Being a “Leader” in the Lord’s Church

God’s design for congregational leadership is summed up in Acts 14:23, where Paul and Barnabas, having planted churches in multiple Galatian cities, appointed “elders” (plural) in every “church” (singular). Qualifications of these church leaders (variously designated elders, presbyters, overseers, pastors, shepherds) are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.¹ While not everyone can serve in this official capacity, and there are those who should not serve in any leadership role, the listed criteria relevant to character and observable behavior provide a commendable standard for all Christians.

Not every congregation of the Lord’s church has a plurality of qualified men who can function as a scriptural eldership. But no congregation is without leadership.² Faithful men and women, fulfilling their respective God-given roles, will always ensure the Lord’s work gets done. In whatever capacity in whatever ministry one serves, basic leadership qualities are necessary.

Leadership Development in Rome

“For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another” (Rom. 12:4-5). Every member of the Lord’s body has something to contribute, even though we cannot and should not all be doing the same things. “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom. 12:6-8).³ Whatever gifts one might have, and whatever functional qualities are necessary to exercise those gifts, ought to be recognized, developed, and implemented.

“Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Rom. 15:14). The verb nouthetéō, descriptive of one’s counsel to avoid or stop improper conduct, means “admonish, warn, instruct” (BDAG 679). The responsibility is given to “you” (plural), all the brethren, yet with two prerequisites: “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge.” No one is capable, with divine sanction, of effectively engaging in this important work who is full of goodness but lacking knowledge or is filled with knowledge but lacking goodness. Both are necessary. Neither is optional.

Leadership Development in Corinth

Parallel to Romans 12, in Paul’s letter to the Corinth church, he also used the imagery of the body of Christ comprised of functioning members (1 Cor. 12:12-27). He then writes, “I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints—that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us. I am glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for what was lacking on your part they supplied. For they refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men” (1 Cor. 16:15-18).  

The verb translated “devoted” here is étaxan (from tássō), meaning to “appoint,” “assign” or “put in charge” (BDAG 991). It would appear that Stephanas and associates had appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints, not that they usurped the wishes of the congregation but they saw what needed to be done and got to work. Paul says, “submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.” The criterion is twofold: “work” [ergéō] (‘activity of work’) and “labor” [kopiáō] (‘vigorous effort’). These men were not self-appointed leaders but self-appointed workers, which Paul identifies as the quality of true leadership (cf. also 1 Thess. 5:12-13). The Corinthians were instructed to “acknowledge such men.”

Leadership Development in Philippi

In his letter to the saints at Philippi, including overseers and deacons (1:1), Paul encourages and challenges the brethren with the examples of Christ (2:5-11), himself (2:17-18), Timothy (2:19-24), and Epaphroditus (2:25-30). He further writes, “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (3:17). The apostle serves as a model worth following in so far as he is modeling Christ, while other faithful disciples (“who so walk”) are also worthy of emulation.

Conclusion

Before a man is appointed to serve as an elder, he is already exhibiting observable leadership qualities (1 Tim. 3:2 ff.). Brethren who are mature (1 Cor. 2:6), spiritual (Gal. 5:22–6:1), strong (Rom. 15:1), and faithful (2 Tim. 2:2) are recognizable, as “the good works [of some] are clearly evident” (1 Tim. 5:25). When members of the church show commitment and faithfulness by their regularity, involvement, hard work, and caring spirit, they demonstrate true spiritual leadership as servants of the Lord (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “Qualifications of Elders: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (16 June 2021), <Link>. Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Congregational Leadership Without Elders,” Moore Perspective (6 Feb. 2025), <Link>.

     ³ The word “gifts” [charísmata] applies to whatever God has provided for the benefit of his church and for accomplishing his purpose. The gift of “prophecy,” the proclamation or forthtelling of divine revelation, is the only miraculous gift listed here. In the absence of the complete NT, prophesying in the fledgling Christian movement was a necessary component of revealing and communicating the divine will but would no longer be needed and would discontinue when God’s revelation was complete. See K. L. Moore, “Duration of Miraculous Gifts,” Moore Perspective (29 July 2020), <Link>.

