The Antioch Confrontation and the Jerusalem Council, Continued

- The Meeting of the Triumvirate

After a roundabout trip of several weeks through Phoenicia and Samaria, Paul and Barnabas (with Titus in tow) arrive at Jerusalem, and are received by the apostles first. Their arrival has been expected and Paul has requested a private audience with Peter, James and John before there is any public meeting. Though little is said of it, it’s the result of this meeting that determines the church’s course for the entire next age over the competing visions of Yeshua.

Paul has come to Jerusalem—ground zero of the Messianic vision—not just to treat with Peter and James about whether the Gentiles should be subject to the Mosaic Law, but to present his complete gospel of heritage transcendence just as he presents it “among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:2). He has come to present both his full credentials as a bona fide co-equal apostle and his unique gospel, covering everything he contends for later in the Galatian letter.31

Paul comes to present the doctrine of Jurisdiction Nullification through Identity Death and Replacement. He comes to persuade the apostles that no reborn believer is under the Law any more, and that there is only one standard of raceless spiritual equality among men based in one transcendent vision of Yeshua as the Son of God. And he has come to offer the miracle-backed fruit of his Gentile ministry as proof of this.

This meeting is strategic. Paul has requested it in secrecy for several key reasons. First, knowing the strength of the Jerusalem viper cloud, knowing Peter’s weakness under pressure, and certain of James’ opposite polarity of vision, Paul knows unless he can win the Jerusalem apostles in private to his gospel, he has no hope before a general council.

Paul knows he can get nowhere through an open confrontation on the Council floor against the Pharisees. Further, he knows he is not on his own territory.³² Given the volatility of his gospel, he dare not push the issue into the public arena nor shame the apostles on their ground lest he irreparably split the church and lose his entire case on behalf of the Gentiles. In Jerusalem, Paul is utterly cast on the Spirit who must ultimately bring His Own case to the hearts of the other apostles.

The meeting ends with no commitments from anyone. The apostles clearly recognize Paul and Barnabas’ calling and can say nothing against it. But accepting this new “transcendent gospel,” even though it follows in the spiritual lineage of everything Yeshua himself did and taught, is another matter. Peter is deeply mulling everything. James has cordially listened, but only blankly. His ears are closed. Though he can’t deny the Lord’s hand among the Gentiles, he just cannot hear the message of transcendence. And of John, we know nothing.

The limitation of discussion at the Council, and the apostles’ open verdict there shows us their verdict here on Paul’s gospel.

- Silence at the Council

At the Council, two significant things happen, or rather, do not happen. First, the volatile issue of Paul’s gospel of Identity Death, Replacement and Jurisdictional Nullification is never raised as a topic for evaluation. Discussion is limited to the question of whether Gentiles can even be saved apart from subjection to Jewish legal heritage. This means Paul’s case will only be made in part, leaving the critical issue of universal freedom from the Law untouched.

Second, Paul himself, cast on the Spirit, offers no litigation on behalf of either his gospel or even on the question of the Gentiles’ status. He and Barnabas keep only to presenting the evidence of the Spirit’s ministry through their work in the Gentile world. This means that the limited part of Paul’s case that will be heard will be heard only on the defensive. But the case for Law-free salvation for all will neither be heard nor carried on the offensive against Messianic Pharisaism.

The council’s tabling by silence of Paul’s gospel of universal Law-free equality shows us that the Jerusalem apostles were unable to fully or at all endorse his gospel coming out of the private meeting. Their silence on this matter will insure a permanent divide between the Gentile-origined church committed to the Son of God and the Jewish-origined church committed to the Son of Man.

- The Split Verdicts of Peter and James

Now limited defensively to just the topic of Gentile salvation outside the Law, the Council gets under way. Paul and Barnabas present their Spirit evidences on behalf of the Gentiles—just as Peter had 12 years prior. But this time, the circumcisionists, armed with 12 more years of entrenchment, do not yield to the evidence. Predictably unmoved, they proceed to vent their case on the offensive for heritage-based salvation for all.

Nevertheless, the Spirit accomplishes an amazing turn centered on Peter. Since his stinging chastisement by the Spirit through Paul at Antioch and his mulling of Paul’s gospel since the private meeting, Peter finally breaks through into a new Transcendent level of faith in Yeshua! Rising to the occasion, Peter stands to reject the case of the vipers against the Gentiles—and does so on the same strength of force with which Paul confronted him at Antioch!

Remembering the impact of his early encounter with Cornelius, Peter firmly certifies his acceptance of the Gentiles as racial equals. Not just this, but shadowing Paul’s very words to him in Antioch, Peter dares to declare that even the Jews themselves are unable to keep the Law! (Ac. 15:10.) By this one word, Peter indicates that he is in process of becoming fully converted to Yeshua’s universal Law-free transcendence as taught by Paul, even though that was not allowed for discussion.

