LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 243

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

243

E A R L Y C H U R CH

Early Church
CASE STUDY 1

Jerusalem Council (ACTS 15)
The church of the New Testament was not without its controversies and tensions. Whether it was the factions
addressed by the Epistle of James, St. Paul’s confrontation of St. Peter as described in Galatians 2, or the many
problems besetting the Corinthian church, the apostolic era of the New Testament had divisions that required
attention. Maybe the most foundational of these cases is the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where the young church
had to wrestle with the application of Old Testament ritual law to Gentiles. As converts began to repent and believe
the Gospel, the church grew rapidly. After Peter himself, through his interaction with Cornelius, began to advocate
for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles and their inclusion in the church, what was once a community
made up largely of Jewish converts soon became a mixed assembly of Jew and Gentile. It was unavoidable that
those two cultures — with their distinct religious and social backgrounds — would collide.
Acts 15 details the convergence of teachers in Antioch (ACTS 14:26–28) who were at odds with Paul and Barnabas
over the requirement of circumcision. The preaching of Paul and Barnabas led many Gentile converts to the faith.
However, teachers from Judea began to teach that these Gentiles could not be saved without circumcision (ACTS 15:1).
Due to the strife, Paul and Barnabas, among others, were sent to Jerusalem to seek the counsel of the apostles and
elders gathered there (ACTS 15:2). Yet there were some in Jerusalem who identified with the Pharisees and agreed
with the Judean teachers that circumcision was mandatory for Gentile converts (ACTS 15:5). In what is by all accounts
the first council or synod of the church, the apostles and elders met to debate the issue. Peter delivered a stirring
account of his mission to the Gentiles and urged the assembly not to burden fellow believers in Christ with a
requirement for salvation beyond that which the Gospel declares — faith in Jesus Christ alone.
There were two problems facing the Jerusalem Council — one related to doctrine, the other to practice. The
doctrinal was the first to be addressed and undoubtedly the most important. The church unambiguously rejected
the teaching regarding the necessity of circumcision. James the Just (not one of the Twelve, but the brother of Jesus
and the apparent leader of the church in Jerusalem) agreed with Paul. Theologically speaking, in the sight of God
(coram Deo, as Lutherans later put it) only faith in Christ avails for salvation. These Gentiles have converted to the
Gospel, not to ritual or sacrificial practices of Old Testament Israel. The practice of circumcision is not required for
salvation. Faith alone is necessary. Since the Gentile converts have faith in Christ, they must not be burdened with
this quite clearly false doctrine of justification by works of the law, or a works-righteousness alongside the righteousness of faith (see ROM. 4:1–25; GAL. 3:1–21). On this, there could be no ambiguity or dissension. To disagree about
this was to disagree about the Gospel and therefore would be divisive of the fellowship of the church.

