Acts 14 concluded with the report that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27). When did this happen? Was Paul's report referring to Pentecost? No way. For we do not see an uncircumcised Gentile converted until Acts 10, surprising Peter and the others with him that were of the circumcision. And then in Antioch (chapter 11) Barnabas "had seen the grace of God" as Gentiles there were being converted.
Since Paul reports that a door of faith had been opened to the Gentiles, then that means that PRIOR TO that, a door of faith had NOT been opened to the Gentiles. Since the Body of Christ consists of neither Jew nor Greek (meaning there's no distinction between them), and since God absolutely DID distinguish between them prior to opening a door of faith to the Gentiles with Cornelius and the Antioch Gentiles, then that demonstrates that the spiritual Body - the one new man - had not yet been "birthed", called out, however you want to put it.
Acts 15 shows a dispute between
believers. Believers dispute today all the time. It's rampant on TOL. But would believers who are said to be on the same page doctrinally, who are leaders chosen by Jesus Himself, have a doctrinal dispute over something as fundamental as the requirement for salvation?
Acts 15 shows a dispute initially between Paul and some men who came to Antioch from Judea. They were undermining Paul's ministry to the Gentiles by saying that they had to be circumcised according to the custom of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1). These men came from Judea, but they were not commanded by James to do what they were doing (Acts 15:24). But does that mean they were doing something CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Jerusalem apostles and elders?
No.
The Jerusalem council takes place 17 years after Saul's conversion (Gal. 1 & 2) and 18 years (I believe) after sometime around the crucifixion or Pentecost. To resolve the dispute between Paul and the men from Judea, they want Paul to go to Jerusalem for the apostles and elders to settle the matter (Acts 15:2). If Peter and the Jerusalem apostles and elders had been preaching salvation by grace through faith and no works - for Jew and Gentile alike - and they had been doing this for 17 or 18 years so far, why in the world would someone want to go to them to prove their case that one had to be circumcised to be saved?
At my former church, we had an elder board. The elders were all 100% on the same page about salvation. We are saved by grace through faith and not of works AT ALL. Imagine this. During an elder meeting, a group of men comes in and says: "This guy is telling everyone you don't have to be circumcised to be saved!!!" What do you think the elders would do? Would they come together to consider the matter. Would there be much disputing about it? No, and no. They would probably say: "Great job! Keep it up!"
Yet in Jerusalem, "the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). To consider what? The notion that it is necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). Not only do they come together to consider the matter, but there is much dispute (Acts 15:7).
If Paul and the Jerusalem apostles are already on the same page about salvation by grace through faith alone, then what is there to consider? What could be disputed?
The answer is obvious. They were not on the same page. Yet they were both right. God had began offering salvation directly to the Gentiles and doing so by grace through faith only. Yet there were many circumcision believers (including Peter, James, John) who had believed according to the kingdom requirements and who were continuing in that calling. They were right in doing so and were required to do so.
God, in His infinite wisdom, knew the reaction the Israelites would have to uncircumcised Gentiles being saved prior to the arrival of the kingdom. So He sent the highest ranking apostle (at the time) to an uncircumcised Gentile (Cornelius) to witness God pouring out the Spirit on him, thus proving that He was turning to uncircumcised Gentiles. Because of this, Peter was able to stand up in Acts 15:7 and end the dispute. He personally bore witness to what God had done. As a result of his testimony, the other circumcision believers were able to accept it (as others did in Acts 11:18).
After Peter's witness, James gives his judgment. And if you pay attention to the text, you'll see that
not once does James make any statement about the requirements for the Jews. His statement pertains ONLY to the Gentiles, as he says:
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God..." Acts 15:19
The requirement for the circumcision believers was STILL to keep the law and faithfully endure untl they would receive the promises to Israel. But James acknowledged that that should not be imposed upon the Gentiles.
Included in James' judgment was the request for a letter to be commissioned that would be passed around to the Gentiles asking that they abstain from certain things. The motive: to not cause a stumbling block to the Jews in those Gentile regions (Acts 15:21). Why does James not commission a letter to be written to them to teach them salvation by grace through faith and not of works? That is not his desire. His concern is that they faithfully abide by the law as they await their long awaited hope. So he doesn't want there to be anything put in their way that might hinder them from doing that.
The Acts 15 council demonstrates the difference between the doctrine of the circumcision believers and the doctrine administered by Paul under the gospel of the uncircumcision. The Acts 15 council demonstrates that James and the Jerusalem apostles, elders, and believers operated under a gospel that was different than that which Paul taught.
Of note in the chapter is Peter's comment on the manner of salvation of the Jews. He said:
"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they (the uncircumcised Gentiles)." Acts 15:11
According to prophecy, Israel would receive their eternal forgiveness of sins when they would receive their new covenant in the kingdom. And they would, at that time, receive their eternal righteousness. So for the Israelite, salvation would be future...in the promised kingdom on earth. Peter is consistent with this when he says "we shall be saved". And in his first epistle, he leaves no doubt.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away reserved in heaven for you who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. I Peter 1:3-5
Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you... I Peter 1:10
Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ... I Peter 1:13
Peter believed he would receive salvation by grace in the future, when the Lord returned.
Paul taught:
By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God... Eph. 2:8
This is not pitting Paul against Peter. It's merely acknowledging that Israel awaited a future salvation according to grace, while those saved into the Body of Christ were immediately saved according to grace.
Acts 15 shows us the following, quite clearly in my opinion:
- Paul taught something very different than did the Jerusalem apostles and elders
- God did NOT give grace to uncircumcised Gentiles (for salvation) at Pentecost or even for a short while after that. Their door of faith would come later.
- Peter believed his (and the circumcision believers') salvation to be future, not present.
- James' judgment and Paul's acceptance of that (the letter for Gentiles to abstain...) totally clears up the confusion some have with Paul seeming to ask others to keep the law. Even without the letter, Rom. 14, I Cor. 8 through 10, etc. all show that Paul was willing to do whatever it took (subject act legalistic, not act legalistic, etc) in order to win his countrymen.
My thoughts on Acts 15.
Randy