Atos 15
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 15
MacArthur says "it was their zeal for the law that caused the Pharisees to become focused on rituals and externally keeping the law. They abandoned true religion of the heart for mere outward behavior modification and ritual (cf. Mt. 15:3–6), leading Jesus to scathingly denounce their pseudospirituality: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Mt. 23:23; cf. 6:1–5; 9:14; 12:2; Luke 11:38–39)." There were more Pharisees than Sadducees (according to Josephus, Ant. 17.2.4 there were more than 6,000 Pharisees at this time). Pharisees differed with Sadducees and were strict adherents to the laws of the OT and to traditions such as angels and bodily resurrection, in contrast to the Sadducees who were did not believe in angels or resurrection (they were anti-supernaturalists). MacArthur adds that "Pharisees, unlike their arch rivals the Sadducees, could become Christians and retain many of their distinctive beliefs. They believed in the literal interpretation of Scripture, a literal resurrection, life after death, and the existence of angels (cf. Acts 23:8)." (Ibid) Had believed (4100)(pisteuo) means to be confident and convinced, which if genuine signifies absolute confidence and trust, complete surrender, and heartfelt obedience. In this case Luke uses the perfect tense which signifies belief at a point of time in the past with continuing effect. This would suggest that their belief was indeed legitimate, even if a distorted by their belief that works needed to be added to Christ. Swindoll says that had believed "indicates that they were genuine believers." (cf Jn 19:38, 39). It is necessary - The Pharisees who have failed to grasp that Gospel is a Gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) add two works they feel are necessities (as viewed in their "legalistic eyes") (1) circumcision and (2) keeping the "Ten Commandments" (so to speak). As noted above, these were essentially the requirements for Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes. In essence they are claiming that God commanded these responses in order to achieve salvation. Is necessary (present tense - continually) (1163)(dei from deo = to bind or tie objects together) refers to what is not optional but needful (binding) out of intrinsic necessity or inevitability. Dei describes that which is under the necessity of happening or which must necessarily take place, and as stated above, conveys a sense of inevitability. Paul would later (possibly his first letter written from Antioch about 49 AD) noted a huge problem for anyone who advocated the addition of circumcision writing " I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law." (Gal 5:3+) By his phrase "receives circumcision" Paul means receives it as a necessary addition to salvation by faith. Of course no one could possibly keep the whole Law which is Paul's way of saying "No one needs to add circumcision to faith alone in Christ alone." To circumcise them (4059) see preceding discussion of peritemno. Of course, it would not be until later that Paul would elaborate on the spiritual meaning of circumcision (See Excursus on Circumcision), but one cannot help but think that the Spirit had already laid this important insight on his heart. It is therefore surprising that those truths are not used in the arguments against the need for physical circumcision. It would not be until almost 10 years later that he would explain spiritual circumcision (cf Ro 2:25-29+). And to direct them to observe the Law of Moses - They were saying that for believers keeping the Law was not optional but was a practice to which they were bound. In other words like military commanders these Pharisees were calling for unquestioning obedience to their instructions. Kenneth Gangel makes the point that "We dare not confuse the Ten Commandments with the law of Moses. From our perspective we often view those two as one, but they were not. The New Testament never argues that Christians should not pay attention to the Ten Commandments (ED: AN SEEK TO KEEP THEM RELYING ON THE POWER OF THE INDWELLING SPIRIT), though certainly they will never lead to salvation. This argument was not about that. It dealt with the ritualistic practices of the Jews which set them apart from other people—circumcision, food laws, and other guidelines for living." (Holman New Testament Commentary – Acts) Direct (instruct, order, prescribe) (3853)(paraggello from para = beside + angello/aggello = to announce) means to pass on an announcement from one to another who is at one's side, as to what must be done, and usually with the idea of a command or charge. Paraggello was "a strong word" (Vincent), often was used in the context of a military command and demanded that the subordinate obey the order from the superior (2Ti 4:1+) and required unhesitating and unqualified obedience. (cp Lk 5:14, 8:29, Lk 9:21KJV, Acts 1:4, 4:18; 5:28KJV; Acts 15:5KJV; 1Th 4:11). MacArthur adds that parangello conveyed "the idea of binding a person to make the proper response to an instruction. The soldier was bound to obey the orders of