Sunday, July 22, 2007
UNDER ATTACK
I Peter 5:5-11
I confess to you that my history is weak. It isn’t that I have never studied history. The problem is that I forget what I learn. But I do remember something about a historic event that occurred on December 7, 1941. When I mention that date, two words immediately come into many minds this morning – Pearl Harbor. Those words identify a place in the Hawaiian islands, but they bring to mind much more. It was at Pearl Harbor that the Japanese pulled off a sneak attack, the results of which were rather unbelievable. No one would have ever thought it possible, but it happened. That attack could have never been successful, if it had not been for the element of surprise. Had our soldiers known it was coming, things would have been vastly different.
Please hear me this morning. Remember Pearl Harbor. We are under attack. The enemy forces have been gathered and they are poised for an all-out attack. This threat demands readiness on our part. While that readiness certainly means that we must stay in constant contact with the Commander of our forces, it also requires that we know something of the enemy's strategy.
So let’s read from the Word of God this morning. I Pet. 5:5-11…
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: 7. Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. 8. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9. Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. 10. But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11. To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
We do have an enemy. Let the skeptics say what they want to about the weakness of those who still have to believe in the devil. He is real. As the creatures of the forest would be foolish to ignore a roaring lion, so is any man a fool who ignores the devil.
Notice that our adversary, the devil, walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Before we examine his strategy, let me say two brief words about this verse. First of all, the identification of the devil as a roaring lion does not mean that he always announces himself to those he opposes. Surely the roaring of the lion means that he is hungry. But when he gets ready to stalk his prey, he doesn’t constantly roar. So it is with the devil. His very nature is to craftily use great deception to defeat his enemies. After all, he is the father of lies (Jn. 8:44). Rather than announcing that he is going to attack, Satan masquerades as an angel of light (II Cor. 11:4), leading us to believe that he is our friend.
Secondly, we must be careful that we don’t misunderstand what Peter means when he says that our enemy is seeking to devour us. False teachers try to lead us to believe that the devil is trying to take away our stuff, our possessions. They teach us that the devil is trying to steal our comfort, that his desire is to make us suffer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think it bothers Satan for a man to be happy all through this life? If can pave the road to hell with happiness, his task will be that much easier. The devil’s strategy is not to take away our possessions, our happiness, our comfort and ease in this world. More often than not, those are the very things he will use to distract us from the Lord.
So how does the devil seek to devour us? In the context of this passage, I want to suggest three of the primary tools he uses to devour his prey. There are certainly many others, but we find these here in the immediate context of this statement. That should give them much weight. We will also find that these three strategies are not unique to this passage.
I. Pride
His first tool is pride. Other than the Lord Himself, no one understands pride like the devil. It was pride that lead to his own downfall. We could say that pride was the chief ingredient that lead him to become the devil. Please turn to Isaiah 14. While these words are spoken against the king of Babylon, it is clear that they are also intended for someone far greater than any earthly king. Let’s read Is. 14:12-15…
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
In verses 13 and 14, Lucifer uses those words "I will" five times. What a selfish expression of pride. He didn’t care what his creator wanted. All that matters was what "I will." What foolish pride led him to say, "I will be like the Most High."
Now come back to I Peter 5. Let’s read again verses 5-6…
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. 6. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
Watch out! Beware! Your adversary, the devil, is trying to devour you by filling you with pride. While God resists the proud, the devil applauds the proud. When pride sneaks into your life, be sure that you are being devoured by the enemy. "But I don’t feel like he is defeating me." That is because he is crafty and deceptive. He doesn’t want you to feel defeated. If you did, you might become alarmed and cry out to Almighty God. Pride and "feeling good" are close friends. If the enemy can make us proud, then he can cut us off from the grace of God, for it ia to the humble that God gives grace.
It is no accident that this call to humility is in the same context as the warning to beware of the enemy who wants to devour us. This appeal to pride was Satan’s primary strategy from the beginning of his dealings with mankind. We see it way back in the Garden of Eden. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to hear his appeal to pride. "Did God really say that you may not eat the fruit from the trees of the garden?" "Oh, we can eat from the trees, except the one tree in the middle of the garden. But He did say that if we eat from it or touch it, we will surely die." "You won’t die. God isn’t telling you the whole truth. He is afraid that you will eat the fruit and become like Him." Do you hear the implications of what he was saying? He was encouraging man to trust his own reason instead of the Word of God. "You have a mind; use it." Yes, it was an appeal to man’s pride. And it worked. Adam decided that he knew better than God what would be good for him.
In Proverbs 6, we have a list of the seven things that God hates. Let’s read it in Prov 6:16-19…
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
The very first thing on the list is a proud look. The Amplified Version expands it a bit by saying, "A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others]…" This proud look doesn’t begin with the outward countenance, but with the inward attitude. We must not miss the fact that pride heads the list of the things God hates.
Back in I Peter 5:5, notice that humility is coupled ever so closely with submission to one another in the body of Christ. "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility." Pride is the enemy of mutual submission. Mutual submission will always deal a crushing blow to our pride. That is why we see so little submission in the church today; it is because of stubborn pride.
There are two forms of pride that rise up and rebel at the idea of submitting to brothers and sisters in Christ’s body. The first is self-dependence (or "independence," whichever you prefer), which says, "I don’t need you." Of course, it is this same pride that will cause a person to say to God, "I don’t need you." But when we get past that, then the enemy encourages us to say the same to one another. The extreme individualism that is a part of American culture has taught us that it is always better to depend upon self, if possible. Dependence upon others is a last resort and is usually viewed as a sign of weakness.
The other form of pride that isolates us is self-exaltation. While self-dependence says, "I don’t need you," self-exaltation says, "I’m better than you." Right now some of you are thinking, "I would never have that attitude." That very thought pronounces you guilty of the very thing you think you are free of. By thinking, "I would never have that attitude," you are saying, "While others might think like that, I certainly wouldn’t do that." Yes, you shut pride out at the front door, but it has sneaked around to the back and found the door wide open.
Paul says in Gal. 6:3, "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Again Paul gives us this advice in Rom. 12:3, "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Jesus said, "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matt. 23:12). If you lift yourself up above others, you will be made low. More than once Isaiah says that those who exalt themselves will be made low. Is. 2:12, "For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:" (also Is. 13:11; 25:11).
Brothers and sisters, our tendency is to lift ourselves up above one another rather than to lower ourselves and submit to one another. We face the constant temptation to compare ourselves with others, and it is a deadly trap of the enemy. When we play the comparison game, we can’t win. If I compare myself with you and conclude that you are better than I, then there is the danger that I will envy you. If I compare myself with you and conclude that I am better than you, then I quickly begin to exalt myself. Listen to Paul’s sobering words in 1 Cor 4:7, "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" Rather than comparing ourselves with others, let’s come to God’s Word and receive His evaluation, for He says that we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). When we rejoice in that oneness, there is no reason to compare.
II. Division
The second of Satan’s tools that we find in this passage is division. Let’s read verses 8-9 again…
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9. Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
Our response to the devil is to be resistance. And in verse 9 we are given a great reason for encouragement; we are not alone in this struggle. Rather, we must realize that our enemy is trying to devour all of our brothers and sisters in Christ. How many times have you heard a person find great comfort in the thought, "Now I know I’m not alone"? What encouragement there is in knowing that others are facing the very same thing I am facing.
So why does Peter need to remind his readers of this truth? Doesn’t every believer know this? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the devil is seeking to devour every Christian. So why does Peter say it? Because Satan tries to convince us that it isn’t so. And remember that his strategy goes far beyond the intellect. Yes, we realize that all Christians are in this battle together, until… until a brother or sister mistreats us. And then what happens? If the enemy is successful in his attack, I begin to think that you are my enemy. Instead of resisting the devil, I begin to resist my brother. In reality, I team up with the devil against my brother in the faith. And when I do, the devil has devoured me. Do you see it?
Don’t expect the devil to come to you and say, "You are the only one that is called upon to resist me." That is not the way he works. Rather, he will enter into the circumstances of life and put an evil little twist on something said by your sister in Christ. The devil is an expert at assumption and innuendo. Give him an inch, and he’ll take a mile.
Don’t miss the fact that division and pride go hand in hand. Prov. 13:10, "Only by pride cometh contention…" When we find ourselves at odds with a brother or sister through the slick dealings of Satan, it is pride that will tempt us to resist reconciliation. "Well, let him make the first move. It’s his fault that all this happened. I’m not going to go crawling to him, etc." Pride is stubborn and unreasonable.
Now let’s come back to Proverbs 6, and let’s read once again that list of things God hates in Prov. 6:16-19…
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
The list is headed up by pride, but notice the climax – he that sows discord among brethren.
God hates anyone who plants seeds of division among His people. And that is exactly what Satan is trying to do. This is a vital part of his strategy. But why? Because unity in the body of Christ is so vitally important. Lord willing, we will spend a couple of weeks looking at this concept of unity in Eph. 4:1-7. This is the unity for which Jesus prayed that last night, just hours before His arrest. Let’s read it again in John 17:20-21, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." In order that His prayer might be answered, Jesus had to die on the cross, bearing
God’s full punishment for our sins. Is it any wonder that Satan tries to destroy this unity for which Jesus died? Is it any wonder that God hates anyone and everyone who tries to undermine that unity?
How we need Paul’s strong reminder concerning who the enemy is. Let’s read it in Eph. 6:10-18…
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15. And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16. Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18. Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
In the economy of the new covenant, our battle is not against people who have flesh and blood. Rather, we are battling Satan and his spiritual forces. When I am down on a brother or sister, the devil has already devoured me. I have sided with him against the Lord God. May we never forget that one of the primary strategies of our enemy is to turn us against one another.
The great danger for us is not the threat that comes from the outside. If someone destroys this building or locks us out, we can just meet somewhere else. If they lock Norman and me up for preaching the gospel, the Lord will raise up others to do the same. But if we turn on one another, then what? A house divided against itself cannot stand. No wonder the Lord tells us to guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).
III. The Comforts of Home
Of course, I am using this phrase in a spiritual sense. We have heard this expression. The comforts of home speak of a place where we can relax. We may get beat down out in the world, but we can retire to the comforts of home. You worked hard all day and it has been a hassle, but now your wife has a delicious meal for you. You can enjoy your kids. In short, you can kick back and relax in all the comforts of home.
The devil is trying to convince us that in this life we are to look for all the comforts of home. "You could be here for a while, so why not relax and enjoy? Don’t take life so seriously. Take a break. After all, didn’t the Lord say, ‘Rejoice always, and again I say rejoice’?" Did the Lord say that? Phil. 4:4 says, "Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice." The father of lies tries to convince us that we ought to rejoice in the comforts of this world.
Now come to I Pet. 5:10, "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." Peter pronounces a blessing on his readers, and that blessing consists of being perfected, established, strengthened, and settled by the God of all grace. Nothing else will do it except the God of all grace, but praise His name that He is able.
Notice that little phrase – "after ye have suffered a while." Remember, the enemy is walking about seeking whom he may devour. He is not only using the tools of pride and division, but he is also dangling before us the comforts of home. Surely that is why Peter reminds us that the perfecting, stablishing, strengthening, settling comes only after we have suffered a while. But how long is "a while"? As long as we are in this world. Jesus said plainly, "These things I have spoken to you that ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (Jn. 16:33). I repeat, on the authority of God’s Word, that the child of God will have tribulation as long as he is in this world. Did we not read just a few weeks ago those words which Paul spoke to the new converts in Antioch, Lyconium, and Lystra (Acts 14:21-22)…
And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22. Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God
So doesn’t the Christian have the privilege of enjoying the comforts of home? Indeed, he does. The strategy of the devil is to trick us into believing that the time for enjoying the comforts of home is NOW. That is the devil’s lie. Those of us who will be welcomed home by the Lord Jesus will have all eternity to rejoice in the glories of heaven…
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun;
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we first begun.
This lie is so attractive that the Lord has included warning after warning in His Word. We know well the words of our Lord Jesus (Matt. 6:19-21)…
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Years ago I heard a little story that you have probably also heard. It was Fred who first shared it with us. I may not have all the details right, but I do remember the punch line this time. The story is told of Teddy Roosevelt, who had been on a hunting safari in Africa. After his hunting trip, he was returning to the United States by ship. On that same boat was a missionary, who was returning home after years of faithful service to the Lord in Africa. When the ship reached port and gangplank was lowered, nothing was spared in welcoming Mr. Roosevelt home. The great hunter had come home, and everyone made a big deal about it.
The missionary walked down the gangplank afterwards. There was no welcoming committee for him, no fanfare. He couldn’t help but think: "All this man did was go to Africa and kill a few animals. I have spent most of my life serving the Lord Jesus in a place that wasn’t very desirable. Lord, why should I not get such a welcome?" I don’t know how the Lord responded, but the message was clear: "You’re not home yet."
