I think it is impossible to discuss the Jerusalem Council without also discussing the Letter to the Galatians. Scholars disagree on whether Galatians was written sometime before the Council (AD 49) in response to the Judaizers in Antioch or after the meeting in Jerusalem – two, maybe three years, about AD 51-52; I’m going to side with those who favor the later date, because of Paul’s firm tone and also because it is prima fascia proof that the Judaiziers continued in their heresy. Yes, they had apparently heard the ruling of the Apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church. They knew what had been decided. But they didn’t stop teaching that you must follow the Jewish law in order to be saved. They just moved their “act” a bit further away from Jerusalem.

It is possible that Galatians was the first apostolic letter Paul wrote, which might explain why it lacks the pleasant greeting, etc., that characterize his other letters, but I agree with most scholars that his blunt beginning and stern tone throughout the letter is a result of his intense fear for the Galatians. “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6).  Something was seriously wrong in the churches of Galatia to prompt such an abrupt and sobering introduction. A careful reading of the entire epistle confirms that he gospel which Paul had preached and which these Christians had accepted was somehow quickly set aside for other teaching.

The study of the Book of Galatians is of critical importance to Christians today. We learn of a departure from the gospel in ancient days, but we also shall see that there is similar error being proclaimed today. Many Christians have accepted this divergence from the gospel, not knowing the seriousness of their error. It is important for us to understand what the Galatian error was so that we can recognize similar false teaching today. God-willing, we will reject false teaching for what it is—a departure from the gospel by which we have been saved.

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:6-9

Imagine yourself as a member of one of the Galatian churches which had just received this letter from Paul, who opens with an immediate criticism. The severity of the error warranted the urgency of Paul’s tone and the stinging words he chose to diagnose the disease of the Galatian churches. Paul indicted the false teachers for preaching another gospel and pronounced sentence upon them by damning them (this may be the first Christian example of anathema). Paul accused those who had fallen for such teaching of deserting the God who called them in Christ Jesus. Shocking words, meant to jar his readers, utterly lacking in diplomacy or subtlety. Yet Paul was not being theatrical. He is doing the only thing that can be done in such circumstances. You wouldn’t ordinarily jerk one of your children around by the arm, but if they were just about to step into speeding traffic, it would be the loving thing to do. It would be inappropriate, maybe even fatal, to attempt a casual discussion about traffic. In a time of crisis, severe action is mandatory. The severity of Paul’s words alerts us to the seriousness of the situation in the Galatian churches.

Right in verse 6, Paul explained the problem. To change the gospel is to jeopardize the basis of the eternal well-being of every Christian. When the Galatians turned to a different gospel, they deserted the Father, who called them through the Son. In verse 7 Paul clarified his reference to a “different gospel” in the previous verse. In reality there is only one gospel. What may initially have seemed like a minor adjustment in doctrine to the Galatians was an alternative to the gospel and, in fact, an abandonment of the gospel, for there is only one gospel.

Paul defined the gospel as that which he had previously proclaimed to the Galatians. No matter who it might be, no matter how spectacular they might be, any deviation from the gospel previously proclaimed would be worthy of God’s most severe judgment. Paul then repeated this in order that his readers might understand the seriousness of what they had done. However, verse 9 is more than a mere repetition of the previous verse. I believe that Paul reiterates not only what he has just said (in verse 8), but also what he had previously said while still with the Galatians. He had warned them before, while he was in Galatia, not to turn away. (This is one reason I side with the scholars who think Paul wrote this letter after the Jerusalem Council).

I believe there is considerably greater condemnation for the false teachers than for their hapless students. Believers should take errors very seriously, for Paul spoke of it as forsaking God (v. 6). The false teacher, however, is even more severely cautioned; he is doubly cursed, implying that while the Galatians had fallen into such error unwittingly, the teachers of another gospel did so consciously. Seeking to lead people astray, the false teacher is worthy of a much more severe penalty (James 3:1).