his superiors; a person involved in a legal matter was bound by the court’s orders; a person of integrity was bound by moral principles; a patient was bound to follow his doctor’s instruction if he wanted to get well; and a successful writer or speaker was bound by the standards of his craft. (Matthew Commentary) Paraggello in Acts - Acts 1:4; Acts 4:18; Acts 5:28; Acts 5:40; Acts 10:42; Acts 15:5; Acts 16:18; Acts 16:23; Acts 23:22; Acts 23:30 R C H Lenski elaborates on the importance of this "additional" requirement by the believers who were Pharisees - To add anything to Christ as being necessary to salvation, say circumcision or any human work of any kind, is to deny that Christ is the complete Savior, is to put something human on a par with him, yea to make it the crowning point. That is fatal. A bridge to heaven that is built of 99/100 of Christ and even only 1/100 of anything human breaks down at the joint and ceases to be a bridge. Even if Christ be thought of as carrying us 999 miles of the way, and something merely human be required for the last mile, this would leave us hanging in the air with heaven being still far away. (The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles) Tony Merida adds that "Sadly, even today we see people disputing the idea that salvation is by grace alone. Many adhere, sometimes without even realizing it, to a Jesus-plus-something-else gospel: Jesus plus baptism, Jesus plus church attendance, Jesus plus quiet times. But if we add ANYTHING to the Gospel, we lose the Gospel. Gospel math works like this: Jesus plus nothing equals everything. The work of Jesus Christ is totally sufficient. This gospel of the saving exclusivity of Jesus by the grace of Jesus will always be disputed because the default mode of the human heart is works-based righteousness, not faith-based righteousness. Salvation by grace alone distinguishes Christianity from every other world religion. Religion is built on human performance, but no one has ever been saved by human performance or religious observance" (Ibid) (Bold added) Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter KJV Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Acts 15:25; 6:2; 21:18; Proverbs 15:22; Matthew 18:20; Hebrews 13:7,17 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JERUSALEM COUNCIL CONVENES Most authorities date this council as occurring in about 49 AD (all dates approximate). For chronological context recall that the Holy Spirit came on the Jerusalem believers in about 30 AD. Paul had his Damascus Road revelation of Jesus in about 33-34 AD (Acts 9:3-22). Peter witnessed to Cornelius in about 38 AD (Acts 10-11). So the Jerusalem Council is occurring about a decade after the Gentile Cornelius (et al) was converted (Acts 10:1-11:18). The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter - Comparing this description with Acts 15:12 ("All the people kept silent,") and Acts 15:22 ("with the whole church"), it is clear that this gathering was not just the leaders but the entire church. Apostles (652)(apostolos) focuses on their authority as extending from the sender and in this context describes one of the 12 apostles, one who had seen the risen Christ and who was sent forth by Him with His full authority to plant the flag of faith in every community to which His master led him. Elders (4245)(presbuteros) properly was a mature man with seasoned judgment and experience and as described in Acts 14:23 were to provide general oversight in the church (1 Tim 3:5; 1 Pe 5:2). Came together (4863)(sunago from sun = with + ago = to lead) means literally to lead together. This verb gives us English synagogue where Jews worship. Tony Merida observes that "Three speeches that defend the gospel of grace are recorded. First, Peter reported his experience in his evangelization of the Gentiles. Next, Paul and Barnabas reported how God used them to reach the Gentiles. Then, James interpreted their experiences in light of the Scriptures. These men were shepherds biblically caring for the flock." (Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary – Exalting Jesus in Acts) Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. KJV Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. NET Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. After there had been much debate Acts 15:2,39; Philippians 2:14 you know that in the early days Acts 10:5,6,20,32-48; 11:12-18; Matthew 16:18,19 God made a choice among you Acts 1:24; 9:15; 13:2; 1 Chronicles 28:4,5; John 3:27; 15:16; Galatians 2:7-9 by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; Exodus 4:12; Jeremiah 1:9; Romans 10:17,18 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries HEAR THE GOSPEL AND SIMPLY BELIEVE After there had been much debate - The two opposing views were allowed to be aired for all to hear the merits and demerits. "Peter wisely permitted this to continue for a time lest the impression be given that the results were a foregone conclusion." (Toussaint)
Atos 15
