Atos 15
Thomas Constable · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 15
Constable notes that "It was probably during the time Paul was in Syrian Antioch, after returning from the first missionary journey and before attending the conference in Jerusalem (ch. 15), that he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians. He did so to instruct the believers in the churches he and Barnabas had planted. This would have been in the late 40s A.D., probably 49 A.D. Galatians appears to have been the first of Paul's inspired epistles." In Acts 11:2+ we see Jews debate Peter over circumcision, Luke recording that "when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him." (KJV = And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him." Gotquestions calls these men who began teaching the brethren Judaizers - In the early church, those who taught a combination of God’s grace and human effort were called “Judaizers.” The word Judaizer comes from a Greek verb (ioudaizo) meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.” A Judaizer taught that, in order for a Christian to truly be right with God, he must conform to the Mosaic Law. Circumcision, especially, was promoted as necessary for salvation. Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes first, and then they could come to Christ. The doctrine of the Judaizers was a mixture of grace (through Christ) and works (through the keeping of the Law). This false doctrine was dealt with in Acts 15 and strongly condemned in the book of Galatians.(Who were the Judaizers?) Came down from Judea - Recall that "came down" reflects the fact that Jerusalem was elevated, so leaving the city is termed go down and entering the city go up. There is a bit of a play on words, for though faith in Christ raises one up to new life and freedom, these law bringers sought to bring the disciples back down into legalism and bondage to the the law. The designation from Judea stands for "from Jerusalem" which was in Judea, as the city was still the central hub for the spreading spokes of the young church. Recall that Paul and Barnabas had taught at the church in Antioch for an entire year (Acts 11:26+), for they knew that the best defense against doctrinal error is sound (healthy) doctrine. John MacArthur describes these men writing that “False teachers have plagued the church throughout its history. They are emissaries of Satan, sent to destroy the church’s power and corrupt its proclamation.” You can rest assured that when the church begins to grow and people begin to get saved, Satan will not sit still. And these men in Jerusalem did not sit still but were willing to travel 300 miles to inject error and cause disturbance in the church at Antioch. Jesus alluded to the zeal evil men would manifest in order to inject error and confusion into the hearts and minds of souls declaring... “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Mt 23:15). And began teaching the brethren - Their bad teaching as with all good teaching had as its goal to change the way of thinking of the disciples regarding the way of salvation. And their desire of course was that a change in thinking would issue in a change in action, specifically that they would seek circumcision to assure they were indeed saved. Robertson suggests that "Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority." Imagine yourself as a Gentile who had believed in Jesus, and now you are informed belief was not sufficient and thus your salvation was invalid! Began teaching (imperfect tense) (1321)(didasko from dáo= know or teach; English = didactic; see study of related noun didaskalia and the adjective didaktikos) means to provide instruction or information in a formal or informal setting. Didasko convey the idea of the idea of systematic teaching, as Paul and Barnabas had carried out for a year (Acts 11:26+). Disasko was used to refer to a choir director who trained the choir over a long period of rehearsals until they are able to perform. In that same sense these false teachers were attempting to train the disciples in Antioch to "sing their tune," which was called "Circumcision Assures Salvation." This "tune" had been in the "Top Ten" list of Jewish "tunes" for centuries. But it was a "tune" with a dangerous message, which is why Paul and Barnabas react so vigorously in Acts 15:2. Vincent on teaching in the imperfect tense - were teaching. They had not merely broached the error, but were inculcating it (teaching and impressing by frequent repetitions or admonitions) . Brethren (80)(adelphos from a = denotes unity + delphus = a womb) means brother or near kinsman. "Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin (family, race, etc). Figuratively as in this passage adelphos describes members of the Christian community. Constable points out that "This situation posed the fourth crisis in the history of the early church. The first was selfishness (Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5), and the second was murmuring (over the treatment of the Hellenistic widows, Acts 6). The third was simony (Simon Magus, Acts 8), and now doctrinal controversy raised its ugly head (the “Galatian heresy,” Acts 15). This was the most serious problem thus far both in terms of the issue itself and its potential consequences. It involved the correct interpretation of the facts of the gospel." One would have thought that Peter's experience with the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10:34-38, Acts 11:17-18) would have addressed the issue circumcision, for Peter did not require these Gentiles to be circumcised. Apparently, although there was some push-back (Acts 11:2+), the powers in Jerusalem were satisfied, but now Paul and Barnabas were reporting countless conversions among the Gentiles for God "had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27+) -- so the Gentile problem now had to be addressed head on by the more legalistic Jews. What is amazing (and very sad) is that in America there is a movement that apparently is growing in numbers and it is not that dissimilar from this first century controversy. Here is a snippet to give you an idea of what this (and some other Hebraic movements) are teaching in an "evangelical setting"... Those of the Hebrew Roots belief hold to the teaching that Christ's death on the cross did not end the Mosaic Covenant, but instead renewed it, expanded its message, and wrote it on the hearts of His true followers. They teach that the understanding of the New Testament can only come from a Hebrew perspective and that the teachings of the Apostle Paul are not understood clearly or taught correctly by Christian pastors today. Many affirm the existence of an original Hebrew-language New Testament and, in some cases, denigrate the existing New Testament text written