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.