Acts 15 is interesting for several reasons: 1) Apostles and elders came

together to consider a serious doctrinal conflict in the early church (vs. 6) (in Jerusalem, 48-50 AD), 2) It raises the question whether other so-called "Christian Councils" should be held to resolve difficult issues facing the church (vs. 23), 3) The decision that they reached is significant even for us today (vs. 11), and 4) The two classic examples of controversy in the church are both found in this chapter; that is, doctrinal disagreement (vs. 1-35) and personal differences of opinion (vs. 36-41).

The controversy was over the Law of Moses and the Gentile converts. Specifically, must the Gentiles keep the Law in addition to following Jesus Christ? Must they be circumcised, keep the Sabbath Day, etc.? Remember that circumcision was a sign of their covenant relationship with God through Abraham. "Certain men which came down from Judea" taught this view. (vs. 1) They are further described as "a sect of the Pharisees which believed." (vs. 5) They are described in Galatians as "certain who came down from James." (2:12.) To see the seriousness of this position, ask this question: Did these Pharisees baptize the Gentiles first or demand that they be circumcised first? It is clear that they wanted the Gentiles to become Jews first and then Christians. The way to become a Christian was through Judaism, according to these false teachers. Note Acts 6:5 where one of the seven, Nicolas, is described as "a proselyte of Antioch."

This effort by this sect of Pharisees to bind the Law of Moses on Gentiles would have added something to the previous conversion accounts. The Jewish converts were right in their conversions, but something was missing in the conversion of the Gentiles, according to them. This question should have been settled 10 years earlier at Antioch of Syria when Barnabas was sent to work with this Gentile congregation. (Acts 10 & 11.) The disciples were called Christians first at that place where Gentiles were added to the Body.

Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia about going up to Jerusalem and meeting with leaders of the church there. (Gal. 2:1-21.) Titus, a Greek, went up with him and Barnabas. Though Timothy was circumcised under controversy, Titus was not. (Acts 16:3, Gal. 2:3.) Circumcision was an optional matter to Paul; if Gentiles or Jews wanted to be it was acceptable. If they decided against it, it did not matter. (Gal. 5:6.) But Paul and the other apostles stood against binding it upon the believers. (Gal. 2:5.)

We could ask whether a conference was even necessary? The apostles were inspired men having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They were guided in what they taught. (John 14:26.) The conference was not necessary for a group of men to determine the truth. However, Paul wrote that he went up by response to a revelation from God. (Gal. 2:2.) There was some "top dogging" going on, but it did not matter to Paul what they thought about themselves. God accepts no man’s person. "As for those who seemed to be important---whatever they were makes no difference to me." (Gal. 2:6.)

In the end, all of the apostolic group agreed. The Church would have had serious problems if they had disagreed. The disagreement was between a sect of believing Pharisees and the inspired group. The conference or council was necessary for the purpose of letting everyone know what the decision of all the apostles and elders were. They heard the opposition out and decided that their position was seriously flawed according even to the Old Testament teaching. They sent letters to the churches to make known their decision.

If the subject matter over which they were disputing were optional, the conference would not have been necessary. However, Paul called it another gospel. (Gal. 1:6-9.) There are many things that divide believers that do not arise to the level of rejecting the Gospel or making vain the death of Jesus. The Galatian problem (which is probably the same as the conference at Jerusalem) was over a significant issue worthy of calling together elders and apostles to discuss it.

It is doubted that this decision and letters that were sent out settled the issue for the Pharisees. Some would have continued their error even after the conference and the unanimous decision of the leaders. This problem did continue to plague the church for some time afterwards.

Some argue that this example from Scripture justifies the gathering of church leaders on other occasions to settle religious disputes. We do know that important councils were held in the years following the first century. They were significant meetings held to discuss weighty matters. Schaff wrote, "Councils or Synods were an important means of maintaining and promoting ecclesiastical unity, and deciding questions of faith and discipline. They had a precedent and sanction in the apostolic Conference of Jerusalem for the settlement of the circumcision controversy." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vol. 2, 176.)

Some of the early Councils or Synods were these: The first Council of Nicea, AD 325; the first Council of Constantinople, AD 381; the Council of Ephesus, AD 431; the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451; the second Council of Constantinople, AD 553; the third Council of Constantinople, AD 680; and the second Council of Nicea, AD 787.

