Atos 15
Warren Wiersbe · Citado em PreceptAustin
Atos 15
Wiersbe wrote, “The progress of the Gospel has often been hindered by people with closed minds who stand in front of open doors and block the way for others.” Are circumcised (4059)(peritemno from perí = around + témno = cut off - see study of peritome) means literally to cut something off or away ("to cut off around"), signifying a removal of that which has been cut away, in this present context clearly referring to the foreskin. TDNT - Non-biblical Use. Attested from the days of Homer, peritémnō means “to cut around,” “to make incisions,” “to encircle with a view to robbing” (e.g., cattle or lands), and then, as a ritual technical term, “to circumcise.” According to the custom of Moses - The mention of the name Moses stirs up images of the Law of Moses. And indeed that is what these Jews were proposing. It was fine be have faith in Jesus the Messiah, but according to dogma one also needed to obey Moses. And so these men begin to mix grace with law, and like oil and water, they simply do not mix! Custom (habit)(1485)(ethos from etho = to be used, to be accustomed) refers to a usual or customary manner of behavior, habit, pattern of behavior which is more or less fixed by tradition or the usual practice. It may be established by law or otherwise generally sanctioned by the society. Gilbrant on the uses of ethos - Ethos carries two basic meanings: (1) an informal sense of “custom,” i.e., “habit." E.g., Jesus’ “habit” (ethos) was to go to the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:39). (2) The second meaning described a formal “custom” or “law.” Luke uses it in this later sense in this passage referring to the custom of Moses (similar uses are in Acts 6:14+; Acts 21:21+; Acts 28:17+). You cannot be saved - The Greek is more literally "you are continually absolutely not able to be saved." In essence, they were teaching no circumcision, no salvation! Can (present tense)(1410)(dunamai) conveys the basic meaning of that which has the inherent ability to do something or accomplish some end. But these false teachers as noted above modified the verb "can" or "could" with a preceding Greek negative particle (ou) which signifies absolute negation. In other words, absolutely no way is the idea. Dunamai is in the present tense which signifies the Word of Truth is continuously able or continually has inherent power to save. Luke has a similar statement writing that… For no (ou = absolutely no) word (rhema) from God shall be void of power (adunateo - essentially the converse of dunamai). (Luke 1:37 ASV) Comment: This verse says not one single Word of God is powerless or unable. Modern translations do not really convey the sense of the power of the Word quite as clearly as the ASV - e.g., the NAS = "For nothing will be impossible with God." The Amplified Version is somewhat better "For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment." Be saved (4982)(sozo) means to be rescued from great peril with added nuances of to protect, to keep alive, to preserve life, to deliver, to heal, and to be made whole. These "Judean Experts" were saying there was no spiritual rescue, no spiritual healing and spiritual wholeness without physical circumcision. Keep the context in mind - On the first missionary journey Luke had used the word "believe" (or related word in the pist- word group) some 10 times - Acts 13:8+ Acts 13:12+ Acts 13:39 Acts 13:41 (negative sense), Acts 13:48, Acts 14:9, Acts 14:22, Acts 14:23, Acts 14:27. While genuine believers can agree to disagree on certain ways of interpreting the Scripture, such as eschatology (study of prophecy), there can be absolutely no disagreement on the foundational soteriological issues (study of salvation), because the fate of souls hangs in the balance between Heaven or Hell, eternal life or eternal punishment. Warren Wiersbe writes that "The progress of the Gospel has often been hindered by people with closed minds who stand in front of open doors and block the way for others. In 1786, when William Carey laid the burden of world missions before a ministerial meeting in Northampton, England, the eminent Dr. Ryland said to him, 'Young man, sit down! When God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine!" More than one Spirit-filled servant of God has had to enter open doors of opportunity without the support of churches and religious leaders." (Bible Exposition Commentary – Be Daring). Related Resources: Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law? What is the Sacred Name Movement? What was the meaning and importance of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)? Christian liberty – what does the Bible say? What is the Hebrew Roots movement? The Hebrew Roots Movement Hebrew Roots Movement - Wikipedia What is 119 Ministries? Tony Merida Outlines Acts 15 Grace Disputed (Acts 15:1-5) Grace Defended and Displayed (Acts 15:6-21) Peter’s defense (Acts 15:7b-11) The defense of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:12) James’s defense (Acts 15:13-19) Grace displayed (Acts 15:20-21) Grace Delivered and Described (Acts15:22-35) (Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary – Exalting Jesus in Acts) Pure Milk As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby. —1 Peter 2:2 Acts 15:1-11,19-21 Recently it was discovered that some milk producers in China had been diluting cow’s milk and adding the industrial chemical Melamine. This chemical was added because it artificially enhanced protein readings. Several infants died and others became seriously ill. Such adulteration is not new. Other countries have been adding Melamine to animal feed for at least 40 years for the same purpose, resulting in the death of animals. Another kind of adulteration is when people add to God’s Word, “the pure milk of the Word” as Peter described it (1 Peter 2:2). The word pure means “unadulterated” or “uncontaminated.” The early church had to deal with those who considered circumcision necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1). That idea was rejected because it was not in accordance with the Word of God, which says that salvation is by grace alone. Peter encouraged his brethren in the Lord: “Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples? . . . We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved” (Acts 15:10-11). Examine carefully any teaching that asks you to do anything more than what is in God’s Word. Otherwise it can be deadly to your spiritual well-being. By C. P. Hia Today's Reflection The Lord has given man His Word, His will He has made known; Let man not try to change that Word With words that are his own. —D. De Haan Gotquestions - Sola fide, which means "faith alone," is important because it is one of the distinguishing characteristics or key points that separate the true biblical Gospel from false gospels. At stake is the very Gospel itself and it is therefore a matter of eternal life or death. Getting the Gospel right is of such importance that the Apostle Paul would write in Galatians 1:9, “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Paul was addressing the same question that sola fide addresses—on what basis is man declared by God to be justified? Is it by faith alone or by faith combined with works? Paul makes it clear in Galatians and Romans that man is “justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law” (Galatians 2:16), and the rest of the Bible concurs. Sola fide is one of the five solas that came to define and summarize the key issues of the Protestant Reformation. Each of these Latin phrases represents a key area of doctrine that was an issue of contention between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church, and today they still serve to summarize key doctrines essential to the Gospel and to Christian life and practice. The Latin word sola means “alone” or “only” and the essential Christian doctrines represented by these five Latin phrases accurately summarize the biblical teaching on these crucial subjects: sola scriptura—Scripture alone, sola fide—faith alone, sola gratia—grace alone, sola Christus—Christ alone, and sola Deo gloria—for the glory of God alone. Each one is vitally important, and they are all closely tied together. Deviation from one will lead to error in another essential doctrine, and the result will almost always be a false gospel which is powerless to save. Sola fide or faith alone is a key point of difference between not only Protestants and Catholics but between biblical Christianity and almost all other religions and teachings. The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of the Bible and a line that divides most cults from biblical Christianity. While most religions and cults teach men what works they must do to be saved, the Bible teaches that we are not saved by works, but by God’s grace through His gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Biblical Christianity is distinct from every other religion in that it is centered on what God has accomplished through Christ’s finished work, while all other religions are based on human achievement. If we abandon the doctrine of justification by faith, we abandon the only way of salvation. “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5). The Bible teaches that those that trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone are imputed with His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21), while those who try to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works will receive the punishment due to all who fall short of God’s perfect standard. Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—is simply recognizing what is taught over and over in Scripture—that at some point in time God declares ungodly sinners righteous by imputing Christ’s righteousness to them (Romans 4:5, 5:8, 5:19). This happens apart from any works and before the individual actually begins to become righteous. This is an important distinction between Catholic theology that teaches righteous works are meritorious towards salvation and Protestant theology that affirms the biblical teaching that righteous works are the result and evidence of a born-again person who has been justified by God and regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit. How important is sola fide? It is so important to the Gospel message and a biblical understanding of salvation that Martin Luther described it as being “the article with and by which the church stands.” Those who reject sola fide reject the only Gospel that can save them and by necessity embrace a false gospel. That is why Paul so adamantly denounces those who taught law-keeping or other works of righteousness in Galatians 1:9 and other passages. Yet today this important biblical doctrine is once again under attack. Too often sola fide is relegated to secondary importance instead of being recognized as an essential doctrine of Christianity, which it certainly is. “Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’ Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘The righteous will live by faith’” (Galatians 3:6-11). Related Resources: Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification - J.I. Packer Grace Alone, Through Faith Alone - Ligonier God Does Not Justify Sinners by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone in Christ Alone to Make Salvation Easy for Us - Thabiti Anyabwile Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. KJV Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. NET Acts 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. NLT Acts 15:2 Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question. ESV Acts 15:2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. Paul Acts 15:7; Galatians 1:6-10; 2:5; Jude 1:3 the brethren determined Acts 15:25; Exodus 18:23; Galatians 2:1,2 some others of them Acts 15:22,27; 10:23; 11:12 should go up to Jerusalem Acts 15:4,22,23; 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Galatians 2:2; Philemon 1:8,9 the apostles and elders concerning this issue Acts 15:6,23; 21:18; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 11:5 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries BIG BROUHAHA BEGINS BREWING! The word brouhaha is defined as "is a state of social agitation when a minor incident gets out of control, sometimes referred to as an uproar or hubbub. Typically, a brouhaha is marked by controversy and fuss that can seem, afterwards, to have been pointless or irrational." This congers up the picture of "much ado about nothing." The definition is a reasonably good description of what began to transpire in the church at Antioch, with the exception that it is far from a "minor incident." In fact is is "much ado about something!" It is a major incident, for the foundations of Biblical salvation were being shaken by the addition of works to grace. Anderson points out that had the Judaizers "succeeded, Christianity would have become but a sect of Judaism, but God ensured that the result of Acts 15 was the salvation of Christianity itself. Unfortunately, most of the branches of Christendom have not learned the lesson even to the present day." (What the Bible teaches – Acts and James) And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them - As an aside Acts 15 begins with a dispute between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas and ends with a dispute between Paul and Barnabas! Not a happy chapter in that sense! Great dissension is more literally the idiomatic phrase "no small dissension" or "no little argument and debate." Think about why this was so significant -- if the "Judaizers" were correct then Paul and Barnabas had been wrong in this evangelistic message, for they had failed to tell the converts that in addition to believing in Jesus, they needed now to live like Jews! This legatistic addition was tantamount to a "declaration of war!" Little wonder that Paul and Barnabas turned on the "afterburners" so to speak! Solomon warned of the danger of dissension writing that "The beginning of strife (Lxx = stasis as in Acts 15:2) is like letting out water, so abandon the quarrel before it breaks out (Lxx = mache = a fight). (Pr 17:14) Larkin calls this sharp dispute "turbulent quarreling" adding that "The behavior of Paul and Barnabas teaches us that it is right to contend for the truth of the gospel in spite of the debate that may ensue. No local church or denomination should settle for politically expedient peace at the expense of doctrinal purity. At the same time, Antioch's decision to appeal to Jerusalem shows us that doctrinal purity maintained in an atmosphere of contentiousness—at the expense of peace—is an equally wrong situation." (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Acts) John Phillips makes an interesting observation regarding the effect of the dissension and debate writing that “The Antioch church was tom asunder, confused, and rendered almost wholly ineffective. That, of course, was Satan’s answer to Paul’s evangelism: paralyze the church with inward strife; direct all energy against other believers; put the church on the defensive, keep it squabbling. It is significant that we have no record at this time of further plans for missionary activity and no record of souls being saved at Antioch. Evangelism had come to a halt.” (Exploring Acts) Although the context is different in Jude, the danger is similar is that false teachers sought to distort the Gospel of the grace of God... Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity (anagke) to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly (epagonizomai in present tense) for the faith (not subjective - believing but objective - what is believed - see the faith) which was once for all handed down to the saints. 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed (pareisduno), those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn (metatithemi) the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.(Jude 1:3-4+) (See What is apostasy and how can I recognize it?; How can I recognize a false teacher / false prophet?) Paul and Barnabas showed the hearts of true shepherds in not shrinking back, but in confronting and refuting the false doctrines of the Judaizers. THOUGHT - Confrontation is not easy but is necessary if the foundation of the Gospel is undermined by false teaching. I was told of a man suspected of being a false teacher and so I simply went to the class he was teaching so that I could hear first hand what he was teaching. I did not ask any questions, but simply listened. He knew I was in the class but never addressed me during the class or after. Within about 2 weeks this false teacher hot-footed it to another Bible church in the area. While I did not follow him, I did call a doctrinally sound man at the church to warn him this man was coming to his church. That was my last contact. This is probably as "easy" of a confrontation that one could have. The point is we need to be willing to speak the truth in love, but we also need to be absolutely certain that what is being taught is heretical. It would be easy to let our personal feelings for another person cloud our thinking and discernment. We need to heed Mt 7:1-2 (my children's favorite passage to quote to me!) but not forget Mt 7:4-5 so we might "see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye." Dissension (4714)(stasis from histemi = to stand) strictly speaking refers to a stance or posture, thus as something which is standing or is in existence (Heb 9:8 = "outer tabernacle is still standing,"). Stasis is used figuratively in this passage to describe a lack of agreement respecting policy, strife, discord, dispute, contention ("a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees and the assembly was divided" = Acts 23:7, "as a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them" = Acts 23:10) Debate (2214)(zetesis from zetéo = to seek) is a word used by the Greeks to indicate philosophical inquiry. However the most common meaning of zetesis in the NT refers to the exchange of words for the purpose of disputing, engaging in contentious, controversial questions. This same word is used in Acts 15:7 "After there had been much debate." All 7 NT uses of zetesis - Jn. 3:25; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:7; Acts 25:20; 1 Tim. 6:4 = "controversial questions"; 2 Tim. 2:23 = "speculations"; Titus 3:9 = "controversies The brethren - The designation brethren is not in the Greek but added for continuity. Undoubtedly the brethren refers to the believers in the church at Antioch, the ones that were being taught in Acts 15:1. Determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them - The NET renders it "the church appointed." In addition to Paul and Barnabas there would be others from the church at Antioch. The church at Antioch also sent some others of their body along with the missionaries, presumably to serve as witnesses. It is interesting to compare some others with Paul's letter to Galatians where he says "I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also....But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." (Gal 2:1,3+). In fairness, it should be noted that there is considerable disagreement as when Paul visited Jerusalem. If he wrote Galatians before the Jerusalem Council then we cannot interpret Gal 2:1,3 as indicating that Titus went from Antioch to the Jerusalem Council. See my comments on Galatians 2:1 which I entitle a "chronological conundrum" because of the lack of consensus. Determined (5021)(tasso) was used in secular Greek of arranging troops or ships in proper position for battle (an interesting use in view of the "word battles" that had begun over what saved a soul!). In the present context tasso meant to appoint or order to a task and both the NET and ESV