May we never forget that we aren’t home yet. As long as we are in this world, we are strangers and pilgrims (I Pet. 2:11). May we take to heart the words we sing, "This world is not my home." We’re on the battlefield. Conditions are not what we would choose, but we know that there is an end. Meanwhile, our attitude is described by what we find in Tit. 2:11-14…
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Conclusion
No doubt, some of you are wondering why I am preaching on this passage in I Peter this morning, when I was planning to preach from Eph. 4. It is because the La Luz body of Christ is facing a spiritual Pearl Harbor. We are under attack. The battle is raging and the intensity is increasing. Satan is busy sowing seeds of discord among the brethren. Some of you are being strongly tempted to think that people with flesh and blood are your enemies. Perhaps at this very moment, you are down on a brother or sister. Bad news and good news. The bad news is that the enemy is devouring you. The good news is that you can repent and run to Jesus, in whom we have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7). "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I Jn. 1:9).
Not only is Satan sowing seeds of discord among brothers and sisters, but he is strongly tempting us with pride. Some of you are facing the temptation to forsake the idea of submitting yourselves to the brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. You don’t mind the concept; you just don’t like dealing with it in the context of certain people. "Me submit to him? To her? No way." Pride is eating you up. You are tempted to withdraw and guard your own heart against any invasion from well-meaning brothers and sisters. Listen to me. The enemy is on the threshold of devouring you. Run to the Lord and open your heart to him. Admit that you have yielded to his subtle deceptions. Hear the encouraging words of scripture: "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared" (Ps. 130:3).
Our enemy knows us very well. He knows that some of you are weary, and he is trying to use that against you. He comes and tempts you to enjoy the comforts of home NOW. His words are so persuasive: "You deserve a break. You’ve given up so much, and what are you getting for it? Take it easy. You have years to serve the Lord. Stop and smell the roses. Let someone else bear the load. If you’re not careful, you will burn out." I urge you to remember those sobering words, "You’re not home yet." But praise God, we will be home soon. This life is a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away, and then we will meet the Lord face to face. May we all hear Him say, "Welcome home. Well done, good and faithful servant."
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Acts 15:36-41 (Paul & Barnabas) -- 7/15/07 (The Lord's Church)
Sunday, July 15, 2007
PAUL AND BARNABAS
Acts 15:36-41
Is there any salvation outside of Jesus Christ? What if a person is humble and loves his fellowman? Is there any hope for him outside of Jesus? I remind you of what Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:6). And we read the words of Peter in Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." This is a great eternal truth that cannot be compromised. There are other things we are not so sure about. If I were to ask you the question, "Should a Christian purchase health insurance?" there would be disagreement. While we would like to agree on everything, the simple truth is that we don’t. Here is a question that will always confront us: What are the most important issues? What are the issues upon which we cannot and will not compromise?
The last two weeks we have looked at Acts 15, which gives us the record of the deliberations and the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. That gathering came about as a result of the dispute at Antioch of Syria, when certain men came from Judaea and began to teach the disciples that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. After "no small dissension and disputation," the Antioch church sent Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers up to Jerusalem to discuss with the apostles and elders there this very divisive issue.
Praise God for the way He worked in that gathering. Though there was strong opinions that could have torn the church to pieces, the Spirit of God worked among the people of God to arrive at the truth of God and deliver the decision of God. That decision is briefly stated in Acts 15:19-20, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
Last week we took some time to look at the remarkable unity that was evident in Jerusalem among God’s people. Let’s read again those strong statements… 22. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…" 23. "And t hey wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting..." 25. "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men…" 28. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." It wasn’t just the leaders who agreed, but the entire assembly was in agreement. And this agreement was not some sort of outward harmony that they were able to achieve, but it was a vital unity produced by the Spirit of God Himself.
So this large assembly, being confronted by the most difficult issue ever to face a Christian assembly, could say with confidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding in the decisions made. And when the letter was delivered to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilica, they "rejoiced for the consolation." Not only was the truth of the gospel preserved, but fellowship within the church of Jesus Christ was advanced. Both Jews and Gentiles rejoiced together in the body of Christ.
Now we come to the last part of chapter 15. Let’s read it in Acts 15:36-41…
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40. And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
What happened to the unity about which we have been reading? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. How things change in a hurry. What happened to this great unity about which we read in chapter 15? Had Paul and Barnabas forgotten?
Let’s take a few moments to look at the three main people involved. I say "three," because I want to include Luke, the man who wrote this account. Remember that Luke was the author of the third gospel account, the one that bears his name, as well as this book of Acts. So let’s look at the role of Luke, Paul, and Barnabas.
Luke… Let’s commend Luke for being honest and not glossing over this incident. While Luke was a Christian and later joined Paul on this second missionary trip, he was also an accurate historian. In the past, many questioned the accuracy of Luke’s writing, especially with regard to the travels of Paul. However, through careful study, it has been found that Luke was extremely accurate in what he tells us. On this occasion, he tells things as they happened, not as he would have liked them to happen.
In recent times there has been a multiplication of those who are spreading the idea that the Bible is the work of the church, centuries after Jesus walked the earth. In other words, this isn’t the account of a historian named Luke, but the work of later writers who either wrote a fictitious work, or who doctored the documents that came from the first century. But surely we can see that this very account makes such a charge ridiculous. If the church had been intent on producing a New Testament that would be acceptable to the natural man, this is one section that would have never been included. It would have been foolish for them to raise questions about the character of two heroes in the early church. And we could name many other New Testament passages that could have conveniently been left out. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible tells it like it is, and that was certainly true of Luke.
Paul… So in this dispute between Paul and Barnabas, was Paul right? Or, was he wrong? We can certainly understand Paul’s concern. After all, Mark did desert them early on during their missionary endeavor. Of course, it would further our understanding, if we knew why Mark left, but we aren’t told. The Spirit of God did not lead Luke to record the reason. If Mark did not have some compelling reason for leaving, you can understand Paul’s reluctance to take him along again. We cannot conclude that Paul was down on young John Mark, that he wrote him off, simply because he didn’t want to take him on this trip. It may be that Paul didn’t believe it was time for Mark to take on such a role. Perhaps he needed some seasoning and maturity before joining them on another mission trip.
Those who would see Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong might point to verse 40, "And Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God." It seems that Paul had the endorsement of the church of Antioch. Barnabas, on the other hand, took Mark with him and sailed for Cyprus. Nothing is said about the church sending them out. Neither Barnabas or Mark is mentioned again in the book of Acts.
Barnabas… So what about Barnabas? Was he right in insisting that they take Mark with them? Or, should he have yielded to Paul, let go of his preference, and accompanied Paul on this second missionary journey? As we ask these questions, we have a certain regret that the Lord didn’t give us more information. The truth is that we are not given enough details to form firm conclusions.
From what we are told, surely we cannot conclude that Barnabas was the one in the wrong. Remember that Barnabas is well described by the meaning of his name, "son of encouragement" (son of consolation). While Paul must have had a great concern for the effectiveness of the mission work, Barnabas had a great concern for the spiritual development of the young man John Mark, who was dear to him. (Mark was the cousin, uncle, or some relative of Barnabas, depending on which translation you read in Col. 4:10). As we see in this passage, Barnabas did end up taking Mark under his wing, as they set out to do mission work in Barnabas’ native Cyprus.
While those who favor the view that Paul was in the right can point to the endorsement of the church at Antioch, those who side with Barnabas can point to the fact that God did use Mark later on. Let’s look at the other New Testament passages where Mark is mentioned…
Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)"
II Tim. 4:11, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
Philemon 1:23-24, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers."
I Pet. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
Notice especially the note in II Tim. 4:11. Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to him, "for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Praise God! Here at the end of Acts 15, Paul did not see Mark as being profitable to him for the ministry. That is the very reason he refused to take Mark with him. But now things are different. We don’t know why? While it is true that Mark may have matured greatly in the Lord, there are those who would contend that it was Barnabas’ willingness to take Mark under his wing that made the difference. While Paul didn’t have the patience to work with this young man, Barnabas devoted himself to the task and made a great difference in Mark’s life. Perhaps that’s the way it was, but we don’t know for sure.
So should we see this disagreement as any problem at all? Were Paul and Barnabas simply pawns in the Lord’s hand? That is, did they disagree in order that the Lord might launch two mission teams instead of just one? This aspect is often emphasized. Had they not disagreed, there would have been no mission endeavor to Cyprus. What about that line of thinking? While God is certainly able to work things together for good, that does not necessarily excuse Paul and Barnabas for the sharp contention between them.
This much we know. Despite the conflict between these two men of God, the Lord did preserve the strong relationship between them. In I Cor. 9 Paul refers to Barnabas as a fellow-apostle. I Cor. 9:5-6, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" (This letter was written some six to eight years after the events of Acts 15). And let’s read again Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him.)" Such references reveal that there was no lasting division between Paul and Barnabas. I suspect that before they had gone very far in their respective mission endeavors, there was friendly correspondence and mutual prayer for one another.
Now please think with me for a minute. Earlier I asked the question: What happened to the unity about which we have read in Acts 15? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. What happened?
We must understand the great difference between the two issues involved. The issue before the Jerusalem Conference was one of earth-shattering proportions. They were dealing with the question of what was necessary for salvation. Their decision would affect thousands upon thousands for centuries to come. The issue Paul and Barnabas faced here at Antioch was very different in nature. While it is true that every issue is important, this issue could not compare with the decision of the Jerusalem Conference.
The issue facing Paul and Barnabas was also different in that it was not a clear matter of right and wrong. At the Jerusalem Conference, there was a crucial truth at stake. Could a person be saved apart from the law, or could he not? It couldn’t be both ways; it was one way or the other. Eternal truth was at stake. This was not the case with the conflict between Paul and Barnabas. It would be difficult to say that one man was totally right and the other totally wrong. We have explored some of the possibilities, but we can’t go beyond that.
Can you see it? The fact that these two heroes of the faith disagreed shouldn’t destroy us. Norman and I are undershepherds in this local body, but we don’t agree on everything. I hope that doesn’t shock you. However, we are totally agreed that Jesus is the only way to God the Father, that salvation is in Christ alone and does not depend upon keeping the law. Let me repeat it again – disagreements among the people of God are inevitable. Perhaps that is the main reason the Spirit included this incident in the book of Acts, to show us that even mighty men of God are capable of disagreeing. There are many issues that are not as crucial and not as black and white as the issue of what is required for salvation.
Let me bring it down to where we live. Concerning building on the slab out here, we do not all agree. Some believe building would glorify the Lord. Others believe the Lord would be glorified more, if the money were spent on missions. I believe what we find here in Acts 15 is very applicable to our situation. Just as some would side with Barbnabas and others would side with Paul, there are good arguments on both sides of our building question. So does that mean that God cannot bring us into agreement, that God does not have a perfect will for us? Surely we can’t say that it doesn’t matter which way we go. Doesn’t everything matter to God?
The truth is that we are weak when it comes to hearing the voice of the Lord. None of us see perfectly. Yes, we should be able to come to perfect agreement, but the truth is that we haven’t. Now the biggest question is this: How will we handle the disagreement? First of all, we don’t let it destroy us. Let us take heart in the fact that even Paul and Barnabas experienced a contention so sharp that they parted ways for a while. No, that shouldn’t have happened, but it did. However, they were still unified in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. Though we are not specifically told, I can assure you that both Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to Gentiles, as well as to Jews, assuring one and all that salvation was only through God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Concerning our building situation, those who are hesitant to spend the money to build on the slab have yielded to those who are strongly convicted that we should build. Some might see that as compromise in a bad sense, but surely that is not the case. I certainly believe that God either does want us to build on the slab or doesn’t want us to build on the slab. It is a bit sad that we can’t discern the Lord’s will more accurately in this matter, but we have to face reality. As with Paul and Barnabas, we do not yet see clearly, but through a glass darkly.
So what is our attitude to be, as we confront issues upon which we don’t agree? We realize our weakness, seek the Lord, and move on, focusing as much as possible upon the eternal issues of life. As we build the addition on the slab, that is not our focus. Our focus is on glorifying the Lord, as we seek to know Him and make Him known.
Over 20 years ago, we were putting in the doublewide mobile home in which Rhonda and I now live. A man who was a leader in church work was here for a meeting and made a comment something like this: "Ron, if I were a pastor again, I would always have something like this happening, so that the people in the church could always see that something is going on, that we are doing something." Brothers and sisters, that is wrong. There is a place for doing physical things. After all, we live in a physical body and it must be cared for. Nevertheless, the physical must never distract us from the spiritual; the temporal must not take precedence over the eternal.
Col. 3:1-4… "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
2 Cor. 4:15-18… "For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
I would like to close by sharing with you something I discovered as I was studying this passage. I’m not sure exactly what to make of it, but I find it very interesting. As I was reading this passage, there was a question which occurred to me: "How serious was this conflict between Paul and Barnabas? I know they disagreed, but how serious a disagreement was it?" Then we read in verse 39, "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took mark, and sailed unto Cyrpus." Notice those words, "the contention was so sharp." The NASV, NIV, and Amplified Bible all refer to it as a sharp disagreement.
Please do a brief word study with me. "Sharp contention" (sharp disagreement) is the translation of the single Greek word paroxusmoV. It is found only twice in the New Testament, once here and then again in Heb. 10:24, "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:" More literally, "Let us consider one another unto the provoking of love and good works." So we see that the word is used once in a negative sense, and then once in a positive sense.
