The question up at the Jerusalem conference was the salvation of the Gentiles--not whether Gentiles could be saved--as to that all were agreed, for that had been settled long before; but as to how Gentiles were to be saved. Paul and Barnabas and the church at Antioch believed that it was the gospel of the grace of God and through faith, both as to their initial acceptance, and also as to their final salvation.

      But certain teachers that had come down from Judaea (pretendedly by endorsement from the church at Jerusalem) taught that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. It was not disputed that Gentiles might come in by faith in Christ--the case of Cornelius had settled that; however they may have got into the church, the Gentile brethren must be circumcised and subscribe to the Law in order to final salvation. Paul and Barnabas opposed that sharply. Abraham was saved by faith while yet uncircumcised, they insisted. (See Rom. 4:9, 10.) But the Judaizer would reply that Abraham went right on and received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while he was yet in uncircumcision (Rom. 4:11); and that the Law was super-added by God Himself as the rule of the righteous life for Abraham's seed. Paul and Barnabas, on the other hand, would contend that no such requirement was included in the gospel. But the Judaizers would insist that it was implied. They would not admit the apostolic authority of Paul in proof of the matter. The apostles at Jerusalem, and the church there of course, practiced circumcision and lawkeeping, for if they had not been doing so how could anyone have thought of requiring such a thing of Gentile converts? And if under the eyes and by consent and endorsement of Christ's apostles at Jerusalem the church there continued in circumcision and law-keeping who was Paul that he should repudiate it and claim that it did not apply to Gentiles? So the controversy was sharp. Plainly that matter could not be settled satisfactorily at Antioch; it must be settled at Jerusalem. If the church there, and the apostles who were there, took their stand against the necessity of the Gentile brethren's circumcision and law-keeping, then the contention of these Judaizers would be refuted everywhere and for ever. Otherwise not. So up to Jerusalem they went with it.

      On their arrival in Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas were recognized and honored by the church. There a meeting was called for the consideration of the important question. It is notable that never at any time during this meeting was anything settled by authoritative dictum. There was no papal voice or official conclave that decided anything by arbitrary [69] authority, but all was done by free discussion in which all might be heard; all by reasonable argument and teaching, and fair convincing of the minds of all. Such is God's way and method for settling doctrinal questions in the church. After much debate, Peter rose up. He reminded them of God's work through him, in the case of Cornelius--how God had borne open witness to the acceptedness of the believing Gentiles as Gentiles, by an evident demonstration of the Holy Spirit, and without imposing any further requirements on them. How then (continued Peter, in effect) can you dare to challenge God's action by imposing a yoke upon the necks of the accepted Gentiles--a yoke which even we Jews ourselves have never been able to bear? And is it not true that we Jews ourselves, though we have kept up the observances of the law, have ceased to trust in that for salvation? For really we ourselves, exactly as the Gentile brethren, do bank on nothing but the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ for our final salvation. (Acts 15:7-11; Compare Gal. 2:15, 16.)

      During the thoughtful silence which followed this speech of Peter, Paul and Barnabas told the story of God's great work through them in Gentile fields. This further impressed the multitude. Finally James who, though not an apostle, was chief leader in the church in Jerusalem--James, the Lord's brother (generally conceded to be writer of the Epistle of James also), one of the sternest and strictest of Jewish Christians, arose and summed up the discussion, all that had been said, and drew the conclusion of the whole matter. His speech demands special notice and attention; for it seems to be most generally misunderstood.

      We are continually inclined to read our own ideas, false and true, into the Bible. Also, we read former things in the light of later knowledge. The latter is not at all wrong; nevertheless we must keep in mind, if we would understand the record, what the actual stage of enlightenment was at the given time. The Jewish brethren at Jerusalem did not at first understand some things with which we are perfectly familiar. We are apt to assume that they knew them as well as we. One of those things is the whole purpose and meaning of the church.

      The church came into existence at Pentecost, but there was a gradual development. At first, it consisted of a company of Jews who accepted the truth that Jesus was their Messiah, who repented of all their former attitude toward Him and of any part they may have had, in active participation or by passive consent, in His rejection and crucifixion, and who were "baptized into Christ." There was no thought at first of a separate institution. It was but a movement within Judaism which, it was hoped, would soon compass the whole nation [70] of the Jews. Though the disciples began their own worship under the guidance of the apostles (Acts 2:42), there was no discontinuance of the temple-service, nor any change of attitude toward law-observance or the customs and practices of the Jews. And at first there was no opposition or ill-will toward them on part of the Jewish populace (Acts 2:46, 47). But as their number grew they drew the attention of the Jewish authorities. The religious leaders were irked at the fact that they taught, and yet more at what they taught (Acts 4:2; 5:28), and they were alarmed also at the rapid spread of the teaching. The persecution begun by them came to a head in the killing of Stephen and was taken up by the general populace. Then the gospel spread abroad into Judaea, yea, Samaritans heard and accepted; finally even Gentiles received it--all of which made the unbelieving Jewry bitterer in their opposition. The believers in Christ were being more and more persecuted, disowned, dIsfellowshipped. They were cast out of the synagogues, shut out from the temple. Still they did not understand that God was separating them from the nation of Israel, and rejecting the latter. Still they held to the promises of the prophets and their national Messianic hope, and fondly expected the conversion, the restoration, and the exaltation of the nation of Israel, as foretold by the prophets. Thus the believers in the Lord Jesus suffered and prayed and looked forward to a better day in the not distant future.

