The Jerusalem Council and Church Government

Blake Hudson's avatar

Article by:

Blake Hudson

A Study of Acts 15

Jerusalem Council and Church Government
A Modern View of Jerusalem

Introduction

In Acts chapter 15 we read about a group of men from Jerusalem who were teaching that in order to be saved a Gentile Christian must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. When these men reached Antioch they met Paul and Barnabas who had “no small dissension and debate with them” (15:2). The church in Antioch listened to the debate and then decided to send a delegation “to the apostles and the elders [in Jerusalem] about this question” (15:2). After hearing both sides of the argument, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem affirmed that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised or to keep the law of Moses in order to become Christians. This decision, with the agreement of “the whole church” (15:22), was sent via letter and messengers to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.

There are several questions related to what is commonly known as the Jerusalem Council, but this study will focus on the implications of Acts 15 regarding church government. The pattern of church government found in the New Testament is a plurality of elders who rule over each local congregation (Acts 11:29-30, 14:23, 15:1-6, 16:4, 20:17, 21:17; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:5). Contrary to this pattern does Acts 15 teach that certain congregations or councils have authority over other congregations?

Who Was Involved

The following is a list of the primary groups involved in the Jerusalem Council:

  • The men of the party of the Pharisees: These men were Pharisees who had become Christians and were the instigators of the crisis. Still holding to the teachings of Moses, as they traveled they taught that in order to become a Christian one must first become a Jew (i.e. be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, see Acts 15:5).
  • The delegation from Antioch, headed by Paul and Barnabas: The church in Antioch decided to send a group of men to Jerusalem to take council with the apostles and elders to resolve the crisis.
  • The apostles: A plurality of apostles were present in Jerusalem during the council, but we do not know exactly which ones. We know that Peter and John were there (see Galatians 2:9), but James, the brother of John, had already been martyred by the time of the council. Peter, as normal, served as the spokesman for the apostles. The presence of the apostles gave the council a binding authority since their decision on the matter would become part of “the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42).
  • The elders in Jerusalem: The elders of the church in Jerusalem were present and played a significant role in the council. James, the brother of Jesus and one of the elders in Jerusalem, served as the spokesman for both the elders and for the entire council.
  • The church in Jerusalem: The “whole church” in Jerusalem was involved in the council and gave their support to the decisions reached.

From One Congregation to Another

The first thing that we notice is the conspicuous absence of delegates from other congregations. By this time there were many congregations with elders, but the only delegates we are told about are from the congregation in Antioch. Whether or not the church in Antioch was the first to recognize that the men of the Pharisees were teaching a “different gospel” (Galatians 1:6), they do appear to be the first to take action.

The church in Antioch had concerns about the teachings of these men from Jerusalem, so they sent a delegation to Jerusalem: the city from which this false teaching stemmed. It seems that the men of the Pharisees were either claiming or implying that their teaching had the approval of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (hence the clarification in Acts 15:24), so the church in Antioch went to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem to discuss the matter.

Third Parties Not Invited

The church in Antioch did not invite representatives from all of the churches to form a region-wide council to decide on a solution. As Ferguson points out, the council in Jerusalem “does establish the precedent of meetings between representatives of churches to discuss problems and plan a common course of action, but this ad hoc meeting set no precedent for continuing or permanent conciliar or synodal bodies. No continuing organization was created.”1 We should not take this example of two congregations meeting to resolve a problem between them as a precedent for establishing councils or conventions to act as third party decision makers for other congregations.

The Unique Nature of the Jerusalem Council

The Jerusalem Council was a unique event in two primary ways. First, the council in Jerusalem was unique in that the apostles were present. The apostles were given unique authority for defining the teaching of the church. After the death of the apostles there was no longer the possibility of having another council with the same authority as the council in Jerusalem. McGarvey rightly notes that the council “decided, on the authority of the inspired men who directed its decisions, a question of doctrine affecting the salvation of souls; and this no set of men except the apostles have ever had the right to do.”2 The Jerusalem Council cannot be a precedent for authoritative church councils today for the simple reason that the apostles are gone.

Second, we should remember that at the time of the Jerusalem Council the church did not have the completed New Testament. If the Jerusalem Council took place around 48-49AD3 then only a handful of the New Testament books would have been written at that time (possibly James and Galatians and less likely Mark and Matthew)4. The Christians at this time could not turn to their Bibles to find the answer to their questions because for the most part the teaching of the apostles had not yet been committed to writing. Today we have the benefit of a completed New Testament which is the final and sufficient source for Christian doctrine.