*Originally prepared for June 2026 summer series, Ripley MS church of Christ.

Related Posts:

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smashing-the-brainblocks/202002/are-you-working-hard-enough 

The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 5 of 5)

The Significance of the Jerusalem Conference

Significance of Location

The controversy that necessitated the Acts 15 gathering of church leaders was instigated by legalistic judaizers from Jerusalem. The crisis, therefore, needed to be dealt with in Jerusalem and probably could not have been adequately resolved anywhere else.

Jerusalem was the center of Jewish cultural and religious identity. It was regarded as God’s sacred city and the focus of messianic-kingdom prophecies. Isaiah 2:3, for example, had long foretold: “And many people will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways and we will walk in his paths, for from Zion the law will go forth and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem’.”¹ For devout Jewish fundamentalists, any dictate emanating from Jerusalem would have had greater authoritative force.

Jerusalem is where Christ’s church had its beginning and the centrifugal hub of the gospel’s diffusion to all nations (Acts 1:4–8:4). During the earliest period of Christianity, the principal leaders were Jesus’s apostles, based in Jerusalem for at least the first two decades (Acts 1:1–15:30). Also in Jerusalem were the earliest appointed church elders (Acts 11:30). The Jewish people were well accustomed to respecting and heeding the sage counsel of men recognized as elders (Ex. 19:7; Deut. 17:1; Mark 7:3-5).

Significance of Timing

This historical meeting took place early in the year 50, halfway between the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (AD 30) and Jerusalem’s fall (AD 70),² all of which were major events in the progression of God’s plan. The meeting was also sandwiched between the first and second missionary journeys of Paul and his coworkers, key efforts in the early spread of the gospel among Gentiles.³

Significance of Participants

Paul and Barnabas had for several years been working under the Holy Spirit’s influence (Acts 13:1-4, 9-12, 52; 14:3, 10; 15:12) and presumably could have simply issued a divine injunction to counter the misguided claims of the radical circumcisionists. However, the dispute with these agitators was to no avail (Acts 15:1-2). Apparently, at least in Jewish circles, Paul (of Cilicia) and Barnabas (of Cyprus) did not have the same level of respect and recognition as the group of leaders in Jerusalem. Moreover, Paul’s infamous reputation among Jewish people in general (cf. Acts 21:20-21) would no doubt have exacerbated the problem, so the wisest plan of action was the one taken. The apostles and elders (noted above) needed to be consulted.⁴  

Transmissional Considerations

When Luke composed the book of Acts, he had limited space into which to condense over three decades of historical information. Rather than providing comprehensive details, his reporting was restricted to selective highlights.

Recounting the events of Acts 15—the people involved, the words spoken, the decisions made, the document produced—required abridgment. Even the contents of the letter (embedded in vv. 23-29) would need to be in abbreviated form, omitting details that the authors and recipients already knew or that would be conveyed orally as supplementary and explanatory information.

When the decision was put into writing, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas served as amanuenses: “having written [γράψαντες] by their hand” (Acts 15:22-23).⁵ These two men were further authorized to verbally communicate the contents of the letter (v. 27). Upon its completion, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas delivered the document to the Antioch congregation by publicly reading it, while they (as prophets) also imparted additional instruction (vv. 30-32). Silas then joined Paul’s mission team, delivering the same message the same way farther west (Acts 15:40–16:5).

Understanding how the Jerusalem-conference decree was transmitted in condensed letterform and accompanied by verbal instruction is a reminder that we are not privy to all the details available to the original participants. But taking into account the totaliity of information accessible in the biblical record as a whole enables us to sufficiently grasp the necessary facts without missing out on anything essential (see Part 2).

Contextual Qualifiers

The revelation and implementation of God’s redemptive plan did not occur abruptly but, in God’s own time, gradually unfolded through to the completion of the New Testament. Christianity began in a thoroughly Jewish context (Acts 1–7), spread to the ethnically mixed Samaritans (Acts 8), then to the Gentile world (Acts 9–28). During this developmental and transitional period, as the gospel was impacting lives from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), two major obstacles were (a) the stubborn resistance of nationalistic Judaism, and (b) the pervasive stronghold of pagan idolatry. Both intersected at the mid-first-century Jerusalem conference. 