MacArthur commenting on Amos 9:11-12 writes that "Some have thus concluded that the passage was fulfilled in Jesus, the greater Son of David, through Whom the dynasty of David was reestablished. The Acts reference, however, is best seen as an illustration of Amos' words and not the fulfillment. The temporal allusions to a future time ("In that day," Amos 9:11), when Israel will "possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations" (Amos 9:12), when the Lord will "plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them" (Amos 9:15), all (HE IS APPARENTLY REFERRING TO Amos 9:11-15 SEE THE COMMENTS ON THAT PROPHECY) make it clear that the prophet is speaking of Messiah's return at the Second Advent to sit upon the throne of David (cf. Isa 9:7), not the establishment of the church by the apostles. (From "Interpretative Challenges" in Amos - Introduction) I will return (390)(anastrepho) is a verb not used in the Gospels, but is first used in Acts 5:22+ where Luke writes "they returned and reported back," clearly speaking of a literal return. There is no reason from the context of Acts 15:16 to suggest that the phrase "I will return" should not be interpreted literally. When we interpreted literally, it seems to be a "real stretch" to say that "I will return" refers to First Coming of the Messiah. In English dictionaries the verb return is defined as "to go or come back to place." The implication is that one has been there at some previous time. So it defies the usual meaning of the verb return (in Greek or English!) to say that "I will return" signifies the First Coming. A normal, literal reading of the text does not allow that interpretation (in my humble opinion). On the other hand, return when interpreted literally most logically refers to the Second Coming, when Jesus literally, bodily returns in keeping with the promise He Himself made when He said "I will come again." Thus it follows that a literal interpretation of "I will return" would make it very difficult to state that the prophecy of the rebuilt tabernacle of David is fulfilled in the Church. In other words, since Jesus has not yet literally returned the rebuilding has not taken place. Not only would one have to "twist" the normal meaning of the verb "return" but they would also have to spiritualize the tabernacle of David! I am shocked at reading the Preacher's Outline & Sermon Bible which flat out comments on the phrase "I will return” writing that "This is referring to the first coming of Jesus Christ. And He had come—no one present would deny that." The POSB goes on to add that "There will be Jewish believers: “The tabernacle of David” refers to believing Jews, the true tabernacle or true body of Jews." (ED: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE CAN DERIVE AN UNUSUAL INTERPRETATION AS THE RESULT OF SPIRITUALIZATION OF THE TEXT!) James was applying the prophecy to the present situation. The people of David, the true indestructible tabernacle of David, the true body of David (believing Jews) will be “built up again … I [God] will set it [them] up.” (POSB-Acts) When you read a comment like this it makes you wonder if words have any meaning at all! These POSB comments make no sense when compared to the Amos passage. What is fascinating is that others who spiritualize the text conclude that the tabernacle of David is the Church! Can you not see what begins to happen when you are "fast and loose" with spiritualization of the Biblical text in an attempt to make it "fit" into one's pre-conceived eschatological view? I like what Charles Zimmerman says about this type of interpretation... The pronounced spiritualizing method used by the adherents of this view (ED: THAT THE RAISED TABERNACLE IS THE CHURCH) is noted for its absence of "controls" in interpretation. That is, there are no consistent literal and grammatical bounds within which they must operate. Its attraction lies in its flexibility. However, if words do not mean what they say within the bounds of common sense interpretation, then the reader has nothing to guide him in his understanding. He is in imminent peril of going astray theologically at any point. (ED: AMEN!) (“To This Agree the Words of the Prophets,” Grace Journal 4:3 Fall 1963:28-40) Related Resources: What is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method? (Allegorical Interpretation is synonymous with Spiritualizing the Text) What is biblical literalism? The Importance of Meaning Art and Science of Interpretation Rise of Allegorical Interpretation John Walvoord flatly states.... By no possible stretch of the plain meaning of the passage can the tabernacle of David be made to be an equivalent of the New Testament Church. The prophecy concerns the rebuilding of that which was fallen down. The "ruins" are to be rebuilt "as in the day of old." The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national, and have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings has been promised. (J F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom) Here is a prophecy by Albert Barnes which shows the effect of pronounced spiritualization on one's interpretation. In this case Barnes is explaining the phrase "I will return" which James added to the original Amos 9:11-12 prophecy.