While this word is found only twice in the New Testament, it has a verb from [paroxunw] which also occurs twice. Acts 17:16, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." Paul’s spirit was stirred in him. I Cor. 13:5, "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil." The phrase that contains the word is "is not easily provoked." "Is easily provoked" is the translation of this one word. Notice that this verb form is also used once negatively and once positively.
Isn’t it interesting that we can be provoked or stirred up for good or for evil. Praise God that Paul’s spirit was stirred when he saw the idolatry in Athens. Praise God that the Lord can enable us to provoke one another, to stir one another to love and good works. On the other hand, God’s love is not provoked. It is not stirred up to misbehave and focus on self. This word that should point to a stirring up of one another to good works became a source of irritation between two saints of the Lord. It is wonderful to know that it didn’t remain that way. If and when we become irritated with one another, may it not remain that way for long. May we seek reconciliation, that the Lord may be glorified in and through us.
Let me give you a little assignment. I ask you to read through the first three chapters of Ephesians and then at least the first seven verses of chapter 4. If the Lord continues to lead in that direction, we will look at spiritual unity in that context next Sunday morning.
We haven’t talked much about the gospel and the glorious salvation of the Lord this morning, but you will read it in abundance, as you go through the first three chapters of Ephesians.
PAUL AND BARNABAS
Acts 15:36-41
Is there any salvation outside of Jesus Christ? What if a person is humble and loves his fellowman? Is there any hope for him outside of Jesus? I remind you of what Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:6). And we read the words of Peter in Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." This is a great eternal truth that cannot be compromised. There are other things we are not so sure about. If I were to ask you the question, "Should a Christian purchase health insurance?" there would be disagreement. While we would like to agree on everything, the simple truth is that we don’t. Here is a question that will always confront us: What are the most important issues? What are the issues upon which we cannot and will not compromise?
The last two weeks we have looked at Acts 15, which gives us the record of the deliberations and the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. That gathering came about as a result of the dispute at Antioch of Syria, when certain men came from Judaea and began to teach the disciples that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. After "no small dissension and disputation," the Antioch church sent Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers up to Jerusalem to discuss with the apostles and elders there this very divisive issue.
Praise God for the way He worked in that gathering. Though there was strong opinions that could have torn the church to pieces, the Spirit of God worked among the people of God to arrive at the truth of God and deliver the decision of God. That decision is briefly stated in Acts 15:19-20, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
Last week we took some time to look at the remarkable unity that was evident in Jerusalem among God’s people. Let’s read again those strong statements… 22. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…" 23. "And t hey wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting..." 25. "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men…" 28. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." It wasn’t just the leaders who agreed, but the entire assembly was in agreement. And this agreement was not some sort of outward harmony that they were able to achieve, but it was a vital unity produced by the Spirit of God Himself.
So this large assembly, being confronted by the most difficult issue ever to face a Christian assembly, could say with confidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding in the decisions made. And when the letter was delivered to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilica, they "rejoiced for the consolation." Not only was the truth of the gospel preserved, but fellowship within the church of Jesus Christ was advanced. Both Jews and Gentiles rejoiced together in the body of Christ.
Now we come to the last part of chapter 15. Let’s read it in Acts 15:36-41…
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40. And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
What happened to the unity about which we have been reading? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. How things change in a hurry. What happened to this great unity about which we read in chapter 15? Had Paul and Barnabas forgotten?
Let’s take a few moments to look at the three main people involved. I say "three," because I want to include Luke, the man who wrote this account. Remember that Luke was the author of the third gospel account, the one that bears his name, as well as this book of Acts. So let’s look at the role of Luke, Paul, and Barnabas.
Luke… Let’s commend Luke for being honest and not glossing over this incident. While Luke was a Christian and later joined Paul on this second missionary trip, he was also an accurate historian. In the past, many questioned the accuracy of Luke’s writing, especially with regard to the travels of Paul. However, through careful study, it has been found that Luke was extremely accurate in what he tells us. On this occasion, he tells things as they happened, not as he would have liked them to happen.
In recent times there has been a multiplication of those who are spreading the idea that the Bible is the work of the church, centuries after Jesus walked the earth. In other words, this isn’t the account of a historian named Luke, but the work of later writers who either wrote a fictitious work, or who doctored the documents that came from the first century. But surely we can see that this very account makes such a charge ridiculous. If the church had been intent on producing a New Testament that would be acceptable to the natural man, this is one section that would have never been included. It would have been foolish for them to raise questions about the character of two heroes in the early church. And we could name many other New Testament passages that could have conveniently been left out. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible tells it like it is, and that was certainly true of Luke.
Paul… So in this dispute between Paul and Barnabas, was Paul right? Or, was he wrong? We can certainly understand Paul’s concern. After all, Mark did desert them early on during their missionary endeavor. Of course, it would further our understanding, if we knew why Mark left, but we aren’t told. The Spirit of God did not lead Luke to record the reason. If Mark did not have some compelling reason for leaving, you can understand Paul’s reluctance to take him along again. We cannot conclude that Paul was down on young John Mark, that he wrote him off, simply because he didn’t want to take him on this trip. It may be that Paul didn’t believe it was time for Mark to take on such a role. Perhaps he needed some seasoning and maturity before joining them on another mission trip.
Those who would see Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong might point to verse 40, "And Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God." It seems that Paul had the endorsement of the church of Antioch. Barnabas, on the other hand, took Mark with him and sailed for Cyprus. Nothing is said about the church sending them out. Neither Barnabas or Mark is mentioned again in the book of Acts.
Barnabas… So what about Barnabas? Was he right in insisting that they take Mark with them? Or, should he have yielded to Paul, let go of his preference, and accompanied Paul on this second missionary journey? As we ask these questions, we have a certain regret that the Lord didn’t give us more information. The truth is that we are not given enough details to form firm conclusions.
From what we are told, surely we cannot conclude that Barnabas was the one in the wrong. Remember that Barnabas is well described by the meaning of his name, "son of encouragement" (son of consolation). While Paul must have had a great concern for the effectiveness of the mission work, Barnabas had a great concern for the spiritual development of the young man John Mark, who was dear to him. (Mark was the cousin, uncle, or some relative of Barnabas, depending on which translation you read in Col. 4:10). As we see in this passage, Barnabas did end up taking Mark under his wing, as they set out to do mission work in Barnabas’ native Cyprus.
While those who favor the view that Paul was in the right can point to the endorsement of the church at Antioch, those who side with Barnabas can point to the fact that God did use Mark later on. Let’s look at the other New Testament passages where Mark is mentioned…
Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)"
II Tim. 4:11, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
Philemon 1:23-24, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers."
I Pet. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
Notice especially the note in II Tim. 4:11. Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to him, "for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Praise God! Here at the end of Acts 15, Paul did not see Mark as being profitable to him for the ministry. That is the very reason he refused to take Mark with him. But now things are different. We don’t know why? While it is true that Mark may have matured greatly in the Lord, there are those who would contend that it was Barnabas’ willingness to take Mark under his wing that made the difference. While Paul didn’t have the patience to work with this young man, Barnabas devoted himself to the task and made a great difference in Mark’s life. Perhaps that’s the way it was, but we don’t know for sure.
So should we see this disagreement as any problem at all? Were Paul and Barnabas simply pawns in the Lord’s hand? That is, did they disagree in order that the Lord might launch two mission teams instead of just one? This aspect is often emphasized. Had they not disagreed, there would have been no mission endeavor to Cyprus. What about that line of thinking? While God is certainly able to work things together for good, that does not necessarily excuse Paul and Barnabas for the sharp contention between them.
This much we know. Despite the conflict between these two men of God, the Lord did preserve the strong relationship between them. In I Cor. 9 Paul refers to Barnabas as a fellow-apostle. I Cor. 9:5-6, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" (This letter was written some six to eight years after the events of Acts 15). And let’s read again Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him.)" Such references reveal that there was no lasting division between Paul and Barnabas. I suspect that before they had gone very far in their respective mission endeavors, there was friendly correspondence and mutual prayer for one another.
Now please think with me for a minute. Earlier I asked the question: What happened to the unity about which we have read in Acts 15? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. What happened?
We must understand the great difference between the two issues involved. The issue before the Jerusalem Conference was one of earth-shattering proportions. They were dealing with the question of what was necessary for salvation. Their decision would affect thousands upon thousands for centuries to come. The issue Paul and Barnabas faced here at Antioch was very different in nature. While it is true that every issue is important, this issue could not compare with the decision of the Jerusalem Conference.
The issue facing Paul and Barnabas was also different in that it was not a clear matter of right and wrong. At the Jerusalem Conference, there was a crucial truth at stake. Could a person be saved apart from the law, or could he not? It couldn’t be both ways; it was one way or the other. Eternal truth was at stake. This was not the case with the conflict between Paul and Barnabas. It would be difficult to say that one man was totally right and the other totally wrong. We have explored some of the possibilities, but we can’t go beyond that.
Can you see it? The fact that these two heroes of the faith disagreed shouldn’t destroy us. Norman and I are undershepherds in this local body, but we don’t agree on everything. I hope that doesn’t shock you. However, we are totally agreed that Jesus is the only way to God the Father, that salvation is in Christ alone and does not depend upon keeping the law. Let me repeat it again – disagreements among the people of God are inevitable. Perhaps that is the main reason the Spirit included this incident in the book of Acts, to show us that even mighty men of God are capable of disagreeing. There are many issues that are not as crucial and not as black and white as the issue of what is required for salvation.
Let me bring it down to where we live. Concerning building on the slab out here, we do not all agree. Some believe building would glorify the Lord. Others believe the Lord would be glorified more, if the money were spent on missions. I believe what we find here in Acts 15 is very applicable to our situation. Just as some would side with Barbnabas and others would side with Paul, there are good arguments on both sides of our building question. So does that mean that God cannot bring us into agreement, that God does not have a perfect will for us? Surely we can’t say that it doesn’t matter which way we go. Doesn’t everything matter to God?
The truth is that we are weak when it comes to hearing the voice of the Lord. None of us see perfectly. Yes, we should be able to come to perfect agreement, but the truth is that we haven’t. Now the biggest question is this: How will we handle the disagreement? First of all, we don’t let it destroy us. Let us take heart in the fact that even Paul and Barnabas experienced a contention so sharp that they parted ways for a while. No, that shouldn’t have happened, but it did. However, they were still unified in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. Though we are not specifically told, I can assure you that both Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to Gentiles, as well as to Jews, assuring one and all that salvation was only through God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Concerning our building situation, those who are hesitant to spend the money to build on the slab have yielded to those who are strongly convicted that we should build. Some might see that as compromise in a bad sense, but surely that is not the case. I certainly believe that God either does want us to build on the slab or doesn’t want us to build on the slab. It is a bit sad that we can’t discern the Lord’s will more accurately in this matter, but we have to face reality. As with Paul and Barnabas, we do not yet see clearly, but through a glass darkly.
So what is our attitude to be, as we confront issues upon which we don’t agree? We realize our weakness, seek the Lord, and move on, focusing as much as possible upon the eternal issues of life. As we build the addition on the slab, that is not our focus. Our focus is on glorifying the Lord, as we seek to know Him and make Him known.
Over 20 years ago, we were putting in the doublewide mobile home in which Rhonda and I now live. A man who was a leader in church work was here for a meeting and made a comment something like this: "Ron, if I were a pastor again, I would always have something like this happening, so that the people in the church could always see that something is going on, that we are doing something." Brothers and sisters, that is wrong. There is a place for doing physical things. After all, we live in a physical body and it must be cared for. Nevertheless, the physical must never distract us from the spiritual; the temporal must not take precedence over the eternal.
Col. 3:1-4… "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
2 Cor. 4:15-18… "For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
I would like to close by sharing with you something I discovered as I was studying this passage. I’m not sure exactly what to make of it, but I find it very interesting. As I was reading this passage, there was a question which occurred to me: "How serious was this conflict between Paul and Barnabas? I know they disagreed, but how serious a disagreement was it?" Then we read in verse 39, "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took mark, and sailed unto Cyrpus." Notice those words, "the contention was so sharp." The NASV, NIV, and Amplified Bible all refer to it as a sharp disagreement.
Please do a brief word study with me. "Sharp contention" (sharp disagreement) is the translation of the single Greek word paroxusmoV. It is found only twice in the New Testament, once here and then again in Heb. 10:24, "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:" More literally, "Let us consider one another unto the provoking of love and good works." So we see that the word is used once in a negative sense, and then once in a positive sense.
While this word is found only twice in the New Testament, it has a verb from [paroxunw] which also occurs twice. Acts 17:16, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." Paul’s spirit was stirred in him. I Cor. 13:5, "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil." The phrase that contains the word is "is not easily provoked." "Is easily provoked" is the translation of this one word. Notice that this verb form is also used once negatively and once positively.