render tasso as appointed. So the idea is "to give instructions as to what must be done." (BDAG) In Acts 22:10+ the Lord Jesus speaking to Paul said at his conversion "Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed (tasso) for you to do." In English appoint means to assign a duty, responsibility or obligation to someone. Their duty was to resolve the ruckus! Luke has the most NT uses of tasso - Matt. 28:16; Acts 13:48; Acts 15:2; Acts 22:10; Acts 28:23; Rom. 13:1; 1 Co. 16:15 Should go up to Jerusalem - This description of "go up to Jerusalem" is the antithesis of "came down from Judea," (Acts 15:1). To go up to Jerusalem they would have to traverse some 300 miles from Antioch in Syria to ascend the hill into Holy City. This would have been a "lively" journey filled with interchanges regarding the two opposing views and one can only imagine the vigorous debating that went on during this 10 day trip (+/- 10 days because a person can log 20-30 miles per day on foot). To the apostles and elders concerning this issue - The apostles in this context refers to the official apostles such as Peter, John and James, men who had walked with Jesus in His 3 year ministry and who had spent time with Him after His resurrection. Note the designation of elders indicating that by this time the church in Jerusalem presumably had appointed elders, much like Paul and Barnabas had done in the newly planted churches in Galatia (Acts 14:23+). Apostles (652)(apostolos from apostello = send in turn from apo = off from + stello = send) which literally means "sent one". Apostolos was a technical word designating an individual sent from someone else with the sender's commission, the necessary credentials, the sender's authority and the implicit responsibility to accomplish a mission or assignment. In a word an apostle is a "sent one!" THOUGHT - Beloved, are we not all "SENT ONES" in a practical sense? Indeed, As far as your neighbors are concerned, YOU are Christ's ambassador, whether you like it or not. And who is your neighbor? Whoever is near (the root meaning of the word neighbor! See neighbor = plesion) We have a charge to proclaim the excellencies of Him Who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light (1Pe 2:9-10+) We are to live in such a way before the fallen world that we "sanctify Christ as Lord in (our) hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks (us) to give an account for the hope that is in (us), yet with gentleness and reverence." (1Pe 3:15+) May God grant that our watchword be "Here I am Lord. Send me!" (Isa 6:8+, cp 1 Cor 1:17) Take courage, for you do not have to do it on your own...just follow the template of the faithful brethren and "filled with the Holy Spirit, (begin) to speak the Word of God (the Gospel) with boldness." (Acts 4:31+, cp Acts 1:8+, Acts 9:28+, Acts 14:3+, Acts 18:26+, Acts 19:8+, Eph 6:20+, 1Th 2:2+) A. B Simpson said that the Gospel, “Tells rebellious men that God is reconciled, that justice is satisfied, that sin has been atoned for, that the judgment of the guilty may be revoked, the condemnation of the sinner cancelled, the curse of the Law blotted out, the gates of hell closed, the portals of heaven opened wide, the power of sin subdued, the guilty conscience healed, the broken hearted comforted, the sorrow and misery of the Fall undone.” Acts 15:3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. KJV Acts 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. NLT Acts 15:3 The church sent the delegates to Jerusalem, and they stopped along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers. They told them-- much to everyone's joy-- that the Gentiles, too, were being converted. being sent on their way by the church Acts 21:5; 28:15; Romans 15:24; 1 Corinthians 16:6,11; Titus 3:13; 3 John 1:6-8 were passing through Acts 8:14; 11:19 describing in detail Acts 15:12; 14:27; 21:19,20 were bringing great joy to all the brethren Acts 11:18; 13:48,52; Isaiah 60:4,5; 66:12-14; Luke 15:5-10,23,24,32 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Antioch to Jerusalem THE TIMES ARE A'CHANGING In 1964 a young Jewish man named Bob Dylan popularized a song entitled "The Times are A'Changing" which is in essence the message that received a warm reception among the Jewish believers in Phoenicia and Samaria as they heard good news of the reception of the good news by the Gentiles! Ger writes that "The stakes could not have been higher. The ultimate question on the table was nothing less than whether the church should be identified as either the righteous remnant of Israel or a completely new and unanticipated creation which, while distinct from Israel, was composed of both a righteous Jewish remnant as well as a righteous element of Gentiles." (Ibid) Therefore, being sent on their way by the church - The text does not say, but given the import of this great dissension, the church likely did what they did before they sent Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey. And what did they do? "They were ministering to the Lord and fasting...they had fasted and prayed." (Acts 13:2-3+) There is nothing "magic" about fasting, but it does hone your spiritual senses and allow you to better focus on God's Word and Will. They were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria - Notice that passing through indicates they traveled by foot and not by sea. From Acts 11:19 we can deduce that most of the believers in Phoenicia (a Gentile region) were Jews (Hellenized Jews) who had scattered following Stephen's martyrdom and Jewish traditions would not have been as entrenched as with the Jews in Jerusalem. In Samaria the party encountered Samaritan believers, those who were generally despised by the orthodox Jews. Notice that while they were passing through, they did not do so without intentionality and purpose but were taking time"describing in detail" what God had done. THOUGHT - Oh, how we need to see the various places and circumstances we are passing through as opportunities to redeem in some way for the glory of God and the growth of His Kingdom! What a difference that would make in our Christian life if we sought such a Spirit led and Spirit empowered mindset 24/7! One of my favorite phrases in Psalms is Ps 107:2 "Let the redeemed of (delivered by) the LORD say so, whom He has redeemed (delivered) from the hand of the adversary," and this is exactly what Paul and Barnabas were doing! From the map above note the party would have traveled along the coast (where Phoenicia was located) through the major cities of Sidon, Tyre, Acco (Acre) and then to Shechem in Samaria. Describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles - While there may have been some discussion of the debate over the need for circumcision, Paul and Barnabas chose to "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive" ("Brethren and sistern, be seated. Gather around me everybody while I preach a sermon...the topic will be sin and that's what I'm agin...when everything looked so dark they said "We've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and latch on to the affirmative and don't mess with "Mr. In-Between."!" give it a listen because you are not likely to hear a song like this anytime in 2019!) and described in detail the Gentile conversions and in so doing they redeemed the time wisely. Describing in detail (1555)(ekdiegeomai from ek - out + diegeomai) is used only here and Acts 13:41+ (quoting from Septuagint of Hab 1:5+) and means to tell or describe in detail. There are 4 uses in the Septuagint - Job 12:8; Ps. 118:17; Ezek. 12:16; Hab. 1:5+. The present tense pictures Paul and Barnabas continually describing in detail the Gentile reception of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the true and living God!
Atos 15
Wiersbe comments "We get the impression that Peter sat patiently while the disputing ("questioning") was going on, waiting for the Spirit to direct him. "He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" (Pr. 18:13NKJV). (Bible Exposition Commentary) Peter stood up and said to them - "Peter steps up first (surprise, surprise!)." (Merida) Stood up describes Peter in Acts 1:15+ standing up in the midst of the brethren (anistemi in both verses). Peter is now about to make his last appearance in the book of Acts. While it is James (the brother of Jesus) who presides over this meeting, Peter takes the initiative as he has had a similar experience 10 years earlier with Judaizers who accused him when he had come up to Jerusalem and those Jews ("who were circumcised") took issue with him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:2-3+) Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you - Peter first reminds the assembly of past Gentile conversions. The phrase in early days is an idiom which literally reads "from ancient days." The choice among you that God made was that Peter would proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles. Some suggest the time phrase means at the beginning of time, but others feel it refers to the fact that it has been about 10+ years since Peter first spoke the Gospel to Cornelius (about 38 AD and it is now about 49 AD). And so it is fitting that Peter speaks because he had already received full approval from the congregation in Jerusalem against the Judaizing legalists in Acts 11:18+ Luke recording "When they heard this (that God gave the Gentiles the same gift as He gave the Jews - Acts 11:17+), they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” Wiersbe - Jesus had given the keys of the kingdom to Peter (Matt. 16:19), and he had used them to open the door of faith to the Jews (Acts 2), the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), and the Gentiles (Acts 10). (Bible Exposition Commentary) Toussaint comments that "The issue of whether to accept Gentiles was settled then and there (AT THE CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS)."
