|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman This Section - Chapters 15 Previous Section - Chapters 14 ch. 15:1-21 ch. 15:22-35 ch. 15:36-41 The
Council At If
you remember back in Acts 11 Peter was called to explain the incident
where the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit in chapter 10.
Although the other leaders in Jerusalem
seemed to be convinced by Peter’s explanation, the whole questions of
what to do with Gentile converts was still alive. Luke
records that “certain men came down from Paul
and Barnabas “were brought into sharp dispute” with these men, so much
so that they, along with a few other men were appointed to go to Jerusalem
to get this problem corrected once and for all.
Luke says that they went to see the “apostles and elders” in Jerusalem. This is the first mention of
both “apostles and elders” in Were
both the apostles and elders leading the Jerusalem
church? This may be hard to
answer. It is quite possible
that the elders were in charge of the daily operation of the church.
The apostles would come and go from their missionary trips and
therefore would not be able to have hands on authority.
Yet at the same time, since the apostles were the first ones to be
in leadership, they certainly would have input on larger matters when they
were in town. The question of circumcision was obviously one of these
important matters.
Does
the fact that the So
in verse 3 we see that the Antioch
church sent Paul and Barnabas and the men with them on their way.
In every place they went through they spread the word that the
Gentiles had received the good news of Jesus.
I am sure that those of the circumcised group did not like such
talk, although for many, these were happy things to hear.
As Luke puts it in verse 3, “this made all the brothers very
glad”. When
the Paul
spoke to the church about how the Gentiles had received the good news in
every city that they had visited. Then,
as verse 5 says, “some of the believers who belonged to the party of the
Pharisees stood up and said, ‘the Gentiles must be circumcised and
required to obey the Law of Moses’”.
We
note here that some of the Pharisees must have been converted to Jesus,
yet they did not understand the relationship of the Law to this new way of
living. They felt that both
Jews and Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses even though they were
Christians. It is thus clear
that the Judaizers that Paul speaks of in Galatians came from this group. Luke
records in verse 6 that the “apostles and elders met to consider this
question”. This suggests
that once the Pharisee Christian spoke up to refute what Paul was saying,
the gathering was disbanded and then the apostles and elders alone met
together to discuss this issue. In
this second meeting there was “much discussion”, after which Peter got
up to speak. Peter reminded
the group that not long ago God chose him to speak to the Gentiles,
resulting in them receiving the Holy Spirit.
Peter stressed the point that this was God’s doing, not his. It
might be possible for some Gentiles to claim faith in Jesus by Peter
persuading them, but they could not fake receiving the Holy Spirit.
Peter
says that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as they did in Acts
2. This is proof that in fact
the people of Acts 2 did receive the Spirit at that time and not in John
20 as some suggest. To me this
has always been clear. Though
Jesus breathed on the disciples in John 20 and said, “received the
Spirit”, this was only symbolic of what was to come, and that happened
in Acts 2. There was no doubt
in Peter’s mind that they received the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, and not at
any other time. Peter
goes on to say that God “made no distinction between us and them but
purified their hearts by faith”. Faith,
or trusting Jesus was the way to be purified, resulting in receiving the
Holy Spirit of God. This
is Peter’s conclusion to his argument as found in verse 10 and 11.
“now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of
the disciples a yoke that we know our forefathers have been able to bear?
No, we believe that it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that
we are saved, just as they are”. The
yoke that Peter is speaking of here is the strict adherence to the Law of
Moses, and circumcision being the issue at hand.
I believe the church over the years have put a similar yoke
concerning the Law of Moses on Christians.
This can be seen concerning the issue of tithing, the Sabbath, and
other Law issues that church leaders say applies to New Testament
Christians. Of course, it is
my opinion that the Law of Moses does not apply to Christians for a number
of reasons. If Peter is right
here, which I'm sure he is, if the Law of Moses no longer applies to the
Jews in a way it once did, how could it, or any part of it,
ever apply to Christians.
It
is interesting that Peter says that the Jews are saved in the same way
that Gentiles are saved, and that's through faith in Jesus alone. Peter
hasn't yet convinced everyone that Gentiles could even be saved, and now
he is saying that Jews are saved in the same way Gentiles are saved.
From a Jewish perspective, you'd think that Peter would say that
the Gentiles are saved in the same way Jews are, but the problem with that
is that some in the room were struggling that Jews were saved by faith
alone, without the works of the Law of Moses.
Peter
believes that by making “the disciples” bare the yoke of the Law is in
fact testing God. How is this
so? Because he says that
salvation is now clearly by God’s grace alone, and if you say that you
need to obey the Law, then you are making God’s grace of no effect, thus
you test God, and perhaps bring His wrath upon yourself.
