Alan Lewis
Elon, North Carolina
February 2026
Today, we come to a pivotal chapter in the Book of Acts. We come to a turning point in the history of the church. Acts 15 is one of the most important chapters in the New Testament and yet you rarely hear a sermon on it. It is a chapter about the first church council and it raises all kinds of questions
Probing Questions
This is a chapter that raises all kinds of really important questions. We will not be able to answer all of them today but here are some questions that we see in this chapter.
1) Questions about Salvation
What do you have to do to be saved? What are the requirements for salvation? How are Gentiles saved? This chapter is all about, not just salvation, but Gentile salvation. That is relevant. Most people in church today are Gentiles.
2) Questions about the Gospel
A gospel was preached in Antioch which the early church rejected. What was this gospel? What are modern forms of this gospel today? Who are the modern-day Judaizers?
3) Questions about the Law
Are Christians under the Law of Moses? Do Christians have to keep the Law of Moses? Is the law binding on Christians today? Do Christians have to keep the Sabbath? Do they have to keep what the law says about homosexuality?
4) Questions about Roman Catholicism
Roman Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope. He was in this church council. He spoke first. Was he the first pope?
5) Questions about Church Councils
Should there be church councils today? Can some group or organization outside of your church come up with rules or beliefs that are binding on all Christians?
6) Questions about Unity
How do you resolve conflict in the church? Acts 15 give us a blueprint for conflict resolution. How do you bring unity among different cultures or groups in the church? This council addressed that question
7) Questions about Church Meetings
How do you hold a church meeting? This chapter contains biblical principles for church meetings.
Church Councils Today
Acts 15 describes the first church council but it was really not a church council in the modern sense. It was not Christians from all over the world who come together to discuss a matter.
This was a gathering of just two churches and it has apostles in it, not just one or two but all of them. Modern church councils do not have any apostles in it. They are led by bishops, not apostles.
Are church councils authoritative today? Can some group of Christians somewhere come up with rules or beliefs that are binding on all Christians? That all depends if they are biblical rules.
Church councils have value if they summarize what Scripture teaches on a topic. Some church councils have actually contradicted Scripture. Paul taught very clearly that salvation was not by works.
He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. (Titus 3:5 NIV)
We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28 NIV)
Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5 NIV)
If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:9 ESV)
The Council of Trent said the exact opposite of what Paul said. IT was a Roman Catholic Council in 1547.
“If anyone says, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification… let him be anathema.” (Canon 9)
“If anyone says, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema” (Canon 12)
Doctrinal Dispute
Acts 15 is a chapter that deals with a doctrinal dispute. It was a dispute that almost caused a church split. It happened fifteen or sixteen years after the church began.
Christians don’t always agree on things. They don’t always agree on doctrine. They do not always agree on theology but there are two types of doctrines.
There are minor doctrines and there are major doctrines. There are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines. Not every issue is worth arguing about.
Most of the things we argue about don’t matter. In Acts 15, we come to a debate about doctrine that is not minor; it is major. It deals with salvation.
The first doctrinal dispute in the early church was not about prophecy. It was not about the end times or last days. It was not about speaking in tongues. It was not about whether you should baptize people by sprinkling or immersion. The first doctrinal dispute was about salvation. How did it begin?
Controversy at Antioch
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. (Acts 15:1-2 NIV)
Paul and Barnabas went on their missionary journey and then they came home. They went back to the Church of Antioch, which sent them out. They give a missions report.
Then, some out-of-town visitors showed up at church. Paul just came off the mission field. They said, “what you taught was good, but it did not go far enough.”
The Judaizer Gospel
They said, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” They told Paul, “Instead of baptizing people, you should have circumcised them” but there is more. There were two components of their gospel and we see that in Acts 15:5.
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (NIV)
According to this group, to get saved you have to get circumcised. That was only a requirement for the men. The women did not have to get circumcised.
The second thing you have to do is to keep the Law, like the Jewish dietary laws and the Sabbath. Notice the word MUST. They believed this was not optional.
They were sincere, like every cultist. They were absolutely convinced that they were right on this. They even used the Bible. They said, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom TAUGHT BY MOSES, you cannot be saved.”
They claimed to represent the Church of Jerusalem. They claimed to represent the apostles in Jerusalem. They would have called Paul a lower-level apostle. They said that he was not a real apostle. He was not one of the original apostles. He was not one of the Twelve.
