Atos 15
Charles Spurgeon · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 15
Spurgeon - It was time that this question was settled once for all, before division grew up as the result of it. The first question—“Can the Gentiles be saved?” had been answered; the second was the one before us—“Must they not be circumcised?” John MacArthur rightly reminds us that "At various times in its history, the church's leaders have met together to settle doctrinal issues. For example, historians recognize seven ecumenical councils in the first several centuries of the church's existence. Of those seven, perhaps the two most significant were the Councils of Nicea (325 AD), and Chalcedon (451 AD). At those councils, erroneous teaching about the person and nature of our Lord was condemned, and the biblical position carefully defined.As important as those councils were, the Jerusalem Council, described in this chapter, was the first and the most significant of all. For it fixed the most momentous doctrinal question of all: What must a person do to be saved? The apostles and elders successfully resisted the pressure to impose Jewish legalism and ritualism on the Gentile believers. In other words, they forbade the inclusion of works as a part of salvation. They affirmed for all time the truth that salvation is wholly by God's grace through faith alone, apart from any human efforts." (MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Acts) Messianic Jewish commentator Steven Ger writes "That the issue of Gentile believers and their relationship to Jewish believers was still percolating and ready to unexpectedly boil over at the advanced date of late a.d. 49 (or perhaps even early a.d. 50), almost seventeen years since the birth of the church, was a major problem that threatened to throw the church into unprecedented internal crisis. In this pivotal chapter, among the most critical in the New Testament, Luke outlines the impassioned discussion surrounding this conflict and the eventual solution arrived at through the Jerusalem Council by the assembled church leadership." (Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series – The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World) William Larkin writes that "In a day when the cultural diversity of world-class cities is more "stew pot" than "melting pot," the church needs to relearn lessons from the Jerusalem council. These lessons will help the body of Christ seize the moment for further evangelistic advance, for we will be able to model a harmonious cultural diversity that the world with all its ethnic strife can only hope for. Here is great good news for Theophilus and us: a gospel that recognizes diversity yet enables harmonious living based on a higher unity, our identity in Christ. (IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Acts) Swindoll quips that "Whenever you put people together, contention happens. Even in the church. Some might even say especially in the church....The question is not whether a church will have contention, but how a church will move to resolve internal conflict.....How this first generation of believers resolved the conflict would not only affect generations of Christians, but it would also set the precedent for how earnest believers would resolve contention within their own communities." (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Acts) Richard Longenecker gives an excellent background to help understand why serious doctrinal problems began to unfold in Acts 15 - The convening of the Jerusalem Council in approximately AD 49 was an event of great importance for the early church. There can be no doubt that Gentiles were always meant by God to share in the promises to Israel. This is a recurring theme of the OT (cf. Ge 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isa 49:6; 55:5–7; Zep 3:9–10; Zec 8:22). It was the underlying presupposition for all Jewish proselytizing (cf. m. ʾAbot 1:12; Mt 23:15). And it is implicit in the sermons of Peter at Pentecost (2:39) and in the house of Cornelius (10:35). But the correlative conviction of Judaism was that Israel was God’s appointed agent for the administration of these blessings—that only through the nation and its institutions could Gentiles have a part in God’s redemption and share in his favor. And there seems to have been no expectation on the part of Christian believers at Jerusalem that this program would be materially altered. In the experience of the church, all Gentiles who had come to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah had been, with only one exception, either full proselytes or near-proselytes (i.e., “God-fearers”). Only Cornelius’s conversion did not fit the pattern (cf. 10:1–11:18). But his conversion was viewed as exceptional and certainly not a precedent for any change of policy. The practice of preaching to Gentiles directly, however, which was begun by Paul in his mission on Cyprus and throughout southern Asia Minor, was a matter of far-reaching concern at Jerusalem, especially in view of the tensions arising within Palestine after the death of Herod Agrippa I in AD 44. As the faithful remnant, believers in the Jerusalem church naturally expected the Christian mission to proceed along the lines that God had set out long ago. They could point to the fact that, with few exceptions, commitment to Jesus as Israel’s Messiah did not make Jews any less Jewish. Furthermore, sometimes it even brought Gentiles who were only loosely associated with the synagogues into greater conformity with Jewish ethics. (Expositor's Bible Commentary) Williams adds that "“It was one thing to accept the occasional God-fearer into the church, someone already in sympathy with Jewish ways; it was quite another to welcome large numbers of Gentiles who had no regard for the law and no intention of keeping it.” Remember that for the Jews, it was necessary for a Gentile to first become a proselyte (become circumcised and obey the Law) before he would be allowed to embrace Judaism. But the Gospel in effect bypassed this traditional tract leading to conversion, and allowed Gentiles to directly become converts by belief in Jesus. Of course, what confused many of the orthodox Jews was that when the Gentiles converted they did not become Jewish converts but were an entirely new entity, Christian converts that composed the Church. However the Jews saw Christianity as the culmination of Judaism! So the stage was set for dissension and deliberation of the Biblical doctrine of salvation and how Judaism related to the Church. Luke had just ended chapter 14 by telling us that Paul and Barnabas "spent a long time with the disciples." (Acts 14:28). But the "celebration" over God's Gospel of grace was about to come to screeching halt by a group of Judaizing party crashers who announced that God's grace needed a touch of God's Law! Some men - Judaizers from Jerusalem. The designation Judaizer is derived from the verb ioudaizo (used only in Gal 2:14+) which means to live like a Jew, especially according to their customs, traditions, rituals, manners and laws and especially their law demanding circumcision.
