<p> A Crisis, a Council, and Inspired Leadership By Robert J. Matthews Ensign, Oct. 1995, 54-59</p><p>The fifteenth chapter of the book of Acts tells of a among the Gentiles or Samaritans at that time (see Matt. high-level council meeting in Jerusalem that brought together 10:5). the leaders of the church that Christ had established during Widening the Boundaries his mortal ministry. The date of this council meeting is not Chapters three to six of Acts deal with the ministry of specified, but the events leading up to it indicate that it was in the Twelve among the Jews in and around Judea. The Church approximately A.D. 49 or 50. grew rapidly with Jewish converts, and persecution came from The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ among Jewish leaders. Growth brought the need for administrative non-Jewish people raised questions of doctrine and procedure enlargement in the Church, and seven men were called to that the young church had not encountered when missionary assist the Twelve. Among these were some with Gentile- work was done among Jews only. Little more than fifteen sounding names, such as Stephen, Parmenas, and Nicolas, years after the death of Christ, problems were encountered who is further identified as a proselyte from Antioch (see Acts that made a top-level resolution necessary. The decisions not 6:5). Stephen was subsequently accused by the Jews of only would affect the Church in matters of doctrine but also having taught that Jesus would destroy Jerusalem and the would have a bearing on missionary procedures and the temple and “change the customs Moses delivered us” (Acts practice of religion in individual families. 6:14). (He is the earliest noted in our records to face this latter The council was not held in a vacuum, nor was it a accusation.) He was brought before the Sanhedrin; his bold mere academic exercise. It was attended by people of strong testimony, recorded in chapter seven, so angered the opinions, religious convictions, traditions, and biases whose Sanhedrin that he was stoned to death. lack of agreement made the council necessary. There was, in Chapter eight reports the official establishment of the effect, a crisis forming in the young church, and the moderate, Church in Samaria. Culturally, this was a half step beyond inspired resolution by Church leaders was the best possible teaching only the Jews, yet the beliefs of the Samaritans were response for the time. similar to the traditions of Jewish converts to the Church. A The Roots of the Problem genealogically Israelitish people mixed with other nations, the The need for the council was the consequence of Samaritans were technically not Jews, but still they practiced doctrinal and cultural factors that had been at work among the law of Moses. both Jews and Gentiles for centuries. These influences came To the Gentiles together in the growing Church of Jesus Christ. A review of However, the conversion of Cornelius and his family some events covered in the first fifteen chapters of Acts will at Caesarea, recorded in the tenth chapter of Acts, was a help us understand the thrust and direction of the early major step for the new church’s missionary system—a full Church and see what led to the Jerusalem Council. step toward taking the gospel to all the world. A vision (see It is recorded in the first chapter of Acts that the Acts 10:9–18) taught Peter not only that the Mosaic law’s resurrected Christ, preparing to ascend into heaven, told the strict prohibition of certain foods was about to end, but also surviving eleven members of the Twelve not to extend their that he and the Church must be ready to accept [page 57] all ministry beyond Judea until after they received the Holy those whom God was willing to cleanse. Ghost. They would then be empowered to go to Jews, Cornelius’s baptism is the first clear case of a Gentile Samaritans, and the “uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8)— coming into the Church without having obeyed the among the Gentiles. Matthias, one who had been a witness of requirements of the law of Moses—circumcision, the law of Christ’s ministry from its beginning, was chosen to fill the carnal commandments, ceremonial law, and so forth. Many vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve (see Acts 1:15–26). Jewish brethren in the Church objected to this direct The second chapter of Acts records that about one membership process and complained to Peter, but he week after the Ascension, at the annual feast of Pentecost, answered their criticism with a recital of his vision and of the the Holy Ghost descended on the Twelve and they spoke in workings of the Spirit in the matter (see Acts 11). Despite this tongues to people who were present. Thousands of Jews from divine direction through the Lord’s anointed, however, some more than a dozen nations were gathered at Jerusalem for Jewish members of the Church remained reluctant to accept the feast; following the manifestation of the Spirit, three the change, “preaching the word to none but … Jews only” thousand of these visitors were converted to the Lord in one (Acts 11:19). day (see Acts 2:41). It is of particular importance to note that But at Antioch of Syria, a great city about 310 miles the people who came from all those nations were both “Jews north of Jerusalem, there began to be so many Gentiles and proselytes” (Acts 2:10). The [page 56] term proselytes as joining the Church that the Brethren in Jerusalem sent used in the New Testament always means Gentile converts to Barnabas there to oversee the growth (see Acts 11:20–26). Judaism. Barnabas was a good choice diplomatically: a Jew of the tribe Among the three thousand converts to the Church of of Levi by lineage, reared in Cyprus (a Gentile environment), a Jesus Christ on that day of Pentecost, some certainly would convert to the gospel, “a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost have been from among the proselytes—and these would be and of faith” (Acts 11:24; see also Acts 4:36). Seeing the the first persons of Gentile lineage to