Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 278

2026 Convention Workbook
243
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
5  
 
 
 
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 righ-
teousness 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.  
EARL  Y CHUR  CH  
6 
 
 
 
 
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 pro -
hibition 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 obsta - 
cles 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 pre -
sented 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
 
 
7 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 forni-
cation, like ordinary idol-worship, was ruled out by the most elementary principles of Christian instruction.” 
EARL  Y CHUR  CH  
7 
 
 
 
 
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. 
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 perti -
nence 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 
 
8 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. 
EARL  Y CHUR  CH  
8 
 
 
 
 
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 
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 dis -
cussion 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 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.