Isn’t it interesting that we can be provoked or stirred up for good or for evil. Praise God that Paul’s spirit was stirred when he saw the idolatry in Athens. Praise God that the Lord can enable us to provoke one another, to stir one another to love and good works. On the other hand, God’s love is not provoked. It is not stirred up to misbehave and focus on self. This word that should point to a stirring up of one another to good works became a source of irritation between two saints of the Lord. It is wonderful to know that it didn’t remain that way. If and when we become irritated with one another, may it not remain that way for long. May we seek reconciliation, that the Lord may be glorified in and through us.
Let me give you a little assignment. I ask you to read through the first three chapters of Ephesians and then at least the first seven verses of chapter 4. If the Lord continues to lead in that direction, we will look at spiritual unity in that context next Sunday morning.
We haven’t talked much about the gospel and the glorious salvation of the Lord this morning, but you will read it in abundance, as you go through the first three chapters of Ephesians.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
ACTS 15:20-35
I would like to give you a copy of the Ten Commandments. But before I give them to you, I want to give you a bit of instruction. I want you to use these Ten Commandments to draw others to Jesus Christ. So how will you do that? "I will post these commandments and say to anyone who will read them: Keep these commandments perfectly, and you will have eternal life." Fine, you pass the test. I have confidence that you will uphold the standard of God by encouraging people to keep the Ten Commandments.
What do you think? I see some hesitation. I don’t think I would send you out with those instructions, although I personally don’t think that is nearly so damaging as telling pagans in our society, "Just accept Jesus and you will be saved." Who is Jesus? Saved from what? Why does anyone need to be saved? A person who seriously tries to keep the Ten Commandments might be motivated to find out who Jesus really is.
We could continue with this discussion, but we won’t. My purpose is to get us thinking about the law of God and its purpose. Those who came from Jerusalem to Antioch told the disciples there, "Unless you are circumcised according to Moses’ law, you cannot be saved." In effect, they were saying that a person must keep (or at least seriously try to keep) the commandments in order to be saved. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether it is keeping the commandments or trying to keep them, because trying is the best the natural man can ever do. He can’t keep them.
Aren’t you glad that your inability to keep the Ten Commandments is not the final word. The Jerusalem Council came to a decision concerning the issue of what was required for salvation. The question was this: "Is it enough to trust Christ for salvation? Or, must a person also take upon himself the obligation of keeping the law?" James expressed their decision in verse 19, "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are (have) turned to God." In other words, salvation does not require the keeping of the law. Jesus did everything necessary for our salvation. He kept the law and then He paid the penalty for those who broke the law. Jesus did it all. This gathering in Jerusalem made it clear that Paul and Barnabas were right to preach the good news of Jesus to Gentiles, with no strings attached. The Gentiles did not have to become Jews to come into the family of God. At this meeting, the issue was settled, though some would still have a difficult time receiving it.
Nevertheless, the law does have purpose, as stated concisely in Gal. 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." The law brings us to Christ by pointing out our sins. Many who are "making decisions" for Christ today have not truly come to Christ, because they have not understood the seriousness of breaking God’s law.
But let’s be clear on what the Jerusalem Council decided concerning salvation. It is not necessary to keep the law; it is not necessary to assume the obligation of trying to keep the law. Salvation comes through Christ alone. As Paul puts it in Gal. 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." That is, if a person can be made right by keeping the law, then Christ died for nothing.
This morning we are going to pick up the deliberations in Jerusalem at this point. I think it will help us to go back and begin reading in verse 1. This will give us a review and set the stage for the rest of the chapter.
Read Acts 15:1-35
This morning we are going to look at two aspects of verses 20-35. First, we will look at the additional instructions that the council would send to Antioch and the Gentile disciples. Then we will look at how these crucial decisions were made. This second aspect will be our main focus.
I. The Gentile Prohibitions
Let’s read again verses 19-20…
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
While they conclusively decided that the Gentiles were not required to come under Judaism, there is a "but" after this declaration. The Jerusalem Council was asking the Gentile believers to abstain from four things. The word translated "abstain" literally means "to have from." It’s basic meaning is "to hold one’s self away from." While they would not burden them with the yoke of the law, they were asking them to hold back from four specific practices. I use the word "asking" deliberately, because it was not a command. Notice the language here, "But that we write unto them." The Greek language was full of words that carried the idea of commanding, but James doesn’t use any of them. I repeat – this was not a command.
So from what exactly were the Gentile Christians asked to abstain? "From pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Before we look at these things specifically, let’s be aware from the start that there is much difference of opinion concerning these things. People differ on the reasons the prohibitions were given, and they differ on the meaning of them individually. I might also mention that this list of prohibitions occurs three times – here in 15:20, again in 15:29, and finally in 21:25. The order in the latter two occurrences is different from here, which indicates that these things are not listed in order of importance.
So why does James not end with his statement that the Gentiles should not be burdened with keeping the law? Why these added prohibitions? The most widely accepted understanding is that James was concerned about fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ. There could be no question concerning the Gentiles acceptance into the church on the basis of their faith in Christ alone. On the other hand, such acceptance presented a major problem. Jews had been taught all their lives to avoid contact with Gentiles. Now they are suddenly confronted with "brothers and sisters" who are not familiar with their way of life. How could a Jew have close fellowship with those who ate meat that had been offered to idols, who didn’t take care to drain the blood from the meat they ate, and who had grown up with the sexual standards of paganism? In order to deal with this problem, James and the entire assembly would ask the Gentiles to refrain from these practices, which would be so offensive to their Jewish brothers.
There are those who oppose this interpretation, pointing out that such prohibitions said nothing about eating pork and other such practices that would be equally offensive to Jewish Christians. Those who oppose this interpretation usually find the reason for these prohibitions in their association with pagan religious practices. It can be shown that all of these practices had a place in the cultic religious practices of that day. Some would say that James was simply urging these new Gentile converts to avoid all pagan religious practices, because many of them had grown up in such an environment.
While it may be difficult for us to go back and fully understand the reasons for these four prohibitions, it seems difficult to divorce them totally from the idea of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. We must remember that this was a huge issue. God’s plan was not to have Jewish churches and Gentile churches. Rather, the emphasis of the New Testament is upon the oneness of all believers, even Jews and Gentiles built together in one building. This is the great mystery of God, by which He teaches even the heavenly beings.
So they asked the Gentile believers to abstain from pollution of idols. This phrase "pollution of idols" could mean many things. However, in verse 29 it is "abstain from meat offered to idols." This seems to be the focus of the prohibition. Often animals that had been used in the sacrifices of pagan worship were then sold in the market place. That raises a question: Was it wrong to eat such meat? While it would be wrong to eat this meat in conjunction with the pagan sacrifices themselves, it was not inherently wrong to eat the leftover meat that was sold in the market. If it wasn’t wrong, then why are the Gentiles asked to abstain from eating it? It is the principle of love for the brethren, as stated by Paul in I Cor. 8 and again I Cor. 10. Let’s read it in I Cor. 8:4-13…
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
There were two potential problems with the Gentile believers eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. On the one hand, it would make fellowship with the Jewish believers very difficult, for the eating of this meat was very offensive to them. On the other hand, it is possible that a Jewish believer, who truly wanted to fellowship with his Gentile brother might decide that if it is okay for his Gentile brother, then it is okay for him, only to find that his own conscience condemned him for his act. For these reasons, and perhaps for others, they asked the Gentile Christians to refrain from eating such meat.
Now let’s skip fornication for now, as it is listed last in verse 29. They also asked the Gentile believers to abstain from things strangled and from blood. These two are related and concern the dietary laws of the Jews. They were forbidden to eat blood or animals from which the blood had not been properly drained, because the life is in the blood. A Gentile might protest and quote what the Lord had said to Peter, "What I have made clean, don’t you call unclean." However, we must understand that the great majority of the Jewish Christians did not yet have "the emancipated outlook on food-laws and the like as Peter and Paul" (The Book of Acts, by F. F. Bruce, p. 311). It would be very difficult for a Jewish believer to sit down and eat with one who professed Christ and ate a strangled animal, whose blood had not been drained (evidence that this was sometimes practiced in the culture of that day).
Then we come to the fourth prohibition, which is fornication. The exact meaning of this term is debated, but it seems best to understand it simply as sexual immorality. I must confess that it is difficult for me to understand why sexual immorality is lumped together with these other three. While they were not inherently sinful, sexual immorality was sinful. There have been attempts to define the term more narrowly, making it correspond with specific sexual sins from Leviticus, such as incest. However, it is doubtful that such a connection would have made sense to Gentile converts. The big question we have is this: Why request that they abstain from something that was obviously sin?
The most common explanation is that sexual sin was so widely accepted in the Gentile world that it deserved special notation. Perhaps this is hard for us to understand, because most of us grew up in an environment which saw sexual immorality as the worst of sins. That was definitely not the case in the Gentile world of that day. There were Gentiles who would despise lying and stealing, but they would think nothing about sexual immorality. It was very widely accepted in that Gentile world of that day.
Perhaps we can understand this better if we put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. For most of us, we understood how wrong sexual morality was, even before we came to Christ. We can’t conceive of people not understanding that. But now let’s deal with another sin that is absolutely condemned in the scripture. Consider the sin of covetousness. Of course, we know that covetousness isn’t on the same level with fornication, with sexual immorality. Or do we know that? Look at Col. 3:5, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry…" First of all, notice that covetousness is in the same list as fornication (same word as in Acts 15:20,29). Furthermore, note that covetousness is idolatry. And what exactly is the nature of covetousness? The word here translated "covetousness" literally means "to have more." It is the desire for more. And this sin is so serious, that of all the sins listed here, it is covetousness that is equated with idolatry. But before we came to Christ and began to study the Word, most of us would not have recognized the seriousness of covetousness. We certainly wouldn’t have put it on the same level as sexual immorality. As new converts, it might have been necessary for us to have a special warning about covetousness, because it is so widely accepted in our society. If a person doesn’t want more, our society thinks that he is somehow defective, that something
is wrong with him.
Understand that a Jew grew up with a deep understanding of the sinfulness of sexual immorality. The Gentile did not. That seems to be the primary reason for this special note asking them to abstain.
Now come to verse 21, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." It seems to me that James is saying that the Jews were widespread all over the world. This issue of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ was not going to disappear. Because the law of Moses was continually taught in the synagogues, the Jews who came to Christ would be steeped in the very teachings that would make these four practices highly offensive to them.
There are others who believe that James was assuring the Jewish Christians, particularly the believing Pharisees, that they need not worry about the disappearing of the Mosaic law, for it was taught in the synagogues of every city. They see this as a type of concession that James was making.
Now we want to move from the verdict pronounced by James to the larger assembly. This is what James said, but what did everyone else think of it?
II. The Spirit-Led Unity of the Jerusalem Council
Verse 21 marks the end of the words of James. Remember that James was a highly-respected leader in the Jerusalem church. It would be hard to argue with the assertion that he was most respected. When I was introducing this James to us last week, I made it clear that this is not James, the brother of John, but James, the half-brother of our Lord Jesus. What I failed to mention is the special note about James in relation to the appearances of the resurrected Christ. Let’s read it in I Cor. 15:3-8…
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
So when James spoke, people listened. But how would the leaders and the assembly as a whole respond to the way James had summed up the discussion and was directing them to proceed? For the answer to that question, I want us to focus on four statements that are found in verses 22-28.
1. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren (22).
Did you hear that? It pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church. The first thing we read after James’ voice ceases is that the apostles and elders are in agreement. Not only that, but the whole church is with them in this. And because they are in agreement, they proceed to take this action, to send representatives to the church in Antioch.
2. Verse 23, "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia…"
Now we have the beginning of the communication they are sending to Antioch and the surrounding areas. The way the letter begins confirms what we read in verse 22. It emphasizes the unity of all those who have participated in this gathering at Jerusalem. "The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting…" This will not be a letter from only James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas and a few other noted leaders. While the apostles and elders are certainly taking the lead, the letter is also from the brethren. That is, it comes from the church as a whole.
You will notice that after the greeting, the first thing they do is make it very clear that the men who came to Antioch, compelling them to be circumcised and to keep the law, were not sent out by the Jerusalem church. They divorce themselves from any association with the message of those men.
3. Verse 25, "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
There is that phrase that we have encountered before – "with one accord." The translation of a single word, it is used 10 times in the book of Acts, always translated "with one accord." A very literal translation would be "with one passion." We first ran across this word in Acts 1:14, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication…" It was a time of crisis. Though Jesus had risen from the dead, now He was gone again. The apostles had seen Him ascend into heaven. Now some 120 people were waiting in Jerusalem, as He had told them to do. They were living in the shadow of the cross, where Jesus’ enemies had crucified Him. There was every reason to fear for their lives, but they continued in one accord.
And now there is another great crisis. What is the message of salvation? Is it, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"? Or is it, "Jesus plus the keeping of the law will bring salvation"? Remember that the meeting began with much disputing (vs. 7). Will the church be able to come to agreement in dealing with this crucial issue? Praise God that He brought them into once accord. As He worked in each of them, from James, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas down to the newest convert, it could now be said that they were assembled in one accord.
What we read in verses 25b-27 emphasize this unity. They describe Barnabas and Paul as "our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus." Had their been resentment over James’ suggested conclusion, some might have seen Barnabas and Paul as troublemakers, because they were undermining Judaism. That was not the case. They affirmed that these these were their beloved brethren.