join the Church in that magnitude of Church growth among the Gentiles in Antioch, dispensation. But note this important fact: even though they Barnabas sent for Saul (later known as Paul the Apostle), were of Gentile lineage, they had all previously converted to whom he had long known (see Acts 9:26–27), to come and Judaism, which means they were circumcised, ate only foods assist him. sanctioned by the law of Moses, offered sacrifice, and Chapters 13 and 14 of Acts tell of a yearlong honored the Sabbath day in proper Jewish style. Religiously, missionary journey in which Barnabas and Paul visited they were Jews, and thus the Church membership remained Barnabas’s home country of Cyprus, and many cities in what exclusively of Jewish background. This reflected the is now central Turkey. They preached first to the Jews, then to instruction of Jesus to the Twelve more than two years earlier, the proselytes who came to the synagogue, and organized when they were starting on their first missions, not to go branches and ordained elders in the cities they visited. The law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). Therefore, “the apostles and elders Jews who did not believe their teachings opposed their efforts. came together for to consider of this matter” (Acts 15:6). Barnabas and Paul taught that the gospel of Jesus After much disputation among the council members, Christ is greater than the law of Moses and that the law on its Peter rose to speak of the role God had assigned him in own could save no one (see Acts 13:38–39). Envious Jews, missionary work: “that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear seeing the multitudes who came to listen to the two disciples the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7). He reminded of Christ, spoke against their teachings. Barnabas and Paul the congregation that the conversion of the Gentiles was the responded: “It was necessary that the word of God should first work of God and that God “put no difference between us and have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, … lo, them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). He also we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). There were Gentiles declared that both “we” and “they” would be saved “through who heard them gladly, “and as many as believed were the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:11). This is an ordained unto eternal life” (JST, Acts 13:48). Obviously, many affirmation that without God’s grace, none of our works are Gentiles were baptized directly into the Church without having sufficient to save us. observed the law of Moses. Following Peter’s testimony, the multitude in the Open Disagreement council listened as Barnabas and Paul told of the “miracles Word of the success of Barnabas and Paul reached and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” Jerusalem, and Acts 15:1 records that certain Judean (Acts 15:12). members of the Church who were much concerned went to After these things were heard, the Apostle James, Antioch on their own, without authorization from the Twelve or who may have conducted the meeting under Peter’s direction, any of the presiding Brethren of the Church, and declared to offered a type of official pronouncement: The Gentiles who the new Gentile members that “except ye be circumcised wished to come into the Church ought to face only the [page 58] after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” necessary requirements of being morally pure and of This clearly stated the problem: Was obedience to refraining from idol worship or from eating blood (see Acts the law of Moses, with all its attendant performances, required 15:13–21; Gen. 9:4). The law of Moses was not specifically for salvation now that Jesus Christ had made the Atonement? mentioned by James and is conspicuously absent from the While the emphasis in the Jewish members’ teachings seems requirements he voiced. to be on circumcision, that ritual was the token of the An Epistle to the Saints covenant that the Lord Jehovah had made with Abraham (see Barnabas and Paul were assigned to return to Gen. 17). Both the covenant and the token were to be a Antioch, accompanied by Barsabas and Silas, “chief men heritage for Abraham’s posterity in the generations after him among the brethren” (Acts 15:22), to report the decision of the (see Gen. 17:9–10). Circumcision identified one as a believer council. The Brethren in Jerusalem also prepared an epistle to in the true God and in the covenant. This token was continued the Saints in Antioch and the surrounding area. The epistle in the law of Moses. Throughout the book of Acts and the concludes by conveying the council’s decision in these words: epistles, circumcision is generally used as a one-word “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to representation for the entire law of Moses; hence when the lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Jewish members of the Church insisted that Gentiles be “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and circumcised, they really meant that the Gentile converts from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: should obey all of the law of Moses. from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye Barnabas and Paul contended with the visiting well” (Acts 15:28–29). brethren from Judea on this important matter involving not Acts 15:30–31 reports that when the epistle was read simply a point of tradition or custom but a fundamental to Saints assembled at Antioch, “they rejoiced for the doctrinal issue regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ. The consolation.” dissension became so great that it was decided the matter While this account in Acts is brief, we learn some could only be settled by the presiding officers of the Church at additional details about the Jerusalem Council from Paul’s Jerusalem. Barnabas, Paul, and others would go to Jerusalem later epistle to the Galatians. We learn, for example, that to place the question before Church leaders (see Acts 