Atos 15
Wiersbe - God erased a difference (Acts 15:9, 11). For centuries, God had put a difference between Jews and Gentiles, and it was the task of the Jewish religious leaders to protect and maintain that difference (Lev. 10:10; Ezek. 22:26; 44:23). Jesus taught that the Jewish dietary laws had nothing to do with inner holiness (Mark 7:1-23), and Peter had learned that lesson again when he had that vision on the housetop in Joppa (Acts 10:1ff). (Bible Exposition Commentary). Made (no) distinction (1252)(diakrino from diá = separation, "thoroughly back and forth" + kríno = distinguish, decide, judge) literally means "to separate throughout or wholly", to judge "back and forth" between two which can either (positively) refer to close-reasoning (discrimination) or negatively "over-judging" (going too far, vacillating). The context indicates which sense is meant. In the present context diakrino is coupled with a negative meant that God concluded that there was no difference between Jew and Gentile believers. Diakrino is used in Acts 10:20 (of the Holy Spirit telling Peter to go "without misgivings") and in Acts 11:2 ("when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him" - similar to our current scenario!). Don't miss the little Greek word for "no" (oudeis = literally "not one") is critical for it is the stronger word for negation (then "me"). This powerful negating conjunction rules out by definition or in other words "shuts the door" objectively leaving absolutely no exceptions. And so oudeis categorically excludes distinction, declaring as a fact that no valid example of divine distinction exists now or ever! Strong rebuttal by Peter! Oudeis is the very word Peter had used before the Sanhedrin when he categorically declared there is salvation in no one (oudeis) else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) This is also the word Paul used when he made the famous declaration (which I personally think was part of the "secret" of his strong finish) "But I do not (OUDEIS) consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God." (Acts 20:24+) Peter now moves to the subject of "cleansing" which was a sensitive issue with the legalists who were primarily focused on the external aspects of cleansing. He has just stated that God does not see as man sees, for God looks at the heart of man, the spiritual center of his being (cf 1 Sa 16:7). And since God can see the filth in the hearts of men, He cleanses them of that filth when they believe the Gospel. This is where all true spiritual cleansing occurs, by faith in the Gospel.
Atos 15
Wiersbe comments explains the reason for the yoke stating that "the Law was given to the Jewish nation to protect them from the evils of the Gentile world and prepare them to bring the Messiah into the world (Gal. 4:1-7). The Law cannot purify the sinner's heart (Gal. 2:21), impart the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:2), or give eternal life (Gal. 3:21). What the Law could not do, God did through His own Son (Ro 8:1-4). Those who have trusted Christ have the righteousness of God's Law in their hearts and, through the Spirit, obey His will. They are not motivated by fear, but by love, for "love is the fulfilling of the Law" (Rom. 13:8-10)." (Ibid) David
Atos 15
Wiersbe - If you will review the record of the first missionary journey (Acts 13-14), you will see that the emphasis is on what God did in response to men's faith. See Acts 13:8, 12, 39, 41, 48; 14:1, 22-23, 27. Note also the emphasis on grace (Acts 13:43; 14:3, 26). God opened for the Gentiles "the door of faith," not "the door of Law." For that matter the Antioch church, which commissioned Paul and Barnabas, was founded by people who "believed and turned unto the Lord" (Acts 11:21) and experienced the grace of God (Acts 11:23). They were saved the same way sinners are saved today, "by grace, through faith" (Eph. 2:8-9). (Ibid) A simple overview (I realize it does not look "simple" but it is far less detailed than most lexicons) of the various senses of the preposition dia which can have many nuances in the NT... Through (1223)(dia) is a preposition occurs about 670 times in the NT as a preposition with the genitive and accusative cases. in the NT and over 1500 times in the Septuagint. The majority (225x) of NT uses are translated with the English word "through." Click for partial list of NT uses of dia (Mt thru Romans 5:11). Dia is used with two Greek noun cases - (1) with the genitive case dia can motion through a place (see summary below) or describe the instrument of an action (by, by means of) (Stated another way dia with this meaning introduces the intervening agent or "instrument" as the necessary "go-between"). (2) with the accusative dia gives the basis of an action = on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of; through, Luke 17:11 For more in depth discussion click here for 4 pages on "Dia" in the Dictionary of New Testament Theology (volume 3, page 1180) Here is an excerpt - Originally dia signified “passing through and out from,” a sense reflected in Matt. 4:4 (“… every word that proceeds from [ekporeuomenō dia] the mouth of God”) and 1 Cor. 3:15 (“he himself will be saved, but only as one who escapes through fire,” dia pyros)....Means or Instrument. From the local sense of dia there naturally developed the instrumental sense, which marks the medium through which an action passes before its accomplishment. Summary of meaning of dia when used with different cases - A. WITH GENITIVE CASE - I. of place (implies motion through a place usually and logically usually after verbs of motion like going, coming, etc) = through - Mt 2:12,12:43; Lk 5:19; 6:1; Jn 10:1f; Acts 9:25; 20:3; Ro 15:28; 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 11:29; throughout = 2 Cor 8:18; out of = Mt 4:4 II. a marker of extension in time— 1. to denote extent (of a whole period of time, to its very end) = through, during, throughout Lk 5:5 (= "all night" - ; Acts 23:31; Heb 2:15; Heb 9:6. 2. to denote a period of time within which something occurs = During - Acts 5:19, 16:9, 17:10, Lk 9:37, within 3 days = Mt 26:61, Mk 14:58 3. to denote an interval of time = after - Mk 2:1+; Acts 24:17+; Gal 2:1+ III. of means = instrument, agency = by means of, through, with, by, via (of the instrument or intermediate cause, between the act of the will and the effect, and through which the effect proceeds). In this use dia functions as a marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby something is accomplished or effected 1. of means, instrument, manner (overlaps with #4 below) - Mt 2:15, 17, 23 ("by means of the prophet"); Acts 1:16; 15:27; 20:28; 1 Cor 16:3; 1 Pe 1:7; 2 Jn 12; in Lk 8:4. 2. of attendant circumstance = with Ro 2:27; 8:25; 14:20; 2 Cor 2:4; in a state of Ro 4:11. 3. of efficient cause = through, because of, via, by means of = Ro 3:20; 7:5; Ro 7:8, 11, Ro 3:27, 1 Cor 1:21; 1 Cor 4:15; Gal 2:16, 2:19, 5:6. Heb 7:11; Frequently "through faith" - Ro 1:12; 3:22, 25, 30-31; Gal 2:16; 3:14, 26; Eph 2:8; 3:12, 17. By or through the will of God = Ro 15:32; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:5; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 2 Ti 1:1. 4. of persons serving as the agency or agent (e.g., frequently of things spoken through prophets) = by, through - Mt 2:15; Acts 11:28; Ro 1:5; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 1:1; 3:19; Heb 2:2; in the presence of 2 Ti 2:2; represented by Ro 2:16. B. WITH ACCUSATIVE CASE I. of place, marker of extension through an area = through Lk 17:11. II. to indicate the reason why something happens, results or exists = because of, for the sake of, on account of - Mt 10:22; 15:3, Mk 2:27 ("for" = for the sake of); Lk 23:25; Acts 21:34. Out of Mt 27:18; Jn 7:13; Phil 1:15. (dia ti = why? Mk 2:18; Lk 5:30; Jn 7:45; 1 Cor 6:7. See below also the combination dia touto which often has the sense of for this reason. Dia in combination - 1. Dia pantos (a) regularly: an idiom, literally 'through all' or (b) always: continually (All NT occurrences of dia pantos = Matt. 18:10; Mk. 5:5; Lk. 24:53; Acts 2:25; Acts 10:2; Acts 24:16; Ro 11:10; 2 Th 3:16; Heb 2:15 = "all their lives" (throughout their lifetime); Heb. 9:6; Heb. 13:15) 2. Dia touto = for this reason, therefore (Matt. 6:25; Matt. 12:27; Matt. 12:31; Matt. 13:13; Matt. 13:52; Matt. 14:2; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:34; Matt. 24:44; Mk. 6:14; Mk. 11:24; Mk. 12:24; Lk. 11:19; Lk. 11:49; Lk. 12:22; Lk. 14:20; Jn. 1:31; Jn. 5:16; Jn. 5:18; Jn. 6:65; Jn. 7:22; Jn. 8:47; Jn. 9:23; Jn. 10:17; Jn. 12:18; Jn. 12:27; Jn. 12:39; Jn. 13:11; Jn. 15:19; Jn. 16:15; Jn. 19:11; Acts 2:26; Rom. 1:26; Rom. 4:16; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 13:6; Rom. 15:9; 1 Co. 4:17; 1 Co. 11:10; 1 Co. 11:30; 2 Co. 4:1; 2 Co. 7:13; 2 Co. 13:10; Eph. 1:15; Eph. 5:17; Eph. 6:13; Col. 1:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Thess. 3:5; 1 Thess. 3:7; 2 Thess. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:16; 2 Tim. 2:10; Phlm. 1:15; Heb. 1:9; Heb. 2:1; Heb. 9:15; 1 Jn. 3:1; 1 Jn. 4:5; 3 Jn. 1:10; Rev. 7:15; Rev. 12:12; Rev. 18:8) 3. Dia ti = why? - Matt. 9:11; Matt. 9:14; Matt. 13:10; Matt. 15:2; Matt. 15:3; Matt. 17:19; Matt. 21:25; Mk. 2:18; Mk. 7:5; Mk. 11:31; Lk. 5:30; Lk. 19:23; Lk. 19:31; Lk. 20:5; Lk. 24:38; Jn. 7:45; Jn. 8:43; Jn. 8:46; Jn. 12:5; Jn. 13:37; Acts 5:3; Rom. 9:32; 1 Co. 6:7; 2 Co. 11:11; Rev. 17:7 ( Acts 15:13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. KJV Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: NLT Acts 15:13 When they had finished, James stood and said, "Brothers, listen to me. after 1 Corinthians 14:30-33; James 1:19 James Acts 12:17; 21:18; Mark 15:40; Galatians 1:19; 2:9,12; James 1:1 Brethren Acts 2:14,22,29; 7:2; 22:1 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries LISTEN UP! Unlike Paul when he spoke his first recorded sermon in the synagogue, began by standing up and "motioning with his hand" saying " Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen." (Acts 13:16). Peter had made a similar motion when he described his miraculous escape from Herod's prison (Acts 12:17). James simply says "Brethen, listen to me." After they had stopped speaking - To whom does this refer? The context might suggest the missionaries, but most writers interpret this as a description of others in the assembly who spoke up. As
