resolution of all of its implications. He simply recognized God's calling these people. He has given them his spirit. So Antioch became a congregation where Jews and Gentiles learned together.

They worshiped together. They served together. But this raised questions that the church couldn't hide from anymore. By this point, the tension was unavoidable. If Gentiles were being fully accepted by God apart from the circumcision, then circumcision could not be a requirement for salvation. And if that were true, then the church would need to state it clearly, carefully, and authoritatively for the sake of truth and unity.

So, Acts 15, that's that's not about rebellion. That's literally about res resolving a problem, answering a question, a very important question about salvation. And that's because God is working in the church ahead of that. He was preparing the church all along. And now the church is being compelled to understand what God has already been doing.

So what had been developing quietly in Antioch didn't remain a local issue. Gentile congregations continued to multiply. The unresolved question of circumcision and covenant identity followed close behind that. Wherever Gentiles were being called, we're going to have this problem. We have Jews who believe you got to be circumcised.

And so, this is going to be a a problem in every congregation. So, the church isn't dealing them with an abstract situation in one small congregation. It's dealing with this across all of the congregations. The controversy reaches its breaking point when certain teachers began to frame circumcision not as a Jewish culture or old covenant observance but as requirements for eternal life.

Notice Acts 15. Now let's go to Acts 15 and verse one. Acts 15:1 says, "And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." That's salvation. They're being told you if you don't if you don't receive the circumcision, you literally will not be able to have eternal life.

So circumcision then is no longer being discussed as a sign of the covenant belonging, but it is now being discussed as a condition of salvation. The language Luke records is is not ambiguous at all. It says they cannot be saved. That's a declaration that faith in Christ alone was not enough. Now Luke does not specify every congregation these men visited.

He does not list their travel itinerary or identify all those influenced by their teaching. Yet the scope of the controversy becomes clear when we compare this claim with the crisis Paul addresses in his letter to the Galatians. Paul writes to congregations composed largely of gentile believers. We know that because he was called to that purpose.

men and women who had repented, been baptized, received the Holy Spirit, largely gentile in nature. Yet now they're being unsettled by outside teaching that called their standing before God into question because they had not been circumcised. Let's turn over to Galatians chapter 1. Galatians 1:es 6 and 7. Paul says here in verse 6, I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel which is not another.

But there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. Paul does not treat this just as a misunderstanding or a maybe a little bit of a minor doctrinal controversy. I mean this is a big deal. He describes it as a distortion of the gospel itself. The concern is that the basis of their calling is being altered.

Paul presses this issue further by reminding them how their relationship with God began. Let's turn over to Galatians 3 2 Galatians 3:2. Paul says, "This only I want to learn from you. Did you receive the spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Well, this question assumes a shared experience.

The Galatians had already received the spirit. God had already acted and given it to them. So to require circumcision afterward, that's not progress. That's going backwards. While scripture does not explicitly say that the same men mentioned in Acts 15 which we read in Acts 15:1 that they had traveled to Galatia but the parallels are difficult to ignore here.

In both accounts gentile believers are being told that something additional is required. In both circumcision is presented not as cultural identity but as necessity for salvation. And in both the result is confusion and division. The pressure created by this teaching did not affect gentile believers alone. It began to influence behavior among Jewish believers as well.

Even at the apostolic level, let's go back to Galatians chapter 2. We'll read, notice here in verses 11 and 12. Galatians 2 11 and 12. It says, "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, same place, I withtood him to his face because he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, James is the head apostle, the pastor of the Jerusalem church.

For before certain men came from James, which which means from Judea, he would eat with the Gentiles. But when these people came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Peter's withdrawal is especially instructive. He didn't deny gentile inclusion in the church.

He did not teach circumcision as a requirement for salvation. But his behavior shifted because of the pressure of those associated with Jerusalem, those Jews who came from Jerusalem. Paul identifies the motive clearly. It's fear. Now this incident reveals how widespread and influential the issue had become. The question of what was required for salvation was affecting daily conduct, congregational unity, and the credibility of leadership.

If left unresolved, it would create two standards of belonging, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Paul understood that this could not be settled through private correction or isolated letters alone. The issue touched the heart of the gospel and the unity of the church. Therefore, it required a unified authoritative response.

So, we go back to Acts chapter 15. Let's go back to Acts chapter 15. Now, let's notice verse two. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, well, that's them who came from Judea and we as we read in verse one. And Paul and Barnabas are disputing with these men. So it says they had no small dissension and dispute with them.

They determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. Luke's description of no small dissension signals that this was sustained serious disagreement. The matter had to be brought to Jerusalem where the apostles and elders could examine it collectively.

In light of scripture and God's revealed actions, the decision itself teaches an important lesson. The church did not treat this as a regional dispute and it didn't allow multiple answers to coexist. Salvation cannot be redefined congregation by congregation. What God requires of one believer must be true for all believers.

By the time the issue reached Jerusalem, it was already affecting multiple regions, multiple congregations and multiple leaders. Galatia did not create the controversy, but it revealed its magnitude. Acts 15 is not an overreaction. It's the necessary response to a question that had grown too large to ignore.

On what basis does God accept a person, and who has the authority to say so? So the decision to take the matter to Jerusalem was intentional but also necessary. Paul and Barnabas did not treat the disagreement as a local problem that they should handle independently right there in Antioch. Nor did they attempt to resolve it solely through what? Apostolic authority.

Paul didn't stand up and say, "All right, I decide the following." He understood the limitations of his role as a pastor, as a preacher, as an evangelist of the truth. It wasn't within his authority to make this decision for the whole church. So, the question affected the entire church and required a unified answer that would apply everywhere.

We're still here in Acts chapter 15. Let's notice verse 6. It says, "Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter." Luke's wording again is significant. The issue was not settled by popular opinion or private correspondence. It was considered collectively by those entrusted with responsibility for teaching and oversight of the whole church.

This establishes that questions touching salvation are not left to some regional interpretations. Congregation by congregation, you sort it out on your own. This is a churchwide decision. Now the discussion then in Jerusalem begins with testimony. Peter speaks first to say, well, this is what God has already done.

verses 7-9. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them, "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Peter was sent to Cornelius and his household Gentiles. So God who knows the heart acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.

I'm sorry. Verse 9. And God made no distinction between us and them purifying their hearts by faith. So Peter points to God's actions of giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles before baptism and before circumcision. The reception of the Holy Spirit by uncircumcised Gentiles is presented as decisive evidence.

Peter's reasoning is straightforward. If God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, the church has no authority to impose one. verses 10 and 11. Now therefore, Peter says, "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on 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 in the same manner as them.

" Peter identifies the danger very clearly here. To require circumcision as a conduct or as a condition of salvation is to test God. To contradict what he has already approved and demonstrated is what Peter is telling them they're doing. That's what they're cons that's what they're considering. That's what they're contemplating.

Literally defying what God has already done. Now Peter's not saying that obedience isn't necessary. He says the justification does not come through imposing requirements that God did not give for that purpose. Now after this Peter exc yeah after so excuse me so after Peter then Paul and Barnabas give their testimony. Now verse 12, it says, "Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

" So again, the emphasis is not on arguing here. That's not what they're doing. They're testifying and and in so doing, they're confirming God's work in those not circumcised. God's work among the Gentiles is observable. It's measurable and it's consistent. The miracles corroborate what Peter had already stated.

God is active among the Gentiles without requiring circumcision among them first. Now the final response after the testimony comes from James. Let's notice verses 13-50. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me." [sighs] Simon has declared, Simon testified, how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.

And with this the words of the prophets agree just as it is written. After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins and I will set it up so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord. Even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who does all these things known to God from eternity.

are all his works. James's role here is critical. He evaluates what's been presented. Then he anchors it in scripture. So he doesn't just take the evidence of what God's doing, which is significant. It is undeniable. But he realizes then by inspiration that this was prophesied and he quotes the prophecy. those Gentiles that would be called by his name.

So now we have the evidence supported by scripture. James then reaches a judgment. Verse 19, he says, "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God." And this wording matters how he goes about this. So because James says the Gentiles are not to be burdened with requirements God had not placed on them as conditions of acceptance.

The decision distinguishes between what God requires for salvation and what is expected for orderly conduct and unity within the church. Now that becomes clear as we read verse 20. But he says, "But but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, and from things strangled and from blood.

" Now, these instructions are not presented as a path to salvation. They address conduct that would immediately hinder fellowship and contradict basic standards God has always required. The decision avoids both extremes, neither adding to the basis of salvation nor allowing disorder to take root in the church. Now, the ruling then is communicated formally. Verses 22 and 23.

Well, let's finish here in verse 21. says, "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas, who was also named Barsabus and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

They wrote this letter by them, the apostles, the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cissia. Greetings. Verse 24. Since we have heard that some who went out from from us have troubled you with words unsettling your soul, saying, you must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.

