Wilson on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15

“The council handed down its decision: Non-Jews entering the Church should not have the Jewish rite of circumcision imposed on them. In its decision the council emphasized the principle of God's free grace in Christ. Gentiles were to know that to stand in the liberty of Christ meant no preconditions or potentially entangling qualifications. So stated, the council ruled out any ‘theological necessity of circumcision for righteousness’ Gentiles should be clear on this point: Salvation was a gift of God; one could not procure or obtain it by mere conformity to any ceremonial ritual.”

”While Gentiles were not subject to the ceremonial law, the council did request that they support Jewish-Gentile fellowship in the Church, that is, that they respect and honor the conscience of their Jewish brothers and sisters. Accordingly, the Jerusalem apostles specified four areas- most of which were associated with pagan or idolatrous practices- Gentiles should avoid: (1) food polluted by idols, (2) eating blood or meat from which the blood had not been drained in a kosher manner, (3) the meat of strangled animals (a guideline similar to the preceding), and (4) fornication- that is, pagan standards concerning sex (see Acts 15:20, 29). Furthermore, in the apostolic declaration it is probably correct to see ‘a form current in the first century.’ The rabbis defined the Noachian commandments as seven commandments binding on the descendants of Noah (Gentiles), that is, on all mankind.”

Marvin R. Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 48–9.

Longenecker on the Effect of the Jerusalem Council Decision (Acts 15)

“The effect of the decision made Jerusalem was far-reaching. In the first place, it freed the Gospel from any necessary entanglement with Judaism and the institutions of Israel, though without renouncing the legitimacy of the continued Christian expression and mission within those confines. Thus, the Gentile and Jewish missions of the church were able to progress side by side in the decade to follow without any essential conflict. Secondly, reactions to Paul within the Jerusalem church were clarified. It is possible that some of the Jewish believers were even more fixed in their enmity than before. But others of the Christian community at Jerusalem came to have more positive attitudes toward him, as seems to have been the case with John Mark. And some felt themselves happier in a Gentile ministry than at Jerusalem because of the deliberations of the council, as was evidently true of Silas (Acts 15:27, 32, 34, 40). Thirdly, the decision made at the Council had the effect of permanently antagonizing the Jews. From this time forward, the Christian mission within the nation- and especially to Jew in and around Jerusalem- would face very rough sledding indeed. Paul said in Romans 11:28 to a predominantly Gentile audience, that the Jewish people, so far as concerns the Gospel, ‘are enemies of God, for your sake.’”

Richard N. Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 56–7.

The Jerusalem Council Decision

“When one considers the situation of the Jerusalem Church in A.D. 49, the decision reached by the council must be considered one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history. While still attempting to minister exclusively to Jews themselves, Jewish Christians in Jerusalem refused to impede the progress of that other branch of the Christian mission whose every success inevitably meant only further difficulty and oppression for them.”

Richard N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 39.

Blomberg on the Prohiitions in Acts 15

“Whatever their [the prohibitions in Acts 15] precise origin, the important observation to make is that the council is not imposing on Gentile believers a new law here, however abbreviated. The practices they are to avoid remain particularly offensive for Jews, who had been dispersed throughout most of the Roman Empire (v. 21). When the council writes its letter to believers in Antioch and nearby regions explaining their decision (vv. 22–29), it concludes simply by stating, "You will do well to avoid these things" (v. 29), hardly a way to refer to mandatory legislation. These are merely restrictions that the Christian leaders hope Gentile believers will voluntarily adopt for the sake of not offending Jewish consciences unnecessarily. That the Christians who received this letter were glad and encouraged, sending the letter carriers off with a blessing of peace, suggests they understood the ‘decree’ in the milder sense (vv. 30–35). That Paul later writes about food sacrificed to idols to both the Corinthians (1 Cor. 8–10) and the Romans (Rom. 14:1–15:13), without referring to this decision, likewise suggests its limited scope and audience.”

Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2006), 53.

The Implications of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15

Here is a nice quote from David Peterson’s just released commentary on Acts:

“However, Acts 15 is to imply commending a particular process of decision-making and the ideal of a community united in discovering and applying the will of God. Subtly and surely, Luke uses the apostles’ statements to shape a new definition of ‘the people of God’ as one based on messianic faith rather than on ethnic origin or ritual observance. Here we find an important manifestation of the church as entity involving local congregations in partnership, working together to maintain the truth of God’s word and promote the work of the gospel. The Jerusalem Council makes the gospel of salvation by faith alone the key to defining the true nature of this church, which involves Jewish and Gentile believers together. At the same time, there is further reflection on the role of the law in the new community created through faith in Christ.”

David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 442–3.

Applying the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

Timothy Wiarda identifies three models for those “who share a belief that the Jerusalem Council offers a paradigm that may be followed today by those who develop theology to guide the church.”

1. The council as a model of contextualization.
2. The Council as a model for Spirit-led community interpretation of Scripture.
3. The Council as a pattern for a bimodal authority structure (Scripture and Tradition).
4. The Council as an example of canonical conversations (intramural discussions related to theological diversity).
5. The Council as a precedent for theological decision-making based on a concept of progressive revelation.

Timothy Wiarda, The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (2003): 233–43.

The Gospel According to Bruce Springsteen?

I believe that there is some place for contextualization in preaching, but sometimes zeal for identification with popular culture and the desire to be “relevant” appear to go too far. Such is the case in a recent news story of the the pastor of Grace United Methodist Church who recently spent the month of April preaching the Gospel according to Bruce Springsteen.