Sample Chapters

Chapter 7. The Council of Jerusalem

When the leaders of the Jewish church in Jerusalem heard of the altered gospel message that Paul and his compatriot Barnabus were preaching up in Antioch, they dispatched some emissaries from Jerusalem to investigate it. When these “men of Judea” arrived in Antioch, they proceeded to teach, “. . . except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1)

Were they wrong in this teaching? No, as part of the new Jewish church in Jerusalem who believed in Christ as the promised Messiah, they were still under the restrictions of obedience to the law of Moses. In the earthly ministry of Jesus, He lived in perfect obedience to the law. Before Christ ascended, He never released believers from their commanded obedience to the law. In the well-known commission of Matthew 28, Jesus openly told them to, “. . . to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . . ” This would include obeying the law, because Jesus never taught Israel to disregard the law.

When Paul and Barnabus heard the gospel message that these certain men from Jerusalem were teaching in Antioch, it resulted in an intense (no small) doctrinal dispute (Acts 15:2).

Acts 15:2 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.

A theological summit meeting in Jerusalem was ordered. There is some textual discrepancy between Luke’s record and Paul’s recollection about who called this meeting. I suggest that the difference can be attributed to the different perspectives of the two accounts about this meeting. Luke’s account in Acts 15:2 says that the certain men from Jerusalem “determined” that Paul and Barnabus needed to go to Jerusalem and explain the content of their preaching. However, Paul, in his Galatians 2 version of this council meeting, offers a different reason for why he went back down to Jerusalem with Barnabus and Titus for this council meeting.

Gal. 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

A plausible reason for the differing perceptions over who called for this meeting could be that the “certain men” from Jerusalem might have agreed with the necessity of the meeting after they heard about Paul’s “revelation.” If Paul told these men about his “revelation,” they could have agreed that he needed to go to resolve the dispute over the emerging differences of the gospel messages of the two parties. The more likely explanation for the difference is the fact that Luke, the author of the Acts account, was not aware of Paul’s “revelation.” He merely reported the response of the “certain men” to the “no small dissension and disputation” they had with Paul and Barnabas as the cause of the meeting in Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, Paul revealed his purpose for this council meeting. It was to explain “…unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles…” (Gal. 2:2). This statement clearly indicates that Paul was preaching a gospel message that was in definite doctrinal contradiction with Peter’s gospel in Jerusalem. A resolution to this situation was required. If he had been preaching the same gospel as Peter preached, there would have been no “dissention” and no necessity for a meeting.

A “Fork-in-the-Road”

Picking up on the “road theme” of the title of this book, I submit that the scriptural account of the Jerusalem Council represents one of the most crucial “road choices” along the path of gospel advancement in the Bible. For today’s Bible reader, it is a clear-cut “fork-in-the-road” event. Hall of Fame catcher Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a “fork-in-the-road,” take it.” This “Yogism” is an amusing quip, but it does not tell you which road to take because you must choose one if you are to continue your trip.

The “fork-in-the-road” metaphor is universally understood as a point of decision. It is impossible to travel both roads of “the fork” simultaneously, so when you face a fork-in-the-road, you must ponder and pick one. In some choices only one choice is the one, that will allow you to reach your desired destination. However, all fork-in-the-road choices do not necessarily lead to different destinations. They can lead to the same destination, but simply by different routes. In this particular fork-in-the road dilemma, although salvation is the desired destination of each gospel, it was agreed that there was a correct gospel path for each side of this debate.

Scripture teaches us that God does not offer multiple “ways” to the source of salvation. In John 14:6, Jesus plainly stated that He was “. . .the way, the truth and the life.” However, the path to any salvation is accomplished by whatever “gospel road” that Jehovah, Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ has revealed within the history of Scripture. The premise of this book is that the “gospel roads” in the Bible have varied, but the destination has not, nor has the author of the various gospels that Scripture has revealed. Through Paul, Jesus was now revealing a new and final “gospel road” to salvation. Until the body of Christ is removed in the Rapture of the church, Paul’s gospel will remain the only “gospel road” available. The gospel of the kingdom will be reactivated during the seven year Tribulation and the one thousand year Millennium.

So, does the “fork-in-the-road” choice, as presented at the Council of Jerusalem, mean that only one choice at this “fork” is right? No. There is more context to be considered about this choice.

