Acts 15:1-35 - The Jerusalem Council - Part 24
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Good morning! Welcome to CHCC! This morning officially marks the halfway point of the book of Acts as we begin chapter 15. And if you enjoy theological discussions then you are in for a treat this morning for we come now to what has been called the Jerusalem Council.
All the church leaders would meet to come to a very important decision regarding practices. Where Luke’s account left off is very important because it leads us into this monumental moment in Church history. Paul and Barnabas have just returned to the city of Antioch from their two year long missionary journey throughout the regions of Syria, Cyprus, and Asia Minor.
Many things took place on this journey. There were some awesome moments such as the spiritual battle that took place in Paphos as they shared the gospel with the proconsul, a man named Sergius Paulus. There were also some trying times throughout; John Mark left in the middle of the journey, they were met with persecution on several occasions, one resulting in the stoning of Paul. But he sat back up and walked right back into the city. We saw the focus of the ministry shift to the Gentiles after the Jews rejected it in Pisidian Antioch.
And in between all of that happening, hearts and lives were coming to Christ; churches were established in the cities and the reach of the gospel was expanding.
So Paul and Barnabas find themselves back home in Antioch relaying all that had happened on their journey to the church. And while they are there some men will come up to visit them from Judea with some pretty serious theological proclamations in regards to the Gentiles within the church.
It will create a very tense scene as the teaching would spark debate among the leaders and they would have to determine how the church would move forward. Ultimately two questions would spark the gathering of this council: Do Gentiles have to become Jews first? and Do Gentiles have to observe the Mosaic Law?
And as we read through the Jerusalem Council there are four points of focus for us that we will touch on. 1) The dangers of legalism. 2) The importance of unity. 3) The value of encouragement. 4) The value of selflessness.
If you are unfamiliar with this moment in Church history, I think it is vital that we not underscore its importance because it has had lasting affects even for us today. It is very likely we are all Gentiles here this morning so, in effect, this council gathering has to do with us today.
If you have your Bibles with you this morning, please open with me to Acts chapter 15 as we begin in verse 1.
PRAY
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
You can already see here the danger at play. Although I do not believe there was any ill intent here on the part of these ex-Pharisee believers; they were, however, pushing an agenda of salvation by grace, plus works. In this case, grace plus circumcision or grace plus adherence to the Law.
R. Kent Hughes says:
These were the kind of ecclesiastical wet blankets who can listen to the testimony of a new convert and say, “Well, that is okay, but there is something more that you must do before you have the whole package.” The Judaizers did not know the joy of pure grace—God’s divine favor freely given.
So you can understand why Paul and Barnabas made it such a point to debate this so adamantly as we see in verse 2:
And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
It got to the point that they made the decision to go before the leaders in Jerusalem and have this discussion further. There was disagreement in the air and it was over no small thing; it was over doctrine and theology. And while there will always be disagreement over aspects of doctrine and theology, some things aren’t really worth the argument and some are the hills that are worth dying on. For Paul and Barnabas, this was rightly a hill worth dying on; it would dictate how the church would treat and adopt Gentiles into its fold.
And you might even recognize this as a tactic of the enemy. He couldn’t tear down the church from the outside, so why not try and have them tear each other down from the inside? John Calvin, in his commentary on this passage makes note of this. He writes:
This story is particularly worth noting, for although we naturally adore the cross and all sorts of persecutions, yet there is more danger in internal dissension, which can weaken or dispirit us. When tyrants exert their force, the flesh is indeed afraid; those who do not have the spirit of courage, tremble with all their heart. But their consciences are not truly affected by any temptation. The fatal condition of the church comes when the brothers fight each other and the church is in an uproar; weak spirits will be troubled and will fail—especially when the controversy is about doctrine, which is the only sacred bond of unity between believers. Nothing damages, the gospel more than internal discord; not only does it wound weak consciences, but it provides wicked people something to criticize.
So it should be understood that these kind of debates must be approached with extreme care. Sometimes they are necessary (as we see here in our passage this morning) and sometimes we might make mountains out of molehills and that can prove to be a danger to unity within the church.
For the early church, a solution was necessary and so Paul and Barnabas make the trip to Jerusalem to discuss the matter in depth with the rest of the Church leaders.