They also decided to send two well-respected men from the Jerusalem church to accompany Paul and Barnabas. Judas and Silas would work together with them in delivering the letter to Antioch. All of them had great confidence that these four brothers would confirm in person what would be written in the letter.
4. Verse 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
Here is the source of the unity among this multitude of believers. It was the work of the Holy Spirit. They could say with humility and simplicity, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to proceed in this direction. They were not united because they were just nice people who had a certain knack for getting along. No, they were in unity because they followed the leading of the Spirit.
Don’t take this lightly. This is not Luke saying looking back and saying that they were following the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is the wording of the letter the Jerusalem Conference sent to the believers at Antioch. There is no record that they had heard a voice from heaven, or that a prophet had stood up and said, "Thus saith the Lord." Nevertheless, they have the confidence to say, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to come to this decision concerning what you should do.
They went on to explain in the letter that they would put no greater burden upon them than to ask that they abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. The letter concluded by saying: "If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell." You will note that in the letter, they don’t make a big deal out of this issue of circumcision and keeping the law. They don’t give the reasons why they came to this decision. Apparently, they felt that the less said about it the better. Better the focus remain on Christ than getting wrapped up in a side issue. It was vitally important for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to understand why, but it wasn’t important for the Antioch church, which was predominantly Gentile. At the same time, the four men who delivered the letter were available to deal with questions and the specifics.
In verses30-35 we read about the receiving of the letter and the events that follow. When they read the letter, the disciples at Antioch "rejoiced for the consolation." "Consolation" is that word that literally means "come alongside" and can include encouragement, comfort, challenge, and rebuke. These church leaders and the saints at Jerusalem had indeed come alongside them to comfort and challenge, and they rejoiced as a result.
Judas and Silas, who were prophets, gave further exhortation and strengthened the disciples even more. We don’t know how long Judas and Silas stayed, but they did remain for an undesignated period of time. When they did leave, they did so with the blessing of the Antioch believers. The way it is stated indicates that this whole process was strengthening the ties between Antioch and Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch and continued teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, along with many others.
Conclusion
As a congregation, we will never face an issue ascritical and volatile as the decision the church faced here in Acts 15. That was a decision that has been made; the issue has been settled. It was a once-in-the-history-of-the-church decision. Salvation is in Christ and does not depend upon anything else. Praise God for that truth, and praise God for confirming it through His people there in Jerusalem.
But that isn’t the end. After the Lord justifies us, He places us in the body of Christ. Fellowship in the body is vital; it is vital even to our God. Wisdom dictates that brothers and sisters deal sensitively and lovingly with one another, even as the Antioch believers were asked to do. Why? So that the world may see our love for one another and thereby know that we are His true disciples.
How blessed we are to have the record of how those at Jerusalem came to these conclusions. Hers is the question I want to ask. Since the decisions we face are not as earth shattering as the momentous issue of Acts 15, does it follow that we cannot expect the Holy Spirit to guide our decisions? In other words, the Holy Spirit came and gave specific guidance in that case because there was such a great need. But what about the things we face as a congregation? Are we being presumptuous to expect the Spirit to guide us in the same way? Hasn’t experience taught us that to expect such unity is a pipe dream that will do nothing but end up discouraging us?
Those are questions we must face? Our answers will have considerable influence. Will we operate as a church, or as a business? Will we follow the pattern of the scriptures, or the pattern of the world? Are we as a church desperate for the guidance of the Spirit? Or, can we get along without that guidance? Should we expect to be conscious of the Spirit’s leading? Or, do we just move on and trust that the Spirit is leading us?
I confess that I don’t have all the answers to these questions. I am asking you to think and pray about these things. Here is another crucial question we might ask: How is it that they were able to sense the leading of the Spirit and come to such vital unity? Were they the same kind of people we are? Was it because they were living in a different era? Why don’t we see those kinds of models around us today? Or, does the Lord want us to become that kind of model?
These questions stir up further questions. What part did prayer play in the process? Did everyone agree 100% on everything, even down to the four prohibitions? Or, did some people let go of their own desires out of consideration for their brothers and sisters? What kind of people made up the assembly there at Jerusalem? Were they all born-again believers? Was the consistent desire of every life to glorify God? Did the church (churches) tolerate those who professed Christ but practiced sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, or drunkenness? Do the answer to these questions really make any difference in the life of a church?
I’m asking the questions. I’m asking you to prayerfully consider these things. As we close, let’s pray a prayer upon which all God’s people can agree wholeheartedly. This prayer comes right out of God’s Word. Eph. 3:14-21…
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16. That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18. May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19. And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 20. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21. Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
ACTS 15:20-35
I would like to give you a copy of the Ten Commandments. But before I give them to you, I want to give you a bit of instruction. I want you to use these Ten Commandments to draw others to Jesus Christ. So how will you do that? "I will post these commandments and say to anyone who will read them: Keep these commandments perfectly, and you will have eternal life." Fine, you pass the test. I have confidence that you will uphold the standard of God by encouraging people to keep the Ten Commandments.
What do you think? I see some hesitation. I don’t think I would send you out with those instructions, although I personally don’t think that is nearly so damaging as telling pagans in our society, "Just accept Jesus and you will be saved." Who is Jesus? Saved from what? Why does anyone need to be saved? A person who seriously tries to keep the Ten Commandments might be motivated to find out who Jesus really is.
We could continue with this discussion, but we won’t. My purpose is to get us thinking about the law of God and its purpose. Those who came from Jerusalem to Antioch told the disciples there, "Unless you are circumcised according to Moses’ law, you cannot be saved." In effect, they were saying that a person must keep (or at least seriously try to keep) the commandments in order to be saved. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether it is keeping the commandments or trying to keep them, because trying is the best the natural man can ever do. He can’t keep them.
Aren’t you glad that your inability to keep the Ten Commandments is not the final word. The Jerusalem Council came to a decision concerning the issue of what was required for salvation. The question was this: "Is it enough to trust Christ for salvation? Or, must a person also take upon himself the obligation of keeping the law?" James expressed their decision in verse 19, "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are (have) turned to God." In other words, salvation does not require the keeping of the law. Jesus did everything necessary for our salvation. He kept the law and then He paid the penalty for those who broke the law. Jesus did it all. This gathering in Jerusalem made it clear that Paul and Barnabas were right to preach the good news of Jesus to Gentiles, with no strings attached. The Gentiles did not have to become Jews to come into the family of God. At this meeting, the issue was settled, though some would still have a difficult time receiving it.
Nevertheless, the law does have purpose, as stated concisely in Gal. 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." The law brings us to Christ by pointing out our sins. Many who are "making decisions" for Christ today have not truly come to Christ, because they have not understood the seriousness of breaking God’s law.
But let’s be clear on what the Jerusalem Council decided concerning salvation. It is not necessary to keep the law; it is not necessary to assume the obligation of trying to keep the law. Salvation comes through Christ alone. As Paul puts it in Gal. 2:21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." That is, if a person can be made right by keeping the law, then Christ died for nothing.
This morning we are going to pick up the deliberations in Jerusalem at this point. I think it will help us to go back and begin reading in verse 1. This will give us a review and set the stage for the rest of the chapter.
Read Acts 15:1-35
This morning we are going to look at two aspects of verses 20-35. First, we will look at the additional instructions that the council would send to Antioch and the Gentile disciples. Then we will look at how these crucial decisions were made. This second aspect will be our main focus.
I. The Gentile Prohibitions
Let’s read again verses 19-20…
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
While they conclusively decided that the Gentiles were not required to come under Judaism, there is a "but" after this declaration. The Jerusalem Council was asking the Gentile believers to abstain from four things. The word translated "abstain" literally means "to have from." It’s basic meaning is "to hold one’s self away from." While they would not burden them with the yoke of the law, they were asking them to hold back from four specific practices. I use the word "asking" deliberately, because it was not a command. Notice the language here, "But that we write unto them." The Greek language was full of words that carried the idea of commanding, but James doesn’t use any of them. I repeat – this was not a command.
So from what exactly were the Gentile Christians asked to abstain? "From pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Before we look at these things specifically, let’s be aware from the start that there is much difference of opinion concerning these things. People differ on the reasons the prohibitions were given, and they differ on the meaning of them individually. I might also mention that this list of prohibitions occurs three times – here in 15:20, again in 15:29, and finally in 21:25. The order in the latter two occurrences is different from here, which indicates that these things are not listed in order of importance.
So why does James not end with his statement that the Gentiles should not be burdened with keeping the law? Why these added prohibitions? The most widely accepted understanding is that James was concerned about fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ. There could be no question concerning the Gentiles acceptance into the church on the basis of their faith in Christ alone. On the other hand, such acceptance presented a major problem. Jews had been taught all their lives to avoid contact with Gentiles. Now they are suddenly confronted with "brothers and sisters" who are not familiar with their way of life. How could a Jew have close fellowship with those who ate meat that had been offered to idols, who didn’t take care to drain the blood from the meat they ate, and who had grown up with the sexual standards of paganism? In order to deal with this problem, James and the entire assembly would ask the Gentiles to refrain from these practices, which would be so offensive to their Jewish brothers.
There are those who oppose this interpretation, pointing out that such prohibitions said nothing about eating pork and other such practices that would be equally offensive to Jewish Christians. Those who oppose this interpretation usually find the reason for these prohibitions in their association with pagan religious practices. It can be shown that all of these practices had a place in the cultic religious practices of that day. Some would say that James was simply urging these new Gentile converts to avoid all pagan religious practices, because many of them had grown up in such an environment.
While it may be difficult for us to go back and fully understand the reasons for these four prohibitions, it seems difficult to divorce them totally from the idea of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. We must remember that this was a huge issue. God’s plan was not to have Jewish churches and Gentile churches. Rather, the emphasis of the New Testament is upon the oneness of all believers, even Jews and Gentiles built together in one building. This is the great mystery of God, by which He teaches even the heavenly beings.
So they asked the Gentile believers to abstain from pollution of idols. This phrase "pollution of idols" could mean many things. However, in verse 29 it is "abstain from meat offered to idols." This seems to be the focus of the prohibition. Often animals that had been used in the sacrifices of pagan worship were then sold in the market place. That raises a question: Was it wrong to eat such meat? While it would be wrong to eat this meat in conjunction with the pagan sacrifices themselves, it was not inherently wrong to eat the leftover meat that was sold in the market. If it wasn’t wrong, then why are the Gentiles asked to abstain from eating it? It is the principle of love for the brethren, as stated by Paul in I Cor. 8 and again I Cor. 10. Let’s read it in I Cor. 8:4-13…
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
There were two potential problems with the Gentile believers eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. On the one hand, it would make fellowship with the Jewish believers very difficult, for the eating of this meat was very offensive to them. On the other hand, it is possible that a Jewish believer, who truly wanted to fellowship with his Gentile brother might decide that if it is okay for his Gentile brother, then it is okay for him, only to find that his own conscience condemned him for his act. For these reasons, and perhaps for others, they asked the Gentile Christians to refrain from eating such meat.
Now let’s skip fornication for now, as it is listed last in verse 29. They also asked the Gentile believers to abstain from things strangled and from blood. These two are related and concern the dietary laws of the Jews. They were forbidden to eat blood or animals from which the blood had not been properly drained, because the life is in the blood. A Gentile might protest and quote what the Lord had said to Peter, "What I have made clean, don’t you call unclean." However, we must understand that the great majority of the Jewish Christians did not yet have "the emancipated outlook on food-laws and the like as Peter and Paul" (The Book of Acts, by F. F. Bruce, p. 311). It would be very difficult for a Jewish believer to sit down and eat with one who professed Christ and ate a strangled animal, whose blood had not been drained (evidence that this was sometimes practiced in the culture of that day).
Then we come to the fourth prohibition, which is fornication. The exact meaning of this term is debated, but it seems best to understand it simply as sexual immorality. I must confess that it is difficult for me to understand why sexual immorality is lumped together with these other three. While they were not inherently sinful, sexual immorality was sinful. There have been attempts to define the term more narrowly, making it correspond with specific sexual sins from Leviticus, such as incest. However, it is doubtful that such a connection would have made sense to Gentile converts. The big question we have is this: Why request that they abstain from something that was obviously sin?
The most common explanation is that sexual sin was so widely accepted in the Gentile world that it deserved special notation. Perhaps this is hard for us to understand, because most of us grew up in an environment which saw sexual immorality as the worst of sins. That was definitely not the case in the Gentile world of that day. There were Gentiles who would despise lying and stealing, but they would think nothing about sexual immorality. It was very widely accepted in that Gentile world of that day.