      Instead of the conversion of Israel, however, there was a hardening. The line of separation was more deeply drawn, and the vast bulk of the nation was on the wrong side of the line. Then came reports of the spread and increasing success of the gospel among Gentiles. Not that any Gentile nation surrendered to Israel's Messiah, any more than the Jewish nation itself had--but many individuals from among the Gentiles were accepting Him. One more hope rose naturally in the hearts of the Jewish believers: if these Gentiles were circumcised and would adopt the law of Moses--that is, if they were incorporated into the Jewish nation--what an influx, what a glory, what a power it would add to Israel! Might not that reconcile the opposition? Might it not be God's will in this manner to fulfil the old prophecies of Israel's increase, exaltation, and supremacy? But that hope was utterly blasted in that memorable conference of Acts 15.

      Strange indeed was the situation to, the eye of the Jewish believer. So far as his own scriptures had taught him he was looking for the earthly and spiritual deliverance of his nation through Christ; and as a result of Israel's blessing, the Gentile nations to the ends of the earth would render homage to Israel and her God and her King, and would receive their blessing through her. That is certainly the Old Testament [71] picture. But now what did they see? Israel as such was not blessed, not delivered; and no Gentile nation was owning allegiance to her or her Christ. Only a small portion of Jews acknowledged him as Lord, and similar numbers from among the nations. And shall they be blessed without subjection to Israel? Or, at least, shall they not be circumcised and so incorporated with Israel as to form the great nation through which the earth shall be blessed? No, said the Holy Spirit: they are accepted just as they are, and on equal terms with believing Jews. They form a new body, neither Jewish nor Gentile, but an election from both, join ed together and one in Christ, where no middle-wall of partition any longer exists, in which all are fellow-members in full equality, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus--the body of Christ, in which there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free, but Christ is all and in all; and in Him they are all one man in Christ Jesus. Behold the full mystery of the church! No wonder it perplexed them. Who ever had heard of such a thing? It was a mystery kept secret from times eternal, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men (Eph. 3:1-11). And the full significance of this work of God began to dawn on the Jewish brethren on that day of the Jerusalem conference, through Peter's speech, and Paul and Barnabas' report of God's work among the Gentiles.

      Now, what was the aim of James' speech? Evidently James accepted the truth presented by Peter, and by Paul and Barnabas. He did not discuss that any further. The question, that the Gentile brethren need not be circumcised nor brought under the law of Moses, was settled. There was, however, one other question which was not settled, and which deeply troubled the hearts of the Jewish brethren: What then becomes of the great and wondrous promises made to our fathers and to the nation in the scriptures, by Moses and the prophets? Has God cast them off? Are those promises laid aside and forgotten forever? We may lightly think so and say so; but as for the Jew--even the Jew who had come to Christ--it would well nigh have broken his heart. Such was the Jew's love for his nation, Israel (Comp. Rom. 9:3), and such his passionate hope for his people and his city, and such his ingrained faith in the prophecies of Zion's redemption, that a denial of those scripture promises and prophecies would have plunged him into blackest night. It cannot be. It was this point which is now taken up by James.

      May we freely paraphrase the purport of James' speech, as follows? Brethren, you have heard what Simon Peter said to us, Evidently God is at this time visiting the Gentiles and [72] taking out from among them a people for His own name. This is indeed a new, unexpected, unannounced state of affairs. But, fear not--God has not thereby cancelled His glorious promises which He made of old to our nation. The ancient promises and covenants stand secure. This new development does not clash with, but falls in line. and harmonizes with God's further purposes, even as He foretold in the prophets: "After these things I will return and I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and I will raise it up; so, that the rest of mankind may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my Name is called."

      The most notable part of James' speech is his quotation from "the prophets," specifically from Amos (9:11, 12). The significance of this speech is by no means as cheap and easy as the common exegesis would make it. Here (we are commonly told) James declares, and proves by quotation from Amos, that the throne of David has been re-established and Jesus the Christ seated on it, in order that not only Jews, but all the residue of men, yea, even the Gentiles upon whom God's name is called might seek after the Lord. Looking at it superficially, one may get such an impression. But here we must note the connection, and see what James is seeking to set before his hearers. Let us then wipe our spectacles to see clearly here; and without spectacles colored by prevailing ideas, to discern the point and purport of James' quotation from Amos' prophecy.

