The Christian church has held many councils over the centuries. In retrospect, some of the issues appear trivial, though admittedly some were quite important. For example, the Council of Nicea dealt with the Arian Controversy: was Jesus Christ God in verity or a created being? Was there a time when He was not? The conclusion of the council produced a creed affirming that Jesus was truly God, of the same substance, begotten and not created.

The forerunner of all subsequent councils that met to discuss Biblical interpretations and theological conclusions was the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. This meeting dealt with an issue of tremendous importance to the early believers. The young church faced a question serious enough to buy Paul and Barnabas bus fare to Jerusalem to discuss it.

Some Jewish Christians taught that new Gentile Christians essentially had to convert to Judaism in order to be compliant Christians. Paul and Barnabas insisted that this was an error. It should not surprise us that Paul was virtually dumbfounded by the return to the Law: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel".[1]

To settle the conflict, Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem and with the apostles considered the issues. Their decision has far-reaching implications even down to our time, and is important in discussions with Adventists on the Sabbath and other requirements.

The Question

Paul and the other missionaries planted churches, taught both the Jews and Gentiles about Christ, about the cross, the resurrection and about faith. Men came down from Judea and taught, "Yes, this is all true, but now you also have to be circumcised."  Acts 15 quotes them: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

In Jerusalem as the discussion began the Pharisee believers stood up (Verse 5) and said "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses".

All at this council know that missionaries have been sent out to proclaim Jesus Christ, the Cross and the resurrection. They have worked in the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit has fallen upon the new believers with a visible manifestation. Though we don't know exactly what that meant, it was very obvious to the apostles and missionaries that Gentile believers were accepted by God.[2] It is obvious to all present that God has been working among these new believers.

To the Pharisee believers, however, it seemed unthinkable that God would actually allow these new believers to be welcomed into His family without the sign of the covenant or without obedience to the Law of Moses. Had God Himself not thundered His law on Sinai and given all the instructions for Israel through Moses? And now Paul is suggesting that they only needed to believe and that they were saved by the grace of Jesus alone?

The Laws of Moses

Circumcision is first mentioned in Genesis 17 when God gave it as a sign of the covenant between Abraham and God: "and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. …Thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." (vs. 11, 13b)

Since Paul taught that we are children of the faith of Abraham, it might seem that we who are of faith and not of the law should receive the sign of the covenant of faith. Yet Paul disputed this idea (along with the idea that they must also keep the "law of Moses"). In Galatians 5:2 he insisted "if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law." Law is not simply a communication of the will of God; it is a whole system of blessing and curse. The blessing is only obtained through perfect and continuous obedience to the entire law; the curse from one deviation.

The Pharisee believers were not saying they were trying to be justified by keeping the Law of Moses; but they did say that the new believers would not be saved if they did not.

This is so similar to the Adventist claim today that Christians must – are under obligation to – keep the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments. True, Adventists do not claim that they keep these in order to be saved or justified, but as a result of salvation. Few Adventists will admit that they keep the law and God rewards us with salvation if they comply well enough.

The same argument could have been made by the Pharisee believers; the new believers needed to become circumcised and keep the Law of Moses now that they were justified. In both cases the result of not being circumcised, of not keeping the Law of Moses, and of not keeping the Ten Commandments is to not be saved. The Adventist claim is that those who do not keep the "true" Sabbath will receive the Mark of the Beast and not the seal, which is the Sabbath.[3]

The "Laws of Moses" were a broad designation. They included all the obligations that Moses gave to Israel including the Ten Commandments written in stone. Jesus used the common designation for the parts of the Scriptures when He said "Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms".[4]

David, as he drew near death, told Solomon to "…keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses".[5]

Amaziah killed those who had killed his father; he did not kill their sons because of what was written in the Law of Moses[6]: "…nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers…"[7]

Indeed, starting with the instructions about the manna through the giving of the Ten Commandments and into the rituals and regulations – all of these were considered a part of the Law of Moses. When the people went out looking for manna on the Sabbath God said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?"[8]

Some may suggest that we keep the Ten Commandments as a love response to God, or out of appreciation. We may well ask today: what is wrong with not killing sons for what their fathers have done? Nothing. What is wrong with the Commandment forbidding adultery? Nothing. The question at the Jerusalem council was not whether or not there was some flaw in the Law of Moses. Paul's disagreement with the Galatians is not over the quality of those laws. It was in the Christian relationship to those Laws and the purpose of the Law.