Peter has just said that it was God Himself that first brought
salvation to the Gentiles without any mentioning of the Law.
If God did not consider the Law important for Salvation in Acts 10,
why should anyone else consider it important for the purpose of salvation.
Notice
that Peter does not say, “why do you want to bring the yoke of the law
on the Gentiles”? He does
not specify the Gentiles. He
uses the word disciples, as in all disciples, both Jews and Gentiles.
What Peter is saying here is very dramatic and important.
He is saying that obedience to the Law is not necessary for both
Jews and Gentiles. He is
saying that both Jews and Gentiles alike are saved by grace, and nothing
else. Peter says “we
believe” this. That is to
say, we apostles and elders believe this to be the truth of God.
The pro-Law disciples are thus wrong in their thinking, and they
are not part of the leadership. Another point to make about what Peter says. He says, “why do you want to test God…” Who is the “you” referring to? Remember in this meeting it appears that only the apostles and elders are present. If this is the case, then the “you” refers to some of these very apostles and elders. This tells me that not all of these men were as convinced as Peter concerning the Gentiles becoming Christians. Note the words "test God" in verse 10.
What Peter is saying here with the use of these two words is that
the Jewish Christians were actually testing God by making the Gentile
believers obey the Law of Moses. Testing
God is a very serious thing, so these words need to be thought of
seriously, especially by those today who claim that the church and
Christians should revert to a more Jewish tradition.
Some of these people think we should actually revert to the Law of
Moses, celebrate Jewish feasts and Sabbaths, and call God by His Hebrew
name. I suggest that this
thinking might well be testing God as Peter stated here.
After
Peter speaks, Paul and Barnabas spoke “of the miraculous signs and
wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them”. (ch. 14:12)
This brought a “silence” to those listening. Luke
does not record just what Paul and Barnabas said, but when they were
finished talking, James got up to speak.
James points out what Peter had just said concerning God taking
from the Gentiles a people for Himself.
James agrees with Peter and quotes from Amos 9:11 and 12 to back
Peter’s position. Verse 17
quotes from Amos 9:11 and 12. This is important to understnad
because it shows us what James has come around to belive. Whether it
just dawned on him in these meetings or it's been something that has been
progrssively building over time, we don't know.
The
interpretation of this quote is somewhat controversial.
God says that “after this I will return and rebuild David’s
fallen tent. Its ruins I will
rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bare my name.” Some
take this Scripture to mean that at some point in the future God will
rebuild the nation of Israel. Others say that the
rebuilding process is actually the church, and the process began on the
day of Pentecost. The question should be asked, “in what sense is James using Amos 9:11and 12”? This is how I understand what James is getting at. The words "after this" is importent in figuring out what he is saying. The words "after this" in the context of Amos' message to the northern kingdom of Israel is that after God judges them and scatters them, at some future point God will restore Israel to what she was meant to be in the first place. During this time of judgment, when Israel is scattered throughout the world, God would raise up another expression of His kingdom. Jesus said this in Matthew 21:43. That expression is the church. James was simply telling his Jewish brothers not to worry. God was not finished with Israel. Once the last Gentile would come into the church as Paul spoke of in Romans 11:25 and on, all Israel would be saved and her restoration would come. There's
one point that is often overlooked when thinking of the Jew and Gentile
relationship. God's plan for salvation, and including people into His
family, has always included Gentiles.
God chose Israel
to be a nation of people to be an example to the rest of the world.
Verse
19 gives James’s conclusion to the discussion. Some suggest because
James is the one that makes this conclusion that he is the leader of those
gathering here, and also the leader of the church in Jerusalem. This may be the case, yet to
prove this from this text is somewhat speculative.
Did James make this conclusion because he was the leader, or was he
simply the one who brought this conclusion to the forefront?
Both points need to be considered and have equal validity.
James
concludes that they “should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who
are turning to God”. There
are only 4 rules that James wants the Gentiles to follow, and they are;
“to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from
the meat of strangled animals and blood”. We
now need to ask another question. “Why
did James present these 4 points for the Gentiles to obey”?
A secondary question also might be, “was this some kind of
apostolic directive, that is, a New Testament Law of Moses?”
The
answer to the second question is “no”.
Apostolic authority did not replace the Law of Moses.
The grace of God seen in Jesus Himself replaced the Law.
Thus these 4 directives were rules to follow, but not on the same
level as the Old Testament Law. Then,
why these 4 particular points? The
4 issues James mentions are key issues for the Gentile world, and the
pagan worship that they came out of. First
of all meat offered to idols was part of the pagan worship.
In pagan meals the meat that was sacrificed to idols was often
eaten in a ceremonial meal. James
says, don’t eat such meat because of its relation to the idol. It
is interesting to note how Paul views this idea of not eating meat offered
to idols. You can read about
this in 1 Cor.8 and Rom. 14. To
sum up, Paul is not against eating meat offered to idols.
