Test 18: The Jerusalem Council's Implications

Phase 5: The Apostolic Era
⚠️ Note: This content is currently in review and available for public examination. While scripturally grounded, it has not yet received final establishment.

The Central Question Before Us

What did the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) decide about the law and Gentile believers? Does this council support the view that the moral law was abolished, or that only ceremonial requirements were set aside for Gentiles?

The Jerusalem Council of approximately AD 49 was the first major church council. It addressed the question of what Gentile converts were required to observe. Position A often cites this council as evidence that the law (including the Sabbath) was not imposed on Gentiles. Position B argues the council addressed only ceremonial matters while assuming the moral law's continuing validity.

The council's actual decision must be examined carefully.

⚖️ Preliminary Matter: The Historical Context

The applicable legal principle:
*UK — Pepper v Hart [1993] — Contextual Interpretation:
To understand a decision, one must understand the question that prompted it.
The dispute that prompted the council:
Acts 15:1 — "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."
Acts 15:5 — "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."
The question before the council:

Must Gentile converts be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (the ceremonial system) to be saved?

Note carefully: The debate was about circumcision and ceremonial law — not about the moral law (Ten Commandments). No one was arguing that Gentiles need not refrain from murder, adultery, theft, or lying.

The Two Positions Under Examination

Position A (Moral Law Not Required): The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles were not bound by any Old Testament law, including the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath. The council only imposed minimal requirements (abstain from idols, blood, strangled things, and fornication). Position B (Ceremonial Law Set Aside; Moral Law Assumed): The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised or keep the ceremonial law to be saved. The moral law was not discussed because it was universally assumed to be binding. The four requirements given were clarifications of moral principles, not a complete ethical code.

Establishing the Burden of Proof

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Woolmington v DPP [1935]:
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the positive claim.
Application:

The moral law (Ten Commandments) was established and assumed binding. Position A claims the Jerusalem Council removed this obligation from Gentiles.

Position A bears the burden of proving:

  1. The moral law was under discussion at the council
  2. The council decided Gentiles were exempt from the moral law
  3. The four requirements were intended as the complete ethical code for Gentiles

PART 1: WHAT THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY DECIDED

Section 1.1: The Issue Under Debate

Acts 15:1 — "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
Acts 15:5 — "It was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Scope of Decision Limited to Issue Raised:
A judicial decision addresses the question presented; it does not decide questions not raised.
What was the issue?
  1. Circumcision — the distinctive sign of the old covenant
  2. The law of Moses — in context, the ceremonial system associated with circumcision
What was NOT the issue?

No one at the council argued:

  • "Gentiles should be free to murder"
  • "Gentiles should be free to commit adultery"
  • "Gentiles should be free to worship idols"
  • "Gentiles need not refrain from theft"
The moral law was not under debate because no one disputed its applicability. The Pharisaic believers wanted circumcision and ceremonial law in addition to the moral law.

Finding: The scope of the council's decision was limited to the issue raised: circumcision and ceremonial law.

Section 1.2: Peter's Argument

Acts 15:7-11 — "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Identifying the Subject of Discussion:
When a speaker refers to a "yoke," we must determine what yoke is meant.
What "yoke" was Peter discussing?

Peter was addressing the question at hand — circumcision and ceremonial law. This ceremonial system was:

  • A "yoke" that Israel found burdensome
  • Insufficient to save ("neither our fathers nor we were able to bear")
  • Not the means of salvation ("through grace... we shall be saved")
Was the moral law a "yoke neither we nor our fathers could bear"?

No. The moral law is described by those who love God as:

  • "Not grievous" (1 John 5:3)
  • "Perfect liberty" (James 1:25; 2:12)
  • "Delight" (Psalm 1:2; 119:97)
The burdensome "yoke" was the ceremonial system — the sacrifices, rituals, purity laws, and regulations that Israel found difficult to maintain perfectly.

Finding: Peter's "yoke" argument addresses the ceremonial law, not the moral law.