The Merit Gospel Today
There are modern forms of this merit gospel today. This is gospel of all of the world religions. It is the gospel of everyone except Christianity. They all teach salvation by works. On Judgment Day, God will weight you good deeds and your bad deeds. If you have enough good works, you get in.
It is the gospel of Buddha. It is the gospel of Islam. It is the gospel of Mormonism. It is the gospel of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is the gospel of the Roman Catholic Church.
It was the gospel of the Pharisees. They did not deny the need for faith or believing in Jesus, but it is not enough. You have to get circumcised and keep the law. There are 613 commandments in the Law of Moses.
What do they all have in common? You have to DO something to go to heaven. You have to EARN salvation in some way. Someone might say, “Don’t we believe we have to do something to be saved?
Don’t we have to believe?” Yes. We have to believe in Christ to be saved but there is a big difference between simply receiving a free gift by faith and earning salvation by keeping a set of rules.
Conflict Resolution Steps
How did this church council resolve this issue? How did they decide which side was right and which was wrong? This is very interesting.
1) Try to resolve it first
That is what Paul and Barnabas did. They spoke to the Judaizers. They tried to resolve it first and stuck to the matter at hand. That is what we need to do. We need to try to resolve things ourselves. That is true of personal disputes and doctrinal disputes.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, JUST BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 NIV)
That is what we need to do. Paul and Barnabas did it. It did not resolve the matter. It only led to a heated argument. These men argued with Paul and Barnabas. They were leaders of the church. They argued with the leaders of the church, but it got worse. Paul was a genuine apostle. They argued with an apostle.
Can you imagine arguing with the Apostle Paul on doctrine? He wrote most of the NT. That is incredible arrogance. These men thought they knew more than Paul.
Some still do that today. Paul wrote under divine inspiration. There are many who don’t like Paul. They don’t like what he says about gender roles or sexuality. He promotes male headship.
He told wives to submit to their husbands. He told slaves to obey their masters. He didn’t believe in gay marriage. He called homosexuality a sin. He told people to submit to the governing authorities. He said the powers that be are ordained of God.
Today people don’t submit to the authorities. They oppose, resist, threaten and assault God-given authorities, like law enforcement or federal agents enforcing federal law and encouraging others to do so. It is a completely different message than what the Apostle Paul taught.
Paul is unpopular in some circles but the people who criticize him are not apostles. They were not personally chosen by Jesus Christ. They have not written any book of the Bible. None of their writings were divinely inspired. Some of Paul’s were. When seeking resolution does not work, they took another step.
2) Utilize the church leaders
That is what happened here. Paul got into an argument with the Judaizers. He brought Barnabas with him. When that did not work, he spoke with the leaders of the church.
They did not take a poll and ask everyone in the church what they thought about the issue. All ideas are not equal. Some ideas are stupid. Some ideas are unbiblical.
They spoke to the leaders of the Church of Antioch. They sent him to the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem. Why? They wanted to go back to the source of the problem.
So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:2 NIV)
They said, “Go talk to the Twelve Apostles about this.” The question was not just brought to the leaders. It was brought to the highest level of leadership.
Wouldn’t it be cool if every time you had a doctrinal question or every time there was a controversy, you could just go ask the Twelve Apostles?
They just all happened to attend the same church. We don’t have the apostles here today, but we have their writings. Paul and Barnabas were sent them to Jerusalem.
That was a three-hundred-mile trip. It probably took two weeks. On the way there, they make a stop in Phoenicia and Samaria.
The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:3-5 NIV)
There were two different responses to hearing about the conversion of the Gentiles. Believers in Phoenicia and Samaria responded with joy and celebration. The Church of Jerusalem responses the same way but one group responded, not with joy, but with criticism.
Notice that this criticism was done by professing Christians. It came from some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. These were people inside the church. When God works and does amazing things, it bothers some Christians.
They actually try to fight what God is doing. That led to intense discussion on the matter. The apostles and elders met to consider this question (Acts 15:6 NIV)
They brought it to the church leaders, the apostle and elders. They did not just bring it to one apostle but all twelve.
Notice that leadership was shared, not concentrated. This was not a one-man decision. It was not a top-down decree. It wasn’t decided by a single person. It wasn’t decided by papal decree.
Catholics think that Peter was the first pope. Peter was there but he is not called the pope. He is just one of the apostles. He gives the first speech, but he does not chair the meeting.
He does not lead the council. He does settle the debate or issue the final ruling. James does that. A collaboration of leaders was involved in this meeting.