The Authority of the Jerusalem Council

Probably the most important aspect for correctly understanding the Jerusalem Council is to understand the authorities present and what they are exercising authority over. There are two sets of authority: the apostles and the elders of the church in Jerusalem. The apostles had unique, Church-wide authority; their inspired teaching was binding on all Christians everywhere for all time. The elders in Jerusalem on the other hand had authority over their congregation in Jerusalem, but not over other congregations. There is no example in the New Testament of a group of elders from one congregation lording it over the elders of another congregation.

But the Jerusalem elders appear to give commands to other elders

That the apostles and elders have different levels of authority is clear, but the fact that James is the lead speaker of the entire assembly causes some to see here an example of elders in one congregation giving commands to elders in another congregation. This is not the case. We will first look at some possible reasons for why James was the lead speaker and then we will look at the nature of the decision of the council.

Possible reasons why James, and not one of the apostles, was the lead speaker

  1. The problem originated with men from Jerusalem who were therefore under the authority of the elders in Jerusalem of whom James was the spokesman.
  2. James, as the brother of Jesus and one to whom the resurrected Jesus showed himself (1 Corinthians 15:7), did hold a unique position of influence in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 21:18-25, Galatians 2:9).
  3. In the early days of the church the apostles were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, but once an eldership was established the direct leadership of the church in Jerusalem transitioned to the elders (Acts 12:17). While the apostles did have a unique authority over all of the Church, it would be important for them to recognize and respect the authority of the elders over their congregation (if for no other reason than to serve as an example to the congregation).
  4. It is likely that James was “regarded as a champion of a conservative Jewish outlook.”5 Since the crisis arose from a group of extremely conservative Jews, it would be beneficial to have a leader known for his conservative outlook to correct their error.

The Decision of the Council

After everyone involved was given their turn to speak it was James’ turn. He gave the concluding remarks, provided evidence from the Old Testament for the decision being made, and finally gave his judgment on the matter. Very importantly, this decision was not the dictatorial decision of one man, rather it was the culmination of all of the preceding discussion, was agreed upon by “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” (15:22), and was known by the apostles to be the will of the Holy Spirit (15:28).

The apostles and elders wrote a joint letter to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia in which they explained that even though the men of the Pharisees had “gone out from [Jerusalem]” (15:24) their teachings did not have the approval or the authority of the apostles or elders. On the contrary, the apostles and elders agreed with what had already been taught: Gentiles were not required to be circumcised or to keep the law of Moses. The apostles and elders did include four commands (or rather reminders) for the Gentiles: “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality” (15:29).

Two Authorities, Two Purposes

The letter sent to the Gentiles had two purposes: it was an authoritative statement from the apostles, and a corrective explanation from the elders in Jerusalem. The letter is authoritative, but it is not an example of one congregation exerting dominance over another congregation. It is authoritative to all Christians only because it had been approved by the apostles.

The letter also served as a corrective explanation to all of the churches in the area. The men of the Pharisees had gone forth from Jerusalem teaching error, which could lead some to assume that the elders in Jerusalem were sanctioning the false doctrine. It was important for the elders to co-write the letter in order to explain in no uncertain terms that they had never given approval to what some of their congregation had taught regarding the necessity of circumcision.

Conclusion

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is a crucial moment in the history of the church: a crisis was resolved, doctrine was kept sound, and unity was maintained. While there are many things that we can learn from the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council, we must be careful to not draw wrong conclusions from the events recorded. The pattern of church government found in the New Testament is a plurality of elders who rule over each local congregation. The Jerusalem Council is not an exception to this pattern nor is it a precedent for one congregation or council today ruling over another congregation; the Jerusalem Council had authority over other congregations only because it had the authority of the living apostles.

Further Reading

Notes

  1. Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 345. (Can be found on Amazon)
  2. McGarvey, J.W. New Commentary on Acts of Apostles. Vol 2., Delight, AR: Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1892, pp. 70. (Book review here)
  3. Carson, D.A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005, pp. 369.
  4. Carson and Moo in An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd Edition and Donald Guthrie in New Testament Introduction, 3rd Edition both provide excellent and conservative discussions on the debates over the dating of the New Testament books.
  5. Marshall, I. Howard. Acts. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980, pp. 251.