Acts 15 - John Karmelich

1. How do you tell a "Christian" from a "Non-Christian"?

a) It sounds like an opening line to a joke, but I'm actually quite serious.

b) Chapter 15 gives us some answers to that question, but more importantly, it gives us a model to follow when there are dividing issues to be discussed and resolved.

c) Chapter 15 is all about a major dispute concerning what it takes to be "saved", which is another way of saying whether you are, or are not, a Christian.

i) We are going to spend a lot of time talking about the specific issue of the chapter, which is whether or not one has to become a Jew prior to being a Christian. The argument is summarized in the buzzword "circumcision".

ii) A lot of you may not care about that issue. You know, from experience and 2,000 years of history one does not have to become a Jew to become a Christian.

iii) What I first want you to see in this chapter is the pattern used to solve the crisis at hand. The same method of resolution is a model for the church today.

iv) The modern application of Chapter 15 is "church dispute resolution".

a) Resolution on a major group level involves:

(1) Prayer,

(2) Discussion of the issue,

(3) Letting the leaders speak last after all the sides have been issued,

(4) Describe, if evident, how God is working in this situation,

(5) Using Scripture, and the proper interpretation thereof, as the authority for resolution.

v) On debatable issues, where either side of the issue can be strongly supported Biblically, I find its best to avoid those type of arguments, unless it's causing real division between two parties or a church in general. I have found it a waste of time to debate for debate's sake in these issues.

a) The focus of this chapter is over more serious issues, such as what is, vs. what is not a Christian.

2. With that introduction completed, we can now focus on the issue at hand, which is the relationship of Judaism and Christianity.

a) When we last left off in Chapter 14, Paul & Barnabas have planted many new Christian Churches consisting only of Gentiles, a.k.a., non-Jews.

b) Jewish Christians, based out of Jerusalem, were concerned that people were becoming Christians, and not becoming Jews first.

i) Their base of belief is that anybody could receive salvation, but it comes through Judaism. That includes the belief in Jesus as Messiah and Lord of your life.

c) Why would Jews be so concerned about people going directly to Jesus and bypassing Judaism? Why would they care?

i) First of all, it has been their belief system for thousands of years. It is difficult to change those types of beliefs overnight.

ii) Second, Jews use "The Law", which consists of all the laws of the Old Testament, not just the 10 commandments, and their interpretations thereof, as a measurement for pleasing God. It is inconceivable in their mind, that one could just "believe in Jesus, and live however they wanted to".

a) Partially, they are correct. One cannot simply say, "I believe in Jesus", then live how they want. Demons believe in the existence of Jesus as God. Salvation requires believing in Jesus as Lord of your life, not just as your Savior. "Lord" requires obedience to whatever Jesus calls you to do. The answers to which is most of the New Testament.

(1) Therefore, these Jews main concern is about immorality running rampant under the pre-tense of "I believe in Jesus".

iii) There is also an underlying problem that is not stated in the text, but is
written "between the lines". That question is: "What will become of Judaism?"

iv) For centuries, Jews have applied self-discipline to obey the Laws of the Old Testament, plus a lot of customs based on the interpretation of those laws. Does one throw away Judaism overnight simply because Jesus "fulfilled" the prophecies of the Old Testament?

v) Also, what about the promises made to Jews for their obedience to God? God promised that the Messiah would rule "from the throne of David" (1 Kings 2:45, et.al.)

a) "The throne of David" is not the throne in Heaven. This is a literal thrown on earth, over the earth, based out of Jerusalem. Jesus will one-day rule over the earth from the earth!

b) Conservative Jews believe in a 1,000-year millennium where the Messiah will rule the earth from Jerusalem.

c) Most Protestant Christians have a similar view. Jesus will rule on earth, from Jerusalem during the millennium. This is described in Revelation, Chapter 20.

(1) God told David: "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." (2 Sam 7:12-13 NKJV)

d) Last point on this, and we'll move on. In the first Chapter of Luke, an angel informs Mary of her pregnancy and makes this promise:

(1) He (Jesus) will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, (Luke 1:32 NIV)

(2) "The throne of David" is not the throne in heaven, where Jesus sits now. It is a literal throne on earth. It is where David ruled over Israel. That throne did not exist during Jesus' lifetime as they were under Roman rule.

