Download discussion questions: Acts 15; Galatians 2
Our group began studying the letter that James wrote by first looking at two other New Testament passages that mention him.
Acts 15 records a meeting of the early church held in Jerusalem, probably around AD48-49.[1] The council was led by James and addressed the very real question of the relationship between the law practiced by Jews and the gospel being preached, especially by Paul. “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).
We also considered a part of the letter written by Paul to the church in Galatia which also challenged the requirements of the law as necessary for genuine Christian faith. In that letter Paul also mentions James as part of the resolution of that controversy.
We began our discussion with previous ideas or general perceptions (or “hearsay impressions”[2]) people have had about the book of James. Responses included:
- Faith should be followed by works.
- Trials are part of the Christian life.
- Trials should lead to joy.
- Works are evidence of salvation.
Interestingly (to me), other impressions which I have heard in the past were not mentioned:
- James was writing to correct Paul’s overemphasis on faith.
- The Bible includes conflicting ideas which we have to sort through.
- James was writing only to Jewish Christians.
Acts 15 and Galatians 2 provide the “prequel” (as one person put it) to studying the letter that James wrote. Those passages provide background about the events that were the context of that time in the early church. The responses of James and others to those events will give us a starting point when we get to the actual text of his letter in the coming weeks.
The Controversy
In both Acts 15:1 and in Galatians 1:7 the clear issue is about the nature of the gospel. What constitutes faith that saves us from sin and saves us into eternal life? The requirement to include the Jewish rite of circumcision as necessary for salvation probably sounded reasonable to the numerous early believers who had grown up with the Law as an integral part of life. But Paul was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5) whose Jewish roots could not be questioned. He called the requirement of circumcision a “distortion” of the gospel.
Several of the people in our group were part of a study last year in the book of Galatians.[3] One person reminded us of Paul’s admonition, “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law” (Galatians 5:3). The requirement for circumcision was just the first step in the distortion proposed by some zealous Jews. Another comment in the group pointed out that the authority cited for circumcision was “the custom of Moses” (Acts 15:1b), rather than looking back to Abraham, where God first introduced circumcision (Genesis 17:10). Using Moses as the explanation for adding circumcision opened the door to all the rest of the Mosaic Law to be included.
Another person in our discussion asked about the similarities between circumcision for Jews and baptism and Communion for Christians. Are we requiring something extra in the physical acts just as the Jews were requiring something extra in that physical act? Others in the group pointed out that the proponents of the law said “you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1) without circumcision. Most evangelical Christians would say that baptism and Communion are not requirements but expressions of our salvation. Another person reminded us that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, but baptism and especially Communion are signs of the “new covenant” in Jesus’ blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) which made the old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).
Even though circumcision was not required, one person asked if it would have been permitted. One response was that Paul’s disciple Timothy was circumcised in order to facilitate his ministry to Jews (Acts 16:1-3), even after the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The conclusion of the group was that voluntary compliance with part of the Law for the purpose of credibility in ministry was permitted.
A modern example is a friend of mine who is ministering in a central Asian country after he was converted from Islam to Christianity. When he was visiting in the U.S., we were at a dinner, and I heard him ask our hostess if there was any pork in the sandwiches she was serving. When I asked him about that, he said that in his country when he tells someone he has become a Christian, invariably the first question they ask is, “So do you eat pork now?” Becoming a Christian is equated with abandoning their culture, and that move would destroy his credibility to share the gospel. As a result, he continues to comply with a dietary law that has nothing to do with his salvation, but everything to do with his ministry.
On the other hand, the discussion in our group suggested that a request for circumcision or any other compliance with the law might suggest a doubt about the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Any legalism that is viewed as “insurance” just in case Christ’s atoning work is not enough must be rejected just as circumcision was rejected in Acts 15.
The Resolution
Circumcision (or anything else) required for salvation was indeed rejected in Acts 15, and James, probably the leader of the Jerusalem church, was instrumental in that decision. James, speaking for the council (Acts 15:14) referred to the testimony of Peter at the council: “we believe that we [Jews] will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [Gentiles] will” (Acts 15:11). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul confirmed that James along with Cephas [aka Peter, aka Simeon in Acts 15) and John affirmed Paul’s message of salvation based on faith alone (Galatians 2:9). Paul even says that he had gone to those leaders of the church to enable them to evaluate his message, “in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain” (Galatians 2:2). James and the others had taken a careful look at the gospel as Paul was preaching and concluded that it was the same as their message of salvation through the work of Jesus alone.
The next question from our group was, “What about verse 20?” “[We] should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” Isn’t James just substituting one set of rules for another, just adding different requirements to supplement faith for salvation? One person in the group, using the Blue Letter Bible[4] app, pointed out that James does not offer those restriction as commands (i.e. not imperative verbs). The tone is much more of a request for the Gentiles to abstain from certain practices.
The next obvious question would be, “Why these particular practices?” “…things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.” Two related suggestions came out of our discussion:
- These were practices that would be particularly offensive to Jews and their traditions of dietary laws, their loathing of idolatry, and their moral code.
- These very practices would have been common among Gentile converts from pagan worship and rituals.
James was wisely helping the council to see the importance of the future unity of the church, not just the issue of circumcision. The demands of those requiring circumcision would only be strengthened if Gentile members of mixed churches persisted in practices that Jewish members found so blatantly offensive. James was not willing to compromise the gospel for practices of either the Jews or the Gentiles.
The Application
Finally, in the discussion of James and Paul and their views of faith and works, Paul’s letter to the Galatians adds a helpful example. After Paul confirms that his gospel message of salvation by faith alone was fully consistent with the teaching of James and the apostles in Jerusalem, he adds his own example. “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do” (Galatians 2:10). While that request is not mentioned in the Acts account, Paul confirms from his own life that his faith resulted in works. His eagerness to minister to the poor followed his faith, it provided evidence of his belief. Care for the poor was not something required for Paul’s salvation. Rather that desire, that eagerness grew out of his desire to follow and serve his Lord.
The conclusion is that, “The canonical epistle matches the portrait of James in Acts 15 without contradiction.”[5] The goal in the next weeks of our study of the letter written by James will be to see that consistency and to help each other be more spiritually formed as our faith is expressed in our works.
[1] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 26.
[2] http://www.goodnotsafe.com/remember-the-signs/hearsay-impressions/
[3] http://www.goodnotsafe.com/calvary-institute-fall-2018-index/
[4] https://www.blueletterbible.org/
[5] Craig L. Blomberg, Mariam J. Kamell, James, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 35.