Galatians 1:3-5 outlines the gospel in broad strokes. The gospel of grace brings peace to those who receive it in faith, thus those who turn from the gospel, turn from grace and peace. The gospel is the result of the finished work of Christ on the cross... His death was for the forgiveness of our sins and our “deliverance from this present evil age,” according to the will of God and for His glory. We may be inclined to think of our deliverance from “this present evil age” as our eschatological (future) hope, but this is not the principle thought here. The work of Christ on the cross is sufficient to forgive us of our sins and fully sanctify us in His presence, but for the time being it is also adequate to free us from our slavery to sin here and now. Paul referred to the Galatians present as well as future sanctification. This is quite opposite of what the Judaizers taught, for they believed in putting men back under the Law in order to receive sanctification. In other words, faith alone was not sufficient.

The “other gospel,” or the “un-gospel” to which Paul referred in verses 6-9, finds the finished work of Christ inadequate to sanctify men in a sinful world. As a result, they sought to add Law-keeping to faith, and thus nullify grace altogether. The false gospel which is countered in this epistle was man-made and man-pleasing (1:10-11). It sought to put men under bondage by compelling them to be circumcised and to keep the Old Testament Law (2:3-5; 4:1-31; 5:1-12). It implied that those who fail to live under the Law were second class citizens, denying the gospel (2:11-21). The false gospel ignored that divine power is evidenced through God’s Spirit, given through faith. The false gospel made men rely on the flesh (3:1-5; 5:16-26; 6:8). The false gospel failed to remember that the Old Testament Law condemned men, and that salvation was always a matter of God’s promise, not men’s performance (3:6-29; 6:12-16).

Paul’s introduction to the letter to the Galatians underscores one truth which is not only central in the epistle but is crucial to every Christian: the preservation of the purity of the gospel. By following the teaching of the Judaizers, the Galatians had turned from the truth of the gospel and from God Himself. Circumcision had its benefits, but to circumcise as an act of proof of one’s Christianity would have been to turn away from the gospel of God’s grace (2:3-5; 5:1-4). For Paul, the gospel was not just a message which, if believed, led to salvation; it was a guiding principle which governed men’s lives. Actions which seemed inconsequential to others were abhorrent to Paul because they were a violation of the gospel, the one truth which must never be altered, not only in creedal confession, but in practice.

Paul wrote that the gospel has everything to do with those who are saved for it is the standard by which our every act and attitude must be judged. It is the central truth which must be practiced and preserved in its purity. To Paul, the gospel meant not only an invitation to unbelievers, but the setting forth its implications to Christians. The gospel is not something we face once (at conversion) and then leave behind. It is the message we believe to be saved, and the message by which we are to live. The gospel reminds us of the basis for our salvation and of our sanctification. Christians must be reminded of the gospel because of what it means for our everyday living.

I don’t think what happened in Galatia was a wholesale rejection of the gospel. It was deserted by distortion and thoughtless action. What was wrong, some may have reasoned, in submitting to circumcision in order to humor the Judaizers? It was truly wrong, Paul insisted, for in so doing the gospel of God’s grace was denied. We today tend to measure orthodoxy more in terms of people’s creed while Paul looked at their conduct. It is a departure from the gospel to act contrary to the gospel. This we may do more often, and less intentionally, through our actions than by our outright statements.

The gospel, as we see in these examples, is set aside in the name of purity and piety as much as in the name of paganism and immorality. We look for the heretic among those who openly advocate loose living and openly attack the authority of the Word of God. Satan uses morality and purity as bait as often as he uses immorality and impurity. In 1 Timothy 4:1-4 Paul dealt with the denial of certain liberties in the name of holiness. In Colossians 2, denial and self-abuse are advocated as promoting purity when they do just the opposite. The Judaizers sought to bring about purity and holiness through Law-keeping. Paul taught that the gospel brings about purity through the work of Christ on the cross.