Consider this analogy. When you are in a restaurant and you need to use the restroom, you usually walk down a hallway looking for one of two rooms that serve the same purpose. You will use the door to the restroom that has a sign on it that matches your gender. Despite today’s plague-de-jour of gender dysphoria, God has ordained only two genders. Your gender at birth is either male or female and thus you choose the appropriate restroom. Your gender is not a matter of choice. Therefore, in normal society today, public places offer the choice of two gender-specific restrooms (destinations) that both meet the same basic necessity.

To complete this analogy, there is a fact that is commonly overlooked when Bible readers interpret the results of this important Council meeting. The overlooked fact is that each side of this debate represented two specific, God-ordained groups of people who were reliant upon two distinct gospels that would provide the same result –– salvation.

The co-existence of dual gospels raises the question of, “Is God the author of confusion?” No. It was His sovereign prerogative to ordain two genders, as well as the co-existence of two distinct, divinely chosen groups of people, Israel and the body of Christ (the church), who had been given two distinct gospel roads for their respective salvation(s). Both groups have the same spiritual need –– salvation from their sin. But the salvation path God ordained for each group was not identical.

By the end of this Council meeting, each side of the debate realized that two God-ordained gospels were now in effect. An evangelism strategy needed to be formed in the face of this two-gospel dilemma. Once the two-gospel distinction was acknowledged by each side of the debate, they had to agree upon the correct target audiences for their respective evangelism “gospel roads.” I believe that the mutual agreement reached about their future evangelism efforts was directed by the Holy Spirit.

The second major premise of this book is this: I believe the true impact of this Council is one of the most doctrinally misinterpreted events of God’s Word in Christianity today. The idea of two co-existent gospels in Scripture is often dismissed by the presumption that, because God cannot contradict or oppose Himself, there could never be two conflicting gospels in effect at the same time in history. So why, at this point in Bible history, did God allow the co-existence of two gospels?

What many teachers fail to note is the contextual difference in the New Testament that unfolds between God’s chosen people, Israel, and the Gentiles. Throughout its history, Israel demonstrated their humanity by their inability to maintain or attain salvation by perfect obedience to the gospel based upon the law of Moses. Was the law of Moses flawed? No. Despite Israel being God’s chosen people, they, like all mankind, were still people with a fallen sin nature. Any Gentile who became a convert to Judaism still had a fallen sinful nature. Because the law of Moses could not rectify anyone’s fallen nature, God’s requirement of perfect obedience was unattainable, for both the Jew, and any Gentile who converted to Judaism. God had to progressively teach all men, Jew and Gentile, the depth of the truth that is, “Salvation is of the Lord.” (Jonah 2:9).

Why did God, who knows all things, even bother to create a chosen people and give them a salvation path (a gospel) like the law of Moses, when He knew they would fail? I propose that the short answer is that Israel and all men needed to learn the lesson that would correct the false impression that man acquired in Eden. That false impression was the universal fact that, after the expulsion from Eden, it was every man’s instinct to think that he (or she) is “the god” of their own life. As such, it is also natural for each person to think that they have the “free will” ability to choose to believe and be saved. If true, it would mean that salvation is ultimately dependent upon a person’s willful cooperation in the choice to believe. But also, if this was true, it would give every believer at least “one boast” in heaven. They could claim personal credit for their choice to believe. However, Scripture does not allow any boast by man for the act of saving faith (Eph. 2:9).

This is the false instinct in men that was prophesied in Genesis 3:5. The serpent’s (Satan’s) reply to Eve contained this half-truth,

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Not only did man come to know “good and evil,” but every person became his or her own arbiter of what is “good” or “evil.” Proverbs 14:12 alludes to this new tendency of man’s will.

Prov. 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Israel’s long history of their professions of faith, their repeated obedience failures, followed by continual repentance under the law of Moses, was allowed by God to teach all men the ultimate truth that salvation must be by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, as later revealed in Ephesians 2:8.

So, was the law of Moses a mistake? Paul asks and answers this very question in Romans.

Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law:

The prophesied outcome of Genesis 3:5 above was the first effect of man’s sin. God’s law, given to Moses, served the purpose of revealing the essence of sin. You have probably heard the term “learning curve.” Israel displayed a long and tortuous learning curve history in the Old Testament. Their history as God’s chosen people stands as a prominent lesson for all mankind to learn. The truth God desires is that all men acknowledge their foremost need, which is the fact that all mankind are in helpless captivity to sin and therefore need a Savior. The “fork-in-the-road” gospel moment of the Council of Jerusalem was a critical interpretative juncture in the larger “learning curve” of Scripture. God was unveiling His ultimate salvation access through a gospel that gives Him all the glory.