And when they arrive they share what God has been doing throughout the land—how many Gentiles were coming to faith. But even so, there were some who rose up saying it was necessary to follow Mosaic Law.
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
Some of the Pharisees who had converted to Christianity were insisting on their own version of the faith; it was very similar to the hoops that a Gentile would have to jump through if he was to become a Jewish proselyte. This was definitely a problem and perhaps what made it even more complex was that these Pharisaic Christians weren’t necessarily evil; had they been a clear enemy this would have been a much easier matter to handle.
These men had come to faith in Christ, and no doubt that decision had come with a great cost to their and their families lives. Their upbringing no doubt bled into their faith. Lloyd Ogilvie does a great job helping us understand the perspective of the Pharisee a little better and with it, perhaps allows for us to show some greater empathy towards them. He writes:
Think of the stability of the Pharisee’s training and Hebraism, his immersion in Mosaic Law and tradition, his pride in being part of the chosen people of God. Live in his shoes as we relive the steps of his rigorous education and joyous participation in Israel’s customs. Feel the loving arms of parents and family as he is circumcised on the eighth day; catch the awe and wonder he felt sitting at the feet of the elder Pharisees studying the Scripture; identify with the pride he felt when he became a son of the Law at his bar mitzvah. Become one with him as he grew to full manhood and earned the revered status of a Pharisee, and consider how he must have burst with satisfaction as he put on the dignified robes of a leader of Israel.
Then imagine the internal war that must have gone on as claims of the Messiah came about. Perhaps some of these converted Pharisees were a part of the debates with Jesus. Maybe they saw the miracles and heard the teachings. They saw him die only to hear rumblings of an empty tomb and proclamations from the people that they had seen Jesus alive!
Then they hear and see the preachings of His disciples and how the Scriptures point to this Jesus and are overwhelmed by evidence to this reality. Of course, they gained so much by knowing Christ, but the decision would have had its costs. Parents, relatives, and friends would now consider them dead. In a sense, they lost everything (in this life on earth) because of their association with Jesus.
And they would, no doubt, have difficulty breaking entirely from their Pharisaical training and understanding of the Law. They had spent their entire life dedicated to adherence to this Law and generations before them had done the same thing. Though Christians, they could not bring themselves to give away centuries of distinctives that had set their people apart from the world. So with good intentions they thrust those distinctives and traditions onto others.
Think about it; their understanding was that if Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah, then anyone who desired salvation through Him must first become Hebrew themselves. I’m not defending it, it’s clearly wrong. But you can understand why they would be so incessant about it.
They weren’t bad people, however, given time, their views would pull them and others so far away from the doctrine of grace that they would become apostate. R. Kent Hughes points out:
We all are influenced by our backgrounds. Each of us has experienced some doctrinal or practical distortion because of past experience or environment. The challenge is to identify those points of error or mis-emphasis before we drift too far away from Christ.
For the early church, doctrine on the way of salvation was at stake. And history would prove that anything made a co-requirement with faith soon shoves faith aside and becomes the means of salvation. Had the apostles given in to this doctrinal teaching, there soon would have been a doctrine of “salvation by circumcision.”
Legalism is a dangerous doctrinal position because, at its core, it is one’s attempt to maintain one’s standing with God through self-effort, strict rule keeping, and outward conformity rather than faith alone in Christ.
At it’s core, legalism is a distortion of God’s gospel of grace and justification.
Now on the flip side, we must be wary of antinomianism. It’s just a fancy word that combines two Greek words meaning “against the law.” This is taking God’s grace to its unbiblical conclusion that there is no moral law that God expects us to obey.
It’s the argument, “If I am saved by grace and my sins are forgiven, why not sin whenever I want?” But I would contend that any attitude of this sort reflects a heart not truly committed to Christ because true faith yields a greater desire towards obedience, not less.
Because we are saved by grace, in our gratitude we desire to please God; He has given us everything in the gift of salvation and our response is that we offer our lives to Him out of love, worship, and gratitude for what He has done for us.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
We can get back to our text this morning, but in short we must be wary of legalism because ultimately it promotes oneself and, as Watchman Nee concludes, it is “bound to produce pride of heart.” And we must be equally wary of antinomianism because it teaches a doctrine of a license to sin which is not of God and would lead us and many other in the opposite direction of God’s grace and presence. I think J.I. Packer sums it up perfectly. He says:
Law is needed as love’s eyes; love is needed as law’s heart-beat. Law without love is Pharisaism; love without law is antinomianism.