It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. Men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to us, excuse me, for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from

these, you will do well. Farewell. This is the letter that was brought then to these gentile congregations, mostly gentile congregations. these gentile converts, giving them relief from the imposition that circumcision would be required of them so they could be saved. And it was received as you as we noted here earlier, it pleased the apostles, the elders, and the whole church to send these men with this information to these Gentiles.

So, Acts 15 does more than resolve a first century doctrinal issue. It establishes a pattern, one that shows how God expects his church to guard truth, preserve unity, and address questions that affect salvation itself. One of the most important lessons of Acts 15 is where authority does and does not reside.

The question of circumcision and salvation did not remain at the local level. It was not left to local pastors to resolve independently, but nor was it settled by an edict from a figurehead. James didn't stand up at the beginning and say, "I've already decided the matter, so this is what you're going to do." There was testimony.

Scripture was evaluated. They worked on this collectively. So when this issue proved to be a church to be excuse me when this issue proved to be churchwide in its scope how big it had become well the only possible answer was to bring it to the leaders of the church and let them resolve it collectively and that tells us something essential doctrinal unity is not an accident in the church it's protected through structure and organization you have to think about that think about why that's so important The apostles and elders did not gather

to negotiate a compromise. See, they weren't looking at, hey, what's the balance of this thing? And let's see, let's see what what's the least painful thing we can do here. They gathered to examine a question in light of what God had revealed and what scripture already testified. That process matters just as much as the outcome.

Testimony was weighed and scripture was consulted and the conclusions were reached collectively. This model prevents two dangerous extremes. Authoritarian control on this hand and doctrinal fragmentation on the other. The church didn't say each congregation needs to decide for itself. But neither did it say follow whichever teacher you find the most convincing.

Instead, there's one voice, a collective voice. That voice reflected recognition of what God had already approved and demonstrated. So governance in this sense is not about control. It's about stewardship. Another important lesson is the distinction between salvation and conduct. Acts 15 carefully separates what God requires for acceptance from what is necessary for orderly life within the church. This distinction is crucial.

When the church blurs that line, it either adds burdens God did not place or it removes standards that God didn't remove. The council in Jerusalem avoided both of those extremes. By refusing to add circumcision as a requirement, the church protected the truth about salvation. But by giving practical instructions, it protected unity and integrity and integrity throughout the church.

This balance could only be maintained through collective discernment grounded in scripture. If that were left to individual judgment, different congregations would inevitably reach different conclusions, and the church would fracture along cultural or regional lines. So, Acts 15 shows us that unity is preserved by collective leadership and cooperation, not by avoiding difficult questions.

So the decision that wasn't kept quiet either. It was written down. It was delivered personally. It was explained openly and it was received with relief because it removed uncertainty. That also is instructive. Truth does not create confusion when it's handled right. Confusion arises when questions are left unresolved or when multiple answers are allowed to coexist on matters that define salvation.

The same principles seen in Acts 15 explain why the United Church of God continues to function through shared councilbased approach to doctrine today. Major questions are not settled privately, regionally, congregation by congregation. Nor is there a single figure head at the top of the chain in the church organization that gets to decide doctrine for the church.

Our doctrines are carefully examined by members of the council of elders. Members who the elders of the church put in those positions with those responsibilities. This approach does not guarantee that it's going to be easy because it's not. Wrestling with doctrinal questions is not necessarily an easy process. But it does provide protection and it provides transparency.

One more thing that Acts 15 teaches though is patience. You know, the church did not resolve the issue of circumcision. The moment the first Gentiles were called, God allowed understanding to develop over time. He let pressure build in the church and questions to surface before forcing a resolution. That patience is not a a weakness of the church. It's actually a strength.

It reflects care. Rush decisions often produce very shallow results. Careful examination produces durable results. By the time the council met, the church was ready to understand what God had already made clear. This is why Acts 15 belongs on the Bible literacy test. It answers the question, how does the church handle truth when it is tested? It shows that unity is not maintained by silence but by faithful examination.

It demonstrates that governance is not a modern invention but a biblical necessity. Acts 15 reminds us that truth must be guarded deliberately. Unity must be preserved intentionally and salvation must never be redefined casually. That lesson is not confined to the first century.

It remains essential wherever God church exists today. I for one am very thankful to be a part of the United Church of God where we have the structure that we have based in large part on the example of Acts chapter 15. I hope you value it as much as I do.