Atos 15
MacArthur comments based on a literal interpretation of the Amos 9:11-12 passage that "The Amos passage speaks of the millennial kingdom. It is then that God will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, … rebuild its ruins, … and restore it. In the millennial kingdom, the rest of mankind will seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old. Gentiles will be saved as Gentiles, without first becoming Jews, or else Acts 15:17 would make no sense. The passage from Amos, quoted in that verse, clearly speaks of those outside the covenant community of Israel being saved, with no mention of their first becoming Jewish proselytes. James reassured his Jewish audience that the inclusion of Gentiles into the church did not abrogate God’s plan for Israel. In fact, in the kingdom they will be the messengers to bring Gentiles to God (Zech. 8:20–23). James’s point is that the prophet said Gentiles will be in the kingdom without becoming Jewish proselytes. Therefore there is no need for them to become proselytes in the present age. His speech is a fitting conclusion to the speeches in defense of salvation by grace. Peter began by stressing that Gentiles in the past were saved by grace alone; James concluded by showing that that will also be the case in the future. Therefore, Gentile salvation in the present must also be by grace alone. (MacArthur NT Commentary-Acts) A DIFFICULT PASSAGE For a fuller treatment of this difficult passage the reader is referred to the paper by Charles Zimmerman - “To This Agree the Words of the Prophets,” Grace Journal 4:3 (Fall 1963):28-40. Here is the summary of the interpretation Zimmerman favors - regardless of which interpretation you hold, this paper is highly recommended as it deals with all of the major interpretations... In summary, James makes reference to Peter's declaration concerning God's i!!:§! taking out of ' the Gentiles a people for His name. This primarily involved His plan of including both Jew and Gentile in the New Testament Church. To this, James says, the words of the prophets concerning the Messianic Kingdom agree. The time order of the events are in perfect harmony. After this period of Gentile conversion, the Lord will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David and establish His reign in the promised Messianic Kingdom. During this time Israel shall enjoy their promised blessings and the residue of men (identified as "all the Gentiles") shall seek after the Lord. A legitimate paraphrase may read as follows: "Simeon has declared (led out in the full meaning of) how God first visited the Gentiles to take out from among them a people for (to bear) His name. And to this visitation of the Gentiles the words of the prophets agree with respect to the order of events in God's plan, as it is written, After these things pertaining to Gentile conversion under grace, I will return (in glory) and I will build again the tabernacle and throne of David which is fallen and I will build again the ruins of it and I will set it up again in the land ofits former domain. That the remainder of men might seek the Lord; namely, all" the Gentiles upon whom my name has been called, saith the Lord, who is doing these things" (Acts 15: 14-17). ESV Study Bible Note - James concentrated on Amos 9:11-12, which looked to the time when God would restore the house of David. Luke provides the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the text, which speaks of the Gentiles (Gk. ethnē) seeking the Lord. But even the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text fits with what James argued, since it speaks of a people called by my name (Amos 9:12), and those called by God’s name are in a saving relationship with Him. Amos looked to a time when God would claim a people for himself from among the Gentiles. James concurred with Peter that the time of Gentile inclusion in God’s people had now arrived. Derek Thomas (amillennial view) - James understood the restored Israel to be the church rather than ethnic Israel. It is precisely at this point that one imagines the assembly being struck with awe as the implications of the new covenant were pressed upon their minds through James’s words. The implication was clear: there was no longer an ethnic Israel that had any religious significance. The promises given to Israel were now firmly in the court of the church, and this church was made up of all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, whatever their ethnic background. (REC - Acts) Donald Sunukijan - At the Jerusalem Council, James cited Amos 9:11-12 as proof that the Gentiles of his day need not be circumcised and live as Jews in order to be saved (Acts. 15:1-20). James was aware that Israel's judgments were not yet over (cf. the Lord's statements regarding the coming destruction of the temple and renewed