Atos 15
Wiersbe has an interesting note that "James had strong leanings toward the Law (there are at least ten references to law in his epistle), so he was most acceptable to the legalistic party in the Jerusalem church." Along this same line it is interesting that James in his letter would later emphasize that saving faith always issues in good works, and in so doing he gave the proper Biblical balance for works, emphasizing that faith alone saves, but the faith that truly saves is not alone but is evidenced by good works (James 2:14-26+, cf Paul's words in Eph 2:8-9+ of salvation by grace through faith and Eph 2:10+ this salvation leads to good works). Steven Ger elaborates on James noting that "Although he had not been a disciple during his brother's earthly ministry, James became a believer following his Jesus' death, perhaps at the moment when Jesus made an individual post-resurrection appearance to him (1 Cor. 15:7). James led the Jerusalem church for eighteen years, from a.d. 44-62, rising to prominence following the dispersion of most of the apostles to their respective itinerant ministries. Church tradition remembers his nickname of James "the Just," or "the Righteous." Pious, ascetic and devout in his adherence to Torah, he was well esteemed throughout Jerusalem, respected in both Christian and non-Christian circles. Another exceptional church tradition records the detail that his calloused knees were as hard as a camel's from time spent kneeling in prayer. He was the author of the epistle of James, much of which robustly echoes the ethics of his brother's Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). The facility he demonstrates with Greek in his epistle suggests a higher level of education than is commonly assumed was possessed by Galilean craftsmen, leading many to reconsider the impact of the Greco-Roman-Galilean cultural matrix in which James was raised, as well as to revisit our perception of the educational preparation of Jesus. (Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary – The Book of Acts: Witnesses to the World) F F Bruce suggests in regard to James as the leader “The church’s readiness to recognize his leadership was due more to his personal character and record than his blood relationship with the Lord.” Brethren, listen to me - I love the old KJV rendering "Hearken unto me" the usual appeal for attention. James now will present his resolution. After calling the brethren, he gives a command (aorist imperative) to hear, with the implication of to heed what he is about to say about this crucial matter.
Atos 15
Wiersbe - James quoted Amos 9:11+ during the Jerusalem conference when the leaders discussed the matter of the place of the Gentiles in the church (Acts 15). The question was, “Must a Gentile become a Jew in order to become a Christian?” But note that James did not say that Amos 9:11 was fulfilled by the Gentiles’ coming into the church, but that the prophets (plural) agreed with the Gentiles’ being a part of the church (Acts 15:13–18). After all, if believing Gentiles are one day going to be a part of the Messianic Kingdom (David’s dynasty restored), why can’t they be a part of the church today? Why should they be forced to become Jewish proselytes in order to become Christians? However, some interpret Amos 9:11 and the words of James to mean that the church is the “tabernacle of David” so that the Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom are now fulfilled in the church. How the church is like David’s kingdom “as in the days of old” is difficult to understand, and the references to Edom (Amos 9:12+) and the fruitfulness of the land (Amos 9:13–15+) are also difficult to apply to the church. (Commentary on Amos - Be Concerned) Is written (1125)(grapho from root graph- = engrave as on reports, letters; English = graphic) means to engrave or inscribe with a pen or stylus characters or letters on a surface which can be wood, wax, metal, leather, stone, parchment, dirt, paper, etc. The great phrase It is written occurs 76 times in the NAS. When we were children and our parents told us to do something and we questioned "Why?", the answer was usually "Because I said so!". Why are we commanded to be holy? Because God said so! A popular saying is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." This sounds good but isn't accurate because God's Word is true, regardless of whether we believe it or not. A more accurate "saying" would be "God said it, that settles it!" It is written should put a stop to every complaint or excuse which is indeed James' intention! One other important observation is that the verb grapho is in perfect tense (gegraphtai) signifying that God's Word has been written down at a point of time in the past (in this case the prophecy in Amos 9:11-12) and remains on record as the eternal, unchanging Word of God. It stands written! Indeed, as the psalmist declared "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. " (Ps 119:89) THOUGHT - Beloved, does this truth found in the perfect tense of grapho not give you great assurance that regardless of what trials you are walking through today, will deliver you "from every evil deed, and will bring (you) safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen." (2 Ti 4:18+) and so you can be "confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.." (Php 1:6+, cf 2 Ti 1:12+, 1 Th 5:24+). Play Steve Green's great rendition of "He Who Began a Good Work". THE PROPHETS ARE IN HARMONY Agree (in harmony with)(4856)(sumphone from sun = together, speaks of intimate association + phoneo = make a sound) literally means to sound together or share the same sound. Vine writes that the idea is "to be in accord, primarily of musical instruments" and so to be in harmony or unison. Peter's testimony (and that of Barnabas and Paul) is in perfect harmony with that of the prophet Amos (who James quotes) Peter himself had used this same word sumphone in describing Ananias and Sapphira's "sinister symphony" (Acts 5:9+) In other words the NT fulfilment is in harmony with the OT prophecy. J Vernon McGee will go on to quote Amos 9:11-12 - Notice that he did not say that the calling out of the Gentiles was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos, but rather that it agreed with the words of the prophets. The assembly should not think it a strange thing that God should visit the Gentiles with salvation, because this had been clearly predicted in the OT. God had foretold that Gentiles would be blessed as such, and not as believing Jews. The quotation from Amos looks forward to the Millennium, when Christ will sit upon the throne of David and when the Gentiles will seek after the LORD. James did not intimate that this prophecy was being fulfilled at the time he spoke. Rather, he said that the salvation of Gentiles which was then taking place was in harmony or agreement with what Amos said would take place later. (Thru the Bible) Acts 15:16 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, KJV Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: After these - Amos 9:11,12 rebuild the tabernacle 2 Samuel 7:11-16; 1 Kings 12:16; Psalms 89:35-49; Isaiah 9:6,7; Jeremiah 33:24-26; Ezekiel 17:22-24; Zechariah 13:8; Matthew 1:20-25; Luke 1:31-33,69,70 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JAMES QUOTES THE PROPHET AMOS James will now demonstrate that what Peter has stated is in perfect harmony with the Word of God written by a Jewish prophet. This is a very difficult verse and the battle rages over how James used this specific Old Testament Scripture. We will have to agree amicably to disagree about some of the details but at the same time remaining unified in the truth that Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the Law. That was the main thrust of James in this difficult to interpret passage. And so in Acts 15:16-18 James quotes from Amos 9:11-12 (see commentary) but he quotes not from the Hebrew Masoretic text but from the Septuagint version, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which reads somewhat different when compared to the Hebrew. Here is the NAS translation that is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text: “In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name,” Declares the LORD who does this. Here is the English translation of the Septuagint rendering of Amos 9:11-12 with the two major differences in bold: "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men (INSTEAD OF EDOM), and all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things." Lest me miss the