Atos 15
Spurgeon - The old leaven showed itself. How closely do old ways and thoughts cling to even regenerate men! Sect (139)(hairesis from haireo = to Take for oneself; cf hairetikos) denotes a choosing or a choice and came to mean an opinion chosen or a tenet generally held to be true and then came to refer to a sect, party or faction that held tenets distinctive to it. The Pharisees were the most influential of the three major Jewish sects (the others being the Sadducees and Essenes). It is interesting that hairesis gives us our word heresy which strictly speaking is "the choice of an opinion contrary to the body of those who profess such opinions." (Vincent) Or as the English definition states heresy refers to "any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position." It is an ironic play on words that the members of a "hairesis" were advocating heresies! Guzik makes the point that "For a Pharisee to really be a Christian, it would take more than an acknowledgment that Jesus was Messiah; he would have to forsake his attempts to justify himself by the keeping of the law and accept the work of Jesus as the basis of his justification. In Lystra, Paul and Barnabas did not allow the pagans to merely add Jesus to their pantheon of Roman gods. They commanded that they had to turn from their vain gods to the true God (Acts 14:14-15). These Pharisees who had become Christians had to do the same thing: Turn from their efforts to earn their way before God by keeping the law, and look to Jesus. You can’t just add Jesus and now say “Jesus helps me to justify myself through keeping the law.” Pharisees (5330)(pharisaios) is transliterated from the Hebrew parash (06567 - to separate) from Aramaic word peras (06537) ("Peres" in Da 5:28-note), signifying to separate, owing to a different manner of life from that of the general public. As
Atos 15
Spurgeon - This is the vital doctrine of Christianity—salvation by grace, and that grace revealed in our crucified Lord. Luther says, “We must not yield nor give up this article though heaven and earth should perish.” Peter’s short and telling speech was a noble contribution to the Gentile cause. Acts 15:9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. KJV Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. NLT Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith NIV Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. nd He made no distinction Acts 14:1,27; Romans 3:9,22,29,30; 4:11,12; 9:24; 10:11-13; 1 Corinthians 7:18; Galatians 3:28; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:14-22; 3:6; Colossians 3:11 cleansing their hearts by faith Acts 10:15,28,43,44; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Heb 9:13,14; 1 Pe 1:22 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries THE IMPARTIALITY OF GOD Impartiality is one God's great attributes whereby He treats all men and women equally, not demonstrating favoritism. God does not show prejudice towards or against any person or party. Moses writes He is "the awesome God Who does not show partiality." (Dt 10:17). King Jehoshaphat of Judah declared "the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality." (2 Chr 19:7). Luke had recorded a similar declaration by Peter about 10 years earlier when he opened his mouth and said "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him (IMPLICIT - WHETHER THEY ARE JEW OR GENTILE)." (Acts 10:34,35+) With an impartial hand, the Lord Deals out to mortals their reward; The kind and faithful souls shall find A God as faithful and as kind. (Isaac Watts - Play hymn) And He made no distinction between us and them - God did not judge one way and then another. He did not differentiate between Jews and Gentiles. He is not partial either to Jews or to Gentiles. He made (makes) no distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised, Levitically clean and unclean! God is in a sense "color blind" and "ethnicity blind!" That's Peter's point to these prejudiced Pharisees!
Atos 15
Spurgeon - “He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.” The Jewish or Pharisaic party violently opposed the gospel. Wherever the apostles went, the Jews who did not believe, being moved with envy, stirred up the people against them. The message of salvation of the Gentiles by grace through faith grated on their ears, for they thought it was contrary to the law of Moses. Believers who used to be Pharisees brought a good share of pharisaic tendencies with them into the church, and these were dangerous to the young kingdom of Christ. Peter, at the great Jerusalem Council, was enabled to answer those who said circumcision was necessary to be saved, and he recounts how he came to that understanding. By God’s instruction, he went and preached to Cornelius and his household, who all became believers. Then Peter told how the Spirit of God rested on them. It was evidently the same Spirit who had descended on the circumcised ones at Jerusalem, since they experienced the same results (Acts 10:46). If the Spirit puts no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, why should the church do so? Peter therefore said, “Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47). He therefore commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord and thus affirmed his belief that faith had purified them. The Jerusalem Council then affirmed this truth of the gospel about Gentiles. Cleansing their hearts by faith - Or purifying their hearts morally speaking and describing man's morally sick heart. The heart of man's sin problem is the problem of his heart. God supernaturally purified the sinful hearts of both the Jews and the Gentiles. He could not have put it more plainly - the cleansing was by faith NOT by works! Peter is essentially giving another description of salvation, but it would have been a picture familiar to these OT experts, for they had read (but failed to comprehend) the great promise from God in Ezekiel 36 (WHICH IS IN EFFECT A PROMISE OF THE NEW COVENANT EVEN THOUGH EZEKIEL DOES NOT USE THAT SPECIFIC PHRASE). Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean (Lxx = katharizo); I will cleanse (Lxx = katharizo) you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes (GOD'S SPIRIT GIVES US THE DESIRE AND POWER - PARALLELS TRUTH OF Php 2:13NLT+), and (NOW GOD DESCRIBES MAN'S PART, OUR RESPONSIBILITY ENABLED BY THE SPIRIT OF GRACE) you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (WARNING: DON'T TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SECOND PART OF THE PROMISE, WITHOUT FIRST LAYING HOLD OF THE CRITICAL FIRST PART OF THE PROMISE - IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRACE AND LAW, LEGALISTICALLY "KEEPING RULE" BUT DOING SO NATURALLY, NOT SUPERNATURALLY. THE RESULT? BONDAGE TO YOUR FLESH, NOT FREEDOM IN CHRIST!) (Ezekiel 36:25-27+) Swindoll adds that "The concept of salvation by grace through faith was not new. God had always wanted His people to have “circumcised hearts” (ED: SEE EXCURSUS) (see Deut. 10:16; Deut 30:6+), instructing them to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). The concept of salvation through faith applied to their patriarch, Abraham, of whom the Scriptures say, “he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6+). Besides, the outward symbol of circumcision applied to Abraham and his descendants as part of a specific kind of covenant. This was a new covenant, one with different terms and applicable to a broader group of people—with “no distinction” (Acts 15:9). (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Acts) Cleansing (2511)(katharizo from katharos = pure, clean, without stain or spot; English words - catharsis = emotional or physical purging, cathartic = substance used to