The Council Convenes

A compromise is when two opposing parties agree that neither one gets all it wants

Our nation’s history has three major political compromises

The Great Compromise of establishing our nation’s governing structure—a bicameral legislature, House and Senate

The Three-Fifths Compromise—regarding counting slaves for the purpose of representative and taxation

The establishment of the Electoral College

All were made with the intent of moving forward toward a specific goal

The subtitle is telling—A Cautious Compromise

I’m not sure that anyone here was fully happy with the outcome

BUT it allowed all parties to move forward

The lines were clearly drawn

Follow the Jewish Law—the position of the Pharisees, the Judaizers, and the position of Paul and Barnabas; no doubt there were some who had minority opinions—special interest groups—as well

…or abandon the Law ... so it would seem

The Participants in the Council

This is known in Biblical history as the Council of/at Jerusalem

Since there was “much dissension and debate” on the matter at Antioch, we would expect more of the same in Jerusalem

Both sides of the argument would have been presented

Hearing the arguments were the Apostles—minus James (brother of John) who had been killed--and the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem

As we have noted, these were the men who had been with Jesus, and others who had now been with them long enough to have standing in the church—the senior saints or

Coming to this group, at “ground zero” for the beginning of the Church, was a wise decision

Whatever decision was handed down here would set the course of the Church for the foreseeable future

Had the Gospel never gone to the Gentiles, this would have been largely unnecessary

The Presentation to the Council

Likely the Judaizers would have given the first argument, Paul and Barnabas would have responded; and then the next argument and response…we have no concept of how long this took or how many were present to make and to hear the arguments

According to the text, after all the debate was completed, Peter again related his experience sheet full of clean mingled with unclean

NOTE: He had explained it once already to a previous gathering, chapter 11

…and here, he did it again~

His encounter with the household and friends of Cornelius in chapter 10

He clearly states here that “God made a choice” regarding opening the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that God “made no distinction” between the two groups

He asks the valid question of “Why hold them to the standard which we cannot keep?” suggesting to the opposition that despite their self-righteous expressions, they are just as much sinners as anyone else

Looking back, through the lens of history, we understand that it was because Jesus had fulfilled the exactly requirements by dying on the cross, paying once for all time, the penalty for sin; we see that it’s a matter of faith in HIM, not adherence to the Law, we are saved

The Proposal by the Council

It was James—the witness of the early Church is that this was the half-brother of Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, author of the epistle that bears his name, who stood up with the final determination

Here, he begins to cite or allude to the Old Testament:

Amos 9:11–12 ““In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the Lord who does this.”

There are many allusions within the quotations—which the well-schooled Pharisees would have recognized

Deuteronomy 7:6 ““For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

Isaiah 43:2 “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you.”

Paul would later write:

Romans 9:24–26 “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ “

…and we are now called by the name of God the Son: Christians

The Contents of the Proposal

Abstain from:

Food Polluted by Idols

Sexual Immorality

What Had Been Strangled

Blood

Now, we ask “Why?”

There seems to be an issue here: If we’re leaving the law behind, and moving to grace, why these four “rules?”

First, we must understand common practice among Gentiles—things the Jews found totally contrary to both law and tradition, among them would be anything resembling idol worship—which is a purity/holiness issue at its core

Second, we have laws relating to true holiness/purity, and those relating to ceremonial or ritual purity, issues of practice which had been expanded and imbedded into culture

…and we have Gentile cultural norms:

Sexual immorality was the norm—there may have been some expectations of purity for young women at marriage, but a simple understanding after that was just about anything was fair game, at least for the men; unmarried women were also free to do as they pleased

Meat sacrificed to idols would be routinely sold and consumed…possibly by Christians—OK, we can see that relationship; it might bring them into the practice of idol worship

They may also have had the practice of not bleeding out the animals before consuming them--”the life is in the blood,” from the 17th chapter of Leviticus…but wait, that’s ceremonial law…why are we hanging onto that?

There’s a grounder in there—sexual immorality…that is blatantly condemned in all the Old Testament as well as the New—some heard the SS lessons on why sexual immorality is such a big deal—and it is! Biblical sexuality is for husband and wife ONLY

The rest are things which were particularly reprehensible to the practicing Jews…and would cause them great distress in times of gatherings, assuming joint gatherings would become the norm of the expanding church

A Note from History

Luke records this statement by James

Acts 15:21 ESV

For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Essentially, the Word of God had been heard all over—and many non-Jews had been worshipping Him for generations…even before Christ

An extreme example would be Job—we have no idea if he held to the history of Jewish practice, but he was noted as having been a righteous man, also, we have no clue as to the origin or history of Melchizedek—did he enjoy bacon and eggs?

I would make the argument that this proposal was indeed a wise compromise intended to allow mutual fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, yet avoiding offence to the one side, at the same time not putting unnecessary baggage upon the other

WITFM?

Big things first!

Are These Binding Today?

The prohibition of immorality, yes…Not going down that road today

The others, may or may not apply, depending on cultural context; but are NOT ironclad rules

Anybody ever eat food that is Halal? Blood sausage?

Paul would later write to the Corinthians that they were free to eat meat sacrificed to idols; but it would likely be best NOT to as it might cause a conscience problem for someone whose faith was not as strong

It was a matter of keeping peace, sacrificing your rights for the sake of the conscience, and the comfort of the other party

Implicit here is “somebody has to be the adult here”

He makes the valid point that idols are really nothing at all, so that they have no power of believers…but…why cause the problem

Other cultural realities Paul dealt with were the long hair/head covering issues in Corinth—again a localized concern…he speaks of it in none of his other writings

So, we are bound by the MORAL laws of he OT, we are NOT BOUND by the ritual law

We can’t have it both ways

Either the blood of Christ, shed on the cross, was sufficient, or it was not

What MUST We Obey?

We must agree on basic doctrines: e.g., the identity of God, the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus, salvation by faith, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture

Some things with which we must vehemently DISAGREE: e.g., anything that contradicts or weakens the above statements

The statement often attributed to Augustine of Hippo—4th-5th century—In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity (or in all things, Jesus Christ), gives us guidance

Without delving headlong into the OT Law, we can look at the 10 Commandments, most often cited in Deut, 5. vv 6 & ff and get a pretty good summary

There are two components, often called table 1 and table 2; the first dealing with vertical relationships; the second with horizontal relationships

Man to God & Man to Man

But Jesus completed the law…He did some explaining of the intent behind the law: e.g. body is not for the sabbath, the sabbath is for the body, Paul explains it yet more with a discussion of one person honoring one day more than another…but a day of rest is a blessing to us…as well as a time to take the time for worship

We cannot worship idol…not just false gods, but anything that gets between us and God; even “good” things can become idols

When Jesus gave the The Great Commandment (Matt. 22, Mark 12, Luke 10: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, he also added the 2nd greatest: Love your neighbor as yourself

Getting that 1st one correct can only be done one way: by trusting Christ; repenting of your sins

Then you become a child of God, adopted into the family of God, justified—declared NOT GUILTY of your sins

Transition to Lord’s Table

We’re about to engage in something of a family meal....