main point because of the confusion and various interpretations of James' quoting Amos 9:11-12, we need to keep in mind that his main purpose for quoting this passage is to show to the legalistic Jews that God has always promised a place for the Gentiles in His plan of redemption and in that plan they did not have to first become Jewish proselytes but were simply to earnestly seek Him. The Table below compares the Hebrew, the Septuagint and James' translation. COMPARISON OF AMOS 9:11-12 IN ACTS 15:16-18 Translated from Hebrew Translated from the Septuagint (NETS) Luke’s Account of James’s Citation In that day On that day After these things I will return, I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and wall up its breaches I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, I will also raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old; and rebuild its ruins and raise up its destruction, and rebuild it as the days of old and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name in order that those remaining of humans and all nations upon whom my name has been called might seek out me so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name declares the LORD who does this. says the Lord who does these things. says the Lord. Note that James has mankind instead of Edom and seek instead of possess. The Hebrew consonants for "Edom" (H123) and for "Adam" (H120) are identical (ʾd̠m) And the original Hebrew texts was written without vowels which were added much later. The confusion in the vowels ("A" or "E" were added much later) is easy to understand. Some ancient scribes who supplied vowel markings for the Hebrew text upon which our English translations of the Old Testament rest apparently understood the text as “remnant of Edom,” while others, including the Septuagint translators and James, understood it as “remnant of mankind.” Similarly the only distinction in the Hebrew between "possess" (yāraš) and "seek" (d̠āraš) is in one consonant. The text James used may well represent the original. Notice that James begins with the words "After these things I will return," and these words are not the original Hebrew or Septuagint. James substitutes "after these things" for the original "in that day" and also adds the words "I will return." Stanley Toussaint comments on the major problem, which is not the text per se but the interpretation of the text: Several observations need to be noted before the passage is interpreted: (1) James did not say Amos 9:11-12 was fulfilled in the church; he simply asserted that what was happening in the church was in full agreement with the Old Testament prophets. (2) The word "prophets" is plural, implying that the quotation from Amos was representative of what the prophets in general affirmed. (3) James' main point is clear: Gentile salvation apart from the Law does not contradict the Old Testament prophets.... Bible students interpret these verses in one of three ways. (1) Those who hold to amillennial theology say the rebuilt house (skēnēn, "tent") of David is the church which God is using to preach to the Gentiles. While this view at first appears plausible, several factors oppose it. (1) The verb return (anastrepsō) used in Acts 15:16 means an actual return. Luke used it only in Acts 5:22 ("went back") and here (he did not use it in his Gospel); in both occurrences it describes a literal, bodily return (ED: IF ONE INTERPRETS THE TEXT LITERALLY OF COURSE). Since God's Son has not yet returned bodily, this rebuilding has not taken place. (2) Christ's present ministry in heaven is not associated with the Davidic throne elsewhere in the New Testament. He is now seated at the right hand of God (Ps. 110:1; Ro. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pe 3:22). When He returns He will sit on David's throne (2 Sa 7:16; Ps. 89:4; Mt. 19:28; 25:31). (3) The church was a mystery, a truth not revealed to Old Testament saints (Ro 16:25; Eph. 3:5-6; Col. 1:24-27); so the church would not be referred to in Amos. (2) A second view of the passage is commonly held by premillenarians. According to this view there are four chronological movements in this passage: the present Church Age ("taking from the Gentiles a people for Himself," Acts 15:14), the return of Christ to Israel (Acts 15:16a), the establishing of the Davidic kingdom (Acts 15:16b), and the turning of Gentiles to God (Acts 15:17). While this does interpret these verses in a logical fashion, this approach has some difficulties. (1) The quotation begins with the words "After this." Premillenarians assert James used this phrase to suit his interpretation of the passage. But since the quotation begins with "after this" James must be quoting the sense of Amos 9:11. Therefore this phrase looks back, not to Acts 15:14, but to Amos 9:8-10, which describes the Tribulation ("a time of trouble for Jacob," Jer. 30:7). (ED: WHILE THIS IS POSSIBLE IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT AMOS 9:8-10 DEFINITELY DESCRIBES THE TRIBULATION) (2) If the temporal phrase "after this" refers to the present Age in Amos 9:11, Amos would then have predicted the church in the Old Testament. (3) A third view, also premillennial, may be more plausible. James simply asserted that Gentiles will be saved in the Millennium when Christ will return and rebuild David's fallen tent, that is, restore the nation Israel. Amos said nothing about Gentiles needing to be circumcised. Several factors support this interpretation: (1) This fits the purpose of the council. If Gentiles will be saved in the Kingdom Age (the Millennium), why should they become Jewish proselytes by circumcision in the Church Age? (2) This approach suits the meaning of "in that day" in Amos 9:11 (ED: SEE COMMENTS ON THE PHRASE "IN THAT DAY" IN AMOS 9:11). After the Tribulation (Amos 9:8-10) God will establish the messianic kingdom (Amos 9:11-12). James (Acts 15:16) interpreted "in that day" to mean that "at the time when" God does one (the Tribulation) He will then do the other. In that sense James could say "After this." (3) This interpretation gives significance to the word "first" in Acts 15:14. Cornelius and his household were among the first Gentiles to become members of Christ's body, the church. Gentile salvation will culminate in great blessing for them in the Millennium (cf. Ro. 11:12). (4) A number of prophets predicted Gentile salvation in the Millennium, as James stated in Acts 15:15 (e.g., Isa. 42:6; Isa 60:3; Mal. 1:11). (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty) (Bold added) AFTER THESE THINGS - As discussed James changed the original words from "in that day" to "after these things," the question arises as to what time does this time phrase refer? In other words the question is "After what?" If we examine the context, there is nothing in the preceding passage that allows us to determine the "timing." If we observe the entire context from which James takes this quotation, it is clear that Amos 9:11-15 describes a time of future glory and blessing on the nation of Israel. It describes conditions that clearly have not yet been fulfilled. We know from comparison to other descriptions of the end times restoration of Israel that Amos 9:11-15 describes a time which will follow a period of great distress for the nation of Israel, a time that other Scriptures refer to as the Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21+), the Time of Jacob's Distress (Jer 30:7+) or the time of great distress (Daniel 12:1+). After this time of Israel's future testing the promises of Amos 9:11-15 will be consummated. So this could be the time to which James refers when he says "after these things." Bock suggestion regarding the phrase after these things - Jeremiah 12:15 may be the source for the opening “After these things I will return,” but this is less than clear, since the phrases may be only a transition into the citation that shows how James sees the timing. (Ibid) In using this passage James' intention was not to teach the Jews about Israel's future, but to use a prophetic passage that demonstrated that the Gentiles had always been part of God's plan of redemption. Swindoll adds that "James didn’t, however, mean to imply that the church was fulfilling all that Amos prophesied. The oracle of Amos (ED: READ THE FULL ORACLE IN Amos 9:11-15 AND THE ASSOCIATED COMMENTARY) describes the restoration of Israel, which hasn’t happened yet. James merely used the prophecy to demonstrate that the Lord had always intended to bring elect Gentiles into His kingdom. (Ibid) John
Atos 15
