The Jerusalem Council in a Six-Week Study
A church in Ipoh runs a six-week study on Acts. In week five, on Acts 15, two members clash. Mr Tan, 58, a former temple committee member, argues that since the council kept four prohibitions (Acts 15:20), Gentile believers today must also abstain from blood and from food offered to idols. His opponent, Grace, a 24-year-old campus worker, says the four rules were only a temporary cultural compromise and Christians are free. The group leader, Pastor Raj, asks you to prepare a 15-minute response that explains what the Jerusalem meeting actually decided and why, and models how to disagree without splitting the group. He gives you only the text of Acts 15:1–35 and Acts 10:1–48.
1. Reconstruct the argument of Acts 15:1–21. Who spoke, what evidence did each give, and what was the decisive turning point?
Read the worked answer
Read the chapter as a sequence of evidence, not as a single proof-text. (1) The dispute begins with men from Judea teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation (15:1); the Pharisee party in the church repeats the demand to keep the law of Moses (15:5). (2) Peter answers first with memory: God chose him to preach to Gentiles, gave them the Spirit just as to Jewish believers, and 'cleansed their hearts by faith' (15:7–9). His key line is that God 'made no distinction' and that Jews and Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (15:9–11). (3) Paul and Barnabas then report the signs and wonders God did among the Gentiles (15:12). (4) James interprets the reports through Scripture, citing Amos 9:11–12: God is rebuilding David's tent so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord (15:15–18). He therefore proposes not to trouble Gentile converts, but to write four abstentions (15:19–21). The decisive turn is not a compromise between two equal opinions; it is the convergence of God's observable action (the Spirit given to Gentiles) and Scripture. The assembly then acts 'with one accord' and sends a letter (15:22–29).
2. What is the difference between the four prohibitions in Acts 15:20 and the demand for circumcision in 15:1? How should Mr Tan and Grace each qualify their claims?
Read the worked answer
The demand in 15:1 and 15:5 is a demand for circumcision and full law-keeping as the terms of salvation and belonging. The four items in 15:20 are different in kind and in purpose. James says 'we should not trouble those Gentiles' (15:19); the letter says 'no further burden than these essentials' (15:28) and 'if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well' (15:29). They are pastoral rules for mixed tables and public witness, not a second gospel. The rationale in 15:21 is that Moses is read in every city, so these matters were live issues in the synagogues and streets where the churches met. Mr Tan is right that the council made a real moral decision and that idolatry, blood and sexual immorality are not trivial; he is wrong if he turns the four into conditions of salvation or a universal law that ignores the council's own 'not trouble' logic. Grace is right that salvation is by grace through faith, not by these rules; she is wrong if she treats the four as nothing, because the council cared about conscience, table fellowship and the church's witness. The text gives both of them a qualification.
3. Pastor Raj wants a process, not just a verdict. What in Acts 15:1–35 models a way to handle the disagreement in the group?
Read the worked answer
Acts 15 models a process as well as a verdict. The dispute is not silenced; Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem (15:2). The church receives them and hears the report (15:4). The Pharisaic believers are allowed to state their case (15:5). The apostles and elders meet (15:6); Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James speak in turn (15:7–21). James does not merely give an opinion; he shows how the testimony fits Scripture. The decision is made by the assembled church with the apostles and elders (15:22), not by a single leader. Trusted delegates are chosen and sent with the letter (15:22–27), the letter explains the reasoning (15:23–29), and Judas and Silas add oral encouragement (15:30–32). The result is rejoicing (15:31). For Pastor Raj, the pattern is: let both sides speak; ask what God has visibly done; test claims by Scripture; distinguish essentials from concessions; write the decision clearly; send people who can explain it; and keep the relationship. That is a better model than either forcing a vote on week one or pretending there is no difference.