J. I. Packer
I hope we can see how important this council was, though. The truth of the gospel was at stake. The understanding of God’s grace was at stake, because a wrong decision here and gracious openness would be replaced by graceless exclusivity.
Fortunately for all of us today, the Jerusalem Council held fast and followed Christ and in doing so they gave us a basis upon which to build grace into our theology and our relationships. Verse 6…
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
If you recall, it was Peter that needed a heart change toward the Gentiles and God worked through him, first through a vision and then through the call to minister to Cornelius the Centurion—which is what he refers to here. And I love that it is Peter that shares his testimony here and his conclusion was that God “made no distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), having cleansed their hearts by faith.”
What is Peter’s conclusion? Verse 10…
Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Peter, like any faithful Jew, understood the weight that came with the Law; they themselves could not bear it, so why put that burden upon the Gentiles? In fact, the Law was given to them so they would understand their inability to fulfill it and thus understand their need for a Savior.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
We have all fallen short of the basic commandment to love God with all heart, soul, and mind and our neighbors as ourselves daily. And the conclusion that Peter come to is right there in verse 11: Grace alone.
But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
The wonderful beauty of the cross is that every single person comes into the fold of God’s family the same way—by and through HIs grace. No hoops to jump through; no fine print; no addendums. Just incomprehensible grace.
And apparently the words of Peter landed heavily because the assembly didn’t have a response. Let’s continue in verse 12…
And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
This was a perfect time for Paul and Barnabas to share their testimony in the regions of Syria, Cyprus, and Asian Minor. Miracles happened among the Gentiles, hearts were stirred, grace was received.
Peter’s testimony, to Paul and Barnabas, and now James has some words to impart to the council. This is James, the half-brother of Jesus, also known in Church history as James the Just. He was likely called this because of his piety and his commitment to prayer. It is said that when he died, his knees were calloused like those of a camel because of his many hours in prayer. Galatians 2:9 calls James a pillar of the Church and one of the main leaders in Jerusalem. Some have even called him the first bishop of Jerusalem. Perhaps when he stood to speak, the Pharisaic believers were hopeful he would side with them; after all, he was a Jew and his ministry resided in Jerusalem. But he would walk through the Old Testament Scriptures and show how the conversion of the Gentiles was in accord with them. Verse 13.
After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“ ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
James pulls from the prophet Amos and what James is relaying is that there would be two groups within God’s church. And Richard Longenecker explains it this way:
In the end times, James is saying, God’s people will consist of two concentric groups. At the core will be restored Israel (i.e., David’s rebuilt tent); gathered around them will be a group of Gentiles (i.e., the remnant of men) who will share in the messianic blessings but will persist as Gentiles without necessarily becoming Jewish proselytes.
And so James gives his conclusion in verse 19.
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
James’ conclusion has instruction for both groups. To those pushing for Gentiles to abide the Law he tells them to lay off. Do not trouble them. However, there is also instruction to the Gentiles. If there was going to be genuine and heartfelt fellowship and unity among Jewish and Gentile believers then the Gentiles would need to be sensitive to Jewish scruples. The three restrictions James gives are:
Stay away from anything pertaining to idols
Stay clear of sexual immorality
Avoid eating meat that has been strangled and has blood in it
Now we may look at the first two and think, “Shouldn’t that go without saying?” But remember, many of the Gentile believers come from very different backgrounds—especially in Antioch where sexual immorality ran rampant. Many Romans and Greeks also had their own gods they grew up with—but those were to be put away entirely; they were false gods.
So what about that third restriction? That seems a little odd, but I think James explains his reasoning in verse 21.