Wiersbe says "It was simply a matter of not being a stumbling block to the weak or to the lost (Ro 14:13-21)." And from what is strangled and from blood - Strangled (pniktos from pnigo = to choke) means choked to death and in this context refers to strangled meat, meaning the flesh of animals killed by strangling without shedding their blood. The Law of Moses prohibited the Israelites from eating of meat that had not been drained of blood (Lev 17:13, 14, Dt 12:16, 23), so the Gentiles were to refrain from this practice out of sensitivity and love for their Jewish brethren. Remember that "Kosher" meat is meat that comes from clean animals that have been killed properly so that the blood has been totally drained from the body. David Jeremiah wrote, “It was considered a delicacy among pagans to strangle an animal and cook the meat without draining the blood. This was prohibited under Jewish law and, like meat sacrificed to idols, was still a cultural issue for Jews. So Gentiles were being asked not to create offense among their Jewish brethren by continuing this practice.” Arnold - The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank blood often at their sacrifices and when making covenants and compacts. Yet there is a higher reason for draining blood. The life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11, 12). Blood was given by God to sustain life and make atonement for sin. Eating or drinking blood would be very offensive to the Jewish Christian when it was a delicacy for the Gentiles. (Acts 15:13-35 The Jerusalem Council - Practice) Question - What does the Bible say about eating food/meat that has been sacrificed to idols? Answer: One of the struggles in the early church concerned meat which had been sacrificed to idols. Debates over what to eat might seem strange to most of us in modern society, but to the first-century believers, it was a subject of great consequence. As the apostles dealt with the issue, they gave instructions on several broader topics with application for today: Unity within the church. In the early years of the church, as Gentile converts began joining Jewish believers in local fellowships, an issue arose concerning the eating of meat. Greco-Roman society was saturated with idol worship, and it was common for meat sold in the marketplace to have been consecrated as a sacrifice to false gods prior to its sale. The Jews would have nothing to do with such meat, wary of “unclean” food-handling practices and believing that to partake of consecrated meat was to give tacit approval of idol worship—kind of a “second-hand” idolatry. The Gentiles rejected the notion that such meat was tainted and held that they could eat meat sacrificed to idols without endorsing idolatry—they had not actually offered the sacrifice, after all. The matter was becoming a point of contention within the church. The church in Syrian Antioch, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, struggled with this issue (Acts 15). The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29). This decision was made not to promote legalism but to keep peace within the church. Since eating meat offered to idols was a divisive issue—carrying the possibility of scandalizing fellow believers—abstinence was expedient. Compliance with the council’s directive assured that, at the next church potluck, a Jewish believer could eat the brisket he was served with confidence, knowing it had never been part of a sacrificial cow. And the Gentile believer could not be accused of participating in idol worship. With its ruling, the Jerusalem Council affirmed the need for deference, or consideration for the scruples of others. The principle is one of self-denial; we should be willing to lay down our personal rights for the sake of maintaining unity in the body of Christ. Spiritual growth takes priority over personal preferences. Causing a weaker brother to sin. In 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, Paul clarifies the teaching on this subject. First, he says that eating meat offered to an idol is not immoral, because “an idol is nothing at all.” An idol is an inanimate object. “Food,” he says, “does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” The meat itself is amoral. However, there is more to consider, namely the brother with a weak conscience. Some believers, especially those with a background of idol worship, were still very sensitive concerning this issue and considered it morally wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Under no circumstances, Paul says, should a believer encourage another believer to violate his conscience. To the pure, all things are pure (Titus 1:15), but to one with a weak conscience, meat taken from pagan temples was spiritually defiled. It would be better never to eat meat again than to cause a believer to sin against his conscience. The “weaker” brother is not someone who simply objects to a certain practice, but one who is in danger of falling into sin. To illustrate, let’s say there are two 1st-century Christians named Demetrius and Clement. Both are former idolaters, now saved by faith in Christ. Demetrius shuns everything to do with his old way of life, including the meat sold in the marketplace, because, for him, eating such meat would constitute a return to paganism. Clement avoids the temple and refuses to participate in the pagan festivals, but he has no problem eating the meat from the market. Clement understands (correctly) that an idol has no power to corrupt good meat, and, for him, eating such meat is a non-issue. Then one day, as both men are in the marketplace, Demetrius sees Clement eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. Demetrius is horrified, but Clement laughs it off and encourages Demetrius to eat some, too. When Demetrius hesitates, Clement cuts off a piece and hands it to him. Demetrius—emboldened by Clement’s confidence—eats the meat. Biblically, both believers have sinned. Clement sinned by violating the conscience of a fellow believer. Demetrius sinned in that he essentially returned to idolatry—at least, that’s what his conscience is telling him. More importantly, Demetrius is learning how to ignore his conscience—a very dangerous thing to learn. The principle here is that the conscience of a weaker Christian is more important than individual freedom. Doing something “permitted” should never hinder the spiritual health of someone else. Maintaining a pure testimony. In 1 Corinthians 10:25-32, Paul again emphasizes the believer’s liberty and what should limit that liberty. If you buy meat for your own use, don’t inquire where it came from; it doesn’t really matter whether it was sacrificed to an idol or not. “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1). However, if you are invited to dinner and someone there says, “This meat was offered to idols,” then graciously refrain from eating. Since your associate obviously considers the meat to be “tainted” by the idols, do not eat it for his conscience’s sake—even though your own conscience is fine. The Christian glorifies God when he limits his freedom for the spiritual benefit of others. Compromise with the world. In the letter to the church of Thyatira, Jesus rebukes them for tolerating a prophetess who “misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20). This is a different situation from what Paul was dealing with in Corinth. It seems that members of the church of Thyatira were partaking of the pagan “love feasts,” celebrated with gross immorality and feasting. These believers were not simply buying meat in the marketplace; they were actually attending idolatrous festivals and joining in the sin of the idolaters. (See verse 14 for a similar rebuke of the church of Pergamos.) Here is a summary of the Bible’s teaching on eating meat sacrificed to idols: Eating meat offered to an idol is not inherently wrong. Meat is not “defiled” because it was taken from a pagan sacrifice. God “richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Timothy 6:17). However, some Christians consider meat offered to an idol to be defiled, and for them it is, since they must follow their conscience. Their scruples should be respected by other Christians with a stronger conscience. Love dictates that all Christians make allowances for their weaker brothers. There are certain cultures today where idolatry is still practiced and where the specifics of the Bible’s teaching about sacrificial meat are still timely. For the rest of us, here are the principles which should govern our participation in the “gray areas” of life: 1) Having the “right” to do something does not mean we are free to do it in every circumstance, regardless of its effects on others. 2) The believer’s liberty in Christ can and should be voluntarily limited in order not to cause a weaker brother to sin by violating his conscience. Liberty is limited in love. 3) Maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of love may require a believer to give up his personal “right” to a thing. “How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Psalm 133:1). 4) We should avoid anything that would make a weak Christian think less of his faith or that would make an unsaved person feel more at ease in his sin.GotQuestions.org Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." KJV Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Sabbath Acts 13:15,27; Nehemiah 8:1-12; Luke 4:16 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries MOSES READ ALOUD EVERY SABBATH For (gar) is a term of explanation. in this context explaining why James gave the Gentiles instructions that were in effect restrictions. As alluded to above, since many of the Jews in the synagogues scattered throughout the Roman Empire would later become Christians, anything associated with idolatry or sexual impurity would be very repulsive to them. If the Gentiles voluntarily obeyed the instructions this would remove dietary scruples as an obstacle when presenting the Gospel to these Jews coming from a background steeped in Mosaic Law. These Jews of course would still have to by faith "jump" the "hurdle" of the Gospel truth that they could be saved independent of any merit attained by keeping the Law. In short, the Gentiles not giving theses Jews a stumbling block would make it more likely that the Jews would understand that salvation was on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone.