induce a purging) means God made their hearts clean by taking away the undesirable part. To cleanse from filth or impurity. Katharizo was used frequently in the Septuagint to describe ritual cleansing, but also used in the sense of moral cleansing as for example of the Jewish Day of Atonement (modern "Yom Kippur") in Lev 16:30+ where Moses said "it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse (Lxx = katharizo) you; you will be clean (Lxx = katharizo) from all your sins before the LORD." Of course the cleansing on the Day of Atonement was simply a shadow (a type) pointing to the Messiah's perfect and forever cleansing from sin on the Cross (see Col 2:16-17+) Notice that kathaizo is also used in Acts 10:15 and Acts 11:19, where the cleansing of the food pointing to the cleansing of the hearts of the Gentiles by faith. Katharizo is used with the meaning of "moral cleansing" in Acts 15:9 by Paul writing that Christ "gave Himself for (Gk = huper = in place of = speaks of substitutionary atonement) us to redeem (lutroo = to pay a price to buy a slave off the slave block!) us from every (HOW MANY?) lawless deed, and to purify (katharizo) for Himself (WE ARE NO LONGER OUR OWN! cf 1:Cor 6:19-20+) a people for His own possession, (AND WHAT IS OUR PURPOSE NOW? TO BE...) zealous for good ("KNOW" AN "O" OUT = "GOD") deeds (SPIRIT INITIATED, SPIRIT WROUGHT, "BRANCH ABIDING IN VINE" DEEDS). (Titus 2:14+) We see a parallel use of katharizo by the writer of Hebrew = (Heb 9:13,14) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing (katharizo) of the flesh (AS ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT - YOM KIPPUR), (ARGUMENT FROM THE LESSER TO THE GREATER, FROM THE "SHADOW" TO THE "SUBSTANCE") how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse (katharizo) your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (CLEANSING OF THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH WOULD INCLUDE CLEANSING OF THEIR CONSCIENCE). In sum, Peter is a good disciple (which means "learner") for he heard the voice and heeded the voice from Heaven (at least when he heard it the second time!) that "“What God has cleansed (katharizo), no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:14) The context was referring to "clean" and "unclean" foods, now refers to hearts! Peter was now declaring what he had been taught from Heaven. Hearts (2588)(kardia) refers of course not to the physical organ (over 800 mentions and none refer to the physical organ!), but is always used figuratively to center of our personality, to so to speak to our "control center" (to make a play on the "air traffic control center" at the airport which carefully guards and guides what flies in and what flies out. How applicable to our "hearts" which are so prone to wander!). In short kardia refers to the the affective center of our being wherein lies the capacity of moral preference and volitional desire. The kardia generates thoughts that make the decisions which the mind works out. In other words, our logic flows out of our heart-decisions and not vice versa. Gleason Archer called the kardia, the "desire-producer that makes us tick" for it is the place where our "desire-decisions" occur, and which establish who we really are. WHO ARE YOU? HAVE YOU HAD A HEART CHECK UP RECENTLY? We are assiduous to do this medically, but woefully lax in doing it spiritually (beloved, I speak from experience!). But here Peter says it is as God unblocks the spiritual atherosclerosis of our old sinful heart, not by opening the coronary arteries, but by giving us a total heart transplant! Daily confession and repentance are thereafter necessary to avoid "spiritual atherosclerosis" and gradual, subtle hardening of the heart! (Read and practice daily "preventative maintenance" = 1 Jn 1:9+, Pr 28:13+). Gary Hill rightly reminds us that "Life is a continuous contest, waged and won in the heart. As the heart goes, so goes the rest of us. This is true in "both directions": negatively (Jn 14:1, 27; Acts 7:51, 8:21; Ro 1:21) and positively (Acts 16:14; Ro 2:29; Heb 10:22). The heart, as the seat of decision-making, also involves emotions (desires) that are key to making choices....Cognition (the use of the "mind") is vital, but the heart "steers our being" as the primary organ of decision-making. The heart forges our personality ("soul"), intellect ("mind"), and actions ("strength"). Accordingly, the heart is the primary (driving) force in preferring good (Mt 5:28; Ro 6:17), or evil (Mt 5:28). The mind (reasoning) reacts to (works out) heart-choices ("internal persuasions"), but making choices (core-decisions) comes from the heart." (Discovery Bible) Spurgeon on Purifying their hearts by faith - As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him.’ As you believe in him unto justification, believe in him to sanctification. If anybody tells you that you are to get justification in one way and sanctification in another way, do not believe him. Jesus Christ is ‘of God made unto us … sanctification, and redemption’. Pharisees virtually teach us that we are to be sanctified by the law, though justified by faith; but we know better. These are twin covenant blessings and are not to be had apart. Believe in Christ to conquer sin as well as to pardon sin. Believe that the only power which can subdue a base passion in you is the power which washed you from your iniquity of old. Trust Christ with the power of sin as well as the guilt of sin. You need not go through a round of performances in order to be purified in heart; you need not look for a higher life than Jesus gave you when you looked and lived: there is no higher life, for he gave you his own. What more do you want than the Holy Spirit who quickens you? What is higher than that? What more can you have than faith has brought you and will bring you? Jesus has given you himself. Did you believe in half a Christ at the beginning? Did you receive from him a lower and inferior life? Shame on you to think so. You trusted your soul wholly with him, did you not, and did he not give his whole self to you? Do you mean to say that you trusted him to save you from hell, and not from sin? Did you trust him to blot out the past, and were you fool enough to trust to yourself for keeping in the future? If so, you did not believe in him at all; your faith was faulty at the very core, for Christ must be everything or nothing. C H Spurgeon from introduction of his sermon Faith Purifying the Heart (Listen to Mp3) - THE Jewish or Pharisaic party violently opposed the gospel from without. Wherever the apostles went, the Jews who believed not, being moved with envy, stirred up the people against them. They could not endure to hear of the salvation of the Gentiles by grace through faith: it grated on their car, for they thought that this doctrine was contrary to the law of Moses in which they boasted. They were children of the bondwoman, under the old covenant of works, and they could not endure that the children of the promise should come to the inheritance. They struggled and rebelled against the gospel of salvation by grace, for it went against their natural pride and their national exclusiveness. Yea, and even when any of them, as blessed be the grace of God was the case, became converted, the old man was still within them, and the spirit of bondage was still apt to assert itself. Those who had been of the sect of the Pharisees brought a good share of Pharisaic tendencies with them into the church, and these were dangerous to the young kingdom of Christ. I scarcely know whether legal principles were not able to do more mischief inside the church by perverting pure doctrine than they could do outside the church by exciting persecution. One can hardly