      The first thing that must strike the careful reader is that James' proof-text does not touch the question under discussion. That question was not whether Gentiles could be saved. There was no dispute as to that. Everybody there knew that Gentiles could be saved. They needed no proof of that. They were already perfectly agreed on that point. James did not need to quote Amos to establish that. Nobody denied it. The one question before that assembly that day, the only question under discussion, was how the Gentiles were to be finally saved: Whether they needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, or not. That was the one and only issue under consideration, and the one and only point in dispute. And that was exactly the one point James did not touch, neither in his quotation from Amos nor in any part of his speech. What then was the point in James' speech? The fact that he did not discuss the question of the day shows that to his mind it needed no further discussion. He regarded it as settled. But there was one thing yet that was needed. The Jewish brethren were perplexed. They knew something of the teaching of the prophets. But, to their surprise and dismay, things were not turning out as the prophets had predicted, but were taking a new and wholly unexpected turn. It was on that account, [73] in order to reassure the Jewish believers, that James spoke. His purpose was to show them that this new development was not in conflict with, but in harmony with, God's prophetic plan; and that the prophecies and promises of Israel's glory, so dear to them, were not destroyed.

      The quotation is from Amos, but in it James sums up the teaching of "the prophets" in general. And the first line is James' own addition and introduction. It is not found in the Amos passage, neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Septuagint (Greek version), nor indeed anywhere else. James himself sets this line before the actual quotation from Amos. It must therefore have a special significance. It cannot be taken as a conventional and meaningless introductory formula, but we must give it its full weight and force, for the very reason that James himself prefaced Amos' prophecy with it: "After these things I will return." After what things? In vain do we seek for the answer in the context of Amos' prophecy. The line is not there and the context does not tell us after what things. Only James can tell us that. So, although the line "After these things I will return" is incorporated with the quotation from Amos, it must refer to something James has been speaking about. And so it does. James had just called their attention to God's work of visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. He brings his quotation from the prophets in connection with that fact: "After these things"--when God finishes this particular work--then, He "will return." What does he mean by this latter phase? Is it the return of Christ from heaven? Or simply a new turn in His work, a return to His original task? It does not matter just here which. In any case, when His work of visiting the Gentiles to select from among them a people for His name is done (as some day it must and will be) then He will return. And what will He do then? The prophecy declares that He will "build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen" and "build again the ruins thereof," and "will set it up." The purpose of that will be "that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called." Let us first consider what is meant by the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, and then look at the predicted result of that step.

      By the "tabernacle of David" is meant the royal house of David, the Davidic dynasty, That no one disputes. Nor is there any doubt as to the fact--that it had fallen into ruins. The only question that exercises the minds of students today is whether this was fulfilled in the present exaltation of Christ to God's right hand, and the consequent world-wide proclamation of the gospel; or whether it has reference to a step yet future, when the Lord Jesus shall take (in the [74] out-working of His universal power and authority) the throne of David, rightfully His own; and, through His reign over Israel, regathered, restored, converted, bring blessing to all the nations of the earth. I do not see that the answer would affect our present position in any wise. So far as I know we all believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all now, and sits enthroned on God's right hand in supreme exaltation. Some hold that the throne on which He now sits is David's throne, others say, Nay--the throne of David is the specific rule over Israel which God delegated to David; the government over that particular nation, the exercise of which (though all authority is His) Christ has not yet assumed. We all believe, however, that Christ now sits on the throne of universal authority. By whatever name we may call it, the throne on which we all believe Him to sit is the same, the power is the same. There He sits on God's right hand, having all authority in heaven and on earth. On this we are agreed. Some say that that is the throne of David; others, that it is not, and cannot be. It is a question, not of fact but of definition. Whoever is right or wrong in calling it this or that, we are all agreed as to the fact of Christ's present supreme exaltation and universal authority. None of us limit Him. Nor does anyone deny the world-wideness of the "Great Commission," but by Word and work we show our faith in it. But some, with good reason, hold that Christ has never assumed the special sphere of authority comprehended under the term "the throne of David." And if it is His occupancy of that throne which Amos, in James' quotation of him, refers to when he speaks of rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, the matter is plain. For James reassures his Jewish brethren in Christ that, despite this new and strange development which had taken place, the great promises of Israel's restoration under their Davidic king, according to Old Testament prophecy, and the world-wide blessing which, the prophets declare, must follow this, has not been scrapped nor forgotten. God is now taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name, as Simeon has shown. This chimes in with the testimony of the prophets: After these things I will return, and all that was foretold shall then be fulfilled. This, as I see it, is the drift of James' speech.

      For if James with his quotation had simply wished to prove that Christ was exalted and the door was open for Gentiles to come in--what would have been the point in that? It would have been beside the mark. Nobody denied or disputed that. That did not have to be proved--it was conceded on all hands. The question before the council was whether the Gentiles who already had come in were required to be circumcised and to adopt the law of Moses. Peter had said, No, they were not. Paul and Barnabas testified to the same. [75] But the Jewish brethren must have felt that this was a blow to the prospects of Israel. Then James arose and re-assured them concerning that, and proposed a message to the Gentile brethren, pointing out a necessary and righteous line of conduct which would tend to avoid friction between them and the Jews.

      But--returning once more to James' quotation from Amos--is it really foretold that Israel shall be re-established under the rule of their Davidic Messiah and that then the nations of the world will turn to the Lord? Is anything like that taught elsewhere in the prophets, as James suggests? Yes--both in the Old Testament and the New. But the discussion of this we must defer for another time. [76]

[SSS 69-76]