Scripture Daily

Context No. 884 of 4322 · Acts

Context · Reflection

Acts 15:1-5: in context

1Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.” 2Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul, Barnabas, and some others of them to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. 3They, being sent on their way by the assembly, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. They caused great joy to all the brothers. 4When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and they reported everything that God had done with them. 5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The church has its first great controversy, and it is about the door. Men come down from Judea to Antioch teaching that unless the Gentile converts are circumcised according to the law of Moses, they cannot be saved. Paul and Barnabas, who have just seen God pour out his Spirit on uncircumcised Gentiles, sharply disagree, and the church sends them up to Jerusalem to put the question to the apostles and elders. On the way they tell the story of the Gentiles' conversion, and it brings great joy; but in Jerusalem some believing Pharisees stand up and insist the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

The stakes are enormous, even if the topic sounds technical. The question underneath circumcision is whether a person is saved by grace through faith in Christ, or by becoming a law-keeping Jew first. If the Judea party wins, the gospel becomes an add-on to the law, and the Gentiles are second-class until they finish the requirements. What is worth noticing is how the early church handles the fight. It does not split on the spot, and it does not settle by whoever shouts loudest. Paul and Barnabas take the dispute to the wider body; the church convenes to reason it out together in the open. The disagreement is real and sharp, no small dissension, the text says, and yet it is carried into a shared council rather than a private schism. The truth of grace has to be defended, and it is defended by the community deciding together, not by one faction walking away.

When I am sure I am right about something that matters, do I bring it into the open to be tested with others, or do I just harden into my faction?

Sources