He is against sitting down and eating meat in a ceremonial meal,
because at that point you are involved in worship to a pagan god.
Paul sees no harm in eating meat offered to an idol in a ordinary
meal that would be eaten during the process of any given day.
The one qualification that Paul does give though is that if the
eating of this meat will cause a brother to loose his trust in Jesus, then
it is best not to eat the meat. You
can then see, that even though James says not to eat meat offered to
idols, and this was a directive to the Gentile Christians, Paul himself
did not fully agree with this point, although we do not know that from
this chapter in Acts. Nevertheless,
it appears that Paul agreed with James at the time.
If he didn’t, we have no record of it. The
next point was sexual immorality. Such immorality was also part of pagan
worship. Also sexual
immorality was also an accepted practice.
Pagans saw no harm in it. The
reason why they did not see this as a sin was because it was something of
the flesh and not the soul. It
was merely a fleshly activity, like eating, and thus would not pollute the
soul. The
last 2 points are joined
together because of the issue of blood.
This issue of the Jews eating
blood was taken directly from the Law of Moses.
This was something that the Jews deemed important, but why James
centered this law out over other laws, such as circumcision, I am not
sure. At least out of respect for their Jewish brothers James may be
suggesting that the Gentiles stay away from meat with blood in it, or the
digestion of blood. In
verse 21 James gives a reason for these 4 points.
He says, “for Moses has been preached in every city …”
What I believe James is saying here is that Gentiles need to
respect their Jewish brothers. The
Law has been preached for centuries in every Jewish synagogue and you
simply can’t expect them to all at once just drop what they have
sincerely believed for centuries. The Councils Letter To The Believers (ch. 15:22 - 35) A
third meeting is now called. This
meeting includes the whole The
letter begins with, “the apostles and elders, your brothers”.
The NIV doesn’t show this clearly in my thinking, but there are 3
groups mentioned in this greeting. They
are, the apostles, the elders, and the brothers, or the rest of the
church. The KJV puts a second
“and” between the word elders and brothers which suggests 3 groups of
people. You might take from
the NIV that there is actually 2 groups, and the “brothers” refer to
the apostles and elders. Yet this letter was sent by the whole church. This
letter was not just written to the church in Verse
24 states the first point to the letter, and that is certain men went out
from the The
idea that "certain" men went out from Just
as people in the first generation church did not understand the relation
of grace to the Law, or Old Testament, so it is true today.
One of the biggest misunderstandings in the church today is the
relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament.
That is to say, many live their lives as Christians under an Old
Testament format, when in reality we should be living by the New Testament
format. There is a big
difference. This is what Law
and Grace is all about.
For those who understand Reformation Theology, that is the teaching
that came from Luther and other Reformers, you will understand what the
term Law and Grace means. The
Law only brings us to grace. We
are no longer under the Law. We
should note that these men (called Judaizers by Paul) were not sent out by
“our authority”. Who is
the word “our” referring to? Is
it just the apostles and
elders? I don’t think so. If
this letter is written from these three groups, which includes the whole
church, then the “our” refers to the whole church.
The significance of this is that the whole church is involved in
the process of sending this
letter and also authorizing people who they send out.
As in Acts 6 when the church members chose 7 administrators, the
whole church was
involved. So it is the
same in this instance. The
letter acknowledges the fact that these men “troubled the minds” of
the Gentile Christians. So
because of the trouble these Judaizers caused “we all”, that is the
whole church, decided to send certain men with Barnabas and Paul along
with this letter. Note that
Barnabas is mentioned first here, most likely because they were more
familiar with Barnabas. The
letter also acknowledges the fact the both Paul and Barnabas “have
risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Verse
27 says that Judas and Silas were coming with Paul and Barnabas to confirm
with their mouths what was in the letter.
Obviously this added more weight to the letter, and added a sense
of security. This was not a
letter written by Paul or Barnabas. This
is an official letter from the whole church at With
verse 28 comes the meat of the letter. The
letter states, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Who is the word “us” referring to? Once again, you should
conclude that the word “us” refers to the whole church because, as we
have already mentioned, the letter is from the whole church.
This therefore tells us something.
It tells us that this letter was probably drafted in this third
meeting, when the apostles and elders met with the whole church.
So it appears that not only did they choose Judas and Silas to
accompany Paul and Barnabas at that meeting, but they also helped in
drafting this letter. The
conviction that the Holy Spirit helped them in this decision only adds
strength to the resolve of the letter. The
good news for the Gentiles is that those in There
are 4 requirements this letter advises the Gentiles on.