3) Listen to all sides
In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines. (Proverbs 18:17 NIV)
All sides were heard in this council. There was open debate. Many churches do not encourage discussion. Certain questions are not encouraged.
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them (Acts 15:6-7 NIV)
There was an openness to hear all sides. In the dictator model, the one at the top makes the decision. The leader’s word ends the debate. “I’m the pastor. What I say goes.” Many churches today operate on that model.
That is the Roman Catholic model. The pope is at the top with supreme authority. That is not what we see here. Acts 15 does not describe a papal office.
4) Be open to Scripture and experience
Experience is not more important than Scripture. You cannot use experience to contradict Scripture. On the other hand, Scripture and experience should go hand-in-hand. They both matter and we see that in Acts 15. Peter was the first one to talk in Acts 15.
Why did he talk first? He was the first one who dealt with Gentile salvation. The first Gentile convert took place under his ministry. Peter gives an argument from experience. He tells what God did under his ministry.
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:7-11 NIV)
The Judaizers were saying that Gentiles cannot be saved without circumcision. Peter says that they have already been saved. They have been saved for years. God did this.
God saved them and He saved them without circumcision. The Holy Spirit fell on them and they spoke in tongues. It was clear they were saved. The Spirit fell on uncircumcised Gentiles.
Peter did not say that they could be saved like us. He said, “we can be saved like them.” Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. There are not two different ways of salvation. Then Paul and Barnabas spoke.
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them (Acts 15:12 NIV).
Paul and Barnabas also give evidence based on experience. Not only were Gentiles saved through their ministry, but God confirmed it with miraculous signs. He authenticated it. He put His stamp of approval on it but this decision was not just based on experience; it was also based on Scripture.
When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’—18 things known from long ago. (Acts 15:13-17 NIV)
James says that what Peter described lines up with Scripture. It is biblical. He could have quoted several OT passages, but he quoted the Book of Amos. To this agree the words of the prophets (KJV).[1]
5) Always Seek Unity
Even in doctrinal disputes, we should always be concerned about unity, not just truth. Don’t use freedom to destroy fellowship.
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3 NIV)
This council does not just answer who is right and who is wrong. The Jerusalem council said that Paul was right. The Judaizers were wrong.
In fact, they said that they never sent them to the Church of Antioch. They did not represent the church.
Some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. (Acts 15:24 NIV)
They also said something else. They did not just pick a side in this debate. The proposed something to promote peace and unity between the two main groups in the church: Jews and Gentiles.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:28-29 NIV)
Four Prohibitions
Gentiles do not have to keep the law or be circumcised to be saved but there are four things that Gentiles should do.
Three of the four prohibitions deal with food. They were to abstain from food offered to idols. They were to abstain from blood, and they were to abstain from the meat of strangled animals. That last one seems a little strange. What is that all about?
Why can’t you eat the meat of strangled animals? If it is not slaughtered, the blood would not have had a chance to drain out. The throats of animals had to be cut and the blood drained out before an animal could be eaten.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it is wrong to take blood transfusions because of Acts 15:20. That verse says that we are to abstain from blood, but they have completely misinterpreted the verse. It has absolutely nothing to do with blood transfusions.
It couldn’t mean that. How do we know? It is in the context of food (food offered to idols and meat from strangled animals). The other two of the three prohibitions deal with food.
Furthermore, blood transfusions did not exist in Paul’s day. They didn’t even exist in the first century. The first blood transfusion was not until the 1800s. James was not telling believers to abstain from a medical proceedure which didn’t even exist for eighteen hundred years later.
He is talking about eating blood. That prohibition comes right out of the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus talks about eating blood (Leviticus 17:10-12).
Three of the prohibitions deal with FOOD. One prohibition deals with BEHAVIOR (refraining from sexual immorality).
The real question is, Are these four rules still binding today? Are they permanent or temporary? There is a hint here. Only one of these is moral but there are principles from all of them that still apply today.
[1] What is not as clear is how the prophet Amos relates to the conversion of the Gentiles. Amos 9:11-15 deals with the restoration of Israel, not the church. David’s tabernacle is restored, ruined cities are rebuilt and Israel is planted in their own land, never to be uprooted. The tent of David is fallen. The Davidic dynasty fell in 586 BC. Not one has sat on the throne of David since 586 BC, although Jesus is the Son of David. Is James saying that the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent is the church and the church is the new temple? Is he saying that the present inclusion of Gentiles in the church is consistent with the future Gentile blessing that Amos speaks about?