(3) So now that Israel is a self-governing country again, does that mean Jesus is coming back soon? The answer is: hopefully! No one knows the day or hour, but there are certainly a lot of signs that things are moving quickly toward that event.

3. Which leads us back to the original problem to a Jew who believes in Judaism. It's not just about giving up their rituals. The question is also: "What about all the promises made to the nation of Israel?" God promised the Messiah would rule from Israel. Is that promise "dead"?

a) First of all, this is a majority view among Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations, but not all. This view is that the church "replaces" Israel. The view is that Israel "forfeited" their promises when they rejected their Messiah. This is referred to as "replacement theology". Historically, a lot of anti-Semitism came from this view.

b) Conservative Protestant denominations and most Pentecostal churches disagree with replacement theology. I also take this view.

i) The reason I disagree so strongly is I refuse to believe God is even capable of going back on his promises. His promises to Israel were unconditional. Therefore, they could not be forfeited. If we can't trust God with the unconditional promises he made to Israel, how can we trust his promises he made to us?

c) The key to understanding this is Romans Chapter 11. We live in the "time of the
Gentiles" (Romans 11:25). God is keeping count of how many Gentiles get saved. Only God himself knows this number. Once it is complete, God turns his focus back on the nation of Israel. That is what most of the Book of Revelation is all about.

4. Before we start on Chapter 15, a good cross-reference to read is Galatians, Chapter 2. In that chapter, Paul talks about the events of this chapter in Acts.

a) There are a few details written in Acts not disclosed in Galatians, and vice-versa. It does not mean either account is wrong, just simply different details are revealed.

i) I'll try to reveal some of those as we go.

5. We are now on page 3, and I haven't touched one verse yet, which means I'm in big trouble. Let's get going! ☺

6. Chapter 15, Verse 1: Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

a) Remember where we left off back in Chapter 14. Paul & Barnabas finished their
missionary journey, and now they were back at their base camp, which was Antioch. Here they worked with the Gentile-church based there.

b) Now here come these men from Judea. Luke (the author) quotes them in Verse 1.

c) Remember in my introduction I talked about "What is and is not a Christian. We'll here we go right here.

i) The church of Antioch was a young church, with not much experience and knowledge about Jesus or the Old Testament.

ii) Here comes some people from Judea. The locals must have thought, "We'll, these guys are from/near Jerusalem. They must know the Scriptures very well. If they say we are 'not saved', maybe there is some validity to that".

iii) This scenario has played out a lot through Christian history. Some "experts" will come to naïve believers and say, "we'll, if you really want to be saved, you have to do this, this and that."

iv) A typical modern example is how many Christians handle baptism. They will ask how you were baptized? We're you sprinkled or dunked? How many times? You know you're not saved unless you're baptized just the right way?

a) These are examples of "adding works" to your salvation. Such issues are Biblically wrong. Period!

b) "Salvation" is best summarized by Paul in Romans:

(1) That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9 NIV)

(a) In my bible, I underline the "period" at the end of that sentence. There is nothing to add to that.

(2) To me, there is the "salvation" issue and the rest is just debate. Christians can debate all day over baptism, or end-times issues, but they are just that, debate. Salvation is believing Jesus is Lord (not just Savior!) of your live and putting your trust in that fact.

(3) "Adding" to salvation is making issues like "how" you are baptized, or what is "proper" to wear to church on Sundays, or a thousand other things. Every now and then it is good to examine your life and ask yourself "am I adding anything to what God did?" Am I trusting in anything that I do (e.g. church attendance, my own behavior) as a standard for how good I am?