in Greek. This becomes a subtle attack on the reliability of the text of our Bible. If the Greek text is unreliable and has been corrupted, as is charged by some, the Church no longer has a standard of truth. (Read more - What is the Hebrew Roots movement?) THOUGHT - I recently spoke with a mature believer in Jesus whose sister has become entangled in this movement and now refuses to even speak with anyone except her sister about the movement. Sadly the believing sister has been completely unable to dislodge her sister from the tenets of this movement. About 8 years ago, 2 men I had discipled began to espouse teachings that advocated keeping of the Old Testament laws. I met with one of the men who had set under me for 3 or more years and had even been in Christian ministry and despite my best "apologetic" attempts he would not budge from his beliefs advocating keeping of the OT laws. I have since lost contact with him. I am sure some of you reading these notes have friends or family who have been affected by these aberrant OT teachings, which in my opinion appeal to our fallen flesh nature - what can I do to merit blessing, etc. It can be very subtle. Paul's teaching on justification by faith alone is the basic point of disagreement. The Judaizers clearly would not have agreed with the statement he made in Acts 13:39+ that "through Him (JESUS) everyone who believes (SOLA FIDE!) is freed (dikaioo - most often translated justified) from all things, from which you could not be freed (dikaioo) through the Law of Moses." In short, Paul taught right standing before God is only attainable by faith in the Righteous One! There was no caveat, disclaimer or addendum to Paul's teaching that one could ONLY be justified ONLY by faith in the ONLY Son of God. Merida writes "In all fairness to the Jewish critics, they raised a natural question. The first Christians were Jewish; Jesus was Jewish; the old-covenant people were Jewish. Christianity was a messianic movement that was foretold in the Old Testament. And since Jews had always demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised and adhere to the rituals of the Torah in order to be accepted into the community (ED: THAT IS THAT THEY BECOME JEWISH "PROSELYTES"), it was probably difficult for them to understand the sudden change. They failed to realize that with the incarnation of Christ, everything had changed. This doctrinal issue also posed a practical problem: how could Jewish Christians enjoy table fellowship with Gentile Christians if the Gentiles failed to adhere to the same ritual laws the Jews did? The Jewish Christians could be defiled by the Gentiles’ eating habits! Because the issue was so serious—potentially leading to the formation of two separate churches, one Gentile and one Jewish—a conference was held to deal with the matter." (Ibid) Warren Wiersbe gives us great summary of the problem asking "What were these legalists actually doing and why were they so dangerous? They were attempting to mix Law and grace and to pour the new wine into the ancient brittle wineskins (Luke 5:36-39). They were stitching up the rent veil (Luke 23:45) and blocking the new and living way to God that Jesus had opened when He died on the cross (Heb. 10:19-25). They were rebuilding the wall between Jews and Gentiles that Jesus had torn down on the cross (Eph. 2:14-16). They were putting the heavy Jewish yoke on Gentile shoulders (Acts. 15:10; Gal. 5:1) and asking the church to move out of the sunlight into the shadows (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 10:1). They were saying, "A Gentile must first become a Jew before he can become a Christian! It is not sufficient for them simply to trust Jesus Christ. They must also obey Moses!" (Bible Exposition Commentary). Ed: In short these false teachers were saying the Gentiles had to go through Mt Sinai before they could go to Mt Calvary. Messianic Jewish commentator Steven Ger writes "These unauthorized teachers, or as Fruchtenbaum calls them, "these self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy," had appended the gospel of grace to include the reception of a religious rite. Not that these intimidators would have been content merely with Gentile circumcision. The phrase they used which betrayed their intentions was circumcision "according to the custom of Moses," indicating that circumcision was merely their initial requirement. This aberrant instruction was directed to the synagogue-affiliated proselytes of the gate, God-fearers and especially those Gentiles who had no previous connection with Judaism, bullying them all into believing that they first needed to become full Jewish proselytes before they could become authentic followers of the Messiah. The teaching of these agitators hit the Antioch church like a massive theological tsunami. (Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series – The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World) Unless you are circumcised - Well, yes and no. Yes, that is true if you are referring to spiritual circumcision, but "no" if you are referring to physical circumcision. These two circumcisions are antithetical and diametrically opposed. The source of their spurious "theology" may have been passages such as Genesis 17:14 and Exodus 12:48-49. This false doctrine denied the efficacy of and the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ who declared "It is finished," (tetelestai = perfect tense of teleo) or "Paid in full!" (Jn 19:30+). The sin debt was permanently paid in full and nothing else needed to be done except to believe! Larkin has an interesting observation that "Such a "proselyte model" of Gentile conversion was natural to Jews steeped in the Old Testament, which promises that in the last days Gentiles, through the witness of a restored Israel, will flow to Jerusalem and be incorporated into the one people of God (Isa 2:2-3; Isa 25:6-8; Isa 56:6-7; Isa 60:2-22; Zech 8:23)." Swindoll - Circumcision identified a male as a true “son of the covenant,” heir to the promises of God to the descendants of Abraham and citizens of Israel. Anyone not born Jewish and circumcised on the eighth day had to learn Hebrew history and become sufficiently knowledgeable about the Mosaic Law. After a thorough examination of his knowledge, he would be baptized and then circumcised. Only then would he be considered a true “son of the covenant,” a real citizen of God’s kingdom. (Ibid) Warren
Atos 15
Constable adds that "By referring to the Jews being saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, instead of vise versa, Peter repudiated any thought of Jewish superiority. Clearly he had recovered from his temporary lapse at Syrian Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). Salvation is by grace (v. 11) through faith (v. 9) plus nothing.
