An
Apostolic Conference Call
The conference call is a staple of
American business. It serves as a
means whereby different company entities, often separated by hundreds
or thousands of miles, stay on the same page in terms of company
policies and projects. It's where the right hand stays up to speed on
what the left hand is doing. Without the same-page communication that
the conference call provides, businesses would be preoccupied with
fixing mistakes rather than selling products and services.
The apostles did not have the conference call technology we have today.
Yet there were occasions when a meeting of minds was required to get
them on the 'same page' and maintain gospel integrity. Such an occasion
is recorded in Acts 15, a record of the Jerusalem Council. It took
place circa 50-51 A.D. and closely approximates Paul's authorship of
Galatians. Some scholars believe Galatians was the first NT book
written. If one compares the text of Acts 15 with Galatians 2, an
argument could be made that (1) Galatians was written shortly after the
Jerusalem Council, and (2) the Jerusalem Council precipitated the
writing of Galatians to codify, in a manner of speaking, what the
Council had concluded. In the first twenty years of Church history,
Jerusalem had become the Jewish center of Christianity while Antioch of
Syria had become the same for Gentiles. The Jerusalem Council was
crucial for getting both Jewish and Gentile believers on the 'same
gospel page' as the Kingdom of God expanded.
Chapter 15 begins: “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'” (15:1). Why was this even an issue? These
men were operating in a gospel vacuum. God introduced circumcision with
Abraham, not Moses. The practice was carried over into the Mosaic Law
several hundred years after. Abraham was a saved man, having been
justified (made righteous) by faith before he was circumcised (Genesis
15:6; Romans 4:10-12). God introduced circumcision as a 'sign' or
'seal' of the faith Abraham had while being uncircumcised. God's order
of salvation with Abraham was justification first, then circumcision as
a 'sign' of saving faith. This was a matter of biblical record that
every Jew should have understood. But they were blinded by tradition.
These disciples of Moses took a position that was biblically untenable.
The rite of male circumcision never guaranteed the salvation of a
single recipient. If it did, how could Jewish females ever be saved?
The Holy Ghost had separated Paul and Barnabas in the church at Antioch
of Syria to embark upon the first missionary journey. This took place
circa 44 A.D. (Spring). After a time of prayer, fasting and laying
on of hands, the church sent them on their way (Acts 13:1-3). Chapters
13-14 record the cities they visited, their preaching activities and
some key journey events, including the stoning of Paul at Lystra (Acts
14:19). Historians set the time of their return to Antioch circa 46
A.D. (Fall), making the duration of the first missionary journey about
2-2½ years. Scripture adds: “And when they were come, and had gathered
the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them,
and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there
they abode long time with the disciples” (14:27-28). The “long time”
they spent with the church at Antioch would be 2-3 years.
It is important for us to establish this historical perspective. It
tells us the gospel of grace, as preached by Paul, was thoroughly
embedded in and understood by the church at Antioch as well as every
church he and Barnabas planted. It is no wonder Paul and Barnabas had
“no small dissension and disputation” with these men (15:2), because
“the truth of the gospel” was at stake (Galatians 2:5; 2:14; Colossians
1:5), a truth for which they had hazarded their lives! Defending the
gospel of grace can be and often is a life and death proposition!
The church at Antioch, which sent Paul and Barnabas on the first
missionary journey, was now minded to send them and “certain other of
them” (15:2) to Jerusalem for the purpose of resolving this question.
One of those others was Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile (Galatians
2:3), who was likely brought along to make a point about the gospel, a
living illustration of it. The church at Antioch funded their 300-mile
trip to Jerusalem. Based upon a calculation of 24-30 miles as a day's
journey, it would have taken about 10-12 days to make the journey plus
the time spent with churches in Phenice and Samaria to declare the
conversion of the Gentiles—a cause for “great joy” (15:3). After 2-3
weeks of travel southward, they arrived in Jerusalem where the apostles
and elders received them (15:4). It was time for the conference call to
begin.