Section 1.3: James's Judgment and the Four Requirements

Acts 15:19-21 — "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
The four requirements:
RequirementMeaningCategory
Pollutions of idolsFood offered to idols; idolatrous associationsMoral (1st/2nd Commandments)
FornicationSexual immoralityMoral (7th Commandment)
Things strangledAnimals not properly slaughteredCreation ordinance (Genesis 9:4)
BloodConsuming bloodCreation ordinance (Genesis 9:4)
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Minimum vs. Maximum Interpretation:
A list of requirements may be minimum essentials, not a maximum limit.
Were these four items the COMPLETE ethical code for Gentile Christians?

If Position A is correct, the four requirements would be the only ethical obligations for Gentiles. But this produces absurdity:

If Only These Four Apply...Consequence
Murder not mentionedMurder would be permitted
Theft not mentionedTheft would be permitted
Lying not mentionedLying would be permitted
Sabbath not mentioned(Position A accepts this one)
Honouring parents not mentionedDishonour would be permitted
Coveting not mentionedCoveting would be permitted
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Luke v IRC [1963] — Presumption Against Absurdity:
Interpretations producing absurd results must be rejected.
No one believes murder, theft, and lying are permitted for Gentile Christians. The fact that these were not mentioned proves the list was not exhaustive. Why these four specifically?

These four items addressed areas where Gentile practice might particularly differ from moral standards:

  1. Idolatry — Gentiles came from idol-worshipping cultures
  2. Fornication — Gentile sexual ethics were notoriously lax
  3. Strangled things/blood — Gentile food practices differed
The council highlighted areas needing special attention for Gentile converts. It did not enumerate the entire moral law because that was assumed. Finding under the Presumption Against Absurdity: The four requirements were minimum essentials addressing Gentile-specific issues, not an exhaustive ethical code. The moral law was assumed.

Section 1.4: James's Explanation — Acts 15:21

Acts 15:21 — "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Purpose Clause:
When a speaker gives a reason ("for"), that reason explains the preceding statement.
Why did James add this statement?

James explains why only four items were specified: because Gentile converts would learn the rest of the moral law through regular Sabbath synagogue attendance, where "Moses" (the Scriptures) was read.

The logic:
  1. We give these four essentials immediately
  2. They will learn the full moral law as Moses is read every sabbath day
  3. Therefore, we don't need to enumerate everything now
Critical observation: James assumes Gentile Christians will be attending synagogue every sabbath day where they will hear the moral law expounded.

This assumption is incompatible with Position A's claim that the Sabbath was not required for Gentiles. If the Sabbath were abolished or optional, why would James assume Gentile converts would be in synagogue every Sabbath learning the moral law?

Finding: Acts 15:21 demonstrates:
  1. The moral law was assumed (learned through Moses)
  2. The Sabbath was assumed (every sabbath day)
  3. The four requirements were highlights, not the complete code
PART 2: WHAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT DISCUSS

Section 2.1: The Argument from Silence

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Silence as Evidence:
When a matter would necessarily be discussed if disputed, silence indicates it was not disputed.
What was NOT disputed at the Jerusalem Council:
TopicDiscussed?Implication
CircumcisionYes — decided against requiringWas the central issue
Ceremonial lawYes — decided against requiringWas part of the dispute
The SabbathNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed continuing
Murder prohibitionNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed binding
Adultery prohibitionNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed binding
Theft prohibitionNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed binding
Lying prohibitionNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed binding
Covetousness prohibitionNot mentionedNot disputed; assumed binding
The pattern is clear: The moral law (Ten Commandments) was not discussed because no one disputed its applicability. Only ceremonial matters — circumcision and the associated Mosaic rituals — were under debate. If the Sabbath were being abolished or declared optional:

This would have been highly controversial and would have required extensive discussion. The Sabbath was:

  • Part of the Ten Commandments
  • The sign of the covenant
  • Observed by all Jews, including Jewish Christians
  • A weekly practice affecting daily life
The complete silence about the Sabbath indicates it was not under dispute — it was assumed to continue.

Finding: The council's silence on the Sabbath indicates it was not controversial. What was controversial (circumcision, ceremonial law) was discussed and decided. What was assumed (moral law, Sabbath) was not discussed.