The question at the council of Jerusalem was whether or not they should instruct the Gentiles that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses or else they can not be saved. Restated another way: "You must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved."

Paul deeply knew that this was both impossible and defied the true purpose and nature of the Law.

Bondage of the Law

Paul was not very complimentary toward those who were trying to reintroduce the law. In Galatians 2 he says that they had "sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage." And: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"[9]

Further Paul states that we were held, for a time, in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But God sent His Son, born under the Law so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.[10]

Peter stood up and asked those gathered at the council an important question: "why do you put God to the test?" Many years earlier God declared, "Surely all the men who have seen My glory and My signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me to the test these ten times and have not listened to My voice."[11] God was put to the test when Israel asked for food according to their desires.[12] Peter asked Ananias' wife, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?" She breathed her last after this question.

Obviously Peter did not wish to put God to the test by, as he says, "placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear." This yoke was unbearable for the simple reason that it was never intended to be bearable by us. The Law was a "tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."[13]  Paul correctly adjusted our perspective on the law and teaches why we are not saved by it. The law was given to make the whole world accountable to God.[14] The Law produces a knowledge of sin.[15] Though the Law is holy and righteous and good,[16] the Law brings about wrath.[17] Apart from the Law sin is dead[18] and Law actually produces sin. The power of sin is the Law.[19]

Paul further teaches about the Law: "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane…and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching."[20]

It is not at all that the Law is flawed in some way; we are flawed. Paul elaborates in Romans 8 that God did what the Law could not do by sending His Son. Not because the law was weak, but because we are weak. Far from being flawed the Law was articulated in perfect clarity. But the reason why it is bondage to us is simply because we are born in bondage to sin.[21]

The important point to realize about the Law is that its purpose was never to save us; that was Christ's mission on the Cross. The harder we try to keep – perfectly keep – the law, the more frustration sets in. The law reveals the perfect character and requirements of God, reveals our absolute depravity, and pronounces a death sentence upon us.[22]

Peter follows up his question with a strong comparative word – in the Greek it is alla. The word is simply translated "but" but the conjunction is stronger – The NRS translation reads "On the contrary".

On the one side of Peter's comparison is the policy of placing upon the neck of the disciples the yoke of circumcision and the Law of Moses. On the other side is the method of salvation that we believe and teach.

The NIV reads "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Saved. There is but one method of salvation: through the grace of our Lord Jesus. We just like them; they just like us.

It is said by Adventists today that the Gentiles were grafted into Israel, and so were still under the same obligations to continue to obey the Ten Commandments. Companion to this argument is the one that divides the law between the so-called "moral" and the "ceremonial" law, and Adventist teaches that it was the ceremonial law only that was abolished at the cross. This distinction is artificial and not supported in Scripture. True, there is an observed difference between ritual and law, but the Adventist further separates the laws of Israel between those that supported their civil nation and the "moral" – the dividing of laws is only complete once the Adventist apologist has separated the one side all rituals, yearly ceremonies and distasteful laws and on the other the Ten Commandments, command not to eat unclean animals and certain other pet commandments still considered desirable. This is not warranted. Nor is the grafted into Israel theory that requires the Gentiles to observe the law.  Peter says that we (Gentiles) are saved in the same way as they (Jews) – by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

I have often wondered what justification the Adventist has – that I had as an Adventist pastor – in lifting the Ten Commandments and in particular the Sabbath out of the Law of Moses. Why only those? Why only weekly Sabbaths? Adventists, and Ellen White, teach that the Decalogue is more important because it was written by the hand of God. Today there is much commotion among some Christians to place the Decalogue into public buildings and into schools. While these, as historical documents, are certainly important still they are not binding upon Christians relative to our salvation. The will of God is the will of God; yet in reviewing Paul's teaching on the Law, it becomes evident that the will of God was to give the law for a purpose; that purpose was not as a means of salvation, and now that the Laws of Moses have performed their duty and Christ has come, we are crucified to the Law and now live in Christ, covered – even smothered – in His love and grace. We do not walk by the letter that kills, but in the Spirit that gives life.

Adventists and all modern day legalists would drag us back into a futile life of frustration and discouragement; Christ bids us to shed our lives and to rest in Him, our Sabbath rest.