persecution and death, Matt. 24:1-22; Luke 21:5-24, and that the restoration had not yet begun; cf. Acts 1:6-7). But James also knew from Amos' succinct statement and from extended passages in other prophets (cf. "prophets" in Acts 15:15; also note Isa. 42:6; 60:3; Mal. 1:11) that when the promised kingdom would come, the Gentiles will share in it as Gentiles and not as quasi-Jews. Since this was God's millennial purpose, James concluded that the church should not require Gentiles to relinquish their identity and live as Jews. James was not saying the church fulfills the promises to Israel in Amos 9:11-12. He was saying that since Gentiles will be saved in the yet-to-come Millennium, they need not become Jews in the Church Age (see extended comments on Acts 15:15-18). (From his comments on Amos in The Bible Knowledge Commentary) John Stott summarizes James’s citation of Amos - God promises first to restore David’s fallen tent and rebuild its ruins (which Christian eyes see as a prophecy of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the seed of David, and the establishment of his people) so that, secondly, a Gentile remnant will seek the Lord. In other words, through the Davidic Christ Gentiles will be included in his new community. (Message of Acts, 247) Dwight
Atos 15
MacArthur says "Keeping the law and observing rituals were not requirements for salvation. The Judaizers were to be forbidden to trouble the Gentiles by teaching otherwise." (Acts Commentary) That we do not trouble (3926)(parenochleo from pará = in addition to or close beside + enochleo = to disturb) is used only here in the NT and means to create additional disturbance, add extra trouble or cause unnecessary trouble or difficulty. They need to be cautious when not to negatively influence the Gentiles turning to God. This verb is used in the Septuagint in Da 6:18, 23+ describing how the lions absolutely did not trouble or annoy Daniel! Daniel's peaceful night's sleep may have been the greatest miracle! Gilbrant - This verb can be found in classical Greek from the Fifth Century B.C. and means “cause disturbance, annoy, trouble.” It appears in the Septuagint about 10 times translating various Hebrew words and usually meaning “to trouble.” For example, Samson was “troubled” by his wife (Judges 14:17), and in 1 Samuel 28:15 Saul “troubled” Samuel by calling him up from the dead. (Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary) Swindoll writes that "The expression “do not trouble those who are turning to God” is critical (Acts 15:19). The phrase identifies any addition of works (circumcision, baptism, Law keeping—any human activity other than simple belief, childlike trust, or genuine faith) as a man-made obstacle to God’s agenda." (Ibid) R. Kent
Atos 15
MacArthur says "The danger was that the Gentiles, reveling in their freedom in Christ, would pressure the Jewish believers to exercise that same liberty and violate their consciences." And in 1 Corinthians 8:1-3 The Limits of Our Liberty, Part 1 MacArthur adds that "It isn’t as simple as whether it’s right or wrong. It boils down to who does it affect? And maybe there are some things that are right in themselves, but if you do them, they will wound somebody who thinks they are wrong....So, how do we decide? What do you do in your life when you got one of those gray-area things? Do you have a process by which you make a decision? Let me offer you a series of terms that can act as a filter through which you can filter any behavior that is in the gray area (see The Limits of Our Liberty)." (Bold added) Note the phrase we write for clearly only one person actually wrote the letter, presumably James, but the phrase we write underscores the clear consensus of the leadership regarding the directives in the letter to the Gentiles. THOUGHT - Every church has to have someone at the "helm," so to speak, in control of the wheel to steer the ship often through troubled waters stirred up by Satan and his emissaries, but this leader needs to be a man who sees himself as a we and not a me! The only One in control of the helm as a "Me" so to speak, is also the only One Who can calm the seas, speaking of course of Jesus, the Head of the Body (Col 2:19, Eph 1:23; 4:12-16; Col 1:18). That we write to them that (1989)(epistello from epi - to + stello - to send) to send a communication to inform or instruct by letter. Used twiced in Acts to refer to the letter from the Jerusalem Council to the Gentiles (Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25). Used in Hebrews to describe the "letter of exhortation" (Heb 13:22). No uses in the Septuagint.
Atos 15
MacArthur - To needlessly violate the Mosaic sanctions would destroy the church’s credibility with unbelieving Jews and also offend believing ones. It would be an abuse of the freedom in Christ believers enjoy.