Perhaps we can understand this better if we put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. For most of us, we understood how wrong sexual morality was, even before we came to Christ. We can’t conceive of people not understanding that. But now let’s deal with another sin that is absolutely condemned in the scripture. Consider the sin of covetousness. Of course, we know that covetousness isn’t on the same level with fornication, with sexual immorality. Or do we know that? Look at Col. 3:5, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry…" First of all, notice that covetousness is in the same list as fornication (same word as in Acts 15:20,29). Furthermore, note that covetousness is idolatry. And what exactly is the nature of covetousness? The word here translated "covetousness" literally means "to have more." It is the desire for more. And this sin is so serious, that of all the sins listed here, it is covetousness that is equated with idolatry. But before we came to Christ and began to study the Word, most of us would not have recognized the seriousness of covetousness. We certainly wouldn’t have put it on the same level as sexual immorality. As new converts, it might have been necessary for us to have a special warning about covetousness, because it is so widely accepted in our society. If a person doesn’t want more, our society thinks that he is somehow defective, that something
is wrong with him.
Understand that a Jew grew up with a deep understanding of the sinfulness of sexual immorality. The Gentile did not. That seems to be the primary reason for this special note asking them to abstain.
Now come to verse 21, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." It seems to me that James is saying that the Jews were widespread all over the world. This issue of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ was not going to disappear. Because the law of Moses was continually taught in the synagogues, the Jews who came to Christ would be steeped in the very teachings that would make these four practices highly offensive to them.
There are others who believe that James was assuring the Jewish Christians, particularly the believing Pharisees, that they need not worry about the disappearing of the Mosaic law, for it was taught in the synagogues of every city. They see this as a type of concession that James was making.
Now we want to move from the verdict pronounced by James to the larger assembly. This is what James said, but what did everyone else think of it?
II. The Spirit-Led Unity of the Jerusalem Council
Verse 21 marks the end of the words of James. Remember that James was a highly-respected leader in the Jerusalem church. It would be hard to argue with the assertion that he was most respected. When I was introducing this James to us last week, I made it clear that this is not James, the brother of John, but James, the half-brother of our Lord Jesus. What I failed to mention is the special note about James in relation to the appearances of the resurrected Christ. Let’s read it in I Cor. 15:3-8…
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
So when James spoke, people listened. But how would the leaders and the assembly as a whole respond to the way James had summed up the discussion and was directing them to proceed? For the answer to that question, I want us to focus on four statements that are found in verses 22-28.
1. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren (22).
Did you hear that? It pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church. The first thing we read after James’ voice ceases is that the apostles and elders are in agreement. Not only that, but the whole church is with them in this. And because they are in agreement, they proceed to take this action, to send representatives to the church in Antioch.
2. Verse 23, "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia…"
Now we have the beginning of the communication they are sending to Antioch and the surrounding areas. The way the letter begins confirms what we read in verse 22. It emphasizes the unity of all those who have participated in this gathering at Jerusalem. "The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting…" This will not be a letter from only James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas and a few other noted leaders. While the apostles and elders are certainly taking the lead, the letter is also from the brethren. That is, it comes from the church as a whole.
You will notice that after the greeting, the first thing they do is make it very clear that the men who came to Antioch, compelling them to be circumcised and to keep the law, were not sent out by the Jerusalem church. They divorce themselves from any association with the message of those men.
3. Verse 25, "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
There is that phrase that we have encountered before – "with one accord." The translation of a single word, it is used 10 times in the book of Acts, always translated "with one accord." A very literal translation would be "with one passion." We first ran across this word in Acts 1:14, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication…" It was a time of crisis. Though Jesus had risen from the dead, now He was gone again. The apostles had seen Him ascend into heaven. Now some 120 people were waiting in Jerusalem, as He had told them to do. They were living in the shadow of the cross, where Jesus’ enemies had crucified Him. There was every reason to fear for their lives, but they continued in one accord.
And now there is another great crisis. What is the message of salvation? Is it, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"? Or is it, "Jesus plus the keeping of the law will bring salvation"? Remember that the meeting began with much disputing (vs. 7). Will the church be able to come to agreement in dealing with this crucial issue? Praise God that He brought them into once accord. As He worked in each of them, from James, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas down to the newest convert, it could now be said that they were assembled in one accord.
What we read in verses 25b-27 emphasize this unity. They describe Barnabas and Paul as "our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus." Had their been resentment over James’ suggested conclusion, some might have seen Barnabas and Paul as troublemakers, because they were undermining Judaism. That was not the case. They affirmed that these these were their beloved brethren.
They also decided to send two well-respected men from the Jerusalem church to accompany Paul and Barnabas. Judas and Silas would work together with them in delivering the letter to Antioch. All of them had great confidence that these four brothers would confirm in person what would be written in the letter.
4. Verse 28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
Here is the source of the unity among this multitude of believers. It was the work of the Holy Spirit. They could say with humility and simplicity, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to proceed in this direction. They were not united because they were just nice people who had a certain knack for getting along. No, they were in unity because they followed the leading of the Spirit.
Don’t take this lightly. This is not Luke saying looking back and saying that they were following the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is the wording of the letter the Jerusalem Conference sent to the believers at Antioch. There is no record that they had heard a voice from heaven, or that a prophet had stood up and said, "Thus saith the Lord." Nevertheless, they have the confidence to say, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to come to this decision concerning what you should do.
They went on to explain in the letter that they would put no greater burden upon them than to ask that they abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. The letter concluded by saying: "If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell." You will note that in the letter, they don’t make a big deal out of this issue of circumcision and keeping the law. They don’t give the reasons why they came to this decision. Apparently, they felt that the less said about it the better. Better the focus remain on Christ than getting wrapped up in a side issue. It was vitally important for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to understand why, but it wasn’t important for the Antioch church, which was predominantly Gentile. At the same time, the four men who delivered the letter were available to deal with questions and the specifics.
In verses30-35 we read about the receiving of the letter and the events that follow. When they read the letter, the disciples at Antioch "rejoiced for the consolation." "Consolation" is that word that literally means "come alongside" and can include encouragement, comfort, challenge, and rebuke. These church leaders and the saints at Jerusalem had indeed come alongside them to comfort and challenge, and they rejoiced as a result.
Judas and Silas, who were prophets, gave further exhortation and strengthened the disciples even more. We don’t know how long Judas and Silas stayed, but they did remain for an undesignated period of time. When they did leave, they did so with the blessing of the Antioch believers. The way it is stated indicates that this whole process was strengthening the ties between Antioch and Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch and continued teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, along with many others.
Conclusion
As a congregation, we will never face an issue ascritical and volatile as the decision the church faced here in Acts 15. That was a decision that has been made; the issue has been settled. It was a once-in-the-history-of-the-church decision. Salvation is in Christ and does not depend upon anything else. Praise God for that truth, and praise God for confirming it through His people there in Jerusalem.
But that isn’t the end. After the Lord justifies us, He places us in the body of Christ. Fellowship in the body is vital; it is vital even to our God. Wisdom dictates that brothers and sisters deal sensitively and lovingly with one another, even as the Antioch believers were asked to do. Why? So that the world may see our love for one another and thereby know that we are His true disciples.
How blessed we are to have the record of how those at Jerusalem came to these conclusions. Hers is the question I want to ask. Since the decisions we face are not as earth shattering as the momentous issue of Acts 15, does it follow that we cannot expect the Holy Spirit to guide our decisions? In other words, the Holy Spirit came and gave specific guidance in that case because there was such a great need. But what about the things we face as a congregation? Are we being presumptuous to expect the Spirit to guide us in the same way? Hasn’t experience taught us that to expect such unity is a pipe dream that will do nothing but end up discouraging us?
Those are questions we must face? Our answers will have considerable influence. Will we operate as a church, or as a business? Will we follow the pattern of the scriptures, or the pattern of the world? Are we as a church desperate for the guidance of the Spirit? Or, can we get along without that guidance? Should we expect to be conscious of the Spirit’s leading? Or, do we just move on and trust that the Spirit is leading us?
I confess that I don’t have all the answers to these questions. I am asking you to think and pray about these things. Here is another crucial question we might ask: How is it that they were able to sense the leading of the Spirit and come to such vital unity? Were they the same kind of people we are? Was it because they were living in a different era? Why don’t we see those kinds of models around us today? Or, does the Lord want us to become that kind of model?
These questions stir up further questions. What part did prayer play in the process? Did everyone agree 100% on everything, even down to the four prohibitions? Or, did some people let go of their own desires out of consideration for their brothers and sisters? What kind of people made up the assembly there at Jerusalem? Were they all born-again believers? Was the consistent desire of every life to glorify God? Did the church (churches) tolerate those who professed Christ but practiced sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, or drunkenness? Do the answer to these questions really make any difference in the life of a church?
I’m asking the questions. I’m asking you to prayerfully consider these things. As we close, let’s pray a prayer upon which all God’s people can agree wholeheartedly. This prayer comes right out of God’s Word. Eph. 3:14-21…
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16. That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18. May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19. And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 20. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21. Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
"The Jerusalem Conference" -- Acts 15:1-19 (The Lord's Church)
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Acts 15:1-19
In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States faced a very serious and critical case. We know it as Roe vs. Wade. The court was forced to decide whether it would be legal for a woman to terminate the life of the child within her womb. How critical that decision was has become evident through the years. Since the court decided that a woman was free to terminate the life within her without penalty, since the Roe vs. Wade decision, between 40 and 45 million babies have been killed. No wonder Roe vs. Wade has been viewed as a landmark decision ever since.
This morning we come to a very key passage in the book of Acts. The events described here in chapter 15 are sometimes referred to as "The Jerusalem Conference." Those leaders gathered at Jerusalem faced a very critical decision. The decision they made would influence people all over the world for the centuries to come. We still feel the effects of their decision today. Praise God that unlike the Supreme Court in 1973, these leaders and the church at Jerusalem yielded to the guiding of the Holy Spirit of God. We can be ever grateful for that fact.
Let’s begin to look at it this morning.
1. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Remember where we are in our story. Paul and Barnabas have returned from the work to which the Holy Spirit and the Antioch church had sent them. After reporting the results of that which we refer to as "the first missionary journey," they spent a good long time with the disciples at Antioch.
During their stay in Antioch, certain men came from Judaea and taught the brethren. That is, they had a message that they began to share with the disciples at Antioch. Notice that there is no record that these men were sent to Antioch; we read only that "certain men… came down from Judaea." It seems quite clear that they came for the purpose of giving instruction. It was not just a social visit.
So what was the message that they teaching in Antioch? By the way, "taught" is more literally "were teaching." This was not just a one-time lecture they gave; they were in the process of disseminating their message. In brief, they were telling the disciples at Antioch, "Unless you are circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Why did this simple message stir up these two men who loved the disciples at Antioch? Remember that it was at Antioch where Jesus was first preached to Gentiles in mass. In order that we be reminded of the results of that preaching, let’s read Acts 11:21, "And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." There is nothing said about these converts being circumcised. They simply believed, turned to the Lord, and lived as children of God. It was the same in the other cities where Paul and Barnabas had preached.
The reference to circumcision definitely refers to the physical rite which was required for a male to become a Jew, but it was also shorthand for the larger concept of keeping the whole Jewish law. Paul made mention of this in Gal. 5:3, "For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." These teachers from Judaea (most likely, primarily Jerusalem) were telling the disciples at Antioch that they could not be truly saved unless they submitted themselves to the whole law. In other words, they had to become Jews. There was no salvation outside of Judaism.
Paul and Barnabas would not stand for this kind of teaching. They confronted these men who, in their minds, were undermining the work in Antioch. After the initial debate, it was determined that Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers should go up to Jerusalem, where they would discuss this issue with the apostles and elders there.
3. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Notice that this was not just the action of Paul and Barnabas, but this was the decision of the church at Antioch. So this delegation began their journey to Jerusalem. On the way, as they passed through the regions of Phenice and Samaria, they declared the conversion of the Gentiles. Please understand what is happening. Paul and Barnabas were not going up to meet with the Jerusalem apostles and elders because they were not sure of the message they were preaching. They were not saying, "Well, perhaps it isn’t right for us to preach the gospel to Gentiles. Maybe we ought to make Jews out of them too." If that had been the case, they would not have declared the conversion of the Gentiles to these churches along the way. They had absolutely no question about the correctness of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.
So why did they go up to Jerusalem to discuss this issue? They recognized that this was a huge question which had the potential to cause great division in the body of Christ. This problem was not confined to Antioch. Paul’s letter to the Galatians (most likely the churches Paul and Barnabas had started in Asia Minor) dealt with the same problem. They could see that the body of Christ was in danger of being polarized, with churches forced to side with the more Jewish churches in Jerusalem and Judaea or with the more Gentile churches in Antioch and beyond. They felt it urgent to deal with this problem openly, in order that the Spirit might bring the churches into agreement.
When they shared with these churches along the way how the gospel was being received among the Gentiles, the believers there were overjoyed. These regions were not as Jewish as Judaea and were naturally more receptive of Paul’s message.
4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Apparently when this little group of men arrived at Jerusalem, there was some type of reception to welcome them. The church received them graciously. Immediately Paul and Barnabas shared what the Lord had been doing through them. It seems quite clear that they would have reported on their missionary journey and how the Gentiles were especially receptive to the gospel.
Notice verse 5 again, "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." It seems more than reasonable to assume that these men were of the same group as those who had gone and taught in Antioch. Their message was the same. As they had always been, these Pharisees were zealous for the law of Moses.