If Israel couldn’t keep the law to be saved, what was the point of Gentile conversion to Judaism as a path to salvation? Were Peter, James, John, and the other disciples following the wrong gospel path? No. The time was right for God to introduce a new gospel truth –– salvation by grace through faith alone. God made this gospel shift by the means of Paul’s dramatic conversion and the advancement of a new, and particularly distinct, gospel message. This distinction was then brought to the realization of Peter, James, and the other disciples at the Council of Jerusalem.

The Biblical oddity regarding this dispensational transition by the Lord and the gospels of law and grace is the fact that it did not follow the pattern of the previous dispensation transitions. In the previous dispensation transitions, a dramatic event, like the flood of Noah, often marked the change in the administration of God’s redemptive plan. The beginning of the dispensational shift from law to grace was also marked by the dramatic event of the Damascus road conversion of Saul of Tarsus, but his conversion was nevertheless an exclusively private event, similar to the call of Abraham. Paul’s conversion was experienced only by him and it was witnessed only by the few men travelling with him. Even then, Saul and these men did not realize the full impact of the change that was being made. Although the inception of the dispensation of grace and the new gospel message Saul would receive was a quiet event, the unique feature of it came by the fact that there was no corresponding nullification of the present gospel that the Jewish Christians believed and obeyed – the gospel of the law of Moses and Peter’s update of Acts 2:38 – “Repent and be baptized. . . “ The gospel of the law remained in effect for the Jewish Christians.

Co-existing Gospels

In doctrinal circles, there is a common adage that says, “Law and grace are like oil and water –– they cannot be mixed.” This sounds like a clever analogy, but it is a little misleading. While the dispensations of law and grace are distinctive in many ways, the truth is that God’s law and grace have always co-existed in Scripture. They co-existed in Eden. The very creation in which Adam and Eve dwelt was the product of the grace of God, as was the very breath God put in their lungs (and ours). But, for their life and relationship with their Creator to operate as God desired, by virtue of His authority, God gave them assorted commands (laws) to obey.

Recall, that when God allowed sin to enter this new creation by the first act of law disobedience by Adam and Eve, the lawless rebellion of man’s fallen heart flourished after Eden. The evil of man swelled to such a degree that moved God to destroy the earth by a flood. But by His grace, he spared Noah and his family to inhabit and populate the restored earth after the flood. Next, by God’s grace, He sovereignly chose to speak to a pagan idol-worshipper Abram. God commanded him to move to Canaan and inherit the enormous promises of which Abram was totally undeserving. This was the very definition of grace on full display. The point I wish to make is that law and grace run from end to end of the Bible. They are by no means exclusive to the two dispensations which are labeled “law” and “grace.”

However, the correct understanding of the gospels in Scripture requires the correct interpretation of each attribute of law and grace within every gospel as revealed within their respective dispensation period. Many Christians have a doctrinal misconception that there has forever been only one gospel in Scripture. It is irrefutable that there has always been only one Saviour in Scripture who has a multitude of names, ranging from Jehovah to Jesus Christ. But, the Saviour has provided differing gospel instructions for men to obey throughout the ages for the purpose of restoring and maintaining their broken relationship with their Creator.

Today, the one-gospel fixation of many Christians is the main reason why the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem is widely misinterpreted to the degree that many pastors and teachers fail to acknowledge the co-existence of two different gospels. Many pastors and teachers either ignore the difference altogether, or they are content to doctrinally extract a gospel that is a blend of the New Testament gospels that are connected respectively with Peter and Paul. These two gospels are legitimate gospels for two distinct people groups of God’s choosing, but they were not intended for the use of both groups. This is a scriptural truth that many churches fail to discern.

It was no secret that God’s choice of Saul (Paul) marked the beginning of a new “dispensation.” Paul openly stated this fact in his letter to the Ephesians.

Eph. 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

By disregarding this dispensational truth, the content of the writings of the subsequent letters of the New Testament inevitably gets stirred together in many denominational theologies of today. As a result, many of today’s sermons contain an erroneous mix of doctrinal “oil and water” for their listeners because of the failure to “rightly divide” God’s word in a dispensational context.