There was also a practical problem the Jerusalem Council had to address: how much of the Old Testament
law Gentiles should be required to keep. In this case, James urges four specific items of the ritual and civil law upon
the Gentiles, all seemingly drawn from the proscriptions of Leviticus 17–18 contained in the Mosaic Law, which
“is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (ACTS 15:21). Gentiles were “to abstain from the things polluted by idols,
and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” (ACTS 15:20; CF. 15:29). Why these
four, among the many other regulations of the Old Testament? That is harder to say. It is obvious that there were
divisions over consuming meats sacrificed to idols in the Early Church (ROM. 14:1–8; 1 COR. 8:1–12). That James and the
council would ask Gentiles to abstain from this is reasonable. The request to refrain “from blood” and “from what
has been strangled” likely relate to the prohibition against eating the blood of animals in Leviticus 17–18. The final
request to abstain from sexual immorality (porneia) is less clear. It probably does not have in mind a general prohibition of sexual immorality, since sexual immorality is clearly against God’s law and is not a matter of adiaphora
that a human council could dispense with or institute. It may be underscoring some of the very specific sexual
deviations prohibited in Leviticus 18:6–23 that were not seen as problematic or objectionable in Roman culture.
It might also include such things as marriages with pagans, consanguineous marriages or simply more restrictive
Jewish attitudes toward relationships between the two sexes, none of which would have been expressly condemned
by Scripture but may have provoked controversy between Jewish and Gentile believers.7
We cannot be certain exactly why James chose these four “accommodations” to the that Jewish contingent,
or what he hoped to accomplish by doing so. It may have simply been to keep the peace, or so that Jewish converts
would not feel ritually unclean by joining with Gentile converts in worship or meals, or even to remove obstacles to the evangelism of ritually pure Jewish unbelievers. In any event, it is absolutely clear what the Jerusalem
Council could not tolerate: disagreement over the Gospel. We are justified through faith in Christ and Christ alone.
As Augsburg Confession VII later says, there can be no unity apart from agreement in the Gospel (as well as the
Sacraments, which forgive our sins through and on account of that Gospel). Where it is a matter of doctrine, where
Scripture has clearly spoken on a matter of the faith, there can be no disagreement. The faith we confess binds us
together and constitutes our unity. The Jerusalem Council simply could not tolerate the teaching that circumcision
is necessary for salvation. On the other hand, there are matters that are free and that may in Christian freedom be
corporately adopted for the sake of unity in the church. These are not required for salvation, and must not be presented as such, but they may in brotherly love and mutual consent be adopted for the sake of peace and good order
within the church (1 COR. 14:40).
Not only is Acts 15 relevant to the discussion of adiaphora, but it also held great significance for the Missouri
Synod at its founding. The 1847 Constitution — and every iteration since — listed as one of the two reasons for
forming the Synod “the example of the apostolic church,” citing Acts 15:1–31. The Jerusalem Council provided the
Synod with a clear, New Testament example of Christians of like faith joining together to discuss, deliberate and
even disagree, but ultimately to seek unity in doctrine and practice. Those early members of the Synod sought to
form a confessional fellowship rooted in such unity. That unity is founded only upon God’s Word and is not subject
to majority vote. Other matters, where Scripture has not expressly spoken, may be debated. The Synod, especially
in convention or in other outlets for discussion over matters of concern, may reach agreement to practice (or not
practice) in a certain way. That something is, technically speaking, an adiaphoron, which Scripture has neither
commanded nor forbidden, does not mean members of the Synod may disregard the consciences or objections of
F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 299, holds the more traditional opinion of consanguineous marriages. He adds: “Ordinary fornication, like ordinary idol-worship, was ruled out by the most elementary principles of Christian instruction.”

7

5

6

E A R L Y C H U R CH

E A R L Y C H U R CH

others concerning it. On the contrary, the very formation of the Synod — after the example of the apostolic church,
as exemplified in Acts 15 — entails a commitment to conversing collegially about our life together and seeking to
find resolution about disputed practices. That may ultimately mean a uniformity in certain practices or a variety
in certain practices. The important thing is that the church comes together to talk about it, to do so on the basis of
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, and to seek the best way forward without binding consciences in matters
where Scripture has not spoken.

As a result of the divergence in the dating and observance of Easter, a series of minor controversies emerged,
chiefly in the second century. After one synod affirmed the practice of the Roman church, the Roman bishop,
Victor, threatened to excommunicate the bishop of Ephesus, Polycrates, and others who continued observing the
Quartodeciman practice. Complicating matters was the fact that the practice of fasting prior to Easter — quite
similar to the familiar custom of “giving things up,” or fasting, during Lent — meant that some Christians were
feasting while others fasted, potentially even in the same region. It would take none other than the eminent Early
Church theologian and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, to help resolve the impasse. Irenaeus, himself from Asia Minor
and well-acquainted with the Quartodeciman observance, argued that a diversity of practice on the date of Easter,
as well as the fasting that preceded Easter, had long existed among Christians. “In spite of that, they lived in peace
with one another, and so do we: the divergency in the fast emphasizes the unanimity of our faith.”9

Questions for Discussion:

1. Since the Old Testament required circumcision, on what basis did the Early Church emphatically deny that
it should continue as a requirement for believers?
2. How do the four proscriptions of the Jerusalem Council (things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, what
has been strangled and from blood) indicate a commitment to love other believers?
3. Should the Jerusalem Council’s decision have been retained for all subsequent church history?
Why or why not?