Section 2.2: The Content of the Council's Letter

Acts 15:23-29 — The letter to Gentile believers
The letter contains:
  1. Greeting to Gentile brethren
  2. Recognition that some had troubled them "with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment" (v. 24)
  3. The four necessary things (v. 28-29)
Note the phrase "keep the law":

The troublemakers had told Gentiles they must "be circumcised, and keep the law." The council says they "gave no such commandment."

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Context Defines Scope:
When "the law" is mentioned in a specific context, that context defines its scope.
In context, "the law" refers to the ceremonial system associated with circumcision — not the Ten Commandments. The council did not say "we gave no commandment to refrain from murder" — because such a commandment was obvious and assumed. Finding: The council's letter addresses circumcision and ceremonial law. It does not address or repeal the moral law.
PART 3: CORROBORATING EVIDENCE

Section 3.1: Paul's Practice After the Council

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Contemporanea Expositio:
How a decision was understood and applied by those involved is evidence of its meaning.
If the Jerusalem Council had abolished the Sabbath for Gentiles, we would expect Paul to stop observing it with Gentiles. Paul's practice AFTER the Jerusalem Council (AD 49):
ReferenceDate (approx.)EventSabbath Observed?
Acts 16:13AD 50Philippi — riverside prayerYes
Acts 17:2AD 50-51Thessalonica — Paul's customYes
Acts 18:4, 11AD 51-52Corinth — every Sabbath for 18 monthsYes
All these Sabbath observances occurred AFTER the Jerusalem Council.

If the council had decided the Sabbath was not required for Gentiles, why did Paul:

  1. Continue his personal Sabbath practice?
  2. Meet with Gentiles on the Sabbath?
  3. Never tell Gentile converts they could worship on any day?
Finding: Paul's post-council practice demonstrates he understood the council as NOT abolishing the Sabbath.

Section 3.2: The Later Conflict at Antioch

Galatians 2:11-14 — "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Evidence of Understood Standards:
What people argue about reveals what they consider important.
What was the Antioch conflict about?

The conflict was about table fellowship — whether Jewish Christians should eat with Gentile Christians. It was NOT about:

  • The Sabbath
  • The Ten Commandments
  • The moral law
The significance:

If the Sabbath question were unresolved or disputed after the Jerusalem Council, we would expect some controversy about it. There is none. The only post-council controversy involves table fellowship (a ceremonial/cultural matter), not Sabbath observance.

Finding: The absence of any Sabbath controversy after the council indicates it was not disputed. The council was understood as addressing ceremonial matters, not the moral law.

Section 3.3: James's Later Statements

James 2:10-12 — "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."
The applicable legal principle:
UK — Consistent Interpretation:
Statements by the same person on the same subject should be interpreted consistently.
James — the one who presided at the Jerusalem Council — later wrote this epistle.

In his epistle, James:

  1. Quotes the 6th and 7th Commandments
  2. Affirms the unity of the moral law
  3. States believers will be "judged by the law"
If James understood the Jerusalem Council as abolishing the moral law for Gentiles, why does he later write to Christian believers (including Gentiles) that they will be judged by the moral law?

Finding: James's epistle confirms he understood the Jerusalem Council as NOT abolishing the moral law. He continued to teach the moral law as binding.
PART 4: ADDRESSING POSITION A's ARGUMENTS

Objection 1: "The council didn't require the Sabbath, so it's not binding"

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Luke v IRC [1963] — Presumption Against Absurdity:
Interpretations producing absurd results must be rejected.
Response:

By the same logic:

  • The council didn't require "do not murder" — so murder is permitted?
  • The council didn't require "do not steal" — so theft is permitted?
  • The council didn't require "do not lie" — so lying is permitted?
The council listed FOUR items, not a complete ethical code. The moral law was assumed. Using the council's silence about specific commandments to argue they were abolished proves too much — it would abolish murder, theft, and lying as well.

Finding: The argument proves too much. The council's silence about specific moral commands indicates assumption, not abolition.

Objection 2: "The moral law was part of 'the law of Moses' that was not required"

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Context Determines Meaning:
The phrase "law of Moses" must be understood in its context.
Response:

In the context of Acts 15, "the law of Moses" is associated with circumcision (v. 5) — the ceremonial system that distinguished Jews from Gentiles.