The Conclusion

After listening to all that had happened among the Gentiles, James stands up with his decision. They would neither lay circumcision nor the Law of Moses upon the Gentile believers.

Here we have to be clear and understand what was determined to tell them:

1.      Abstain from things sacrificed to idols

2.      Abstain from blood and from things strangled

3.      Abstain from fornication

These should not be confused as creating a new law. Early in his ministry, Paul had gone to Jerusalem to submit to the leaders his gospel. They recognized that the grace of God was resting on him and extended the right hand of fellowship. The apostles asked him to remember the poor (something he was already eager to do). This was not a new law, but was exactly in line with the commandment of love from Jesus to His disciples. Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."[23]

Paul, elsewhere, said: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.[24]

Paul further explained the importance of not eating food sacrificed to idols. It was not that the idol had any significance or that the act mattered – wise and educated Christians knew that there was one God and that idols were meaningless rocks. Food was food; yet to the young and fragile Christian this knowledge was not yet fully understood. Paul directed the more educated to behave in a manner that would prevent the new Christians from stumbling.[25] Paul even had Timothy circumcised since he knew to whom Timothy would need to minister.[26] Paul knew full well that circumcision was meaningless to the Christian who was no longer under law, but under grace; yet in order for Timothy to be able to work among the Jews in Lystra and because Timothy's father was a Greek, he had Timothy circumcised.

The "commandments" or instructions given to the new converts were both practical and important given the situation they found themselves in. Today we in America do not have "idols" (my Hindu Indian friends do). We do not sacrifice food to them. Yet the principles still apply. We operate out of love.

These guidelines from the council, however, are different than the modern Adventist claim that we must keep Sabbath or risk losing our salvation. The Adventist claim is a direct analog to the claim by the Pharisees that the new Gentile converts needed to keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised.

If the Sabbath held the supreme importance in the great controversy that Adventists insist, the Jerusalem council could easily have stated this. If we must keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved, James would have clearly articulated this. If the deciding factor between whether or not a person stands redeemed and justified is his theological position on the Sabbath, would this not have been made plain and clear at this time?

Adventists almost teach a Gnostic religion: they have studied and deciphered the formula of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation and have discovered that it secretly reveals that Sunday is the Mark of the Beast and that Sabbath observance signifies and identifies God's true church and remnant.

The seventh-day is the Sabbath, if we agree that Genesis 2 means that God set apart not only that one seventh day but meant for this to be a perpetual memorial. Yet, this is far different than making the Sabbath a law, day of worship and a requirement for salvation. Every day is a day of worship as we worship our Creator by walking by faith and in the Spirit. The in-dwelling spirit of Christ leads us seven days a week; if the Sabbath teaches our rest in Christ so much the better. But as soon as the Adventist declares that we must "keep" the Sabbath they have degraded the blessing of God into the "ministry of death, engraved on stones."[27]

"You were called to freedom, brethren, only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."[28] "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."[29] "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."[30] "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."[31]

To paraphrase Paul: "You foolish Adventists, who has bewitched you? …did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law or by hearing by faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?"

It is my hope that we will all further understand both what is not required and what is desperately needed from Christians today – the love of Christ that fulfills the law of God.[32]

After the council had convened they returned to Antioch with the verdict from the council. The response was positive: "And when they read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement."[33] They were encouraged because the yoke of bondage of the Law had not been put again upon their necks. Jesus had said to take His yoke upon us because His yoke was easy and His burden light.[34] No one would ever say that attempting to keep the Law of Moses was easy or a light burden; yet faith in Christ and walking with His Spirit shifts the burden of compliance to Him.

Far from teaching "antinomianism" (against law) we establish truth as it is taught in the Bible. We recognize that the law was given for a purpose and trying to resurrect living by the Law is depart from Christ's call to simply follow Him and to place upon ourselves a burden that has been lifted. Attempting to comply with the letter kills; walking in the Spirit gives life. We who are saved need to examine ourselves to ensure that we walk by the Spirit and are not resting on some vague definition of law-compliance. Walking by the spirit is challenging; forensic crucifixion is always followed by the death of our pride and selfishness; in its place blooms the love and the life of Christ, who dwells in us.

---

Topics

• Adventism
• Theology
• Gardening

Snapshot

“The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 illuminates the issue of Sabbath and Law observance.”

Feedback Form