The gospel is salvation by grace, through faith, apart from works. Let us beware of those who seek to promote godliness through human effort. This is a denial of the gospel by which men are saved.

There are times when we should avoid conflict, but there are also times when we must embrace conflict in order to stand for what is essential and true.  Acts 15 contains two such instances of necessary conflict. The first centered on what the gospel required of those who were Gentiles converted to faith in Christ. The answer of Paul and Barnabas can be summed up as:

The gospel requires nothing more than a personal faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, in the sinner’s place, resulting in the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the certainty of eternal life.

Certain unnamed men came to Antioch from Judea who held to a very different “gospel,” a “gospel” which, in reality, was a false one. Their “gospel” might be summed up this way:

Christianity is Jewish. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, but in order to be a part of this covenant community, Israel, one must become a proselyte, which is entered into by circumcision, which obligates the individual to keep the Law of Moses.

To these “Judaizers” salvation meant identifying not only with Christ but with the nation Israel, placing oneself under the Mosaic Covenant and keeping the Laws of Moses, as defined by Judaism. These men who opposed Paul and Barnabas were Judean Jewish believers who had been and continued to be Pharisees. They (understandably) took certain passages of the Old Testament (Genesis 17; Exodus 12; Exodus 4:24-26) to support their position. These men claimed their position represented the viewpoint of the Apostles and the church in Jerusalem. It seems they taught with great confidence and an air of authority. When Paul and Barnabas opposed them, sparks flew. Neither party was willing to budge.

The Judaizers viewed circumcision as essential from these early texts in the Old Testament, but ignored other texts which showed the “true circumcision” to be an act of God, performed on men’s hearts, not on their physical flesh (Deuteronomy 10:14-16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:1-4; 9:23-26). Notice how this “spiritual” circumcision becomes more clear as the Old Testament progresses. Though the term “circumcision” is not used, God’s promise of a new covenant and a new heart is surely referring to the “spiritual circumcision” which God will perform on men’s hearts, by faith, under a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-33).  Paul will make much of this in his epistles (Romans 2:23-29; 3:31-4:16; 1 Corinthians 7:17-20; Galatians 2:2-5, 11-20; Galatians 5:1-6, 11-16, Ephesians 2:11-22, Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11-23).

Let’s give the “Judaizers” the benefit of the doubt and allow they sincerely were trying to follow the Scriptures as they understood. This was their first experience with mass salvation among Gentiles who had not been proselytes previously and they were concerned for the spiritual well-being of these new believers. Their demands required the church clarify the gospel and define what it meant to be saved. Christians knew in their hearts what salvation meant, but now they were required to make it official. Why the Antioch church was unable to settle this debate itself is unknown, though I suspect from a similar experience on this blog that the Judaizers simply would not let go of their position and were disrupting the advance of the gospel. Besides, the Apostles really did need to come to grips with this issue, since the Judaizers claimed to be their representatives. Perhaps they believed the Apostles agreed with them because the Apostles had never stated what they really thought on the subject. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, encountering Samitans who were joyful to hear that Gentiles were accepting Christ. Meanwhile, the Jerusalem church was bracing for a fight.

The Jerusalem saints weren’t surprised by the insistence that circumcision was necessary ((Acts 15:5). Some of the apostles probably automatically thought that, even if they set the thought aside two seconds later. The issue had been fomenting for some time, but as the Gentile converts had been a good distance away, they’d managed to avoid the discussion. Error had been allowed to fester as the leaders of the church had not taken a position. Now they were forced to it in a congregation-wide meeting in which everyone could speak their minds. James appears to have been the moderator. The opponents seem to have spoken first, though Luke does not bother to include any of their arguments. Everyone who wanted spoke amid heated discussion. The testimonies of Peter and Paul and Barnabas were saved until last, and then James made a motion on the action this Council should take.