For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
In other words, there were Jewish communities in nearly every city, and the call was for Gentile believers to not do anything that would offend them or possibly even tempt them. For example, let’s say you have a friend and they aren’t saved and they have committed themselves to sobriety. They don’t drink alcohol. Maybe you do, but when you are around them, out of respect for them and their commitment and belief, you too abstain from alcohol. Why would we possibly tempt them or anger them? Now, maybe they don’t care, but we should. For James, I believe this comes down to respecting one another’s cultural upbringings. For the Jews, they should respect that Gentiles need not be weighed down by the Law; no circumcision was needed for salvation.
For the Gentiles, they needed to turn from the wickedness of paganism (idolatry and immorality) but also show respect for Jewish principles.
And so what James does is he gives us two complementary principles for grace-filled living. The first, as those under grace: we are not to make non-Biblical requirements for others—specifically those that come from other cultural traditions. For the early church, that meant not pushing Jewish traditions and lifestyle upon the Gentiles
R. Kent Hughes explains how this works in our culture today. He writes:
Today this means we are not to make areas of our lifestyle that are not spelled out in Scripture normative for others if they are to be “good” Christians—for example, how we dress, how we run our church, the standards of living we think proper, personal tastes, musical preferences (including in a worship service), etc. If we thrust any of these on others as necessary to a life of grace, we repeat the sin of the Judaizers!
I think it can be all too easy to push our preferences on others; we can assume that if they don’t do things our way then they are unspiritual; we—perhaps even unknowingly—put others through the paces of our own spirituality before we open up our arms to accept them as brothers or sisters in Christ. We have to be very careful to avoid this kind of behavior.
I read a story about this family that went for a picnic by the lake. During the day, a child fell into the lake and the water was quite deep. Unfortunately, none of the adults could swim. However, a passerby saw the event, quickly jumped into the water and rescued the child before he drowned. Upon bringing him back to shore, the boys mother—instead of thanking the stranger—chided him, asking, “And where is Johnny’s hat?” In the commotion the boy had lost his hat and instead of rejoicing at her son’s deliverance, she found something to be critical about.
Similarly, that kind of attitude permeating throughout the church is very dangerous. Dr. Howard Hendricks has remarked that he grew up in a legalistic home where the use of fingernail polish was enough to condemn one to Hell. He said, “I repudiated legalism intellectually and theologically in 1946, but in 1982 I am still wrestling with it emotionally.” These kind of extra-Biblical hoops can take their toll, and ultimately they can blot out the proclamation of God’s grace to the world.
That’s the first principle James makes—do not make non-Biblical requirements for others. The second is because of this grace that we find ourselves under, we gladly restrict our freedom for the sake of others.
There was nothing necessarily sinful about eating a rare steak, but James tells the Gentiles to either cook it thoroughly or drain the blood from the meat for the sake of fellowship with the Jews. Paul makes a similar statement in his letter to the Corinthians.
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
James showed remarkable wisdom that is hard to argue with. So what was the conclusion to this? Lets continue—verse 22.
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
They conclude that James’ words were correct and send word to the Gentiles in Antioch. It certainly wasn’t an easy decision, and like most decisions of this magnitude with this many people involved, not everyone would have been pleased. But it was the correct decision and look at how the church in Antioch responds to this letter..
So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.
Why were they encouraged? I think for a couple of reasons. First off, the uncertainty that weighed heavily over the church for the past several days has been lifted. What is more, the church went to bat for the Gentiles. Men such as Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives. James—a prominent leader in the church at Jerusalem—had also supported them through evidence of God’s Word.
No more debate, no hoops, no circumcision (that’s worth rejoicing). But in all seriousness, a couple of dietary restrictions is nothing compared to the burden of the Law.
This passage reminds us of the importance of preaching salvation by grace alone.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Secondly, we must be wary of pushing any extra-Biblical restrictions upon others as a means to salvation or holiness. While the Bible speaks against drunkenness, it doesn’t speak against alcohol. My personal conviction is to refrain from it, but I’m not going to make that a requirement to receive God’s grace. If it is something you struggle with, then maybe that is a measure you prayerfully consider.
We can certainly speak out against sinful living such as sexual immorality and idolatry as the church does here at the council in Jerusalem because they are in God’s Word. But we cannot make the gospel more than the gospel of God’s grace as legalism does.
We must not tolerate anything else. His grace is more than enough; it sustains and empowers us daily. As Paul so aptly concludes:
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
PRAY
