Acts 15:1-5 The Jerusalem council considers law and grace

Acts 15:1-5 A council at Jerusalem to discuss requirements for Gentiles. The inference is that these Pharisees were pretending to be Christians and went from Judea to Antioch (on the Orontes) and began teaching a legalistic gospel. Specifically that Gentiles had to be circumcised according to the custom of Moses in order to be saved. One suspects that things got a little heated between Paul and Barnabas and these legalists. We can be pretty sure that this issue didn't go away easily because Paul's letter to the Galatians contains some pretty strong words.   Galatia was the province they had just visited, where Psidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe were located. It is evident from the words Paul wrote in his epistle that the legalists had followed him there as well. Without going through all of the arguments in that epistle, it is somewhat startling that Paul's comment in Galatians 5:12 is so graphic. He wishes that those who were troubling them would amputate themselves. In the context of the discussion about circumcision, it is clear that he means to amputate the organ that is normally circumcised, in other words, castrate themselves.

          In this present circumstances, they decided to take the matter to the church leadership in Jerusalem. As they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, Paul and Barnabas gave their missionary report to believers all along the way, which was evidently well received. Their report was also well-received in Jerusalem. And then the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” That was the issue they came to Jerusalem to settle.

          Were these Pharisees truly believers in Christ, or were they pretending to believe in Christ so that they could disrupt the church and nullify the gospel. Were they sincerely mistaken, or were they in active opposition to the gospel as preached by the apostles? John 12:42 suggests that none of the Pharisees believed in Jesus at that point, although other rulers of the Jews did believe. But Acts 15:5 identifies these people as members of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed. What had they believed? Perhaps they had believed the part of the gospel that Jesus was really God Incarnate in the flesh, that He had died on the cross and risen from the dead.

          But it would seem from their words that they had not believed the part of the gospel about Jesus being the one who had died for their sins and that His blood is the sole and sufficient atonement. Waxing eloquent, Paul told the Galatians, "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." [Galatians 5:2-4] Now it is possible that the Pharisees were actually saying that the Gentiles could not keep their salvation unless, in addition to the work of Christ to atone for sins, they cleaned up their lives. The problem is that the net effect is the same. They had mistaken discipleship for redemption.

          To what extent does a person's salvation depend on their subsequent actions? That is a far bigger subject than can be discussed here. It hangs on the different things that Jesus said about His followers. There are three categories of the kinds of things that He said. Firstly, there are beliefs that they would have, faith in Him and certain doctrines. (John 8:24) Secondly there is a relationship that they will have, with Him and with the Father, as well as relationship with other believers. (John 15:4-10) Thirdly, there are things they will do if they are following Him. (John 3:36) Is the discipleship that follows faith in Christ a condition of it, or evidence of it? This is the core of the issue with legalism. Even if we do not make circumcision a condition of salvation, are there other aspects of the Law, for example commandments 5-9 (Exodus 20:13-16) that one cannot claim to be saved and simultaneously flout? As nearly as an answer to this can be given, it is "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh." (Galatians 5:16) The extent to which our behavior conforms to the law of love due to our own efforts, or due to the indwelling Holy Spirit, is impossible to discern. Ideally, the Holy Spirit would so overtake us that we would not even be able to tell where one ended and the other began. And when Jesus said, "Why do you call Me Lord and not do the things that I say," (Luke 6:46) He was speaking before the Holy Spirit had been given.

          The bottom line on the dispute between keeping rules and salvation by grace is this. The new covenant is not like the covenant from Sinai, with both parties having duties. The new covenant is one in which God provides the power for humans to keep the things He intends for them, through the Holy Spirit. This must have been hard for the Pharisees, even those who believed in Jesus, to accept.