It didn't take long for the “question” of mandatory
circumcision to
take center stage. Certain of the sect of the Pharisees made their
position known: “That it was needful to circumcise them, and to
command them to keep the law of Moses” (15:5). It is clear that
'circumcision' was a code word intended to convey the whole Mosaic Law.
Our text says these
Pharisees who raised the issue had “believed.” But in comparing the
reference to “false
brethren” in Galatians 2:4, we must ask whether these Pharisees were
born again believers or just nominal believers with no real
comprehension of grace. In any case, it's clear the early church had
its challenges with the transition from Law to Grace and comprehending
the relationship, if any, between Israel, Mosaic Law and the Church.
The
primary purpose of this conference call was to define that
relationship, once and for all. For a house divided against itself
would not be able to stand!
The apostles and elders came together to consider the matter (15:6).
There was the same “disputing” in Jerusalem as took place in Antioch.
The word “disputing” signifies a mutual questioning, a discussion based
on reasoned arguments. It was no doubt a visceral exchange of thought,
not necessarily what we might call a knock down, drag out affair. What I
find interesting is that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, seems to
have deferred to Peter, the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:7-8).
After a season of disputation, Peter took control of the conversation
and addressed the brethren (15:7).
Peter reminded them of his experience with the centurion Cornelius, a
Gentile, circa 41 A.D., some 9 years earlier (Acts 10:1ff). It reminds
us once again that the question of circumcision should have long since
been resolved based on what God did in Caeserea. It was an historical
milestone in the life of the Church. Cornelius heard the gospel of
Christ, and believed. God validated the faith of Cornelius and his
associates by “giving them the Holy Ghost” as he did Peter and the
disciples at Pentecost (15:8). It was a faith whereby God purified
their hearts (forgave their sins), a display of divine approval that
signified “no difference” between Jew and Gentile (15:9). The Lord
granting forgiveness of sins and giving his Spirit to both Jew and
Gentile alike on the same basis—faith in Jesus—had no connection with
Mosaic Law. This was Peter's argument...an argument that was
unassailable!
Peter furthermore concluded that putting a yoke—an unbearable yoke—upon
the neck of Gentile believers, including circumcision or any other aspect
of Mosaic Law, would constitute a tempting of God (15:10). The word
“tempt” means to try or put to the test. Depending on its context, the
word “tempt” can have a positive connotation (an ascertainment of
quality) or negative connotation (a provocation or malicious distrust).
Acts 15 is a context that demands a negative usage. Peter's use of
“tempt” is both strategic and brilliant. The mention of “tempting God”
would have brought to the mind of every biblically astute Jew in that
Council the many OT references to Israel “tempting God” (Exodus 17:7;
Numbers 14:22; Deuteronomy 6:16; Psalm 78:18; 106:14, et al). How did
Israel provoke the Holy One? Psalm 78:41 provides light: “Yea, they
turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.”
Israel “limited” their God doubting (maliciously distrusting) his
sufficiency to provide for them according to his promises. For Israel
to exhibit such disbelief, malicious distrust, in their Lord's ability to deliver on his
promises was a tempting, a provocation, of the Holy One.
In terms of the gospel and total sufficiency of Christ
as the believer's righteousness, attempting to
place the yoke of Mosaic Law upon the necks of Gentile believers, according to
Peter, would be a malicious distrust of Christ and his sufficiency to
save his grace all who believe (15:11). The
Law has no ability whatsoever to produce righteousness, whether in
justification or sanctification. It is the indwelling Spirit's work to
produce practical righteousness and Christ-likeness in the believer. If
righteousness of ANY kind can be achieved by compliance to
Mosaic Law, Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). In
writing to the church at Corinth, Paul issued this warning: “Neither
let us tempt [maliciously distrust] Christ, as some of them also
tempted, and were destroyed of serpents (1 Corinthians 10:9). Teachers
of Mosaic Law (Torah) compliance for believers in the present age have
either rejected or failed to learn the truth of Acts 15. Their
insistence on compliance to Mosaic Law is nothing more than a
provocation—a malicious distrust—of Christ. Yet they seem to have no
clue as to the seriousness of their error!