I use the word “advise” because you cannot make these 4
requirements into a law, that is a law on the same level as the Mosaic
Law. The requirements are to
abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
animals and from sexual immorality. Paul,
Barnabas, Judas and Silas took the letter back to Antioch
where they read it to the whole church.
Upon hearing what was said the Gentile believers were quite
relieved and happy. Christians
today would be greatly relieved and happy as well if they received such a
historic letter concerning tithing, the Sabbath, and other such issues. Verse
32 tells us that both Judas and Silas were prophets.
They stayed in Verse
35 says that Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch
where they taught and preached along with many others.
It is thus clear that Paul and Barnabas were not the only teachers
in this church. The words
“many others” tell us that many in a church can have a ministry of
teaching and preaching. Before
going any farther imagine yourself a new Christian man living in Corinth. Only a few short weeks ago
you were a pagan, involved in worshipping multiple gods.
Part of your pleasure and even pagan worship was the sexual
relations you had with the temple prostitutes. You grew up in this
culture. You saw your father
and grandfather visit these women from a young age.
It never entered your mind that this could be wrong.
You were taught that religion was a matter of the heart and soul.
That which is material and physical was not considered religious.
Thus sex outside of marriage was only a physical act, having no
effect on one’s soul. Yet
like the wooden and stone idols which were material and physical, the
prostitutes were used as an external part of worship.
You
also had no problem with eating certain foods and meat, whether with or
without blood. Now that you
have become a Christian, mainly because of Jewish friends, you are told
that you have to obey a book full of rules and regulations to maintain
your salvation. This is
altogether foreign to you and
you just don’t understand why you need to do all of these things.
Sacrifices, circumcision, and all the rest did not look much different
that what you were used in your pagan religion. Why did one have to become
a Jew when he became a Christian? Then
someone like Paul comes along and says that you don‘t need to have
anything to do with the Law of Moses.
You were never a Jew, and it simply does not apply to you.
It is God’s grace that you have now come to trust in.
At this point you are totally confused, and almost ready to quit.
You have two conflicting viewpoints.
Who is right? I
can imagine Paul being very upset about these things and he made sure that
the problem was going to be corrected and so he presented the facts to the
church in Most
of us today in North American are Gentile Christians.
Acts 15 is very important to us.
The implications of this letter drafted almost 2000 years ago is
for us as well. We are not
under the Law of Moses, or any other man made law.
When reading the Old Testament, we can learn about our God, but we
must understand that anything remotely associated with the Law of Moses
does not apply to us. Many
in the Evangelical world are confused about this issue.
They pick and choose certain Old Testament passages.
They say we must obey some and not others.
They say we must obey the tithing rule, but we don’t have to obey
the sacrifice rules. You
can’t have both. You obey
all or none, and we know that we are not capable of obeying all of them,
and that is why Jesus lived the perfect life.
He obeyed the Law for us. Then
once dying on the cross He made an end to the Law. (Rom. 10:4)
Our salvation is based on our trust in God’s grace, and nothing
else. This is what Acts 15 is all about.
Then
what significance does the Old Testament
have for New Testament Christians, if we don’t need to follow all
of the rules? Paul says that
it is an example for us. By
this he means that we can learn from how God dealt with
Disagreement Between Paul And Barnabas (ch 15:36 - 41) Verse
36 tells us that Paul asked Barnabas if he would like to go back on
another trip and visit all of the churches they visited on their first
trip. Barnabas seemed to agree
with Paul on the idea of another trip, but he wanted to take John Mark
with them, as they did on the first trip.
Paul was not in favour of this because he “deserted” them in
the middle of that trip, and did not continue in the work.
Why
Barnabas wanted Mark to come with them, we don’t know for sure.
One thing we do know, and that is Mark was Barnabas’ cousin.
This could have been a real motivating factor in Barnabas’s
thinking. He had family ties
with Mark that Paul did not have. Paul
only knew that Mark had quit on them part way through their work, and Paul
was not very happy about that. Paul
was no quitter. Paul
and Barnabas could not come to any agreement concerning Mark, and had a
very sharp disagreement over the matter.
They thus decided to separate.
These men did not separate as brothers. They separated in the sense
that they divided their trip into two parts.
Barnabas would head out to This
is the last we hear of Barnabas. It
is not the last we hear of Mark. He ends up being one of Paul’s close
friends later on and a real help to his ministry. (see Col 4:10)
Mark also got to know Peter. (1 Pet. 1:13)
Why Mark left Paul and Barnabas we don’t know, but we do know
that he turned into a real man of God. Paul chose Silas to go with him. Silas was a Roman which helped in the ministry. He was also a prophet. It appears that in many cases apostles and prophets worked together in the ministry, each having their own sphere of responsibility.
|