This leaves James as the wild card. James has never left Jerusalem and the believing Pharisees have been his constant companions. He has never had first hand contact with Gentiles. James remains fully persuaded of the Law’s continuing necessity for Jews (though technically “not for salvation,”) even though Paul has explained his gospel to him and Peter has just hintingly concurred with Paul.

Nevertheless, insofar as regards the limited question of Gentile freedom, James does affirm Peter. He bends far enough to agree that the Gentiles are saved apart from the Law. But his affirmation is confined to a Messianic context of belief. On the strength of a prophecy from Amos, James assents to Gentile salvation only within a larger vision for incorporating the Gentiles into the Jewish framework by the “rebuilding of David’s tabernacle.” In other words, He sees their salvation not as one of raceless equality with the Jews, but as a departmental “appendage” to the Jewish heritage mainframe.

See this carefully. James’ ability to justify Law-free salvation for Gentiles is based—not on any revelation of the Spirit—but in the human confidence of knowing that Moses’ teachings are already well-established in the synagogues world wide; such that allowing Gentiles separate freedom will not prove a threat to Jewish adherence to Moses! That is his bottom line. As long as it doesn’t threaten the Jews’ subjection to Moses, he’s “OK” with law-free Gentile salvation.

James’ position on the “adjunct” nature of Gentile freedom in Yeshua while preserving Jewish believers’ subjection to the Law represents the classic Messianic vision of the faith as expressed to this day.

&&&&&&&&&&

And so it was, without touching the heart of Paul’s gospel, the Council approved just the concept of Law-free salvation for Gentiles, and ultimately did so based on the immature logic of the Council’s weakest member. In deference to James, a proviso was added to the agreement restricting Gentiles from things that would unnecessarily offend Messianic believers, as well as from what should be obvious (e.g., fornication).

- The “Missouri Compromise” of the Early Church

The Council’s silence on the merits of Paul’s gospel and its split motives in accepting the Gentiles apart from the Law was at once regrettable yet understandable. Conducted as it was under the viper cloud at Jerusalem, this issue and its decision of “iron mixed with clay” had an uphill battle from the beginning just to be heard.33

Harnessed to the weakness of the flesh, the Jerusalem decision succeeded at defensively plugging a Pharisaic “sewer pipe” from leaking its contents outside the Jewish community. But it did not offensively empty the poison of Pharisaic Messianism out of the Jerusalem church, never mind establish the supremacy of the Transcendent view of Yeshua for all the church.

The split decision left the immature Messianic view with its bondage in tact for one group of believers, while removing it for another group. This preserved a permanent legal ethnic division in the body of Christ between “Law-obligated” Jewish and “Law-free” Gentile-origined churches for the ensuing age—an age in which we still live.

What happened in Jerusalem is amazingly typified by a similar decision in American history called the “Missouri Compromise.” Like the early church of Yeshua, the American nation of the early 1800’s was also in theory “one nation under God.” But within its fabric was a deep divide between the “Slave states” and the “Free states.” As the nation expanded westward, maintaining the “balance of power” between the Slave and Free states was the driving political issue for 50 years before the Civil War of 1861.

In 1820, the U.S. being divided equally between Slave and Free states, a compromise decision was reached for handling the new western states that entered the union. The compromise said, “If you are ‘born’ into the union South of such-and-such a line, you will be a Slave state. But if you are ‘born’ into the union North of that line, then you can be a free state.” And so it was, the decision allowed for a permanently divided nation in the name of preserving the union.

That is exactly what happened in Jerusalem. As the church expanded westward, the “Jerusalem Compromise” (as it properly should be called) insured the permanent division between the “free churches” of Gentile believers and the “slave churches” of Jewish believers in the name of preserving the one nation of the body of Christ. Access to practical freedom in Christ was henceforth to be determined by on what side of the physical line one is born!

The Jerusalem apostles sealed the division line with their final commendation to Paul and Barnabas saying (in effect), “You go to the Gentiles, and we will go to the Jews.” And on they went—Paul and Barabbas to their foreign ministry, while the rest stayed in Jerusalem. With the separation in geographies, the deepest threat of division, as in 1820 America, was put at bay; replaced by a diplomatic silence between all on the issues—awaiting another day for true resolution.³⁴

NEXT – PART 11: PAUL’S RELENTLESS BURDEN FOR THE JEWS: HIS FINAL TRIP TO JERUSALEM

[BACK TO TREATISE INDEX]

[RETURN TO A TRANSCENDENTAL PRESENTATION OF ISRAEL]

[BACK TO TOP]

[HOME]