At this point in the church’s history, Jew-Gentile tensions were coming to a head. On one end were deeply entrenched Jewish protocols, such as circumcision, religious calendar observance, and dietary restrictions. On the other end were questionable activities associated with immoral and idolatrous improprieties. Ethnically mixed churches, intercongregational relations, joint activities and table fellowship, along with pressures from the outside world, created a volatile atmosphere.

According to God’s seemingly impossible plan, diverse peoples were brought together in Christ as a single body of believers, breaking down ethnic, social, and gender barriers that separated and marginalized certain populations outside the church.⁶ Yet human fallibilities, even among God’s people, created a less-than-smooth transition. Concessions were needed from all parties.

o   Jewish Christians had to refrain from trying to judaize non-Jewish brethren (Acts 15:10-19; Gal. 2:1-14).

o   Gentile Christians had to avoid careless affiliations coupled with arrogant and selfish insensibilities (Acts 15:20-21; Rom. 11:17-21).

o   Both had to renounce petty judging, while conscientiously averting preventable stumbling blocks (Rom. 2:1-4, 22; 14:3-4, 10-13; Gal. 5:7-15).

Freedom in Christ is not freedom to maintain behaviors detrimental to the unity of the church, the spiritual health of oneself and others, and community outreach.

The Jerusalem conference initially convened to address disruptions caused by pharisaic instigators among Christ’s multi-ethnic communities from Judea through to Syria, Cilicia, and beyond. The overarching concern, besides legalistic extremism, was “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), i.e., ritual defilement associated with idol worship. The resulting fourfold directive would help ensure that non-Christian Jews would be less likely to get the impression that followers of Christ were in any way associated with polytheistic cultism (Acts 15:21).

At least four things were accomplished: (a) pharisaic legalism was countered (Acts 15:5-6, 24); (b) unnecessary burdens affecting Gentile Christians were mitigated (vv. 10, 19, 28a); (c) offending Jewish sensibilities and deterring prospective converts was avoided (v. 21); and (d) Gentile Christians were dissuaded from returning to former pagan ways (vv. 20, 29).

Lessons to Learn:

1. Disruptions in the Lord’s body and challenges to his righteous cause cannot be ignored or tolerated. “Contend earnestly for the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Bible’s repeated warnings about seditious influences and reminders to be alert and on guard are still relevant today and just as important as in the early church.⁷

2. Contentious debate is not the most effective way of dealing with contentious issues, especially when one or both parties are stubbornly closed minded, quick tempered, and inflexible (cf. Gal. 5:15). Reasoning together is much more effective when governed by mutual respect, cordial exchange, rational thinking, and a genuine concern for the welfare of the Lord’s church.⁸

3. Christlikeness entails a willingness to sacrifice old habits and personal preferences for the benefit of others and for unity and peace among God’s people.⁹

4. The biblical model for church leadership is collaborative. Collective wisdom and mutual support are much more effective than isolated individualism.¹⁰ Even when someone like the apostle Paul had become established in the Lord’s work and regarded as a prominent authority figure in his own right, rarely is he seen in the biblical record working alone.

Conclusion

This study has been divided into five segments:

o   Part 1 introduced and summarized the controversy, the initial fourfold interdiction and stated reason, concluding: “The whole point of the Jerusalem conference was to counter pharisaic legalism in the church .... not implementing a new law but opposing mandated observance of the old law.”

o   Part 2 observed the rewording and rearrangement of the interdiction, examined the first abstention, and compared similar issues addressed in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Revelation, recognizing “the variety of contexts involving different historical, chronological, geographical, and sociocultural factors.”

o   Part 3 more closely examined and clarified the other three abstentions.

o   Part 4 emphasized the importance of viewing all four abstentions as a collective whole within the original context of mid-first-century polytheism and attendant Jewish sensibilities, considered present-day application, and concluded: “The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.”

o   Part 5 has noted the significance of the Jerusalem conference during the developmental stages of Christianity and how the decision was transmitted, Jew-Gentile tensions, what was accomplished, and lessons to be learned.