Atos 15
MacArthur - In Galatians 2, Paul described his visit to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (see Gal 2:1), so he must have written Galatians after that event. Since most scholars date the Jerusalem Council about A.D. 49, the most likely date for Galatians is shortly thereafter. Greetings (5463)(chairo) means to be "cheer" full, calmly happy or well-off. Chairo implies and imparts joy. Chairo was used in greetings (welcome, good day, hail to you, I am glad to see you) in the imperative mood implying a wish for well being or happiness to the recipient (Mt 26:49). Chairo is used in the introduction to a letter (Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1). Chairo is translated "Hail!" several times in the Gospels (Mt 26:49, 27:29, Mk 15:18, Lk 1:27). It is interesting that chairo literally means to rejoice (here is in present tense - "continually rejoice"), which is exactly what the Gentiles did when the the letter was read to them, for "they rejoiced (also chairo) because of its encouragement." (Acts 15:31+)
Atos 15
MacArthur points out that didasko was "used to refer to a choir director who trains a choir over a long period of rehearsals until they are able to perform....(and so) It is the ability to pass on truth in a systematic progression so that someone receives it, implements it, and a change of behavior takes place." THOUGHT - You can mark it down - In Scripture to teach means to pass on the truth about the Word of God, the God of the Word and the faith of the saints, with the goal of influencing the understanding and stimulating obedience to the truth taught and resultant Spirit energized transformation and Christ-likeness. The essence of a disciple in fact is that he or she is a learner. The teacher teaches and the disciple hears and processes what is heard so that this truth affects his or her innermost being (their heart, not just their head - transformation not just information). Ultimately the purpose of didasko is to shape the will of the one taught into conformity with the will of God as revealed in the Bible. Luke's uses of didasko in Acts - Acts 1:1; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:18; Acts 5:21; Acts 5:25; Acts 5:28; Acts 5:42; Acts 11:26; Acts 15:1; Acts 15:35; Acts 18:11; Acts 18:25; Acts 20:20; Acts 21:21; Acts 21:28; Acts 28:31 Preaching (the gospel, good news)(2097)(euaggelizo/euangelizo from eu = good, well + aggéllo = proclaim, tell; related to noun aggelos = messenger) in the present tense indicates they were continually announcing the good message, gospelizing the complete message of God's good news. Here is the point -- preaching the Gospel is not just done to win the lost (which is what many saints believe is the full work of the Gospel), but to enable the disciple to grow in grace (as the Spirit transforms using the Word preached - 2 Cor 3:18, especially the liberating Gospel truths in Romans 6-8). As someone has well said "When the effect of the Gospel is all important in the church, the force of the Gospel is unstoppable in the world." Amen! Luke's uses of euaggelizo in Acts Acts 5:42; Acts 8:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:25; Acts 8:35; Acts 8:40; Acts 10:36; Acts 11:20; Acts 13:32; Acts 14:7; Acts 14:15; Acts 14:21; Acts 15:35; Acts 16:10; Acts 17:18 The word of the Lord - This is what we should always teach and preach, but there is been a definite drift away from this pattern in many modern churches in America. Note it says the word of the Lord, not the agenda of the pastor, the stories of the pastor, the social concerns of the pastor, etc. Comment by Pastor Jack Andrews on Acts 15:35 - Did Silas, Paul, and Barnabas like the food, friends, and fellowship in Antioch? That wasn’t the reason they stayed on in Antioch. There was a work to do in Antioch. The church was growing, the church was glowing, and the church was going with the gospel of Jesus Christ.The issue of salvation had been settled, the disciples needed instruction, and the mission needed fulfilling. Disciple’s always needs instructing and the mission always needs fulfilling. The Bible tells us that Silas stayed in Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas so that they could teach and preach the word of the Lord. Luke tells us that many others were there as well. God provides for His church those called to teach and preach His word so that His church can be strengthened, challenged. Preachers and teachers preach and teach so that the church can be edified, sinners can be evangelized, and the Savior can be glorified. The devil is always at work distracting the church, discouraging the church, and detouring the church from its main mission. The devil will raise up false teachers, legalists, and liberals to stifle the work of the church. John G. Butler wrote, “Evil wants to stop progress of the work of God. So evil causes all kinds of trouble in the church to keep the pastor and people occupied with the trouble instead of being able to concentrate on proclaiming the Word of God.” May we learn to stay focused on the task at hand and faithful to the work that He has called us to! (Ibid) John MacArthur wrote, “The reading of the letter and the report of the delegation evoked four responses from the assembled believers. The first was celebration: they rejoiced... The second response was consolation, because of the letter’s encouragement... A third response was confirmation, as Judas and Silas... strengthened the brethren... The final response was continuation... Paul and Barnabas picked up where they had left off and continued their ministry of teaching and preaching... the word of the Lord.” Acts 15:36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." KJV Acts 15:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. Let us return. Acts 7:23; Exodus 4:18; Jeremiah 23:2; Matthew 25:36,43 in every city Acts 13:4,13,14,51; 14:1,6,21,24,25 and see Ro 1:11; 2 Cor 11:28; Php 1:27; 1 Th 2:17,18; 3:6,10,11; 2 Ti 1:4 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries HORTATION TO CONTINUE THE GREAT ADVENTURE Hortation describes a strong urging giving or strong encouragement urging to some course of conduct or action. Stated another way hortatory is a person that pleads or strongly requests someone to take a particular action. Paul is clearly speaking a hortatory word to Barnabas in this passage. In short, Paul is "hot to trot," ready and eager to engage in an activity, ready to move out and move on. Time is "wasting." Paul's Second Missionary Journey (Acts 15:36-18:22) as we begin this journey Paul sets out from Antioch Acts 15:36-40 to Syria Acts 15:41 and Cilicia Acts 15:41 (Go to Acts 16 Commentary for continuation).