Paul and Barnabas then took the floor, declaring the miracles and
wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them (15:12). It goes
without saying that the demonstrations of Holy Ghost power through Paul
and Barnabas had nothing to do with Mosaic Law. Their experience was
consistent with that of Peter and Cornelius, both of which involved God
giving of his Spirit. When the Spirit of God attests to the gospel of
grace in Christ Jesus without Mosaic Law, no other opinion matters!
James then arose and added some prophetic insight. His comments were
similar to that of a trial lawyer delivering his closing arguments to a
jury (15:13-21). James affirms that Peter's testimony about God taking
out from among the Gentiles a people for his name was in agreement with
OT prophecy (15:14-15).
James shared a bit of keen prophetic insight. He said: “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” (15:16). There are a few OT texts to which James could have been
referring, such as Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11. What exactly was the
tabernacle of David to which James referred? It could NOT have been the
tabernacle in the wilderness, for Christ on the cross ended any further
need for a sin offering. It could NOT have been the temple that Solomon
built for the same reason. The tabernacle of David refers to the
temporary structure David constructed for the Ark of the Covenant when
moving it from the house of Obed-edom back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel
6:17). Now, if the Lord was to build again the tabernacle of
David—James argues he did—how would that rebuilding manifest itself?
James cited the salvation of Gentiles as evidence it had happened
(15:17). This assertion by James can lead to only one conclusion. The
tabernacle of David was a foreshadowing of Christ, who was made flesh
and dwelt (tabernacled) among us (John 1:14). He was “fallen down” in
his death, “built again” with his resurrection and “set up” with his
ascension to the right hand of the Father, where he is now the one
Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:4). The “tabernacle of David”
of 15:16 is “the Lord” of 15:17.
James introduced his verdict as follows: “Wherefore my
sentence is,
that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to
God” (15:19). The word “trouble” means “to disturb, annoy or further
harass.” This is what Mosaic Law—an unbearable yoke of bondage–does
when placed upon the neck of a believer. It sounds familiar to the
“trouble” Paul said Galatians believers were experiencing at the hands
Law teachers. The word “troubled” in Galatians 1:7 is a different word,
meaning “to agitate, cause inward commotion, render anxious or
distressed.” In either case, the Mosaic Law, when imposed upon
believers as a requirement for either life or righteousness, is double
trouble. The recommendations of James in 15:20 were practical measures
for their testimony's sake, not soteriological. They were: (1)
avoidance of things connected with idolatry, (2) avoidance of all
sexual impurity, and (3) avoidance of meats from strangled animals and
improperly drained blood. In keeping themselves from these
things, they would “do well” (15:29). These guidelines would
come under the larger testimonial umbrella of 1 Thessalonians 5:22:
“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
James gave his reason for these measures: “For Moses of old time hath
in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every
sabbath day” (15:21). The Gentiles that experience the saving grace of
God bear a responsibility to evangelize Jews and live a life that
places no cause of stumbling in their path. The guidelines of
James—less than a handful—would help to avoid accusations from lost
Jews that Christianity was lawless or disrespectful. It was a matter of
testimony, not a partial imposition of the Mosaic Law. His judgment
“seemed good” to every member of the Council as well as the Spirit of
God (15:25, 28). They agreed to compose and circulate an open letter to
Gentile churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia that set forth these
handful of recommendations (15:23).
In 15:24, the apostolic letter employed the words “troubled” and
“subverting” in describing the effects of these Mosaic Law teachers.
The word “troubled” is the same Greek word Paul used in Galatians 1:7.
The believer who imposes Mosaic Law upon himself or attempts to do so
with others is setting himself against Christ, the Holy Spirit and
apostolic doctrine. He is an instigator of malicious distrust in Christ
and the gospel of grace. The word “subverting” is the Greek anaskeuazo.