May we be just as diligent as our first-century brethren in pursuing the unity, peace, and spiritual well-being of the Lord’s church, showing Christ to the world.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² On the chronology and dating of the Jerusalem conference, see K. L. Moore, “The First Missionary Journey,” Moore Perspective (10 Feb. 2013), <Link>. For additional information on NT chronology and dating, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2009) 36-48.

     ³ On the widespread dissemination of the gospel through the first century, see K. L. Moore, “The Bible’s Geographical Context: Part 2,” Moore Perspective (5 June 2019), <Link>; also “Around the World in Three Decades,” Moore Perspective (13 April 2013), <Link>.

     ⁴ While these leaders had the consent of “the whole church” (Acts 15:22), a textual variant has led to an interpretive and translational question concerning the referential function of ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) in v. 23. Preceded by καὶ οἱ (“and the”) in the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus, the NKJV takes this as an allusion to a third group: “The apostles, the elders, and the brethren.” The NA/UBS Greek text, however, omits the conjunction and article, and the NASB links ἀδελφοί with πρεσβύτεροι (“the brethren who are elders”), while the NRSV sees it as descriptive of both ἀπόστολοι and πρεσβύτεροι (“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders”).

     ⁵ The verb γράψαντες is the aorist participial form of γράφω, which means to “write” (ASV, ERV, HCSB, ISV, N/KJV, WEB), although several English translations have curiously rendered it “sent” (ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, N/RSV). Granted, Judas-Barsabas and Silas were the letter carriers (Acts 15:22a, 27), but someone had to do the writing (multiple copies?), and the verb γράφω identifies these two men as the designated scribes. Compare the verb’s usage in Acts 1:20; 7:42; 13:29, 33; 15:15; 18:27; 23:5, 25; 24:14; 25:26.

     ⁶ Acts 10:28-35; 15:9; Rom. 2:11; 3:22; 10:12; 1 Cor. 7:17-28; 12:13; Gal. 2:6; 3:27-28; Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 3:11, 25; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10.

     ⁷ Luke 11:34-35; Acts 20:28-31; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 16:13; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 2:4; 3:17-19; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:6, 14; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 3:2-6; 16:15.

     ⁸ Rom. 15:2-7; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 2:4; 11:28; Gal. 5:22-23; 2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Pet. 2:17.

     ⁹ Rom. 12:9-21; 15:2; 1 Cor. 9:19-23; 10:24, 32-33; 11:1; 13:1-7; Eph. 4:3-6; Phil. 2:1-5; 1 Thess. 5:12-13.

     ¹⁰ Ex. 18:14-26; Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 27:17; Eccl. 4:9-12; cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 20:17.

Related Posts: Jerusalem-Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles: When did Jesus annul the Jewish ceremonial food restrictions? 

 

Image credit: https://christianfamilyreformation.com/studies/acts-15/

The Jerusalem-Conference Decree: A Closer Look (Part 4 of 5)

Atomized Distinctives or Fourfold Collective?

Each prohibition listed in the Jerusalem-conference decree is contextually linked with the others as a collective whole (Acts 15:29; 21:25). The conjunction καί (“and”) instead of ἤ (“or”) brings all four together. James’s initial concern about “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20) was more specifically applied to ritual defilement associated with idol worship, pertinent to “Gentiles turning to God” (v. 19) involving things they ought to turn away from.¹

Whether any or all these points of contention were actually features of pagan religious ceremonies at the time, they were at least perceived as such in the Jewish communities of Judea, Syria, Cilicia, and Galatia (Acts 15:23; 16:4). Decades later, on the western end of Asia Minor, the churches of Pergamon and Thyatira were dealing with similar problems of sexual misconduct and eating things offered to idols (Rev. 2:14, 20). The OT account of Balaam is cited as a comparative analogy, wherein the “stumbling block” consisted of sacrifices to pagan gods, eating, bowing down to idols, and harlotry (Numbers 22–25).