6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
The response of these believing Pharisees was just a further reminder that this issue had to be settled, and the sooner the better. So the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church came together to deliberate. Of course, Paul and Barnabas and the other brothers from Antioch were a part of this meeting. Verse 12 indicates that while the discussion was among the leaders, their deliberations were before the entire congregation… "Then all the multitude kept silence,
and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul."
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
We are not given the details of the first part of the meeting. We read only, "And when there had been much disputing…" You must understand that this was not some little issue they were debating. They were not deciding on the size of the parking lot or how much money should be spent on this or that. They were dealing with the issue of salvation and people’s lives, with the content of the true gospel. People had strong opinions and apparently voiced them.
But then Peter rose up and began to speak. He came right to the point. Peter reminded them that it was through him that the gospel was first preached to a group of Gentiles. And who was it with whom Peter shared the good news? Yes, Cornelius and his household. Peter reminded them that those Gentiles had believed. Now verses 8-9, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." You will recall that this is very similar to what Peter reported to the Jerusalem leaders after he first came from Ceasarea and the encounter with Cornelius. He emphasized then and he emphasizes again that it was God Himself who gave them the Holy Spirit, "even as he did unto us." Notice also the emphasis on the heart, which Peter mentions twice in these verses. The bottom line is that God put no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, purifying the hearts of both by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Peter then asks a very penetrating question: "Therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke upon the neck of Christian disciples, a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we ourselves were able to bear?" It was very appropriate that Peter should use the word "yoke" at this point. When a proselyte (one who converted to Judaism) took upon himself the task of fulfilling the law, it was said that he "took up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven." For the ordinary Jew, this was a very heavy burden to bear. It is true that Paul could say of himself at one time, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, [I was] blameless" (Phil. 3:6). Nevertheless, even that attainment did not bring the peace of God. Listen to what Jesus said about the Pharisees: "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Mt. 23:4).
On the other hand, Peter had learned to be content with the yoke of Christ, that yoke of which Jesus spoke in Matt. 11:28-30…
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul also spoke about the nature of this yoke of keeping the law. Gal 5:1, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Paul was urging them not to revert back to a mentality which put them under the bondage of the law. Paul would later say to the Roman believers, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).
And that brings us to verse 11…
11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
This is a very strong statement: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Look at those pronouns "we" and "they." To whom is Peter referring? To Jews and Gentiles. Peter makes it clear that "we Jews" shall be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ, not through the keeping of the law, just as will the Gentiles. He does not leave any room for the idea that even the Jews will be saved by the keeping of the law. And if the Jews are saved only through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, why would they want to burden Gentiles with the yoke of the law. Not only is it a heavy burden, but man cannot attain salvation by keeping it.
Notice also the words "we shall be saved." Many of us came out of a background that always considered salvation something in the past. The terminology was always, "I was saved." Salvation pointed to the time when we were justified, made right with God. That view is not totally wrong, but it must be balanced with the other truths of scripture. Peter contends that we through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. He clearly speaks of salvation as a future event. So which is it – past or future? Yes, that’s right; it certainly is. The child of God was saved, is being saved, and will be saved. He was justified; he is being sanctified; he will be glorified.
12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
At the reading of these words, we may wonder if the multitude was making a lot of noise before this. Probably not. Perhaps we would express the concept with our saying, "It was so still and quite that you could have heard a pin drop." They were listening intently, as Barnabas and Paul shared what mighty miracles God had done among the Gentiles. They loved to share this report, as they had when they arrived back in Antioch, and on the way to Jerusalem, and when they arrived at Jerusalem (vs. 4). Notice the order of the names. Barnabas is mentioned first here in Jerusalem because he was the one who was well-known here.
13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
We will notice that James is the one who speaks the definitive word. But who is this James? In the book of Acts, we first encounter him in chapter 12. You may remember that it is in chapter 12 that James is killed by Herod. The James who was killed was James, who was one of the twelve apostles. You may also recall that Herod then put Peter in prison, intending to kill him after the feast. But the Lord had other ideas and sent his angel to deliver Peter from prison. After being escorted out by the angel, Peter came to a gathering of disciples. Listen to Acts 12:17, "But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place." So while one James was killed, the other James appears to us.
This James is the half-brother of Jesus. Let’s read about the "brothers" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" The crowd recognized these four as brothers of Jesus; I refer to them as half-brothers because they didn’t have the same father as Jesus.
Even in chapter 12, we recognize James’ position as an influential leader by the fact that Peter told them to go tell James. Now here at the "Jerusalem Conference," we see clearly that he is highly respected in the Jerusalem church. Many would say that he was the prominent leader in the church, and it would be difficult to argue with that. Later, this same James would write a New Testament letter that we know by that same name.
Now let’s listen to what James had to say…
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
First, James indicates that he is in full agreement with Peter, whom he refers to as Simeon. He receives Peter’s testimony of how God through him did visit the Gentiles and take out of them a people for his name. More importantly, James affirms that the message of the Old Testament prophets also agrees with Peter’s declaration. Notice that he says "prophets," (the plural). Then he quotes from one of those prophets. Though he doesn’t name the prophet, the quote is exact enough that we have no trouble finding it. No doubt, his hearers were familiar with this quote from Amos. Let’s read it in Amos 9:11-12…
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12. That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
You can see that there are some slight differences, as well as some greater differences. The subject here is the restoration of the tabernacle of David. The interpretation of this passage in Amos and its use by James has been rather controversial. This morning our purpose is to understand how James used this passage to make his point, to help his hearers understand that the Lord was taking out a people for his name from among the Gentiles.
So let’s get the picture clear in our minds. James repeats Peter’s statement that God visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, and then he says that the prophets agree, quoting Amos as an example of that agreement. This is the way we see the Old Testament quoted again and again in Acts. Remember in chapter 13, when Paul and Barnabas were preaching at Antioch of Pisidia. When the Jews rejected the message, Paul and Barnabas responded by saying: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). But they didn’t stop there. Verse 47, "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be alight of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." Paul quoted from Isaiah 49:6 to support the statement he had just made. That is exactly what James is doing here in Jerusalem.
If you check the context in Amos, you will find that the Lord has been speaking of how He will judge His people Israel. Let’s read it in Amos 9:9-10…
For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. 10. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
Then comes the promise that He will raise u p the tabernacle of David that is fallen.
So what is the tabernacle of David? Interpretations will vary slightly, but surely the Lord is speaking about Israel and David its king. Remember that the Lord had made great promises to David. David spoke to the Lord about building Him a house, and the Lord replied by saying to David, "I will build you a house" (II Sam. 7:11). But because of the rebellion of David’s house, it is fallen down. Instead of calling it a house, now the Lord refers to it as a tabernacle, a booth. But though it is in ruins, the Lord promises that He will rebuild it, so that Israel will possess the remnant of Edom and all the heathen that are called by His name. This is the Word of the Lord, who accomplishes what He says.
This is the passage that James quotes. But remember that he quotes it to support the truth that God is taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name. And remember the larger context. These leaders are considering the all-important question, "Can a man be saved apart from circumcision and the keeping of the law?" Inspired by the Spirit of God, James adapts the passage to fit the current situation. After the rebellion and punishment of His people Israel, God says He will raise up the tabernacle of David so that the residue of men, even (the Greek word "kai," which can be translated "and," "even," or "also") all the Gentiles upon whom His name is called, will seek Him. He obviously isn’t talking about reconstructing a physical building. Many contend that God will indeed raise up a physical tabernacle and house of David, and He may well do that in the future, but that isn’t what James is talking about here. Here the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus. Instead of him speaking about Israel dominating the Gentile nations, he says that those Gentiles will seek the Lord, the very fact to which Peter, Paul and Barnabas have just testified.
This reminds me very much of Psalm 2, where the Father says to His Son, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Ps. 2:8). The Lord Jehovah goes on to say that His Son will break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (9). Nevertheless, those who bow the knee to Him, Jew and Gentile alike, will become His unique inheritance and possession, glorifying Him forever and ever.
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
After forcefully showing that the scriptures affirm Peter’s declaration of how God was taking from the Gentiles a people for His name, James then announces his conclusion of the matter. The primary verdict from the mouth of James is this: "That we trouble not those Gentiles who have turned to God." We must understand this in the context. The Gentiles who have turned to God are not those who have become Jewish proselytes, but those who have embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ and have received the Holy Spirit of God. And that included multitudes of people from Antioch of Syria all the way over to Antioch of Pisidia, along with the household of Cornelius and other pockets of believing Gentiles.
Remember the issue: "Does a man have to become a Jew in order to be saved? Or, can one simply trust the Lord Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection for savlation?" James is clearly saying that it is not necessary for the Gentiles to come through Judaism. It would be wrong for the church leaders to trouble them with the duty of submitting to circumcision and keeping the law as a means of attaining salvation. To do so would be to put a heavy yoke on them. James is saying that Paul and Barnabas are right in presenting the gospel directly to the Gentiles. No one should hinder their work by confusing the issue with circumcision and law-keeping.
Conclusion
It is obvious that this is not the end of the story. James did not cease to speak at the end of verse 19. However, we are not going to be able to cover the rest of the story this morning, and this is the appropriate place to pause. Before we begin to examine the rest of James’ statement, let’s take time this week to rejoice in the great truth of what we have studied this morning.
Paul puts it this way in Gal. 3:13-14, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Back in verse 10 he says, "For as many are as of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Yes, that is a curse, because not one of us has kept the law. Aren’t you glad that Jesus came to redeem us from that curse? But in order to redeem us from the curse, He became a curse for us.
We understand that concept more clearly when we meditate on the cross and what happened there. Listen to Eph. 5:5-6, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Jesus Himself says that the wrath of God abides on the person who does not trust the Son of God (Jn. 3:36). We deserve that wrath. Yet Jesus Himself took that wrath upon Himself when He went to the cross. He took our place; He took the place of the sexually immoral, the covetous, the idolater. God’s wrath was poured out upon those sins, as His wrath was poured out upon His Son.
We were guilty of those very things, because we broke God’s law. How can you describe the God who sent His Son into the world to keep that law perfectly and then sent Him to the cross to pay the penalty for those who zealously broke that law? "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:33).
Aren’t you glad that God hasn’t seen fit to put us under the yoke of the law? Instead, He offers us the life of the One who kept His law perfectly. Paul expresses it beautifully in Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
We might ask, "So what is the purpose of the law?" Rom. 3:20, "…by the law is the knowledge of sin." Gal. 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." By exposing our sin, the law reveals our need for a Savior. That’s the way the law brings us to Christ. But may we never forget that the law has only the power to reveal sin, but no power to do anything about it. That is where grace comes in. Heb. 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." II Cor. 8:9, "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast." The grace of God is seen the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is the grace by which we are saved.
All of this was good news for the Gentiles in Antioch and the surrounding areas. It is also good news for us. May we respond to the invitation of the Lord Jesus… (Matt. 11:28-30)
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Acts 15:1-19
In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States faced a very serious and critical case. We know it as Roe vs. Wade. The court was forced to decide whether it would be legal for a woman to terminate the life of the child within her womb. How critical that decision was has become evident through the years. Since the court decided that a woman was free to terminate the life within her without penalty, since the Roe vs. Wade decision, between 40 and 45 million babies have been killed. No wonder Roe vs. Wade has been viewed as a landmark decision ever since.
This morning we come to a very key passage in the book of Acts. The events described here in chapter 15 are sometimes referred to as "The Jerusalem Conference." Those leaders gathered at Jerusalem faced a very critical decision. The decision they made would influence people all over the world for the centuries to come. We still feel the effects of their decision today. Praise God that unlike the Supreme Court in 1973, these leaders and the church at Jerusalem yielded to the guiding of the Holy Spirit of God. We can be ever grateful for that fact.
Let’s begin to look at it this morning.
1. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Remember where we are in our story. Paul and Barnabas have returned from the work to which the Holy Spirit and the Antioch church had sent them. After reporting the results of that which we refer to as "the first missionary journey," they spent a good long time with the disciples at Antioch.
During their stay in Antioch, certain men came from Judaea and taught the brethren. That is, they had a message that they began to share with the disciples at Antioch. Notice that there is no record that these men were sent to Antioch; we read only that "certain men… came down from Judaea." It seems quite clear that they came for the purpose of giving instruction. It was not just a social visit.
So what was the message that they teaching in Antioch? By the way, "taught" is more literally "were teaching." This was not just a one-time lecture they gave; they were in the process of disseminating their message. In brief, they were telling the disciples at Antioch, "Unless you are circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Why did this simple message stir up these two men who loved the disciples at Antioch? Remember that it was at Antioch where Jesus was first preached to Gentiles in mass. In order that we be reminded of the results of that preaching, let’s read Acts 11:21, "And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." There is nothing said about these converts being circumcised. They simply believed, turned to the Lord, and lived as children of God. It was the same in the other cities where Paul and Barnabas had preached.
The reference to circumcision definitely refers to the physical rite which was required for a male to become a Jew, but it was also shorthand for the larger concept of keeping the whole Jewish law. Paul made mention of this in Gal. 5:3, "For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." These teachers from Judaea (most likely, primarily Jerusalem) were telling the disciples at Antioch that they could not be truly saved unless they submitted themselves to the whole law. In other words, they had to become Jews. There was no salvation outside of Judaism.