It literally means “to pack up baggage in order to carry it away to
another place.” Figuratively, it means “to turn away violently from a
right state.” The imposition of Mosaic Law upon a believer is an act of
subversion. James attests that a commandment for Gentile believers to
keep (comply with) Mosaic Law did NOT originate with the apostles. In
other words, there is NO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY behind any attempt to
bring Mosaic Law to bear upon the Church! Acts 15 puts to rest the
Satanic falsehood that the Church should have carried Mosaic Law over
into Church life and, as a result, has gotten it wrong for the last two
thousand years. The Jerusalem Council got the gospel right! If Mosaic
Law has no ability to save a sinner, then it has no wherewithal
whatsoever to grow a believer in grace...EXCEPT as it reveals the
truth of Christ's glorious Person and character, a truth that the
indwelling Holy Spirit can now build into the life through the renewal of the believer's mind (Romans 12:1-2). A
few observations are in order. First, Peter's mention of Mosaic Law as
a “yoke” that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (15:10)
proves that “my yoke” of Matthew 11:29-30, which Jesus invited his
hearers to take upon themselves, could NOT have been a reference to
Mosaic Law as some heretics claim. Jesus himself is the yoke of rest,
redeeming believers from the curse of the Law. There are fewer
bastardizations of scripture more flagrant than interpreting Jesus'
“yoke” in Matthew 11:29-30, a yoke he said was an “easy” and “light”
burden, as a reference to Mosaic Law. They were already
under Mosaic Law. In comparing scripture with scripture, one can
only
conclude that those that “labored” and were “heavy laden” were under
the same 'unbearable' yoke that Peter cited. There
are at least three
reasons why Mosaic Law is unbearable: (1) It cannot be
perfectly kept and never has been kept by anyone except Christ. It's
why we need HIS righteousness as a gift of grace. (2) It
cannot justify (make righteous) sinners. (3) It cannot impart the
life of
Christ. Think about it! If Jesus
was offering Torah compliance as his yoke, he was essentially inviting
his hearers to lay down the yoke of Mosaic Law, then turn right around
and pick up the same yoke. Does this make sense? If Jesus saw the
“heavy laden” as those laboring under sin's bondage, which means they
HAD to be under Mosaic Law already, then what ability would Torah
compliance—which has no power to deliver from sin—have to relieve them
of that burden? Secondly,
there are
voices in the religious world (e.g., the 'Restoration'
movement) that claim the Church was 'hijacked' way
back when by failing to bring Mosaic Law into Church life as a matter
of discipleship (Sabbaths, Feasts, etc.). If that bogus allegation is
true, the apostles in concert with the Holy Ghost were the ones who
hijacked it. These same heretical voices claim to be on mission to
'retake' Christian churches by convincing them of their historic error
and 'teach' Torah compliance as an essential part of Church life.
Question: How should we who know the truth describe the efforts of
these heretics to reinstitute in Church life what the apostles and Holy Ghost rejected? Answer: A FOOL'S ERRAND! If
God the Father intended
for Mosaic Law to play ANY role in Church life, the Jerusalem
Council of Acts 15 would have been the perfect
time to codify it and set the record straight. But the verdict of
the apostles in
concert with the Holy Ghost was this: THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS
CHRIST IS SUFFICIENT TO SAVE SINNERS, both Jew and
Gentile. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
precludes circumcision, feasts, dietary laws, Sabbaths
or any aspect of Mosaic Law as requisite to righteousness.