The Jerusalem-conference list of abstentions was not meant to independently confront four separate issues but was conceived as a collective whole within the general scope of mid-first-century polytheism.

Present-day Application

In seeking to determine how all this applies to the 21st-century church, we will consider each abstention individually but without losing sight of the interrelationship of all four.

What about “the pollutions of idols” and things “sacrificed to idols”?

In modern westernized cultures, we tend to equate “idolatry” with ancient paganism and/or present-day eastern religions, where temples, shrines, and sacrificial offerings are a normal part of daily life. However, the broader sense of whatever is prioritized, venerated, and elevated above allegiance to God would be a contemporaneous equivalent. Greediness is classified as “idolatry” (Col. 3:5; cf. Eph. 5:5), biblically associated with, and just as serious as, sexual misbehavior and bowing down to a graven image.² It is a manifestation of selfishness—essentially self-exaltation—the opposite of what God calls us to be.³ In principle, the prohibition would also include any discretionary preference elevated to such importance that one is unwilling to forego it, even if it causes spiritual harm to a brother or sister in Christ and compromises one’s Christian influence (1 Cor. 8–10; Rom. 14–15).

What about abstaining from “blood”?

On the questions of blood transfusions and eating undercooked meat, see Part 3. But what about drinking blood or eating blood sausage, black pudding, blood soup, and other recipes with blood as a main ingredient?

The traditional reasoning is that the blood proscription is permanently binding because it was issued in all three dispensations of biblical history: the Patriarchal Age (Gen. 9:4), the Mosaic Age (Lev. 17:10-14), and the Christian Age (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). For whatever it’s worth, I am perfectly happy refraining from blood as a food source. But before settling on a hard-and-fast rule, let’s consider some notable differences.

o   The Noahic proscription dealt only with the consumption of blood, whereas the Mosaic proscription included the animal’s fat and entrails (Lev. 3:1-17; 7:22-27; 17:6). Is the latter still binding today?

o   In Noah’s time the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals was strictly for sacrificial purposes (Gen. 7:2, 8; 8:20-21) but not for dietary regulations (Gen. 9:3). During the Mosaic Age it was for both purposes (Lev. 10:10-11; 11:47; 20:25), and during the Christian Age it serves neither purpose (Acts 10:12-15; Rom. 14:14a, 20).

o   The Jerusalem-conference stipulations were particularly focused on pressing issues affecting churches at the time, namely “the pollutions of idols” or things “sacrificed to idols” and associated improprieties. The Noahic and Mosaic blood prohibitions do not speak to these matters, also foreign to developed societies in the modern world. 

o   The stated reason for the original declaration was to address a specific concern: “for [γάρ] Moses, from generations of old, has in every city those proclaiming him in the synagogues, being read every sabbath” (Acts 15:21). This rationale is far less relevant today, if not entirely irrelevant.

If health considerations were a factor (see further below), then consuming blood, with its high concentration of iron, increases iron levels leading to severe health risks, including bloodborne illnesses, nervous disorders, and organ damage.⁴

Even so, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. Involvement in cultic blood rituals (like vampirism) would still be prohibited. Moreover, the originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.

What about abstaining from the meat of “strangled” animals?

Coupled with the “blood” proscription, the meat of strangled animals was off limits likely because the blood was not properly drained. The Law of Moses required the bleeding out (exsanguination) of an animal prior to consumption (Lev. 17:10-14; Deut. 12:15-16, 23-25; 15:22-23). It has long been recognized that the regulations given through Moses had underlying health advantages, ensuring the Israelites avoided serious health problems plaguing other nations (cf. Ex. 15:26). In addition to enjoying and benefitting from God’s blessings, this enabled them to more readily fulfill his purpose (cf. Rom. 9:4-5).⁵

While not specifically stated as the reason for this prohibition, health considerations are still worth noting. Blood is a primary channel for bacterial growth that produces foodborne pathogens, rapid spoilage, and greater safety risks. According to Agriculture Institute, for quality and safety purposes, the bleeding of a slaughtered animal is “one of the most consequential steps in the entire meat production chain .... removing as much blood as possible from the carcass is a non-negotiable .... When bleeding is inadequate ... the downstream consequences are significant.”⁶

Taken as a whole, these directives would also avert sexually transmitted diseases (see below). Even so, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.