“And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” Acts 15:7-10

Peter, speaking first, had once been examined by many of these same Jewish saints (Acts 11:1.), who challenged the legitimacy of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles at all. When Peter had finished describing the events which led him to go to the house of Cornelius and the testimony which the Holy Spirit bore to the salvation of these Gentiles, the circumcised saints had to admit that God must have opened the door to Gentile evangelism. The issue now was not whether Gentiles can be saved, but how were they to be saved. Peter’s trial was over the issue of whether Gentiles should hear the gospel; now the issue was what that gospel must be. This Council was faced with the responsibility of defining the gospel to be preached. Reminding his audience that God had ordained him to be the first apostle to preach to the Gentiles, Peter testified that God had cleansed these Gentiles’ hearts by faith, in the absence of baptism and circumcision, evidenced by the Holy Spirit coming upon them, in exactly the same way that He had at Pentecost. If God testified to their salvation, based solely upon their faith, how could this Council require anything more of Gentile Christians? God did not make any distinctions between these new Gentile saints and the Jewish saints. How could this Council make any distinctions in the gospel which was proclaimed to Gentiles? Gentiles must be saved in exactly the same way as Jews. If Jews were also saved by grace, through faith, apart from law-keeping, why would they insist that the Gentiles be put under this impossible burden? God clearly indicated that it was His purpose to save Gentiles by no different means than Jews were saved. God made no distinctions. The salvation of those Gentiles in the home of Cornelius set not only a precedent but a pattern. Simple faith in Christ alone was all that was necessary for a Gentile to be saved.

“And all the multitude kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” Acts 15:12

Peter’s words brought order in the midst of chaotic debate, setting the stage for Barnabas and Paul to tell of their ministry and message. A hush fell over the group at their testimony of how God had authenticated their gospel by the signs and wonders which He granted them along with their words, as an “Amen” to their message and ministry, another testimony from God to the accuracy of the gospel they preached to the Gentiles.

 “And after they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

‘After these things i will return, and i will rebuild the tabernacle of david which was fallen, and i will rebuild its ruins, and i will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the lord, and all the gentiles who are called by my name, says the lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Acts 15:13-21

James, the half-brother of Jesus, began where Peter left off, allowing Paul and Barnabas’ report to stand on its own merits. He wielded Biblical revelation where Peter had used experience. Our experience can teach us theology, but it should never be viewed as Biblical doctrine until it has been tested by Biblical revelation. James tested Peter’s theology by Old Testament revelation, saying, in effect, that what Peter had just said had been prophesied in the Old Testament, Amos 9, which speaks of God’s judgment and destruction of Israel, which is not complete or permanent. In the context of the Jerusalem Council, James was pointing out from Amos that both Jews and Gentiles will worship God when the kingdom is restored to Israel, and that they will do it as Jews and as Gentiles. Gentiles will be blessed as Gentiles, not as Jews. There would be no need for a different gospel, and no need for the Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes. The very things which Paul and Barnabas have reported are consistent with the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets concerning the restoration of the kingdom.

James moved that the Council rule that the Gentiles Christians should not be troubled by the Jewish saints. The things which were proposed as requirements were not requirements for salvation, but rather requirements for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile saints. Refraining from foods contaminated by idol worship, sexual practices contrary to God’s standards, eating those things which were strangled and eating blood would greatly reduce the cultural tensions which existed between Gentiles and Jews, who found these practices to be deeply offensive. Doing this would not set aside the Old Testament law, which was neither evil nor worthless. Gentiles had access to the synagogues, where the Law of Moses was taught each Sabbath and therefore, ample opportunity to learn the truths and principles of the Law. Studying the Law is a very different thing from placing oneself under the law, obliged to keep the whole law, without violating any part of it.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council was that the gospel, for Jew or Gentile, was salvation as a gift of God’s grace, through faith, faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the Messiah who bore one’s sins and judgment, so that they could be pronounced righteous in God’s sight and have eternal life in the kingdom of God. Those who taught otherwise did not have the approval of the Jerusalem church. Paul and Barnabas were right and those men who came to Antioch from Judea were wrong.