CASE STUDY 2

Date of Easter (Second Century)
Another historical example of the tension between unity in doctrine and variety in practice, and one with pertinence for Lutheranism, is the Early Church’s debate over the date of Easter. This is known as the Quartodeciman
Controversy. “Quartodeciman” comes from the Latin term for “fourteen,” as some early Christians believed Easter
— the Christian Passover — should be celebrated on the Jewish Passover, which was observed on the 14th day of
the Jewish month of Nisan (LEV. 23:5). The Jewish calendar followed a lunar cycle, which meant the 14th day after the
full moon fell on or following the spring equinox. That also meant Easter could fall on any day, Sunday or not, and
so Christians would celebrate it on any day — again, Sunday or not. This practice arose especially among Eastern
Christians in Asia Minor and Syria in the Early Church. Quartodecimans sought to emphasize the relationship
between the Passover and Christ as the church’s Passover — or Paschal — Lamb. While Jews were sharing their
Passover meal from sunset to midnight, Christians would fast and then, before dawn, celebrate their own Easter
Passover with Scripture reading, song and the Lord’s Supper.
While Quartodecimanism appears to be the more ancient practice, another approach emerged in Western
churches, especially Rome, as increasing numbers of Gentiles converted to the faith. Western Gentiles were not as
socially connected to the Jewish Passover and did not view Easter as the Christian Passover. Instead, the Roman
churches came to emphasize the connection between Easter and the resurrection of Christ, which occurred on the
Sunday after the Passover. Celebrating Easter on the Sunday after the Passover would become the common practice
of the Roman churches sometime in the second century.8

Ultimately, Irenaeus persuaded Victor to stand down, and the Quartodeciman practice existed alongside the
Roman practice for a time. In the third century, churches gradually adopted Sunday for their celebration of Easter.
In the fourth century, the Council of Nicaea opted for the Julian solar calendar and sanctioned the Roman practice
of observing Easter on the first Sunday on or after the first full moon following the spring equinox. This would lead
to Easter always being celebrated on a Sunday and always falling after the Jewish Passover. Yet, there were holdouts.
Some Asian churches remained Quartodeciman until the fifth century. No British bishops were at the Council
of Nicaea, so it would take several centuries for their churches to accept the Nicene practice. The Celtic churches
planted by British missionary activity would retain the Eastern dating until the eighth century. Ultimately, though,
the difference in practice did not result in a division in the church, precisely because, as Irenaeus argued, there was
“unanimity of faith,” that is, unity in doctrine.
Sixteenth-century Lutheran reformers took note of the Quartodeciman Controversy and how it was resolved.
The Lutheran Confessions appeal to it multiple times. Article XXVI of the Augsburg Confession directly cites
this axiom of Irenaeus. The article itself rejects the medieval Roman practice of requiring fasts from certain foods
as human traditions instituted to merit grace and earn forgiveness. It argues that human traditions — not only
fasting, but also worship practices — are kept in the Lutheran churches, provided no one teaches that they merit
grace or permits them to burden consciences:
For in the East the festival of Easter was celebrated at a date different from that in Rome. When some
wanted to divide the church over this difference, others admonished them that there was no need to
have uniformity in such customs. As Irenaeus says: “Diversity in fasting does not dissolve unity in faith.”
(Augsburg Confession XXVI)10
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession would raise the Easter controversy itself multiple times in its discussion of the church. First, it uses the attempt of Victor to excommunicate Polycrates over the date of Easter as
an example of how misguided opinions led to human traditions becoming “necessary acts of worship for meriting
justification” (Apology VII/VIII 32). In the same article, the Apology would underscore the resolution to the
Quartodeciman Controversy as an example of how human traditions should be regarded in the church and how
disagreement over adiaphora should be treated:

9

A related issue was the difference in calendars themselves. The Jewish calendar was lunar and only contained 354 days, whereas the Julian calendar — predominant in the West
since the first century B.C. — had 365 days. That meant, even if churches in the East shared the Roman practice of celebrating Easter on the Sunday after Passover, the date for Easter
could differ by weeks depending upon the syncing of the calendars.
8

7

5.24 in Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. G.A. Williamson (New York: Penguin, 1989), 173.

10

Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 80. Hereafter abbreviated KW.

8

2026 Convention Workbook