Paul and Barnabas would not stand for this kind of teaching. They confronted these men who, in their minds, were undermining the work in Antioch. After the initial debate, it was determined that Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers should go up to Jerusalem, where they would discuss this issue with the apostles and elders there.
3. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Notice that this was not just the action of Paul and Barnabas, but this was the decision of the church at Antioch. So this delegation began their journey to Jerusalem. On the way, as they passed through the regions of Phenice and Samaria, they declared the conversion of the Gentiles. Please understand what is happening. Paul and Barnabas were not going up to meet with the Jerusalem apostles and elders because they were not sure of the message they were preaching. They were not saying, "Well, perhaps it isn’t right for us to preach the gospel to Gentiles. Maybe we ought to make Jews out of them too." If that had been the case, they would not have declared the conversion of the Gentiles to these churches along the way. They had absolutely no question about the correctness of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.
So why did they go up to Jerusalem to discuss this issue? They recognized that this was a huge question which had the potential to cause great division in the body of Christ. This problem was not confined to Antioch. Paul’s letter to the Galatians (most likely the churches Paul and Barnabas had started in Asia Minor) dealt with the same problem. They could see that the body of Christ was in danger of being polarized, with churches forced to side with the more Jewish churches in Jerusalem and Judaea or with the more Gentile churches in Antioch and beyond. They felt it urgent to deal with this problem openly, in order that the Spirit might bring the churches into agreement.
When they shared with these churches along the way how the gospel was being received among the Gentiles, the believers there were overjoyed. These regions were not as Jewish as Judaea and were naturally more receptive of Paul’s message.
4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Apparently when this little group of men arrived at Jerusalem, there was some type of reception to welcome them. The church received them graciously. Immediately Paul and Barnabas shared what the Lord had been doing through them. It seems quite clear that they would have reported on their missionary journey and how the Gentiles were especially receptive to the gospel.
Notice verse 5 again, "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." It seems more than reasonable to assume that these men were of the same group as those who had gone and taught in Antioch. Their message was the same. As they had always been, these Pharisees were zealous for the law of Moses.
6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
The response of these believing Pharisees was just a further reminder that this issue had to be settled, and the sooner the better. So the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church came together to deliberate. Of course, Paul and Barnabas and the other brothers from Antioch were a part of this meeting. Verse 12 indicates that while the discussion was among the leaders, their deliberations were before the entire congregation… "Then all the multitude kept silence,
and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul."
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
We are not given the details of the first part of the meeting. We read only, "And when there had been much disputing…" You must understand that this was not some little issue they were debating. They were not deciding on the size of the parking lot or how much money should be spent on this or that. They were dealing with the issue of salvation and people’s lives, with the content of the true gospel. People had strong opinions and apparently voiced them.
But then Peter rose up and began to speak. He came right to the point. Peter reminded them that it was through him that the gospel was first preached to a group of Gentiles. And who was it with whom Peter shared the good news? Yes, Cornelius and his household. Peter reminded them that those Gentiles had believed. Now verses 8-9, "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." You will recall that this is very similar to what Peter reported to the Jerusalem leaders after he first came from Ceasarea and the encounter with Cornelius. He emphasized then and he emphasizes again that it was God Himself who gave them the Holy Spirit, "even as he did unto us." Notice also the emphasis on the heart, which Peter mentions twice in these verses. The bottom line is that God put no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, purifying the hearts of both by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Peter then asks a very penetrating question: "Therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke upon the neck of Christian disciples, a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we ourselves were able to bear?" It was very appropriate that Peter should use the word "yoke" at this point. When a proselyte (one who converted to Judaism) took upon himself the task of fulfilling the law, it was said that he "took up the yoke of the kingdom of heaven." For the ordinary Jew, this was a very heavy burden to bear. It is true that Paul could say of himself at one time, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, [I was] blameless" (Phil. 3:6). Nevertheless, even that attainment did not bring the peace of God. Listen to what Jesus said about the Pharisees: "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Mt. 23:4).
On the other hand, Peter had learned to be content with the yoke of Christ, that yoke of which Jesus spoke in Matt. 11:28-30…
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul also spoke about the nature of this yoke of keeping the law. Gal 5:1, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Paul was urging them not to revert back to a mentality which put them under the bondage of the law. Paul would later say to the Roman believers, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).
And that brings us to verse 11…
11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
This is a very strong statement: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Look at those pronouns "we" and "they." To whom is Peter referring? To Jews and Gentiles. Peter makes it clear that "we Jews" shall be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ, not through the keeping of the law, just as will the Gentiles. He does not leave any room for the idea that even the Jews will be saved by the keeping of the law. And if the Jews are saved only through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, why would they want to burden Gentiles with the yoke of the law. Not only is it a heavy burden, but man cannot attain salvation by keeping it.
Notice also the words "we shall be saved." Many of us came out of a background that always considered salvation something in the past. The terminology was always, "I was saved." Salvation pointed to the time when we were justified, made right with God. That view is not totally wrong, but it must be balanced with the other truths of scripture. Peter contends that we through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. He clearly speaks of salvation as a future event. So which is it – past or future? Yes, that’s right; it certainly is. The child of God was saved, is being saved, and will be saved. He was justified; he is being sanctified; he will be glorified.
12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
At the reading of these words, we may wonder if the multitude was making a lot of noise before this. Probably not. Perhaps we would express the concept with our saying, "It was so still and quite that you could have heard a pin drop." They were listening intently, as Barnabas and Paul shared what mighty miracles God had done among the Gentiles. They loved to share this report, as they had when they arrived back in Antioch, and on the way to Jerusalem, and when they arrived at Jerusalem (vs. 4). Notice the order of the names. Barnabas is mentioned first here in Jerusalem because he was the one who was well-known here.
13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
We will notice that James is the one who speaks the definitive word. But who is this James? In the book of Acts, we first encounter him in chapter 12. You may remember that it is in chapter 12 that James is killed by Herod. The James who was killed was James, who was one of the twelve apostles. You may also recall that Herod then put Peter in prison, intending to kill him after the feast. But the Lord had other ideas and sent his angel to deliver Peter from prison. After being escorted out by the angel, Peter came to a gathering of disciples. Listen to Acts 12:17, "But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place." So while one James was killed, the other James appears to us.
This James is the half-brother of Jesus. Let’s read about the "brothers" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" The crowd recognized these four as brothers of Jesus; I refer to them as half-brothers because they didn’t have the same father as Jesus.
Even in chapter 12, we recognize James’ position as an influential leader by the fact that Peter told them to go tell James. Now here at the "Jerusalem Conference," we see clearly that he is highly respected in the Jerusalem church. Many would say that he was the prominent leader in the church, and it would be difficult to argue with that. Later, this same James would write a New Testament letter that we know by that same name.
Now let’s listen to what James had to say…
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
First, James indicates that he is in full agreement with Peter, whom he refers to as Simeon. He receives Peter’s testimony of how God through him did visit the Gentiles and take out of them a people for his name. More importantly, James affirms that the message of the Old Testament prophets also agrees with Peter’s declaration. Notice that he says "prophets," (the plural). Then he quotes from one of those prophets. Though he doesn’t name the prophet, the quote is exact enough that we have no trouble finding it. No doubt, his hearers were familiar with this quote from Amos. Let’s read it in Amos 9:11-12…
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 12. That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
You can see that there are some slight differences, as well as some greater differences. The subject here is the restoration of the tabernacle of David. The interpretation of this passage in Amos and its use by James has been rather controversial. This morning our purpose is to understand how James used this passage to make his point, to help his hearers understand that the Lord was taking out a people for his name from among the Gentiles.
So let’s get the picture clear in our minds. James repeats Peter’s statement that God visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, and then he says that the prophets agree, quoting Amos as an example of that agreement. This is the way we see the Old Testament quoted again and again in Acts. Remember in chapter 13, when Paul and Barnabas were preaching at Antioch of Pisidia. When the Jews rejected the message, Paul and Barnabas responded by saying: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). But they didn’t stop there. Verse 47, "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be alight of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." Paul quoted from Isaiah 49:6 to support the statement he had just made. That is exactly what James is doing here in Jerusalem.
If you check the context in Amos, you will find that the Lord has been speaking of how He will judge His people Israel. Let’s read it in Amos 9:9-10…
For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. 10. All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
Then comes the promise that He will raise u p the tabernacle of David that is fallen.
So what is the tabernacle of David? Interpretations will vary slightly, but surely the Lord is speaking about Israel and David its king. Remember that the Lord had made great promises to David. David spoke to the Lord about building Him a house, and the Lord replied by saying to David, "I will build you a house" (II Sam. 7:11). But because of the rebellion of David’s house, it is fallen down. Instead of calling it a house, now the Lord refers to it as a tabernacle, a booth. But though it is in ruins, the Lord promises that He will rebuild it, so that Israel will possess the remnant of Edom and all the heathen that are called by His name. This is the Word of the Lord, who accomplishes what He says.
This is the passage that James quotes. But remember that he quotes it to support the truth that God is taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name. And remember the larger context. These leaders are considering the all-important question, "Can a man be saved apart from circumcision and the keeping of the law?" Inspired by the Spirit of God, James adapts the passage to fit the current situation. After the rebellion and punishment of His people Israel, God says He will raise up the tabernacle of David so that the residue of men, even (the Greek word "kai," which can be translated "and," "even," or "also") all the Gentiles upon whom His name is called, will seek Him. He obviously isn’t talking about reconstructing a physical building. Many contend that God will indeed raise up a physical tabernacle and house of David, and He may well do that in the future, but that isn’t what James is talking about here. Here the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David is the resurrection and exaltation of the Lord Jesus. Instead of him speaking about Israel dominating the Gentile nations, he says that those Gentiles will seek the Lord, the very fact to which Peter, Paul and Barnabas have just testified.
This reminds me very much of Psalm 2, where the Father says to His Son, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Ps. 2:8). The Lord Jehovah goes on to say that His Son will break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (9). Nevertheless, those who bow the knee to Him, Jew and Gentile alike, will become His unique inheritance and possession, glorifying Him forever and ever.
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
After forcefully showing that the scriptures affirm Peter’s declaration of how God was taking from the Gentiles a people for His name, James then announces his conclusion of the matter. The primary verdict from the mouth of James is this: "That we trouble not those Gentiles who have turned to God." We must understand this in the context. The Gentiles who have turned to God are not those who have become Jewish proselytes, but those who have embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ and have received the Holy Spirit of God. And that included multitudes of people from Antioch of Syria all the way over to Antioch of Pisidia, along with the household of Cornelius and other pockets of believing Gentiles.
Remember the issue: "Does a man have to become a Jew in order to be saved? Or, can one simply trust the Lord Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection for savlation?" James is clearly saying that it is not necessary for the Gentiles to come through Judaism. It would be wrong for the church leaders to trouble them with the duty of submitting to circumcision and keeping the law as a means of attaining salvation. To do so would be to put a heavy yoke on them. James is saying that Paul and Barnabas are right in presenting the gospel directly to the Gentiles. No one should hinder their work by confusing the issue with circumcision and law-keeping.
Conclusion
It is obvious that this is not the end of the story. James did not cease to speak at the end of verse 19. However, we are not going to be able to cover the rest of the story this morning, and this is the appropriate place to pause. Before we begin to examine the rest of James’ statement, let’s take time this week to rejoice in the great truth of what we have studied this morning.
Paul puts it this way in Gal. 3:13-14, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Back in verse 10 he says, "For as many are as of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Yes, that is a curse, because not one of us has kept the law. Aren’t you glad that Jesus came to redeem us from that curse? But in order to redeem us from the curse, He became a curse for us.
We understand that concept more clearly when we meditate on the cross and what happened there. Listen to Eph. 5:5-6, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Jesus Himself says that the wrath of God abides on the person who does not trust the Son of God (Jn. 3:36). We deserve that wrath. Yet Jesus Himself took that wrath upon Himself when He went to the cross. He took our place; He took the place of the sexually immoral, the covetous, the idolater. God’s wrath was poured out upon those sins, as His wrath was poured out upon His Son.
We were guilty of those very things, because we broke God’s law. How can you describe the God who sent His Son into the world to keep that law perfectly and then sent Him to the cross to pay the penalty for those who zealously broke that law? "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:33).
Aren’t you glad that God hasn’t seen fit to put us under the yoke of the law? Instead, He offers us the life of the One who kept His law perfectly. Paul expresses it beautifully in Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
We might ask, "So what is the purpose of the law?" Rom. 3:20, "…by the law is the knowledge of sin." Gal. 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." By exposing our sin, the law reveals our need for a Savior. That’s the way the law brings us to Christ. But may we never forget that the law has only the power to reveal sin, but no power to do anything about it. That is where grace comes in. Heb. 2:9, "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." II Cor. 8:9, "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast." The grace of God is seen the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is the grace by which we are saved.
All of this was good news for the Gentiles in Antioch and the surrounding areas. It is also good news for us. May we respond to the invitation of the Lord Jesus… (Matt. 11:28-30)
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)