Acts 15 (Bible Study)
-
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
-
Acts of Jesus through the Apostles
Introduction to Acts 15
We have seen how step by step the Gentiles had been brought into the church. At first there were isolated cases, like the conversion of the African official (Acts 8) and the Roman centurion (Acts 10-11). Then began the movement of the Spirit in Syrian Antioch (Acts 11-12) which resulted in the first multi-ethnic church (Acts 13:1). As a result, the Antiochan church launched the first strategic mission to the Gentiles when it sent Saul and Barnabus out as missionaries (Acts 13:3). Gradually the (originally) Jewish Christian church came to see the Lord’s hand in the inclusion of the “nations” into the church. It was widely understood that the Gentiles were also capable of “repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18). Inevitably, however, a controversy arose about how the new Gentile converts were to be incorporated into the church.
Read Acts 15
1.a) Did the “some men” in vv.1-5 represent the apostles’ position in Jerusalem? (b) Why were they contending that the Gentile converts of Paul were not obeying the law of Moses? (Were they breaking the 10 commandments?)
a) It is important to read v.1 (some men came down from Judea) with v.24. There the official letter from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem says, “some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you”. So, though these were men from the Jerusalem church where Peter and James presided (and even Paul refers to them as “men from James” Gal.2:12), these teachers did not represent the settled or official position of the apostles.
b) These teachers insisted that all the new Gentile converts had to be circumcized and adopt all the “custom” and “the law of Moses”. To our ears, this sounds rather strange. Surely the new Antiochan believers discipled by Paul and Barnabus were taught to obey the 10 commandments given to Moses. Surely they were surely not lying and committing adultery at will. So why would these Judean teachers be concerned that the Gentile Christians weren’t obeying Moses?
When they refer to circumcision and the law of Moses, they are not thinking so much of what we might call the moral principles of the Old Testament, but rather the ceremonial regulations. These regulations were very detailed prescriptions about food, dress, and other practices that the Mosaic law (Exodus thru Deuteronomy) said made one “clean” and “acceptable” for God’s presence in the tabernacle worship. Unlike the basic moral principles (e.g.“do not kill” “do not steal”) which set the adherent apart ethicially from non- adherents, the ceremonial regulations set the adherent apart culturally from non-adherents. These regulations determined what and how you ate, how you dressed, and so on.
What was the purpose of the “Mosaic ceremonial regulations”? In Old Testament times, the ceremonial law was a way for the Jews to show their distinctness as the people of God. (It helped them marry within the believing community, making it much harder to fall in love with an unbeliever.) Also, it was also a way for God to show those who approached that they had to be clean and holy and pure, and that atonement and cleansing had to be effected for them to enter his presence. However, these regulations themselves were never meant to be ways to literally make one pure and acceptable to God. “…the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings — external regulations applying until the time of the new order.” (Heb.9:9-10; cf. Col.2:16). In other words, these ceremonial laws have not been so much abrogated as fulfilled. They are fulfilled in Christ — it is Christ that makes us clean (cf.Mark 7).
So, though it was understandable, it was mistaken for the Jews to come to see their cultural separation as spiritual separation and purity. These teachers continued to believe that this cultural change was necessary for all Christians.
2. How is Acts 13:42-48 the background for the crisis of chapter 15? What was different about the Gentiles Paul preached to in the synagogue (Acts 13:43) and the Gentiles who Paul turned to in v46b? Why and how did Paul’s ministry arouse such opposition from some Jewish Christians (15:1-2)?
Jewish Christians had been taught that Gentiles were “unclean” and that Jews alone were the people of God. But God sent repeated messages, recounted in Acts 8 - Acts 14, that Gentiles could be saved, and made members of the family of God through Christ. As we can see by the response of the apostles in Acts 8:17, 11:18, 12:22, this concept was accepted by Jewish Christians. But as we can see from 13:26, 46, most early Gentile Christian converts were already Jewish converts. So they had already adopted many of the Jewish cultural customs (to do with purity and cleanness). The cultural differences then, between Jewish and Gentile “God-fearers” were muted.
However, when the Jews refused to let Paul preach at the synagogue, Paul announced that he was going to preach directly to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). That meant that Paul would not only be preaching to Gentile converts to Judaism, but to cultural pagans. Many of the new Gentile converts were received into the church by baptism, without becoming first Jewish converts by circumcision. The cultural differences between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians now were sharp. They ate and dressed and lived very differently. Many Gentle cultural practices were offensive to Jewish believers (and we can surmise that Jewish believers looked very straight-laced and narrow to Gentiles).
This created a crisis for the church. John Stott: “It was one thing for the Jerusalem leaders to give their approval to the conversion of the Gentiles, but could they approve of… commitment to the Messiah without inclusion in Judaism? Was their vision big enough to see the gospel of Christ not as a reform movement within Judaism but as good news for the whole world, and the church of Christ… as the international family of God? These were the revolutionary questions (Stott, p.241)
In other words, the opponents of Paul were saying, “not all Jewish persons are Christians, but all Christians must also be Jewish.” Paul was saying that the gospel is for every culture.
3. v7-11 List the three facts that Peter reminds the Council of – what does he mean?
First, he notes that God had chosen to speak the gospel to the Gentiles through Peter (v.7). This is the story of Cornelius. Peter’s vision, messengers from Cornelius, and the voice from God were strong evidence that God wanted the Gentiles to hear the gospel.
b) Second, he notes that the Gentiles clearly had received the Holy Spirit (v.8). This means that the same grasp of the gospel, the same experiences of God’s presence, the same transformations of character (NB: ‘purified their hearts by faith’ v9) have all been observed in the Gentile converts. This is ViP - even without circumcision, the Holy Spirit visibly was doing the transformation and sanctification
c) Third, he notes that the Jews had not been able to live up to the ceremonial law of Moses Acts 15:10 ‘a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear.’ This is powerful. “How can you demand that they be saved through obeying these rules when neither we nor our ancestors were ever able to do it?”