imagine how the gospel could have escaped being overlaid and smothered by Judaism, like a babe by its mother, had it not been for the preserving grace of God, and the indwelling Spirit within the church of God. Ye know, brethren, how we mourn at this day that certain who claim to be Christians are laboring most zealously to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. They invent pompous ceremonies, observe days and months, and are bound by rubrics and regulations, all of which are an idle and needless servitude to outward forms. Certain others would bind us with creeds and ordinances not plainly taught in the word of God, nor agreeable thereto, of which Peter and John knew nothing whatever, having no force but that which comes of human authority. The old Pharisaic spirit is a great forger of bonds and builder of prisons, it would subject us to ordinances of “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” and fetter us with rules of many sorts: for it cannot understand the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. It teacheth this and it teacheth that, whereof the apostles would have said, “We gave no such commandment.” We must contend against this spirit as much now as ever. Still must we refuse to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Christ is all. We are complete in him, and we will not permit a single letter to be added to his perfect law of liberty. Peter at the great Jerusalem council was enabled through his experience to answer those who said that unless a man was circumcised he could not be saved. Depend upon it, brothers and sisters, there is nothing like practical work for Christ to teach us Christ’s truth. For the most part the heretics of the present day are a clique of literary men, adepts at the pen, but quite unable to speak. It may be that their failure in this direction sours them, and sets them upon opposing the gospel ministry. At any rate they are a set of theorizers who know nothing of practical service for the Lord, and so they make up all manner of nonsense according to their own fancies. They sit in their studies and do nothing, and then criticize those who are doing hard service and are successful in it. They are so busy with nibbing their quills and polishing their periods, that they care nothing about saving souls; and they are so intent upon making discoveries which shall manifest their own gigantic intellects that they cannot soil their hands with practical work among the poor and ignorant. Having nothing upon their hearts their whole nature runs to head, and the head being unbalanced by a busy heart takes to spinning cobweb theories and novelties of heresy. Fiercely liberal, the spirit which they manifest against the orthodox is grandly bigoted: in this they are earnest, but in little else except in engendering grievous errors, which are ravaging the churches and ruining souls. Among the do-nothings all mischief begins. Give a man practical work for Jesus, and keep him at it, and he will, like Peter, learn as he goes on, and, like a river, filter as he flows. Peter could not continue to believe in restricting the gospel to the Jews after the Lord had bidden Cornelius send for him from Joppa, that he might teach him the gospel: his actual service refined his theory. If those who ruled botanical science never saw a flower, would you wonder if they ran into gross heterodoxies of belief? A naturalist who never saw a living animal would not be likely to be very sound in his zoology; and even so, those who never deal with the souls of men, who never see penitents under conviction, nor hear the songs of new-born believers in Christ, nor see men rejoice in affliction and triumph in death, are sure to blunder when they set up for teachers. They lean back in their study chairs and blow bubbles, and vent doubts, to the subverting of the faith of many godly but feeble souls, and all for the want of something better to do. I prescribe as medicine for them, and I heartily wish they would take it, to do something for Christ and the good of fallen men. Peter got out of what would otherwise have been his natural condition of bigotry by being exercised in the service of his Master. Peter tells us how he came to see that circumcision was not needful. At the divine bidding he went in and preached to Cornelius and his household, and while he was preaching they believed. He had not finished his sermon before they had all become believers, and he adds, “God the heart-knower bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he gave unto us.” They believed, and he knew that their faith had purged their hearts; for the Lord sent the Holy Ghost upon them there and then. The Holy Ghost dwells not in unclean hearts, but when the temple of the heart has been purified, there he comes. Though these men had never been circumcised, yet they were purified in heart, for the Spirit of God rested upon them: it was evidently the same Spirit which had descended upon the circumcised ones at Jerusalem, since it produced the same results, “for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” Now, if the Spirit put no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, why should the church do so? Peter therefore said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” He therefore commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and thus affirmed his belief that faith had purified them. He saw that the Lord had given the choicest of gospel blessings to uncircumcised believers, even the power of the Holy Ghost, and therefore he felt that they were to be received into the church without circumcision. Peter’s argument is eminently clear and convincing. You and I cannot be impartial, because we, being Gentiles, are naturally pleased with an argument which includes us in the blessing, but if we were sitting as judges to listen to the pleading of the apostle, I feel sure we should say,-Whether it bless us or curse us, the reasoning is unanswerable: if God would not give the Spirit except the heart had been purified, then these men’s hearts were purified, and it is evident that they were purified by faith alone, seeing that they were uncircumcised and altogether outside the Jewish law. Seeing, then, that they are pure in heart, what need can there be of further purification? What need to lay upon them the outward and visible sign, the putting away of the filth of the flesh, when it is proved by divine witness that they are pure in heart already? It is well argued, Peter, and we rejoice in the conclusion. Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? KJV Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Why do you Exodus 17:2; Isaiah 7:12; Matthew 4:7; Hebrews 3:9 put God to the test Matthew 11:28-30; 23:4; Galatians 5:1 which neither our fathers Galatians 4:1-5,9; Hebrews 9:9 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries REMOVAL OF THE YOKE OF THE LAW! Peter's question in this verse would have reminded the OT experts in the assembly of the words in "painful" Exodus recorded just after Israel had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt - "Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test (Lxx uses same verb as in Acts 15:10 = peirazo) the LORD?”...He named the place Massah (Heb = trial, testing; Lxx = peirasmos) and Meribah (Hebrew literally = strife or contention) because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested (Lxx = peirazo) the LORD, saying, “Is the LORD among us, or not?” (Ex 17:2, 7) Mose repeats this warning at the second giving of the Law warning Israel "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test (Lxx uses the cognate verb ekpeirazo), as you tested Him at Massah." (Deut 6:16) Now therefore - Term of conclusion. Based on what Peter has just stated -- salvation is by faith and the faith that effects God's salvation is no different in Jews or Gentiles so there is no difference in the salvation of a Jew and a Gentile. They are both born from above by God. Peter turns the tables on the Judaizers themselves. Why do you put God to the test - Or as the authorized version asks in very convicting terms "Why are you tempting God?" You can just picture them beginning to wince and squirm! How did they tempt God? As Peter has just stated, God had told him that the Gentiles were cleansed or saved in the same way as the Jews. And yet the argument of the Pharisees was contra faith alone as taught by God Himself. Thus they are "testing" God or as
