'And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and
said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be
saved. 2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and
disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and
elders about this question. 3. And being brought on their way by the
church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the
conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the
brethren. 4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received
of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all
things that God had done with them. 5. But there rose up certain of the
sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to
circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6. And
the apostles and elders came together 'for to consider of this
matter.'--ACTS xv. 1-6.
The question as to the conditions on which Gentiles could be received
into Christian communion had already been raised by the case of
Cornelius, but it became more acute after Paul's missionary journey.
The struggle between the narrower and broader views was bound to come
to a head. Traces of the cleft between Palestinian and Hellenist
believers had appeared as far back as the 'murmuring' about the unfair
neglect of the Hellenist widows in the distribution of relief, and the
whole drift of things since had been to widen the gap.
Whether the 'certain men' had a mission to the Church in Antioch or
not, they had no mandate to lay down the law as they did. Luke
delicately suggests this by saying that they 'came down from Judaea,'
rather than from Jerusalem. We should be fair to these men, and
remember how much they had to say in defence of their position. They
did not question that Gentiles could be received into the Church, but
'kept on teaching' (as the word in the Greek implies) that the divinely
appointed ordinance of circumcision was the 'door' of entrance. God had
prescribed it, and through all the centuries since Moses, all who came
into the fold of Israel had gone in by that gate. Where was the
commandment to set it aside? Was not Paul teaching men to climb up some
other way, and so blasphemously abrogating a divine law?
No wonder that honest believers in Jesus as Messiah shrank with horror
from such a revolutionary procedure. The fact that they were
Palestinian Jews, who had never had their exclusiveness rubbed off, as
Hellenists like Paul and Barnabas had had, explains, and to some extent
excuses, their position. And yet their contention struck a fatal blow
at the faith, little as they meant it. Paul saw what they did not
see--that if anything else than faith was brought in as necessary to
knit men to Christ, and make them partakers of salvation, faith was
deposed from its place, and Christianity sank back to be a religion of
'works.' Experience has proved that anything whatever introduced as
associated with faith ejects faith from its place, and comes to be
recognised as _the_ means of salvation. It must be faith _or_
circumcision, it cannot be faith _and_ circumcision. The lesson is
needed to-day as much as in Antioch. The controversy started then is a
perennial one, and the Church of the present needs Paul's exhortation,
'Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.'
The obvious course of appealing to Jerusalem was taken, and it is
noteworthy that in verse 2 the verb 'appointed' has no specified
subject. Plainly, however, it was the Church which acted, and so
natural did that seem to Luke that he felt it unnecessary to say so. No
doubt Paul concurred, but the suggestion is not said to have come from
him. He and Barnabas might have asserted their authority, and declined
to submit what they had done by the Spirit's guidance to the decision
of the Apostles, but they seek the things that make for peace.
No doubt the other side was represented in the deputation. Jerusalem
was the centre of unity, and remained so till its fall. The Apostles
and elders were the recognised leaders of the Church. Elders here
appear as holding a position of authority; the only previous mention of
them is in Acts xi. 30, where they receive the alms sent from Antioch.
It is significant that we do not hear of their first appointment. The
organisation of the Church took shape as exigencies prescribed.
The deputation left Antioch, escorted lovingly for a little way by the
Church, and, journeying by land, gladdened the groups of believers in
'Phenicia and Samaria' with the news that the Gentiles were turning to
God. We note that they are not said to have spoken of the thorny
question in these countries, and that it is not said that there was joy
in Judaea. Perhaps the Christians in it were in sympathy with the
narrower view.
The first step taken in Jerusalem was to call a meeting of the Church
to welcome the deputation. It is significant that the latter did not
broach the question in debate, but told the story of the success of
their mission. That was the best argument for receiving Gentile
converts without circumcision. God had received them; should not the
Church do so? Facts are stronger than theories. It was Peter's argument
in the case of Cornelius: they 'have received the Holy Ghost as well as
we,' 'who was I, that I could withstand God?' It is the argument which
shatters all analogous narrowing of the conditions of Christian life.
If men say, 'Except ye be' this or that 'ye cannot be saved,' it is
enough to point to the fruits of Christian character, and say, 'These
show that the souls which bring them forth _are_ saved, and you must
widen your conceptions of the possibilities to include these
actualities.' It is vain to say 'Ye cannot be' when manifestly they are.
But the logic of facts does not convince obstinate theorists, and so
the Judaising party persisted in their 'It is needful to circumcise
them.' None are so blind as those to whom religion is mainly a matter
of ritual. You may display the fairest graces of Christian character
before them, and you get no answer but the reiteration of 'It is
needful to circumcise you.' But on their own ground, in Jerusalem, the
spokesmen of that party enlarged their demands. In Antioch they had
insisted on circumcision, in Jerusalem they added the demand for entire
conformity to the Mosaic law. They were quite logical; their principle
demanded that extension of the requirement, and was thereby condemned
as utterly unworkable. Now that the whole battery was unmasked the
issue was clear--Is Christianity to be a Jewish sect or the universal
religion? Clear as it was, few in that assembly saw it. But the parting
of the ways had been reached.