What about the “illicit sexual intercourse” prohibition?

Sexual misconduct is clearly a moral issue, repeatedly warned against and condemned throughout scripture. Nonetheless, in the context of the Jerusalem-conference deliberations, involvement in idolatrous indecencies appears to be the main concern. In James’s original proposal, this proscription immediately followed the allusion to “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), and whenever the subject of idolatry or eating idol food is addressed in the NT, the sin of sexual immorality is included. Several forms of pagan religion involved sexual activity, including fertility rites and cult prostitution (see Part 3). Many in the first-century church were former idolaters and former sexual deviants, thus the NT record contains copious admonitions dealing with sexual immorality and idolatrous behavior.⁷

Once again, the immediate context of the four points of contention was the negative impact of idolatry and Jewish sensibilities. The originally stated reason, emphasizing Christian influence and removing barriers (Acts 15:20-21), is a basic principle with broader applicability.

What about ecumenical church councils?

The historical record of Acts 15 documents a one-time gathering of apostles and elders, including those recognized at the time as “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:2-9), with some also functioning as prophets (Acts 15:22-32). The apostles were the principal authority figures in the earliest period of the Lord’s church, divinely commissioned and authorized by the Lord himself.⁶ Prophets operated in leadership positions as well (1 Cor. 12:28b; 14:3; Eph. 2:20). The elders played an important role, not only with wisdom and experience as the longest serving congregational leaders in the oldest Christian community (cf. Acts 11:30), but the flock over which they served as shepherds included among the membership the main instigators of the controversy (Acts 15:1-6, 10, 22, 24).

The Jerusalem conference was not the first of many but the only such occasion recorded in scripture. This unparalleled gathering was for a specific purpose to address an urgent matter at a particular moment in history that was fulfilled, with no indication it was meant to be continued or repeated.

It was not until the fourth century that the first “ecumenical council” convened, long after the apostolic age. Mainly for political reasons, the event was commissioned by the Roman emperor Constantine I in the Byzantine city of Nicaea (May–July 325), producing the Nicene Creed. Many other councils followed and resulted in additional man-made creeds, constitutions, catechisms, and declarations of faith, but without biblical precedent or biblical authority.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Cf. Acts 14:15; 26:17-20; 1 Cor. 10:20-22; 12:2; 1 Thess. 1:9. Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 6:9-10; 10:7-14; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-24; 5:1-5; 1 Pet. 4:2-5; Rev. 21:8; 22:14-15.

     ³ Mark 10:42-45; Luke 9:23; 14:11; Rom. 12:1-3; 1 Cor. 10:24; 13:4-5; Phil. 2:3-5; 3:8-9; Jas. 4:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:6-7; 1 John 2:15-17.

     ⁴ Catherine Clark, “Drinking Blood: Is It Safe?” Healthline (updated 31 May 2022), <Link>. See also Jesse Borke, “Iron overdose,” MedlinePlus (14 Oct. 2025), <Link>.

     ⁵ See S. I. McMillen and David E. Stern, None of These Diseases: The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century, 3rd ed. (Ada, MI: Revell, 2000); also Kyle Butt, “Science and the Bible,” R&R 38.11 (4 Nov. 2018), <Link>.

     ⁶ “Importance of Proper Bleeding,” Agriculture Institute (25 June 2025), <Link>.

     ⁷ Rom. 2:22; 1 Cor. 5:1–7:9; 8:1-13; 10:6-33; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Gal. 5:16-21; Eph. 5:1-17; Col. 3:1-10; 1 Thess. 1:9; 4:1-7; Rev. 2:14, 20.

     ⁸ Matt. 18:18; John 16:12-15; Acts 1:2–8:4; 11:30; 15:2; 1 Cor. 12:28a.

Related Posts: Jerusalem-Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5

Related articles:

 

Image credit: https://www.ucg.org/members/united-news/united-news-september-october-2015/3-ways-avoid-leaving-prayer-and-study-home-when-youre-feast