Atos 15
Spurgeon - What the sun is to the heavens, that the doctrine of a vicarious satisfaction is to theology. Atonement is the brain and spinal cord of Christianity. Take away the cleansing blood, and what is left to the guilty? Deny the substitutionary work of Jesus, and you have denied all that is precious in the New Testament. That we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus - Through is placed at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis. The preposition "through" is dia which means across, successfully across, and in a sense is a picture of a "door" (the grace of the Lord Jesus, a phrase that is synonymous with THE GOSPEL), through which one walks by faith across to the other side from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God's beloved Son. Toussaint observes that "The statement, We are saved, just as they are, is amazing. A Jew under the Law would say the opposite and in reverse order ("they are saved as we are"), but one who knew God's grace, as Peter did, would not say that. Salvation for anyone—Jew or Gentile—is by God's grace (v. 11) and is by faith (v. 9; cf. Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8).' (The Bible Knowledge Commentary) It seems that some believers still have a misconception that the way one was saved in the Old Testament was different from the way one is saved in the New Testament. That is unfortunately a common misunderstanding for salvation in the Old Testament was also by grace through faith in Messiah (looking forward to His sacrifice), and is typified by the salvation of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 which says "Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness (I.E., HE WAS IN EFFECT JUSTIFIED OR DECLARED RIGHTEOUS IN GOD'S SIGHT)." In Galatians 3:8+ Paul explained that "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify (declare righteous) the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” So what did Abraham believe? Clearly he believed the Gospel! Not only that but he was saved in Genesis 15 and circumcision was not given as a sign until Genesis 17. Clearly Abraham did not need circumcision to be saved by faith! Circumcision was a sign and a seal but brought no life or salvation. It was an important symbol, but it could not save. Only faith in Christ can save. Saved (4982)(sozo) means they were delivered from danger and into the condition of safety. So in this verse Peter refers to God's "Operation Rescue," in which He rescued Peter and the other Jewish believers from the penalty and power of sin and eternal ruin and brought safely into His eternal kingdom. He will go on to say that "Operation Rescue" was also offered to the Gentiles. Grace (undeserved favor) (5485)(charis from from chairo = to rejoice. English = charity. Beggars need "charity" as sinners need grace, for we are all spiritual paupers outside of Christ, but "God gives where he finds empty hands"-Augustine [cf Mt 5:3+]) is a word which at its core conveys the sense of favor. Grace in this passage speaks of the Lord's favor, freely extended to give Himself away to sinners because He "ever leans toward them." (Read Lk 19:10+) Adrian Rogers says the best definition of grace that he has ever heard is that God's grace is "both the desire and the ability to do the will of God." Grace in simple terms is God's unmerited favor and supernatural enablement and empowerment for salvation and for daily sanctification. Grace is everything for nothing to those who don't deserve anything. Grace is what every man needs, what none can earn and what God Alone can and does freely give (see Ro 8:32-note where "freely give" is charizomai from charis = a grace gift!). Grace addresses man's sin, while mercy addresses man's misery. The gift of grace makes men fit for salvation, miraculously making separated strangers into God's beloved sons (1Th 1:4+, 1Jn 3:1+, 1Jn 3:2+, 1Jn 3:3+). In the same way as they also are - There is no verb (are) in the Greek, but the sentence reads more literally "even as also they." The intent is clear that the Jews that had been saved were saved in the same way as the Gentiles are saved. Just as God made no distinction in general, here Peter says in essence He makes no distinction specifically regarding how anyone is saved. We all walk through the same "door." Notice how this parallels the words of Jesus Who "left the door wide open" so speak when He declared "I am the door; if anyone (IN GREEK THIS MEANS "ANYONE!") enters through Me (BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH), he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (Jn 10:9) Spurgeon - You expect to hear Peter say to these gentlemen, “These Gentile dogs, as you call them, can be saved, even as you.” No, he turns the tables and says to them, “We believe that you may be saved, even as they.” Suppose some of our members should say, “Yes, we believe that a drunkard may be saved, and a person who has been a harlot, may, perhaps, be saved, too.” But imagine now that I were to stand up and reply, “My dear brethren, I believe that you may be saved even as these.” What a rebuke it would be! This is precisely what Peter meant. A company of Jews have assembled to discuss a certain matter; some of them look very wise and bring up certain suggestions that are rather significant. They say, ‘Well, perhaps these Gentile dogs may be saved; yes, Jesus Christ told us to go and preach the gospel to every creature; therefore, no doubt, he must have included these Gentile dogs. We do not like them, though, and must keep them as much under our rules and regulations as we can; we must compel them to be circumcised; we must have them brought under the full rigour of the law; we cannot excuse them from wearing the yoke of bondage.’ Presently the apostle Peter gets up to speak, and you expect to hear him say to these gentlemen, ‘Why, these ‘Gentile dogs’, as you call them, can be saved, even as you.’ No; he adopts quite a different tone; he turns the tables and he says to them, ‘we believe that you may be saved, even as they.’ It was just as if I should have a company of persons here now who had been very bad and wicked and who had plunged into the deepest sin, but God’s grace has met with them and made them new creatures in Christ Jesus: there is a church-meeting, and when these persons are brought before the church, suppose there were some of the members who should say, ‘Yes, we believe that a drunkard may be saved, and a person who has been a harlot may, perhaps, be saved too.’ But imagine that I were to stand up and reply, ‘Now, my dear brethren, I believe that you may be saved even as these’—what a rebuke it would be! This is precisely what Peter meant. ‘Oh’ he said, ‘do not raise the question about whether they can be saved; the question is whether you, who have raised such a question, will be saved’; ‘we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.’ (Spurgeon)
Atos 15
Spurgeon - These addresses would have great weight in the discussion.