Atos 15
Constable explains that "In the weekly synagogue Scripture readings, teachers of the Mosaic Law had stressed Jewish scruples regarding these matters for generations. Consequently the Jews regarded them as extremely important. If Gentile Christians disregarded the convictions of these Jews, they would only alienate those they hoped to bring to faith in Jesus Christ or to growth in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 8:13). James was not putting Gentile converts under the Mosaic Law by imposing these restrictions. He was urging them to limit their exercise of Christian liberty to make their witness to unsaved Jews more effective and their fellowship with saved Jews more harmonious (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23)." Charles Ryrie wrote that "If there was ever a good opportunity to say that the Gentiles were under the law this was it; for that would have settled the matter simply and quickly. But the apostles, who were Jews themselves, recognized that the law had no force any longer, and they did not try to impose it." (The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):243. Cf. Mark 7:18-19; Luke 16:16; John 1:17; Acts 10:12; Rom 7:6; 10:4; 14:17; 1 Cor. 8:8; 2 Cor. 3:6-11; Gal. 3:19, 23; 4:9-11; 5:1; 6:2; Col. 2:17; Heb. 7:12; 9:10) Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath - Moses stands for the Pentateuch or Torah which was preached and read. In these settings the Jews whether believers or not, would be understandably sensitive to certain practices. Recall that the first place Paul would go to in a new Roman city would be to the Jewish Synagogue. Synagogues should have been (and frequently were) a place of teaching and proclamation of the Gospel (Mt 4:23, 9:35, 12:9, 13:54, Mk 6:2, Lk 4:15, 16, Lk 4:44, 6:6, 13:10, Jn 6:59, 18:20, Acts 9:20 = Paul immediately "began to proclaim Jesus," Acts 13:5 = Paul proclaimed "the word of God," Acts 14:1 = place Paul, et al, spoke and where "a large number of people believed," Acts 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8 = Paul, et al reasoned with various audiences in synagogues). Preach (2784) (kerusso from kerux/keryx = a herald - one who acts as the medium of the authority of one who proclamation he makes; kerugma = the thing preached or the message) means to proclaim (publicly) or to herald or act as a public crier - the town official who would make a proclamation in a public gathering. Read (314)(anaginosko from aná = emphatic, again + ginosko = know <> know again) literally to know again or to recognize again. It came to mean to distinguish between, to know accurately and then to read. In the NT anaginosko is only used with the meaning of to read (albeit once in a figurative sense of men "reading" the lives of the Corinthian saints as one would an actual written letter), especially referring to reading aloud and to public reading, as Luke describes in this passage. Synagogues (4864)(sunagoge from sunágo = lead together, assemble or bring together) refers to a group of people “going with one another” (sunago) literally describes a bringing together or congregating in one place. Eventually, sunagoge came to mean the place where they congregated together. The word was used to designate the buildings other than the central Jewish temple where the Jews congregated for worship. Historically, the Synagogues originated in the Babylonian captivity after the 586 BC destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar and served as places of worship and instruction. Sabbath (4521)(sabbaton from shabath - 07676 = to cease from work, intermission - see note on shabath) is the seventh day of the week, held sacred by the Jews (cf Mt 12:8; Mk 2:27f; Lk 6:7, 9; Jn 5:9f, 18; Acts 1:12; 13:27, 44) Acts 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, KJV Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Then it seemed good Acts 15:23,25; 6:4,5; 2 Samuel 3:36; 2 Chronicles 30:4,12 to send Acts 15:27; 8:14; 11:22 Silas Acts 15:27,32,40; 16:19,25,29; 17:4,10,14; 18:5; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1; 1 Pe 5:12 Silvanus Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries CHURCH CONSENSUS Consensus means agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole, among all the people involved. Consensus is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all participants. In the case of the Jerusalem Council they "succeeded" and I suggest it was because they had surrendered their individual rights to the Spirit of Christ Who is the One Who brings unity to the church! There can be no sweeter savor from saints ascending to the heart of God our Father than to see a church that is named "Consensus" so to speak! May the Spirit have His way in all of Christ's bodies around the world that they would all seek to be pleasing to the Father. Amen. In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. This scene of unity of polity recalls the beautiful words of David in Ps 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant (delightful, agreeable) it is for brothers to dwell together in unity (Heb -yachad - one accord)! Ray