The moral law (Ten Commandments) was not distinctive to Israel — it applies to all humanity:

  • "Thou shalt not murder" — applies to Gentiles
  • "Thou shalt not commit adultery" — applies to Gentiles
  • "Thou shalt not steal" — applies to Gentiles
The ceremonial law (circumcision, sacrifices, festivals) was distinctive to Israel. This is what the council addressed.

Finding: "The law of Moses" in context refers to the ceremonial system, not the universal moral law.

Objection 3: "James said 'we gave no such commandment' about keeping the law"

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Precise Reading:
The exact words used must be carefully examined.
Response:
Acts 15:24 — "Certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment."

The "commandment" they gave no was specifically: "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law [associated with circumcision]."

The council did not say: "We give no commandment to refrain from murder, adultery, theft, or idolatry."

In fact, the council DID give a commandment about idolatry and fornication (v. 29) — proving they expected moral standards, just not circumcision-based ceremonialism.

Finding: The council rejected the necessity of circumcision and associated ceremonies, not the moral law.
PART 5: FINAL ASSESSMENT

The Evidence Weighed

The applicable legal principle:
UK — Re H (Minors) [1996]:
The balance of probability — more likely than not.
Summary:
IssuePosition APosition B
Issue debatedClaims entire lawEvidence: circumcision and ceremonies
Peter's "yoke"Claims moral lawEvidence: ceremonial burden
Four requirementsClaims complete codeAbsurd if complete (murder permitted?)
Acts 15:21Cannot explainAssumes Sabbath attendance
Sabbath silenceClaims abolishedSilence indicates assumption
Paul's later practiceCannot explainContinued Sabbath observance
James's epistleCannot explainTeaches moral law binding
Finding on standard of proof: Position B is established by clear and convincing evidence. Position A cannot explain the evidence without absurdity.

The Burden of Proof Revisited

Position A bore the burden of proving:
  1. The moral law was under discussion ❌ Evidence: only circumcision/ceremonies
  2. The council abolished the moral law ❌ Evidence: moral law assumed (James 2:10-12)
  3. The Sabbath was declared optional ❌ Evidence: James assumes Sabbath attendance (15:21)
Position A has not discharged its burden.
# CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

Summary of Findings

IssueFinding
Question before the councilCircumcision and ceremonial law — not moral law
Peter's "yoke"The burdensome ceremonial system
James's four requirementsMinimum essentials, not complete code
Acts 15:21Assumes Sabbath attendance; moral law learned through Moses
Council's silence on SabbathIndicates assumption, not abolition
Paul's post-council practiceContinued Sabbath observance
James's later teachingMoral law binding; judged by it (James 2:10-12)

The Verdict

The weight of evidence demonstrates that the Jerusalem Council:
  1. Addressed circumcision and ceremonial law — the issue raised by the Pharisaic believers
  2. Did not address the moral law — because it was not disputed
  3. Assumed continuing Sabbath observance — Acts 15:21
  4. Gave four essential requirements — not a complete ethical code
  5. Did not abolish the Ten Commandments — which James later taught as binding
The council freed Gentile believers from the ceremonial system. It did not free them from the moral law, which was assumed universally binding.
Acts 15:21 — "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

Key Texts Reference

TopicText
Issue: circumcisionActs 15:1, 5
Peter's yoke argumentActs 15:10-11
James's decisionActs 15:19-21
Four requirementsActs 15:28-29
Council's letterActs 15:23-29
James's later teachingJames 2:10-12

Legal Authorities Cited

United Kingdom

AuthorityCitationPrinciple
Pepper v Hart[1993] AC 593Contextual Interpretation
Woolmington v DPP[1935] AC 462Burden of Proof
Luke v IRC[1963] AC 557Presumption Against Absurdity
Re H (Minors)[1996] AC 563Standard of Proof

United States

AuthorityCitationPrinciple
Gregory v. Ashcroft501 U.S. 452 (1991)Clear Statement Rule
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors*458 U.S. 564 (1982)Presumption Against Absurdity
← Previous: Test 17 Next: Test 19 →