15:2). when Paul went up to Jerusalem, he conferred privately with The significance of the question is threefold: the Brethren to make certain they were in agreement with 1. Did Jesus Christ by his earthly ministry and what he and Barnabas had done in receiving the Gentiles, atonement fulfill the law of Moses, with its multitudinous “lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain” (Gal. 2:2). ordinances and performances? Another important fact we learn from this Galatian 2. If so, would converts from non-Israelite peoples epistle is that Paul and Barnabas took Titus, a young Gentile still have to obey the law of Moses in order to become convert, with them to Jerusalem. Paul apparently saw in Titus baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ? living evidence that an uncircumcised Greek could be a model 3. And should Church members, Jew and Gentile, of faith and virtue, strong in the Spirit; in him, Jewish members have their children circumcised as a requirement for might see an example of the grace of God given to the salvation? Gentiles without the encumbrance of the law of Moses. The settlement of these questions would have Apparently Paul was successful in his purpose, for he profound effect on how members regarded Christ’s mission. It declared, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, would also affect the missionary procedures of the Church was compelled to be circumcised” (Gal. 2:3). and the religious behavior and practices of every family in the The Decision’s Limited Scope Church with regard to their children for generations. As forward-reaching and beneficial as the decision The Council Convenes was by the Jerusalem Council, it was limited in its scope. The When Barnabas and Paul arrived in Jerusalem to council did not decisively declare an end to the law of Moses, see the Brethren, they were respectfully received and had though it did settle the matter so far as the Gentiles were opportunity to give account of their success among the concerned. Furthermore, the council’s epistle was not Gentiles. However, there were in Jerusalem many Jewish addressed to all members of the Church—only to the Gentile members who had been Pharisees before their conversion to members in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. And it should be noted Jesus Christ; many of these would not give up their that the council did not say the Gentiles could not or must not adherence to the law, insisting that “it was needful to practice the law of Moses—only that they need not do so for circumcise [the Gentiles], and to command them to keep the salvation. Why would the Brethren be so ambiguous and noncommittal? They seemed to have said as little as they could about the matter. Was it that they wanted to avoid a division in the Church and did not want to alienate the strict Jewish members? Did they not want to invite persecution from Jews outside the Church? James seemed to have had this in mind when, after announcing the moderate decision of the council, he said, “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day” (Acts 15:21). By wording the decision the way they did, the Brethren probably avoided a schism in the Church, and no doubt also avoided the ire that would have come from the Jews had the decision been more unyielding. There must have been many who would have preferred a stronger declaration, but the Brethren acted in the wisdom requisite for their situation—not out of mere political or diplomatic expediency, but judiciously, surely acting under the guidance of the Spirit, which the Lord had promised would guide his disciples aright (see John 16:13). Revelation’s Light on Tradition The moderate decision of the council made possible continuing accommodation of some members’ traditions without compromise on essential doctrinal points. Ten years later, as Paul returned to Jerusalem at the end of his third mission among the Gentiles of Greece and Turkey (Galatia and Asia), the Brethren rejoiced with him at his great successes. But they cautioned him against preaching strong doctrine about the law of Moses in Jerusalem. They said: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: “And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs” (Acts 21:20–21). Because some of these believers would inevitably come to hear Paul preach, the Brethren advised him that before this happened he should make his own public observance of the law; “and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law” (Acts 21:24). Paul followed their advice. There is no doubt that Peter and the other Brethren knew that the law of Moses was fulfilled. (Latter-day revelation also makes it plain that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ; see, for example, 3 Ne. 15:4–5—the Savior’s comments to others who had been practicing the law—as well as Moro. 8:8 and D&C 74.) Obedience to the law of Moses was no longer a requirement for salvation since Jesus had completed his atonement. Missionary work among the Gentile nations could go forth directly and without impediment. Yet still there was that conflict between the doctrine of the Church and Jewish culture. The long-standing cultural tradition persisted among many Jewish members for years, even after the doctrinal question was settled. In like manner today, there may be questions on which the doctrinal foundation is clear but on which tradition or custom are so strong that the Brethren are impressed not to take a firmer stand, trusting, as did Church leaders in New Testament times, that if the basic revealed principles are known, the Holy Ghost will eventually lead the adherents to forsake their tradition, or academic popularity, or peer pressure in favor of the word of God. The resolution of the problem reported in the book of Acts gives our present generation an informative model as to how both Church members and those of different faiths may react when revelation confronts tradition and long-standing custom. Only living prophets could correctly handle the situation then. Only living prophets can do so in our day.</p>