7. Verse 2: Paul's response: 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.

a) To me, one of the most important responsibilities of any pastor is "protecting his flock". It is essential of a pastor of a church to watch out for false teachers, and false doctrines. With that let's hear it for Paul & Barnabas for standing up to these guys!

b) Notice the dispute-resolution being handled in this verse alone. I envision a big yelling-match taking place between the "circumcisers" and Paul & Barnabas. It sounded like the issue was not going to get resolved then and there. Therefore both sides agreed to take the issue to the "head church" for resolution.

i) For those of you familiar with the expression "nip it in the bud", it applies here! Paul & Barnabas knew that this issue would continue unless it was resolved by the church leaders.

c) The interesting thing is, if you study the life of Paul, he was probably convinced he was right on this issue (which he was), and it didn't matter to him what the elders in
Jerusalem said. Paul studied the scriptures, had direct revelations from God, understood what "grace" is all probably better than most Christians of that day. Even if the Jerusalem leaders ruled against Paul, he would have still taught his views.

i) Notice Paul's attitude toward the leaders in Jerusalem, quoting Paul: "As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message." (Gal 2:6 NIV)

8. Verse 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 brothers 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.

a) To recap: "The church" in Verse 3 is the church in Antioch who sent Paul, Barnabas and probably a few others to Jerusalem. On their way to Jerusalem, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria.

i) "The Phoenician and Samaritan Christians, being themselves converts of the Hellenists' (Greek) mission after Stephen's martyrdom (Acts 8:4-25; 11:19), probably took a broader view than that which prevailed at Jerusalem and
rejoiced at the news (of Gentile conversion)." Expositor's Bible Encyclopedia

b) Notice there is 3 groups in Verse 4: "The church, the apostles and the elders".

i) Remember in the last chapter Paul appointed elders in every church he planted. They ran the administrative side of the church. The word "apostle" means "sent ones". "The" apostles are generally defined as those were direct witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. They included more than just the original 11 (remember Judas died prior to the event).

c) Galatians Chapter 2 mentions that Paul took Titus along too. Galatians also mentions there was a private meeting with the church leaders, Peter, John and James, prior to the big meeting to discuss the issue.

d) Notice the modesty of Paul and Barnabas. It is not what they did, but what God did through them. That is a good attitude to remember!

9. Verse 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 obey the law of Moses."

a) If you remember the Pharisees from the Gospel's, Jesus had little or nothing good to say about them. This is a sect of the Jews who were very strict in keeping the law. Remember that Paul himself was a Pharisee prior to his conversion (Philippians 3:5).

i) The good news is that we read here of some Pharisees becoming Christians. Although they were wrong about the circumcision issue (to this point), they did accept Jesus.

ii) Given that Pharisees are engrained in "The Law" and their beliefs, I speculate that it probably took the visible appearance of the resurrected Jesus to change their views. This is another bit of evidence to the physical resurrection of Jesus.

iii) Since the Pharisees who strictly observed the law, I can understand why it was so hard for them to change. Old habits die hard. Also, the issues I brought up in the first 2 pages were a concern. For example, what about the promises to the Nation of Israel?

10. Verse 6, the big meeting begins: The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

a) Anybody who's ever been through a heated-debate meeting knows that there is a lot of passion in the room, and it is very intense. Often, both sides need to vent out their frustrations and know that the other side hears them before everybody can calm down and the issue can be resolved.

i) Ray Steadman has a great quote about this type of situation: "Some people have something to say, and some people just need to say something."

11. Verse 7: After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

a) Give Peter credit. The old impulsive Peter would have spoken early and taken matters in his own hands. This Peter waited until most people had a chance to speak.

i) Peter may have spoken earlier in the debate. Here we have Peter as a leader making a good closing argument.

12. Verse 7 continued, Peter's speech: "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.

a) For those who remember Acts Chapter 10, that is what Peter is referring to here. That was the chapter of "the great sheet coming down from heaven" and the Roman Centurion Cornelius visiting Peter. Peter gave a sermon to Cornelius's family and friends, and they all believed. Finally, the gift of "tongues" came down on all of them. This is also done for Peter's sake, so he could show that the Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit just as Jews were. That is what is being described in these two verses.

i) The "them" refers to the Gentiles. The "us" refers to Christian Jews.