If “we Jews” are saved apart from obeying the law and the Gentiles too - “it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved, just as they are.” (v.11)
Application question: How is this problem of culture a continual one for the Christian church, even when the particular issue is not Jewish-Gentile tensions?
Richard Lovelace (in The Dynamics of Spiritual Life) “[When] the church had lost track of an important element in the saving work of Christ and was teaching that believers are justified not by faith but by being sanctified… as a result it became easy for the church to revert to an Old Covenant lifestyle… Uneasiness about justification [by grace alone] produced a flowering of asceticism reflecting an unconscious need for lists of clean and unclean activities and a rebirth of Pharisaism. Hard-line fundamentalists like Tertullian ruled out many intellectual activities: the theatre (because of its origins in pagan worship), dancing (because it might inflame ill-controlled sexual passions), and cosmetics (if God meant you to smell like a flower, he would have given you a crop of them on your head).
…Thus [those] who are not secure in Christ cast about for spiritual life preservers with which to support their confidence, and in their frantic search they not only cling to the shreds of ability and righteousness they find in themselves, but they fix upon their race, their membership in a party, their familiar social and ecclesiastical patterns, and their culture as means of self-recommendation. The culture is put on as if it were armor against self-doubt, but it becomes a mental straightjacket which cleaves to the flesh and can never be removed except through comprehensive faith in the saving work of Christ. Once faith is exercised, a Christina is free to be enculturated, to wear his culture like a comfortable suit of clothes. He can shift to other cultural clothing temporarily if he wishes to do so, as Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 9:19-23, and he is released to admire and appreciate the differing expressions of Christ shining out through other cultures. (Lovelace, p.190-191,198)
There are many ways in which we see our cultural distinctives as a kind of spiritual righteousness. Those of us from more punctual cultures may disdain cultures which are more relationally-centered than task-centered. Those of us from more emotive cultures may disdain cultures where people are more emotionally reserved and cognitive. It is easy to look down at someone else's taste in music. On the “mission field” it has been common for Anglo- European Christian evangelists to insist on a way to organise churches or conduct worship that is inappropriate to the new culture. It is endemic for older churches and older Christians to impose upon newer churches/believers these patterns that are not essential to Biblical faith, but rather are cultural accretions promoted to a place of spiritual principle.
4. v.12-21. a) How does James solve the problem theologically and practically? b) Read v22-35. What does this debate teach us about what to do when we differ?
a) James’ solution. In Acts 15:14-18 James solves the theological conundrum. Look at experience (v.14 – Simon uses scripture to described how God… took from the Gentiles a people for himself). He quotes Amos 9:11-12. This is a remarkable prophecy in which Amos refers to the prophecy given to David himself by Nathan in 2 Sam 7. There he tells David that his son will build the Lords house. Solomon will build a literal temple (2Sam.7:14), but he also refers to a son who will reign forever and build a house that is eternal (2Sam.7:13,15-16). This is the Messiah (Psalm 110). Amos then picks this theme up and talks about a future time in which David’s “house” and “tent” will be rebuilt and a portion of the Gentiles “who bear my name” will seek the Lord. James sees that, clearly, the Gentiles will be considered part of David’s house, not through the law of Moses, but through the Davidic Christ. Gentiles are not an afterthought or a plan revision — but foretold by the prophets. James sees (a) a correlation between the experience of the church (v.12-14) and the theology of the Word, and he sees b) a correlation between the teaching of the NT apostles (Simon v.14) and the OT prophets (Amos v15). That, for James, is conclusive.
In vv.19-21 James comes up with a practical compromise that takes into consideration the interests of both Jewish and Gentile Christian. He advises, “we should not make it hard for the Gentiles who are turning to God” v.19. That is important for all ministry. We should not insist that people become just “like us” in order to become Christians! James asks them out of love to abstain from four practices which were particularly repugnant to Jewish people.
Those four things include one item that poses problems for interpreters. The first three are: to abstain from eating meat offered in idol ceremonies, from eating meat of stangled animals, and from eating bloody meat. These three matters are clearly items of the ceremonial law, not of moral principle.
But James includes “sexual immorality” as well, and Greek word Porneia translated here usually means sex-outside-of-marriage. But since the other items are clearly matters of the Levitical ceremonial law, most commentators (see Stott, p.248-250 and Bruce, p.311) think James is referring to Levitical marriage laws, not the 7th commandment (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”). Leviticus 18 forbids marriage between people of close blood relationships. These laws were much more particular than normal pagan customs, and James was asking them to abide by them. “The abstinence here recommended must here be understood… not as an essential Christian duty, but as a concession to the consciences of others.” (Stott, p.250)
b) What we learn about differences of opinion today.
First, we learn that church councils — meetings of church leaders — do have the right and authority to regulate belief and behaviour. The letter they send is not just advice, but a judgment.
Second, we learn that we need to give in on some issues, namely those issues that are “cultural”. We must not elevate customs and traditions that are not Biblical to the level of absolute principle.
Third, we learn that we are not to give in on the gospel. Underneath this controversy, the gospel of grace was at stake. On that concept there cannot be any compromise.
Fourth, we see that the Holy Spirit does not just lead through miraculous revelations. The council clearly prayed, studied the Bible, and debated. Then they wrote, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (v.28)! They saw the Holy Spirit guiding them through the conversation-debating-discussing — consensus-building.