Paul told Timothy what to expect going forward in his
ministry: "And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:4). The proposition that
the Church was hijacked is nothing more than a fable, a cunningly
devised narative rooted in fiction (2 Peter 1:16). Thirdly, heretics allege
the Church makes a huge error by focusing on New Testament truth (the
'back of the book') and neglecting Old Testament truth (the 'front of
the book'). This is clearly NOT the case. It is the New Testament that
reveals the new covenant in Christ's blood, explains and firmly
establishes the Old
Testament. One cannot fully appreciate the Old Testament without
knowing the New Testament. It is the New that puts the Old in proper
perspective. Imposition of the Old upon the New, commingling Law
and Grace, is a disastrous hermeneutical (eisegetical) approach to scripture. It is
the seedbed for all manner of antichristian heresy. A grace preacher
who understands the proper use of the Law can stand and preach the
gospel of grace in Christ Jesus all day from the Torah! Fourthly,
there is NO evidence that ANY of the apostles either observed Mosaic
Law after Pentecost or taught others to do so. It is abundantly clear
that God NEVER inspired Paul to write ANY instruction to ANY church
where he recommended Torah compliance of ANY kind as an integral part
of discipleship or growth in grace. Colossians 2:16-17 is clear
evidence that Paul taught churches they were under NO obligation to
observe Sabbaths and Holy Days. He said these things are “shadows” of things
to come. In Acts 18:18, Paul shaved his head because of a vow. Whatever
reason Paul had for doing this, it was strictly personal, not a pattern
for the churches. In Acts 12:3, Luke makes historical reference to “the
days of unleavened bread.” But citing this reference as proof Peter
observed the feast as a Torah-compliant act is an untenable stretch.
Even if he and other believers were observing it, it's clear the
apostles NEVER codified it as Church doctrine or practice. This is what
happens when one attempts to cite 'proof texts' divorced from their 'context' to support a private interpretation.
It inevitably involves a 'reading into' the text a meaning the writer
never intended. A
classic example is 1 Corinthians 5:7-8: "Purge out therefore the old
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep
the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and
wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Some
cite this passage as proof Paul taught Torah compliance
(observance of OT feasts) to Gentile churches. But if one
considers the context, two things become clear: (1) Paul used the
Torah routinely with Gentiles to teach the greater spiritual
truths of Christ, for
which God intended them. In other words, he found and
preached Christ in the
Feasts. (2) The spiritual lesson to be learned
from the feast of unleavened bread, an
extension of Passover, was Church purity, unleavened
living, as a
result of redemption through the blood of Christ. In the context,
Paul told the church at Corinth exactly HOW they were to keep the feast of
unleavened bread and live out what the feast foreshadowed. They were to purge out
the fornicating member: "Therefore put away from among yourselves
that wicked person" (5:13). Sincerity and truth describe the spirit
with which the church is to deal with overt leaven with godly members Nothing
validates the power of Christ our Passover more than an unleavened
church and godly members. Nothing renders a church more impotent and disreputable than the toleration of
public sin in its midst. What is the value of a professing believer
observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread as an exercise in
'discipleship' when he or she lives a life littered with leaven
(nicotene and alcohol addiction, profanity, sexual impurity, theft, lying,
malice toward others) and other works of the flesh? Fifthly, these heretics of our day, who insist on Torah compliance, are the ones
attempting to 'hijack' the Church as did the sect of the Pharisees
at Jerusalem and the false teachers at Antioch of Syria. They
were defeated in A.D. 51. They will ALWAYS be rejected by the
Spirit of God and those who know and understand the gospel of grace! Lastly,
the Jerusalem Council of 51 A.D. established the Grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ in the matter of salvation to be the DOCTRINE OF GOD, the gospel,
attested to by the apostles and the Holy Ghost. Any imposition of
Mosaic Law upon the Church as requisite to ANY
aspect of salvation is a DOCTRINE OF MEN that the apostles and Holy Ghost rejected. This conclusion
is inarguable!
The apostolic conference call of Acts 15 definitely put the
predominantly Jewish and Gentile churches respectively on the same
gospel page. It reaffirmed Paul's contention that the believer is
COMPLETE in Christ, having been justified by faith, clothed with HIS
righteousness, made partakers of HIS life and spared the need for ANY embellishments of Mosaic Law.
It's the gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ that the Jerusalem Council
clarified unambiguously in their historic conference call!
Top
|