The Jerusalem Council? Are You sure?
by Edwin Crozier
In Acts 15, Paul, Barnabas, and others from the Antioch congregation were sent to Jerusalem to discuss the question of circumcision. Could/can Gentiles be saved without it? In Jerusalem, the apostles, elders, and the whole congregation (see Acts 15:22) discussed the issue with representatives from Antioch. By the time they were done, they all agreed Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be saved. Certainly, the fact that the Law was not required for saving Gentile Christians (or Jewish Christians, for that matter) did not mean every prohibition from the Law was suddenly permissible. They made some distinctions, pointing out that Gentile Christians still weren’t supposed to be involved in immorality and idolatry, explaining that issues described in Leviticus 17-18 were examples of godly living still required of all Christians. After the discussion, the Jerusalem church wrote a letter and sent it out with Paul, Barnabas, and some men from the congregation to let the Gentile congregations know what they had determined.
There it is. The first church council meeting in which representatives got together, figured out what was supposed to be taught, codified it in writing, and then sent it out to all the churches to tell them what to believe. It’s scriptural authority and proof that the church should have ecumenical council meetings that write creedal statements explaining how the organized institution of the visible church should conduct its work.
Are you sure?
First, let’s note the Bible doesn’t call it a council, ecumenical or otherwise. Second, representatives from all the churches didn’t gather to discuss this matter. Third, be very clear: neither Paul nor the representatives from Antioch went to Jerusalem to find out what they were supposed to teach about circumcision. According to Galatians 1:11-24, Paul did not receive the gospel he preached from men. He did not go to the other apostles to learn how or what to preach in the gospel. He received his gospel by a revelation of Christ Jesus.
That third point really matters. Paul didn’t need a council meeting to determine what to teach. He wasn’t going to Jerusalem to find out what to teach. Why then did he go to Jerusalem?
The answer is in the letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions…” (Acts 15:23-24 ESV).
Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem to find out from the apostles or the Jerusalem church what to teach, or even to decide what to teach. He went to Jerusalem because that is where the men who had taught the error came from. They were presenting themselves as representing the Jerusalem church and the apostles. Paul didn’t go to find out what to teach. He went to correct error. Did it cause a big debate? Absolutely. Did folks have to learn what to teach? Sure. But was this a church council deciding what to teach and then setting the doctrine for the rest of the churches? Absolutely not. The doctrine was already set. Paul already knew it. The Antioch church already knew it.
In fact, notice the Jerusalem elders and the apostles didn’t send a letter to codify a new teaching that they had figured out in council. They sent a letter because they were correcting an error originating from their congregation. They sent a letter to explain what the congregation itself actually believed and taught in contrast with the men who presented themselves as speaking on their behalf.
Two things are clear from this. First, this is patently not scriptural authority for church councils. It is not authority for creedal statements. It is not authority to treat a congregation like the mother church of all the others or to gather representatives to determine what Christ’s doctrine is supposed to be. This is not authority for conferences, councils, synods, congresses, etc. Second, on the other end of the spectrum, congregational autonomy is not so absolute and extreme that one congregation cannot call another to account for error. Men from Jerusalem had impacted the church in Antioch with their error about circumcision. Paul didn’t say, “Well, we’re autonomous, and Jerusalem is autonomous. We’re all allowed to just believe, teach, practice what we want. No harm, no foul.” There was harm. And the church at Antioch sent men to Jerusalem to get to the bottom of it and call Jerusalem to correction. Antioch did not send representatives because they were the mother church. But they didn't go to Jerusalem because it was the mother church. They went to Jerusalem because that is where the error started.
Perhaps it would have been helpful to see an example of this kind of interaction that didn’t end in unity. I would like to see exactly how to handle it if Jerusalem had said, “Nope! We think circumcision is required and we will continue to send men out saying so.” I would have liked to see how to handle that kind of disagreement between congregations. As it is, we are left to make that application on our own. But this demonstrates that even autonomous congregations can interact with one another to address disagreement and error. Autonomy does not mean each congregation is truly a complete law to itself. One congregation may not be in charge of another, but one congregation can call another to account when error spreads.
I admit, even I often refer to the events of Acts 15 as the Jerusalem council. But may I suggest we clean up our language. It wasn’t a church council. It was one church letting another know its members were causing problems elsewhere and calling them to correction regarding the error.
May we in all our churches have the humble heart to accept correction if we aren’t teaching truth. If only this same attitude could prevail throughout every church today.