Atos 15
MacArthur writes in in Rev 6:14 apochorizo describes "an apocalyptic disaster, the Heavens departed. So when they departed, they departed. There wasn't a lot of love there. They were a little bit bitter, and they blasted off in two directions and Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus." As Ray Pritchard says "They were so angry that when they left, they didn’t just part company, but their friendship at that point was torn apart. That’s how deep their convictions were. As far as we can tell from this text, when Barnabas went one way and Paul the other, they evidently left unreconciled. Nothing in the text indicates that they got on their knees and prayed together. Maybe they did, but I don’t see it. All I see is a sharp disagreement and a separation. There’s no happy ending in this text. At this point it’s important for us to review the biblical teaching on unity. I find it interesting that Paul—the man who didn’t want to take John Mark—writes more about the unity of the church than any other man in the New Testament." Related Resource: When Christians Disagree Ray Pritchard's sermon based on the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas One another - This is a frequent phrase in Paul's epistles usually in a positive sense and speaking of the unity of believers - e.g. "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor...be of the same mind toward one another...love one another", etc (Ro 12:10, 16, Ro 13:8) ----- Paul and Silas to Cilicia ----- Barnabas and John to Cyprus And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus - It is as if Barnabas sailed off into the sunset (so to speak) as this is the last mention of this great man in the book of Acts. Recall that Cyprus (see Salamis) was the first site visited on the first missionary journey and was a place that John Mark had visited (see Acts 13:5+). THOUGHT - "Many of us would have dropped out of ministry had it not been for a gracious Barnabas who was willing to give us another chance after we failed." (Constable) Jack Andrews makes the point that "the missionaries continued on in their missionary work. The differences, dissension, and division didn’t halt the missionary work. It is important for us to learn that when we are hurt, when we disagree with a brother or sister, when we fail to come together that we do not pack it in and give up. We must continue on with the work of Jesus Christ. We must stay focused on the work of Jesus Christ and faithful to the work of Jesus Christ." (Ibid) Swindoll has an interesting comment - Barnabas took John Mark with him and “sailed away to Cyprus” (Acts 15:39). Either Barnabas departed for home, taking Mark with him, or he intended to follow the same itinerary as the first missionary journey. We don’t know which for certain. Luke doesn’t include anything more about Barnabas or his travels after this. Later, Paul wrote of Barnabas in positive, present-tense terms, suggesting that he continued to conduct a ministry well known enough for Paul to use him as an illustration with the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 9:6).(Ibid) A T
Atos 15
MacArthur wrote, “(Silas) was in every respect a suitable man for missionary work. As a prophet, he was adept at proclaiming and teaching the Word. As a Jew, he had entrance into the synagogues. As a Roman citizen, he enjoyed the same protection and benefits as did Paul. And his status as a respected leader of the Jerusalem church reinforced Paul’s teaching that Gentile salvation was solely by grace.” John Phillips on their commission by the brethren (i.e., by the local church) - “(Paul) never set himself up as a freelance missionary. Though called and commissioned by the Lord, he did not act in isolation and independence from his brethren. All Christian workers need the support, fellowship, and prayers of the church.” (Exploring Acts) Being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord - This was not stated by Luke to be the case with Barnabas, which has led some to infer that the church at Antioch took Paul’s side in the dispute. That's possible but the added statement of "the grace of the Lord," would lead me to question that conclusion. The verb committed can also mean being handed over into the power of someone or something, in this case the power of God's grace. THOUGHT - O, for all of us to live daily, as "handed over" to the transforming, sustaining power of God's grace! And if we are involved in the work of the Lord (and in some way we all are) we need to depend of the sufficient supply of the grace of the Lord. The blessing of this second sending by the church at Antioch is similar to the first sending described by Luke who upon their return from the mission field to their home church wrote... "From there (Seaport at Attalia) they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended (same word as "committed" - paradidomi) to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished (HOW DID THEY ACCOMPLISH IT? BY THE GRACE OF GOD! - cf 1 Cor 15:10+, 2 Cor 12:9+, 2 Cor 12:10+)." (Acts 14:26+) Being committed () (3860)(paradidomi from para = alongside, beside, to the side of, over to + didomi = to