Atos 15
Spurgeon - I wish that the people of God would again awaken to the truth that to gather a people from among men is the great purpose of the present dispensation. It is still true, as James said at the Jerusalem Council, “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name” (Acts 15:14). We are not to cling to the old wreck with the expectation that we will pump the water out of her and get her safely into port. No, the cry is very different. “Take to the lifeboat! Take to the lifeboat! You are to leave the wreck. Then, you are to carry away from the sinking mass that which God will save.” You must be separate from the old wreck, so it will not suck you down to sure destruction. Taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name - BDAG translates it as "God concerned himself about winning a people from among the nations." This is the amazing statement from Jesus' brother James. The verb taking is lambano which means to get hold of something by laying on one's hands or grasping and taking the object in hand. It then merges into the idea that what is take in possessed or acquired. It is a beautiful picture of the unmerited favor of God figuratively reaching down from Heaven with His hand to take hold of a remnant of godless, idol worshipping, pagan Gentiles, forever rescuing them for eternal destruction. And not only does He graciously rescue them, but even more amazing, He gives them His Name, making them His possession (read 1 Peter 2:9+ and Titus 2:14+), bringing them into His family as children of God. Amazing grace indeed! James makes a fascinating play on words for the word people (Greek = laos gives us "laity") was a word that was often used in the context of describing the Jews as the "people of God" in stark contrast to the Gentiles, which were not a "people of God." (cf 1 Peter 2:10) The Gospel changes everything and James under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "gets it!" And so in his calling the despised Gentiles "a people" of God, he doubly shocked his Jewish audience, because for centuries the Jews had carried that honorable title (see Dt 7:6; 14:2; 28:10). And because this was so shocking, and would have been so difficult for the Jewish hearers to "swallow," James will go on to quote from the Old Testament to show that this is nothing new and radical but that it was always in God's heart to have a "people" from among the despised Gentiles! It is also interesting to note the similarity of the phrase "taking from" (literally "taking out") and the meaning of the Greek word ekklesia for "Church" which literally means "called out", a called out people from both Jews and Gentiles. As James asserts "The Gentiles were not to be considered "junior partners" within the church, but share equal status in God's sight. Indeed, this is the definition of the church Paul will later develop (Eph. 2:11-22; Eph 3:6)." (Ger) Acts 15:15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, KJV Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, Acts 13:47; Romans 15:8-12 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JAMES DEFENDS HIS DECLARATION WITH THE WORD OF GOD With this - With what? With the fact that God's plan of redemption of mankind has always included Jews and Gentiles as James has just clearly declared. But as noted above, because it so "unbelievable" especially to the more religious Jews, James will now defend his declaration with the Word of God which the Jews could not refute nor rebut. As discussed below the passage he chose from Amos 9:11-12+ has led to considerable differences of interpretation. The words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written - Notice that James does not say "that the Scripture might be fulfilled as it is written." He is not saying the Amos 9:11-12+ passage quoted in the following passages is fulfilled prophecy but only that other prophets are in agreement with what Amos 9:11-12+ said. There is a big difference! James' response gives us a excellent pattern for how to handle "great dissension and debate." Seek God in His Holy Word and trust that He has a good word to give regarding the disagreement, for in Christ and His Word "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3, cf Pr 30:5). As discussed below James uses a verb which gives us our English word "symphony" explaining in a sense that that Peter and the Old Testament prophets were playing the same tune in "God's symphonic" work known as the "song of redemption." Notice that although James quotes from only one prophet (Amos) in his defense of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, but he uses the word prophets in the plural indicating that this same principle found in Amos could be found (was in agreement) with the other Jewish prophets. For example, the Old Testament taught that Gentiles would share in the promises made to Israel (Ge 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isa. 49:6; 55:5–7; Zeph. 3:9–10; Zech. 8:22). The Old Testament prophets also spoke of Gentile salvation as happening in the last days (Isa. 2:2; 11:10; 25:8–9; Zech. 8:23) through the witness of a restored Israel (Isa. 2:3; 60:2–3; Zech. 8:23). Bock adds that "The reference to the prophets is important. James’s point is not just about this one passage from Amos; rather, this passage reflects what the prophets teach in general, or what the book of the Prophets as a whole teaches. Other texts could be noted (Zech. 2:11; 8:22; Isa. 2:2; 45:20–23; Hos. 3:4–5; Jer. 12:15–16)....God had promised Gentile inclusion; now he is performing it." (BECNT- Acts) Warren
Atos 15
Spurgeon - James summed up the evidence, and the brethren saw their way clear to a decision which was hearty and unanimous. Barnabas and Silas were sent to Antioch with a letter containing the opinion which had been so ably stated by James and supported by the whole body of disciples. Oh, that all disputes among Christians could be settled in such a manner! Silas - This is the first mention of Silas in the Bible, but he pops several more times in Acts (All 13 uses in NT = Acts 15:22; Acts 15:27; Acts 15:32; Acts 15:34; Acts 15:40; Acts 16:19; Acts 16:25; Acts 16:29; Acts 17:4; Acts 17:10; Acts 17:14; Acts 17:15; Acts 18:5). Almost all authorities identify Silas with the name "Silvanus, which is the Latin form of the same name that is Grecized in Silas." (BDAG). Here are the 4 occurrences of Silvanus - 2 Co. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12. Silas/Silvanus -Silas was a Hellenistic Jew before his conversion, and a Roman citizen like Paul (Acts 16:37). For some reason, he remained in Antioch, so that when Paul was looking for replacements for Barnabas and Mark, who had broken with him, Silas was available. On their three-year journey, he preached, was stoned, and was jailed with Paul. They made their way, with Timothy and Luke, through Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth. Silas found his niche in Corinth and remained there, preaching and teaching, after Paul departed for Ephesus. He may have helped compose Paul's letters to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:1).Also called Silvanus, Silas later joined Peter in Rome and may have served as Peter's secretary and co-authored 1 Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Legend has him returning to Corinth, where he became the city's first bishop. He reportedly died in northern Greece. Leading men among the brethren - In Acts 15:32 Luke records "Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message." They had the spiritual gift of prophecy and they utilized their gift! So they are men who know the Word and are able to proclaim the Word in a way that it has practical impact/applicational impact on those who hear. Judas and Silas had delivered the written word from the Jerusalem Council but now it was time for them to give the spoken word. Note that the use of this same Greek word (hegeomai) in Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 indicates that this word is not just a complimentary title. For example in Hebrews 13:7+ the writer encourages his Jewish readers to "Remember (present imperative) those who led you (hegeomai in present tense), who spoke the word of God to you (cf Judas and Silas in Acts 15:32); and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith." Leading (present tense) (2233)(hegeomai from ago = to lead, carry, bring) properly means "lead the way," and in this context describes those who are leaders in the church at Jerusalem. Hegeomai carries important responsibility and hence "casts a heavy vote" (i.e., influence) and deserves cooperation by those who are led (see three uses in Hebrews 13 = Heb 13:7, 17, 24, cf "chief speaker" in Acts 14:12). In secular Greek hegeomai was