The first real controversy for the early church arose in Antioch, and it resulted in a dispute so significant that it had to be taken outside of the local congregation all the way up to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem. Acts 15 records how a group of men from Judea traveled to the newly Christianized congregations at Antioch and began to teach Gentile believers that in order to be saved, males must be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas strongly disputed this teaching and argued against those men. Luke describes the debate that ensued as one that was “of no small dissension.” In other words, it was a sharp and substantial dispute.
At a council in Jerusalem, the apostles and the elders debated the disputed circumcision teaching. As part of their proceedings, Peter argued that God made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and that he saved Gentiles through the exact same means as those he had used to save Jews – by the Holy Spirit’s cleansing of their hearts through their faith (Acts 15:6-9). In fact, he goes so far as to question those Jewish leader’s insistence that Gentiles keep the Mosaic laws as a means of salvation when they themselves had been unable to bear that very burden (Acts 15:10)! Ultimately, they agreed to spare believers from most of the requirements of the Mosaic law – including circumcision, which was one of the central requirements of the original Abrahamic covenant. What seems contradictory, though, is that the council required believers to abstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20). With the exception of sexual regulations – which both Gentiles and Jews would have naturally claimed – it appears that the church leadership was requiring Gentile believers to adhere to some portions of the Mosaic law but not others. But that isn’t the case at all. Their order was really about managing a clash between melding cultures. Notice that the council didn’t say they should adhere to these requirements because they need to keep the law. Instead, the council specifically argued that they were giving the requirements because the law had been taught from ancient times in every city where there is a Jewish population (Acts 15:21). In other words, if new Gentile believers eat meat dedicated to idols, or meat from strangled animals, or if they consume blood, they’ll be doing something highly repulsive to their Jewish brothers and sisters who have generations of strict cultural programming. In order to avoid unnecessary offense by unduly burdening Jewish conscience, Gentile believers should simply abstain from violating these kinds of laws. Paul even addresses this exact issue in more depth elsewhere – and he unequivocally makes the case that believers are not individually subject to these kinds of laws (1 Corinthians 10:21-33).
But why not include circumcision in their short list? Because circumcision was supposed to be an outward sign for others to identify a man as someone who belonged to the people of God. God’s original ultimate intent, and the obvious intent under his new covenant, was that his people would be identified by a circumcised heart which expresses internally generated outward behaviors and attitudes (Deuteronomy 10:16, Romans 2:29, Galatians 5:22-24, John 13:35).