give) conveys the basic meaning of to give over from one's hand to someone or something, especially to give over to the power of another. Recall that this same verb was used in Acts 15:26+ to describe how the two missionaries (Paul and Barnabas) had "risked (committed) their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Luke's uses of paradidomi in Acts - Acts 3:13; Acts 6:14; Acts 7:42; Acts 8:3; Acts 12:4; Acts 14:26; Acts 15:26; Acts 15:40; Acts 16:4; Acts 21:11; Acts 22:4; Acts 27:1; Acts 28:17; Acts 15:41 And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. KJV Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. through Acts 15:23; 18:18; 21:3; Galatians 1:21 Strengthening the churches Acts 15:32; 16:4,5 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries STRENGTHENING THE SOULS OF THE DISCIPLES And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia - Interesting that the text says "he" and not "they" so clearly Paul was the primary one giving exhortation and encouragement. THOUGHT - Paul did not simply travel through an area but always "redeemed the time." (Eph 5:16) This is a good pattern for all of us beloved, that we might have such an eternal perspective in our routine days that we do not miss God's opportunities for us to redeem! Grant this would be true Father to all who read this note, for the sake of Thy Son. Amen. Swindoll - Paul wanted to follow up with the churches in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, especially after their scrape with the circumcision controversy. To get there, he traveled north through Syria and Cilicia to Tarsus, stopping to “strengthen” churches along the way (15:41). He then passed through the Taurus Mountains via the Cilician Gates, an engineered pass to Derbe on the high plateau of Anatolia." (Ibid) Strengthening the churches - They were (so to speak) shoring up (supporting by placing against something solid or rigid - in this case the eternal, immutable Word of God) the faith of the Gentile believers (and undoubtedly explaining the Jerusalem Council's letter). This seems to be Paul's practice as when he re-traced his first missionary journey we read that he and Barnabas were "strengthening (same verb episterizo) the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14:22+) In Acts 18:23+ Luke uses the related verb sterizo (some Greek manuscripts use episterizo) writing that Paul "having spent some time there, he left and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening (present tense) all (NOTE PAUL'S HEART WAS FOR THE ENTIRE CHURCH - ALL) the disciples." Strengthening (1991)(episterizo from epí = intensifies + sterízo = strengthen, support) means literally to place firmly upon. The root verb (histemi) means to stand. In spiritual matters God used Paul to encourage the saints but ultimately it is the God of all grace Who strengthens us by His Word (cp Acts 15:32+) and His Spirit (cf Jn 6:63). The present tense indicates this was Paul's continual activity to encourage the brethren to be firm in their commitment to Christ. As he encouraged them with the Word of Truth, the Spirit would use the Word causing them to grow stronger and more firm in their faith and in their commitment to Christ and at the same time giving them increased resolve to hold fast to the Word, especially when facing adverse circumstances and difficulties. Swindoll sums up this great schism of two great saints - That’s the tragedy of an unreconciled argument or an unresolved conflict. Even when both sides are right, both sides lose! Paul, of course, put together a stellar team of missionaries and conducted a ministry so profound it changed the world. His letters comprise one third of the New Testament Scriptures. Barnabas, however, was right about John Mark. The young man eventually won the trust of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13) and penned the Gospel bearing his name. Paul later added Mark to his evangelistic team (Col. 4:10) and even acknowledged him as “useful to me for service” (2 Tim. 4:11), a high compliment from the demanding apostle." (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Acts) John G. Butler said, “If you do not strengthen a church in the faith, you will soon not have a church. We need more of this strengthening work in our churches today. Many churches are very weak in the faith because they have never been taught well the Word of God.” Butler makes a good point for the ONLY thing that will strengthen the brethren is the Word of God, not small group fellowships, not common social causes, not more lively music (which sadly is moving away from the doctrinally rich hymns), etc. THOUGHT - This last section of Acts 15 begs the question - HOW DO YOU HANDLE CONFLICT? Church conflicts are always lurking on the horizon, since in the final analysis we are all saved sinners, not sinless sinners (albeit we should sin less!) Churches (1577)(ekklesia from ek = out + klesis = a calling, verb = kaleo = to call) literally means called out and as commonly used in the Greco-Roman vernacular referred to citizens who were called out from their homes to be publicly assembled or gathered to discuss or carry out affairs of state.