used to describe the pagan god Hermes as "the leader of the word." The second sense of hegeomai in the NT refers to what is displayed before ("led" before) the mind in priority position for important consideration and evaluation. Thayer says hegeomai "denotes a belief resting not on one's inner feelings or sentiment, but on the due consideration of external grounds, the weighing and comparing of facts." The idea is that hegeomai refers to the consideration or thought one has in mind, which determines how other thoughts or conclusions follow from it. In this sense, hegeomai pictures one giving careful thought to something and not making a quick decision. One can see how the second meaning of hegeomai would be reflected in the person who is designated a leader. THOUGHT - If there was an important mission for the church, would you be selected? Could you be entrusted with leading others? Are you faithful to the Lord and His church? Judas and Silas had the notoriety in the church as being leaders of the church of Jesus Christ. Bob Utley on Silas/Silvanus Silas, or Silvanus, was the man Paul chose to go with him on the second missionary journey after Barnabas and John Mark went back to Cyprus. A. He is first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 15:22, where he is called a chief man among the brethren of the Jerusalem Church. B. He was also a prophet (cf. Acts 15:32). C. He was a Roman citizen like Paul (cf. Acts 16:37). D. He and Judas Barsabbas were sent to Antioch by the Jerusalem Church to inspect the situation (cf. Acts 15:22, 30–35). E. Paul mentions him in 2 Cor. 1:19 as a fellow gospel preacher. F. Later he is identified with Peter in writing I Peter. (cf. 1 Pet. 5:12). G. Both Paul and Peter call him Silvanus, while Luke calls him Silas (the Aramaic form of Saul). It is possible that Silas was his Jewish name and Silvanus his Latin name (cf. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 213). Acts 15:23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. KJV Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: NET Acts 15:23 They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! The apostles Acts 15:4,22 greetings Acts 23:26; Romans 16:3-16; James 1:1; 2 John 1:3,13; 3 John 1:14 brethren Acts 11:18; 14:27; 21:25 Syria Acts 15:41; 18:18; 21:3; Galatians 1:21 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries THE GREETING OF THE LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL And they sent this letter by them - Literally "they wrote by hand" which is an idiomatic way of saying they were sending a letter. THOUGHT - Paul Apple makes a wonderful point in our texting happy, "high tech, low touch" world - "Verbal communication by letter is important – but look how they placed the priority on face-to-face communication – we must make sure we don’t lose this emphasis in today’s world of emailing and text messaging and tweeting – when you are together in person, the communication is so much more effective – how do you show someone you love them? Love letters are great – but they better bring back memories of love expressed in person or excite the anticipation of renewed face-to-face enjoyment – not enough to have a verbal relationship over the air waves." The apostles (ethnos) and the brethren who are elders (presbuteros) - "This letter is the writing out of the judgment of James and apparently written by him as the President." (Robertson) To the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles (ethnos) - Notice the significant play on words brethren to brethren. The point is that there are no racial distinctions in Christ (Read Gal 3:28+). Brethren (adelphos) in this context speaks of those of the same "new birth" and so they are fellow believers who happen to also be Gentiles. As Jack Andrews says "They were accepted in the beloved (Eph 1:6KJV) and they were accepted by the beloved!" Mention of the locations "Syria and Cilicia" indicate that Luke does not record all significant missionary work and church planting that had taken place among the Gentiles in these regions.
Atos 15
Spurgeon - And a great comfort it was, for the saints were confirmed in their freedom from the Jewish yoke, those who troubled them were silenced, and the Gentiles were still further encouraged to receive the gospel. The Antioch Christians had done well to seek a settlement of a vexed question Ye Gentile sinners, ne’er forget The wormwood and the gall; Go—spread your trophies at his feet, And crown Him Lord of all. (Listen to the great old hymn) Acts 15:32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. KJV Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. being Acts 2:17,18; 11:23,27; 13:1; Matthew 23:34; Luke 11:49; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:28,29; 1 Corinthians 14:3,29,32; Ephesians 3:5; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:20 encouraged Acts 2:40; 11:23; 14:22; 18:23; 20:2; Romans 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:11; 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Timothy 2:1; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 2:6-15; 1 Peter 5:1,12 and strengthened Acts 15:41; Isaiah 35:3,4; Daniel 11:1; 1 Corinthians 1:8; Ephesians 4:12,13; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Peter 5:10 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries A WORD OF ENCOURAGEMENT Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves - Earlier Luke told us of prophets in the local church at Antioch writing "Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul." (Acts 13:1) Judas and Silas were prophets in the same sense as these men. Prophets (4396)(prophetes from próphemi = literally to tell beforehand from pró = before + phemí = speak) is primarily a forth-teller or one who speaks God’s message, declaring the mind of God, by calling the people to the authority and sufficiency of God's truth. A T
Atos 15
Spurgeon writes that Paul "would not go out a second time with a faint-hearted deserter, and he was right. Barnabas, believing that John Mark was penitent for what he had done, and would henceforth be faithful, wished to give him another opportunity; and he was right. Now, since these two brethren had each right on his side, neither of them could yield the point without violating his honest judgment, and we do not therefore wonder that the contention grew hot. The Holy Spirit is very considerate in thus recording the difficulties which occurred even among inspired men. How can we expect always to see eye to eye, when Paul and Barnabas differed?) Departed (deserted = CSB, NLT, withdrawn = ESV) (868)(aphistemi from apo = separation of one thing from another + histemi = stand root of English = apostasy, apostasize) literally means to stand off from means to withdraw, to stand off, to forsake, to depart from or to remove oneself from. To apostatize or to fall away from. To withdraw from a place, an association or a relationship. Illustration: In a Dennis the Menace cartoon, Dennis was sulking in the comer during his timeout. He muttered what so many people believe about their own problems, Dennis said, “It’s not my fault that everything is my fault!” The missionaries ran into a major problem! Who was at fault? Who was right? Who was wrong? ILLUSTRATION - Someone gave the great analogy of the Carpenter’s tools that held a conference with Brother Hammer presiding over the conference. During the conference several suggested that he leave the meeting because he was way too loud. Bro. Hammer replied, “If I have to leave the shop, Brother Screw must go also. You have to turn him around and around again and again to get him to accomplish anything.” Bro. Screw spoke up, “If you wish, I’ll leave, but Bro. Plane must leave too. All his work is on the surface and his efforts have no depth at all.” Bro. Plane retorted, “Bro. Rule will also have to withdraw, for he is always measuring folks as though he were the only one who is right.” Then Bro. Rule complained about Bro. Sandpaper. He said, “You ought to leave too because you are so rough and always rubbing people the wrong way.” Then in the midst of the conference the Carpenter from Nazareth walked in and started to work. He put His apron on and went to the work bench to construct a pulpit from which to proclaim the Gospel. He used the hammer, screw, plane, rule, sandpaper, and all the other tools. After the day’s work when the pulpit was finished, Bro. Saw rose and remarked, “Brethren, I observe that all of us are workers together with the Lord.” It is always awesome to see the church of God work together for the glory of God! But that is not always the case. Sometimes there are: disputes that arise, divisions that occur, separations that happen, and departures that take place. Even among the