13. Peter continues, verse 9: He made no distinction 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 the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?

a) One of the great questions is "Why did God bother with the Old Testament?" I mean, God could have sent Jesus to die on the cross after Adam & Eve ate the fruit, and saved a whole lot of trouble! ☺ Also, what does this question have to do with Peter's speech?

i) Everything! First of all, it was necessary to show the world in a dramatic way, the God is the only God that exists. Thus, he picked the Israelites, parted the Red Sea, etc. God didn't choose the Israelites because they were better than other people, it was because he needed to demonstrate to the world that God is the only true God, and he needed a people to be a witness to that fact.

ii) Second, God needed to tell what His standards for perfection are. That is where the law comes in. This is why God gave us the 10 commandments only after He demonstrated to the world that He, and He alone is God.

iii) Third, this is where the Old Testament comes in and the main point of Peter's argument: Israel failed to keep the law. Soon after the 10 commandments, "the Golden Calf" was built as an idol. The Israelites sinned so badly that God finally took them out of the land completely and exiled them to Babylon. The Old Testament ends (historically) with the rebuilding of the Temple, and the Israelites committing idolatry after they have returned from Babylon (as described in the Book of Nehemiah).

a) The whole narrative of the Old Testament shows that it is a history of failure on the part of the Jews to keep God's laws. One of the main points of the Old Testament is man's failure to keep God's laws. If you read the laws, they all sound "reasonable" and "do-able". The Israelites agreed to keep them in exchange for preservation. (Going back to what I said about "replacement theology" God made both conditional and unconditional promises to the Nation of Israel.).

b) The Old Testament shows the failure of self-discipline to be righteous before God.

iv) That is what Peter meant in Verse 11 when he said "why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

14. Verse 11, Peter continues: No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

a) Notice the "backwards" argument of Peter:

i) He doesn't say "they" (Gentiles) are saved the same way as us (Jews)

ii) He says' "we" (Jews) are saved the same way as them (Gentiles)

iii) How is that? By the Grace of God! One of the purposes of history is to show how much we need a Savior to pay the price for our sins! History shows the lack of man's ability to live a righteous life outside of the faith that God, and God alone pays the price for your sins.

a) There is an old joke that says, "There are 2 ways to get to heaven. Never mess up even once in your life, and tell Jesus to "move over!" ☺, or
2) Tell God I want admittance to heaven based on what Jesus did for me! You cannot add anything to "#2".

b) Even if you thought you could live the perfect life as described in the laws of Moses, read Jesus interpretation of the Law in Matthew, Chapters 5-7. Jesus himself shows a strict interpretation of the law that is impossible for any man to live up to! That's the point!

15. Verse 12, now different speakers take over: The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

a) If Peter's speech was not validation enough, the undeniable miracles that God has performed through Barnabas and Paul also validated how God was working through the Gentiles. Remember in Jewish thinking "two witnesses in agreement are needed to make something true" (Deuteronomy 19:15).

16. Now it is James' turn to speak, verse 13: When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon (Peter) has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 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 remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' ¹⁸ that have been known for ages.

a) This is James, the half-brother of Jesus. This is the author of the Book of James. James became one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church.

i) This is not the apostle James, the brother of John.

b) Back on the first page, I stated that Chapter 15 is a model for disputes over church doctrines. I argued that the final argument is Scripture itself and the proper interpretation thereof.

i) Everybody has already had their chance to speak.

ii) Peter ended the debate by pointing out the failure of Israel to live the law.

iii) Paul & Barnabas then described how God was working in an obvious way.

iv) Last and most importantly is Scripture itself. If Paul & Barnabas were performing miracles, but their sermons denied the basic foundations of the Bible, then those miracles should be ignored. Period! Scripture is clear on this.

c) The Scripture being quoted is from Amos Chapters 9, Verses 11-12.

i) What was the point of quoting the Scripture? To me, this Scripture verse is the key point of the whole chapter. Commentators generally take two views on interpretation, both of which are Biblically sound.

ii) The 1st view is that this quote from Amos focuses on Jesus' first coming.

a) Amos predicted there would be a day where both Jews and Gentiles would seek the Lord "together".

b) The key line is in Verse 17 that says "that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name,"

(1) "The remnant of men" refers to Jews.

c) Ray Steadman, among others takes the view that these 2 verses have nothing to do with Jesus' Second Coming. Ray believes strongly in the rapture and Jesus Second Coming. He just doesn't believe these issues are being discussed in these 2 verses.

d) One of the rules of Bible interpretation is "a text taken out of