The Jerusalem church dealt with this issue with great wisdom. They provided ample opportunity for discussion and debate. They made their decision on the basis of human and divine testimony, in accordance with the Old Testament. Having reached their definition of the gospel, they put their decision in writing and appointed men to accompany Paul and Barnabas with the letter as witnesses to the decision of the Council. The two men who accompanied Paul and Barnabas were Judas and Silas, leading men among the saints, whose word had clout among the Jewish saints. Judas is an unknown individual, but Silas would accompany Paul on his second journey.

The letter itself was not long or extensive. Its emphasis was on disclaiming the men and the message of those who had come from Judea, insisting on the circumcision of the Gentiles and on their obedience to the Law. With this condemnation of the false teachers and the commendation of Paul and Barnabas, the door was opened for Paul to write in much greater detail on the matters decided, in principle, at the Jerusalem Council. Paul’s epistles, as it were, had the forward written by the Jerusalem Council when his views were formally approved as consistent with the gospel. The four prohibitions were laid down as those things which the saints would do well by observing, not as requirements for salvation. And with this, the letter ended, with a simple, “farewell.”

“So, when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. And Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. And after they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. But it seemed good to Silas to remain there. But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching, with many others also, the word of the Lord.” Acts 15:30-35

The delegation with the letter traveled Antioch where they formally delivered the ruling of the Jerusalem Council. The church responded with great rejoicing. Grace encourages where legalism restricts. Being a Christian did not mean being Jewish; they could be Gentile Christians. Judas and Silas ministered to the Antioch congregation with a lengthy message which encouraged and strengthened the saints. We do not know the precise content of the message of these men, but it was probably grace.

The delegation from Jerusalem returned home, leaving Silas, who would accompany Paul on his next journey. Paul and Barnabas returned to teaching and preaching in Antioch.

From a historical point of view (Luke was a historian), the gospel had been officially defined and defended at the Jerusalem Council. It was not until the gospel was challenged and corrupted by false teaching that such definition seemed necessary. The men who first corrupted the gospel were seemingly true believers who brought much of their past baggage with them. I would like to believe these men were teachable. Certainly they seem to have fallen silent for a time after the Jerusalem Council. No matter, because others quickly took their place. Seeking to deliberately corrupt the gospel, these men would eventually be looked upon as unbelievers, not as true saints at all (Galatians 2:4). Much of the error which is confronted in the epistles has a distinctly “Jewish” flavor.

The Jerusalem Council was another “watershed” decision, as Gentile evangelism would soon become a conscious program, led by Paul and Barnabas. As a result of the conversion of many Gentiles, it became necessary to more carefully define the gospel, as the heathen culture of the Gentiles began to collide with the self-righteous culture of Judaism. The gospel defined and the authority of Paul and Barnabas defended, the program of evangelizing the Gentiles could continue with the blessings of the Jerusalem church.

Christianity often becomes confused with culture. Some Jews wanted to impose their culture on the Gentiles in the name of Christianity. The gospel could not be defined in terms of the Jewish culture, thus the Council separated the culture of Judaism from the gospel. When Peter later wrote to the dispersed saints in his epistles, he spoke of holiness in terms of their culture rather than in terms of the imitation of a Jewish culture.

There is a time to fight. Avoidance of conflict is a good thing, but here, it was the gospel itself which was under attack. Intentionally or not, men were striving to adapt the gospel to their own liking. That can’t be done! Paul’s strong words in Galatians are proof that there can be no toleration of any error which would corrupt the gospel. Christians can disagree on many subjects, but we cannot differ on the gospel. In that we must always stand firm and united.

Do you understand the gospel? Salvation has been provided by Jesus the Savior. He died for your sins on the cross. He was buried and raised to newness of life. All you need do is to believe in Him, admit you are a sinner, and trust in His death as the payment for your sins. His resurrection is the promise of your own, and the basis for the power of God to work in your life. I pray you understand the gospel and that you accept it as your own.