most sincere and faithful servants of God there are times that troubles arise.Sometimes disciples cannot agree on who will serve and where they will serve. (The Jack Andrews Expository Studies – Understanding Acts - Volume 4) Acts 15:39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus. KJV Acts 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; such a sharp disagreement Acts 15:2; 6:1; Psalms 106:33; 119:96; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 7:18-21; James 3:2 and sailed Acts 4:36; 11:20; 13:4-12; 27:4 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries SHARP DISAGREEMENT LEADS TO SEPARATION They could not come together so they came apart! Sadly contentious communication often leads to separations between believers. And do not use this text as a proof-text to excuse Christian quarreling! Brian Harbour says that "These three elements—personality, ‘who’s in charge;’ policy, ‘how things are done” and pride, ‘who gets the credit’ -are at the heart of conflict in the church." Jack Andrews notes that "The whole church had come together on the issue of salvation, but the missionaries couldn’t come together on who would serve." (Ibid) Swindoll - A disagreement is a collision, an ideological crash that occurs when two different personalities drive their agendas along the same issue from opposing directions. That’s not to say that all disagreements occur because one person is wrong and the other right. Sometimes both parties of a conflict are correct yet cannot agree. Consequently, a resolution becomes especially difficult because both people see the issue correctly, just from different points of view. The solution requires clear, objective, respectful, and patient communication and may result in compromise or an amicable separation. Yet, because we are fallen creatures, disagreements can be occasions for Christians to mistreat and hurt each other, even for pillars of the Christian faith such as Paul and Barnabas. Although there is evidence these two missionaries reconciled later, and the goals and methods of both were vindicated in church history, Luke indicates their clash was painful at the time. (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Acts) And there occurred such a sharp disagreement - Literally "There happened a sharp disagreement." The had a "sharp argument, shart difference of opinion." (Louw-Nida). Paul's good idea suddenly leads to a sharp argument. Has this ever happened to you? You offered what you thought was a good proposal, only to find that you had unearthed a veritable "can of worms"? Sharp disagreement (provocation, contention, irritation) (3948)(paroxusmos from para = besides, near + oxuno = literally to sharpen, figuratively to incite or irritate) is a strong word which literally means to sharpen and figuratively speaks of a sharpening of one's mind or incitement to some action. Depending on the context, paroxusmos can have either a positive or negative meaning. In a positive sense, which is virtually the antithesis of the sense here in Acts the writer of Hebrews says "let us consider how to stimulate (paroxusmos) one another to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24+) and of course refers to a rousing of one to activity by incitement or encouragement. In a negative sense as in Acts 15:39 paroxusmos refers to a state of irritation, a sharp disagreement, a "bristly" argument or a provocation between Paul and Barnabas. This Greek word paroxusmos is related to our English paroxysm which describes a sudden uncontrollable attack or violent expression of something, including a violent disagreement. Luke uses the verb form paroxuno in Acts 17:16 writing "Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked (paroxuno) within him as he was observing the city full of idols." It is somewhat ironic that Paul uses paroxuno in 1 Cor 13:5+ to describe love as "not provoked (paroxuno)." But here in Acts 15:39 both men were "provoked" suggesting that love was not "in the air" so to speak! We get some sense of the meaning of paroxusmos for it is used twice in the Septuagint. In Deuteronomy 29:28 (a prophecy of future judgment on Israel) Moses describes how the "LORD uprooted them (Israel) from their land in anger and in fury and in great wrath (Lxx = paroxusmus), and cast them into another land (10 Northern tribes to Assyria in 722 BC, 2 Southern tribes to Babylon in 586 BC), as it is this day." In Jeremiah 32:37+ which is the antithesis of Dt 29:28, God gives they a prophetic promise (yet to be fulfilled) "Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation (Lxx = paroxusmos); and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety (during the Millennium)." Swindoll adds that "Classical Greek medical writers use the word (paroxusmos) to describe a sudden, violent spasm, such as a body-racking cough or an epileptic seizure. The air grew thick with passion as each man convulsed with fiery emotion in response to the other." (Ibid) Pritchard writing on paroxusmos says "This particular word means a violent, hostile, angry, harsh, sharp, bitter disagreement. It’s not as if Barnabus said, “Well, I would like to take Mark.” “I’m not sure that’s a good idea.” “But he’s such a fine boy.” “But he left us.” “Let’s pray about it.” No! They weren’t that nice about it. In fact, the verb is in the imperfect tense, which mean a continual quarrel—unending,unyielding, ongoing,heated, intense, deep disagreement between them. Their argument was continual and it was contentious. They didn’t just argue once and then let it go. They argued over and over again. And the more they argued, the angrier they got. Because Barnabas knew he was right. And Paul knew he was right. That does raise the question, doesn’t it, who is right here? Was Barnabas right or was Paul?" (When Christians Disagree) That (hoste) means "for this reason," and in this case the reason they separated is clear - they were have a "paroxysm"! M R DeHaan said "There is nothing quite so sad as to see two servants of God, after laboring together, facing trials and suffering, come to a misunderstanding over a personality or minor difference of opinion and break up and go their separate ways." Gene Getz - Paul knew they would face the same kind of difficult circumstances, perhaps even worse. He was also well aware that persecution and suffering were going to be an ongoing part of his ministry, wherever he went, among both Jews and Gentiles. The Lord had made this very clear in Damascus following his conversion (Acts 9:16). To Paul, common sense dictated this would not be a wise decision. Barnabas refused to give in and Paul became even more adamant about his own position. They both bristled and exchanged some very heated words....Luke wrote "that they parted company" (15:39). More literally, these two giants in the faith became very irritated with each other because neither would concede. (Men of Character) Of course, we know from Paul's last written communication that he and John Mark had reconciled for some 16 years later (dates are only approximate) Paul tells Timothy "Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring (command) him with you, for he is useful (euchrestos = very profitable, helpful, beneficial same word he used in 2 Ti 2:21+) to me for service." (2 Ti 4:11+, see also Col 4:10+ and Philemon 1:24). How interesting that at the end of his "journey" Paul describes him in a similar way just as Luke had described him at the beginning of their first missionary journey when he wrote that Paul and Barnabas "also had John as their helper (huperetes = an "under-rower" and so an assistant)." (Acts 13:5+) They separated (673)(apochorizo from apo = from + chorizo = to separate) means to part from, split up, move apart, part company, go one's own way. In the only other NT John records "The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up." (Rev 6:14+). Given this use of apochorizo in Rev 6:14, one might say that the words "they separated" is somewhat of a "tame" (weak) translation, for the picture is of these two great men being torn asunder (cf "the sky" in Rev 6:14) signifying a total break at that point in their relationship. John
Atos 15
Spurgeon - There was no help for it but to part. Barnabas went one way with his nephew, and Paul another with Silas. Mark turned out well, and so justified the opinion of Barnabas, but Paul could not foresee that, and is not to be condemned for acting upon the general rule that he who puts his hand to the plough and looks back has proved himself unworthy. This separation, though painful in its cause, was a most excellent thing. There was no need for two such men to be together, they were each able to lead the way alone, and by their doing so double good was accomplished. R. Kent