These are known as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. (There have been 21 such councils.) The first four are by far the most important ones as they discussed the Incarnation of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. The seventh council sanctioned the use and worship of images. There are four levels of conferences in church history. The highest order is the Ecumenical or worldwide Councils that apply to the whole church everywhere.

Some other important councils in church have been: 1) The Council of Trent, 1545-46, concerning questions of justification, 2) Vatican I, 1869, which declared the infallibility of the Pope, and 3) Vatican II, 1962-65, which expressed a more open attitude toward Protestant churches.

There are many problems with having such conferences or councils today. First of all, we do not have inspired men as those who led the discussions in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Jerusalem did not have a superior position above the other churches. Later, Rome did assume the leadership of all the churches. Conferences and Councils tend to do that----put the power to make such decisions in the hands of a few leaders in a centralized place. Who would make such decisions for the whole church? Would their decisions be binding upon all the churches? Secondly, we have the completed revelation from God that they did not have in the early church. This does not mean that differences will not occur. They have and will continue to divide the church. Thirdly, we should be careful that we do not give informal authority to brotherhood papers and lectureships to make decisions for us. These two, publications and lectureships, have had a great influence upon the churches in the Restoration Movement. Popular brotherhood preachers arise in prominence and we allow them to study and make the difficult decisions for us. Positions in brotherhood papers have carried enormous weight.

There is however nothing wrong with leaders getting together to consider difficult issues facing the church. Preachers often discuss such matters informally in monthly preachers’ meetings. Elders meet during lectureships and retreats to discuss their common challenges. There is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, it should be encouraged. But we should acknowledge Jesus and Him only, as the Head of the Church. We must study for ourselves and know God’s will for our lives. We must learn to rightly handle the Word of Truth.

Paul wrote to the Galatians that what the believing Pharisees were teaching constituted another gospel. (Gal. 1:6-9.) Note also 2 Cor. 11:4, Rom. 9:30-33 and Rom. 10:1-15. We know in detail the nature of the "other gospel" that was preached in Galatia, but the one in Corinth is not clearly revealed. The false apostles opposing Paul were preaching another Spirit, Jesus and Gospel.

Here is a general statement about "the other gospel" referred to by Paul. "Any teaching (gospel) which, in part or whole, supplants the death of Jesus or which views righteousness as something achieved by law-keeping is another gospel which cannot save." Paul wrote, "I do not frustrate the grace of God. For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal. 2:21.) "Not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3:9.) Peter said at the conference, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:11.)

Another gospel is being preached when another entire scheme of redemption is devised or another leader is followed. One religious body, The Latter Day Saints, claims to possess another testament of Jesus Christ. They are preaching another gospel. The Muslims claim that Mohammad is greater than Jesus, contrary to the opening statements in Hebrews where Jesus is declared to be greater and better than all.

We are preaching another gospel if we present the Gospel of Christ as just another law to be obeyed. Remember Paul’s analogy about the woman having a husband? (Rom. 7:1-4.) She is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if he is dead, she is free from that law. Then she can be married to another. That first husband constantly pointed out the woman’s sins and wrongs. The law made man aware of sin. (Rom. 3:20; 7:13.) But now we are free from that law so that we can be married to another husband, even him who was raised from the dead. The law causes constantly anxiety and spiritual frustration. Paul referred to himself as being wretched under the law. But in Christ there is no condemnation! (Rom. 8:1.) Any law can and will condemn, but it cannot save. Now the woman is married to someone who is gracious, forgiving and kind. The second husband is so different from the first. She is happy and redeemed.

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17.) For someone to summarize the Bible by saying, The Jews had the Law of Moses and we have the Law of Christ is to make a very misleading statement. (I am aware of 1 Cor. 9:21 and James 1:25.) The more accurate summary is Promise, Law and Gospel. The promise to Abraham is styled "the gospel which was preached before to Abraham." (Gal. 3:8.) The Promise and the Gospel go together, but the Law was added because of transgressions until the promised Seed should come. (Gal. 3:19.) In Romans 5, law-sin-death are theologically connected. Grace-righteousness-eternal life go together. Note how these sets of concepts are opposite. If someone makes of the Gospel another law, a serious result follows. There is always sin and death following in the footsteps of law. Paul wrote, "If a law (any law) could have given life, then righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21.) If any law could have given life, the Law of Moses could have done it just as well. But no one can be justified by law.

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39.)