Atos 15
Wiersbe wrote, “That Barnabas would champion John Mark is certainly no surprise. He and Mark were cousins, and the family ties would be strong. But even more, Barnabas was the kind of man who eagerly tried to help others, which is why the early church named him ‘son of encouragement.” Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also - Barnabas clearly agreed with Paul's exhortation to return to the mission field. However, his desire to take along Mark would lead to a schism between these two great saints. Robertson on Barnabas wanted - Barnabas willed, wished and stuck to it." The NAS may be a bit weak translating it as "wanted" and the KJV a bit more on point by translating it as "determined" because the picture is of Barnabas deliberating and deciding on taking John Mark. Furthermore "wanted" is in the imperfect tense speaking of Barnabas' insistence in taking John Mark. It is interesting that the imperfect tense is also used in the next verse of Paul insisting. One gets the picture of Barnabas "wanting" and Paul countering with "insisting!" Wanted (intended) (1014)(boulomai) refers to a settled desire, one born of or springing from reason and not from emotion. To will, to wish, to will deliberately, to intend, to have a purpose, to be minded. Boulomai underlines the preset determined intention which drives one's planning, wishing, resolving. In contrast, the verb thelo focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer. Boúlomai expresses also the inward predisposition and bent from which active volition proceeds. All of Luke's uses of boulomai - Lk. 10:22; Lk. 22:42; Acts 5:28; Acts 5:33; Acts 12:4; Acts 15:37; Acts 17:20; Acts 18:15; Acts 18:27; Acts 19:30; Acts 22:30; Acts 23:28; Acts 25:20; Acts 25:22; Acts 27:43; Acts 28:18; Take...along (4838) see below on sumparalambano Jack Andrews - We have all at one time or another been like John Mark. We’ve been in a place where we needed someone to come alongside of us and give us another chance, to challenge us to be godly, to love us and lift us up! Thank God for Barnabas! He didn’t give up on John Mark. John Mark proved himself faithful in the long run. Because of the patience of Barnabas, the mentoring by Barnabas, and the faith of Barnabas John Mark flourished. John Mark because useful to not only Barnabas, but also to Paul as well. A poem I found describes Mark well: Oh, the bitter shame and sorrow that a time could ever be when I proudly said of Jesus, ‘All of self and none of Thee.’ Yet He found me—I beheld Him bleeding on the cruel tree, and my wistful heart said faintly ‘Some of self and some of Thee.” Day by day His tender mercies healing, helpful, full and free brought me lower, while I whispered, ‘Less of self and more of Thee.’ Higher than the highest heavens, deeper than the deepest sea. ‘Lord, Thy love as last has conquered, none of self and all of Thee.’ (Jack Andrews Expository Studies – Understanding Acts - Volume 4) ILLUSTRATION - n New Year's Day, 1929, Georgia Tech played the University of California in the Rose Bowl. In that game a man named Roy Riegels recovered a fumble for California. Somehow, he became confused and started running 65 yards in the wrong direction. One of his teammates, Ben Lorn, outdistanced him and downed him just before he scored for the opposing team. When California attempted to punt, Tech blocked the kick and scored a safety which was the ultimate margin of victory. That strange play came in the first half, and everyone who was watching the game was asking the same question: “What will Coach Nibbs Price do with Roy Riegels in the second half?” The men filed off the field and went into the dressing room. They sat down on the benches and on the floor, all but Riegels. He put his blanket around his shoulders, sat down in a corner, put his face in his hands and cried like a baby. If you have played football, you know that a coach usually has a great deal to say to his team during half time. That day Coach Price was quiet. No doubt he was trying to decide what to do with Riegels. Then the timekeeper came in and announced that there were three minutes before playing time. Coach Price looked at the team and said simply, “Men, the same team that played the first half will start the second.” The players got up and started out, all but Riegels. He did not budge. The coach looked back and called to him again; still he didn't move. Coach Price went over to where Riegels sat and said, “Roy, didn't you hear me? The same team that played the first half will start the second. Then Roy Riegels looked up and his cheeks were wet with a strong man’s tears. “Coach,” he said, “I can't do it to save my life. I've ruined you, I’ve ruined the University of California, I've ruined myself. I couldn't face that crowd in the stadium to save my life.” Then Coach Price reached out and put his hand on Riegel's shoulder and said to him: “Roy, get up and go on back; the game is only half over.” And Roy Riegels went back, and those Tech men will tell you that they have never seen a man play football as Roy Riegels played that second half. If we fail, my friends, God always gives us a second chance if we repent. We must remember there is always a second half, the game isn’t over. Helping With Hurdles Two are better than one . . . . For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. —Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 Today's Scripture: Acts 15:36-41 When my daughter Debbie was a little girl, she took ballet lessons. One dance exercise involved jumping over a rolled-up gym mat. Debbie’s first attempt resulted in her bouncing off this hurdle. For a moment she sat on the floor stunned, and then she began to cry. Immediately, I darted out to help her up and spoke soothing words to her. Then, holding her hand, I ran with her until she successfully jumped over the rolled-up mat. Debbie needed my encouragement to clear that hurdle. While working with Paul on his first missionary journey, John Mark faced a major hurdle of his own: Things got tough on the trip, and he quit. When Barnabas tried to re-enlist Mark for Paul’s second journey, it created conflict. Barnabas wanted to give him a second chance, but Paul saw him as a liability. Ultimately, they parted ways, and Barnabas took Mark with him on his journey (Acts 15:36-39). The Bible is silent about John Mark’s response when Barnabas helped him over his ministry hurdle. However, he must have proven himself, because Paul later wrote that John Mark “is useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11). Lord, I want to show the kindness of Your heart today. Please show me who I can help and in what way. I want my words and deeds to convey Your love. Amen. Resolution The contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. —Acts 15:39 Today's Scripture:Acts 15:36-41 In May 1884, two young parents disagreed about what middle name to give their newborn son. The mom preferred Solomon; the dad, Shippe—both family names. Because John and Martha couldn’t agree, they compromised on “S.” Thus Harry S. Truman would become the only US president with an initial for a middle name. Over 120 years later, we still know about this conflict—but we also know that a reasonable resolution was reached. In the New Testament, we read about another disagreement that has lived on in history. This one was between two missionaries: Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15). Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them on a trip to check on some churches they had helped previously (v.37). But Paul did not trust Mark because of an earlier incident (v.38). Paul and Barnabas disagreed so sharply that they parted ways (v.39). We still read about this argument 2,000 years later. What’s important is not that it lived on in history, but that it didn’t leave permanent relationship scars. Paul apparently reconciled with Barnabas, and in his final days asked for Mark to be with him because “he is useful to me for ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11). Arguments can lead to grudges, Which, if left, will cause a rift; But if we bring resolution, Our relationships won’t drift. —Sper Acts 15:38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. KJV Acts 15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. CSB Acts 15:38 But Paul did not think it appropriate to take along this man who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work. ESV Acts 15:38 But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. NET Acts 15:38 but Paul insisted that they should not take along this one who had left them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. NIV Acts 15:38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. NLT Acts 15:38 But Paul disagreed strongly, since John Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in their work. who Acts 13:13; Ps 78:9; Proverbs 25:19; Luke 9:61; 14:27-34; James 1:8 Acts 15 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries FROM DESIRE TO DISSENSION But (de) - Definite term of contrast marking a "change of direction" from Barnabas' desire to Paul's desension. Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along - Kept insisting is in the imperfect tense which vividly transports us into the scene like a "fly on the wall" (so to speak) for this tense pictures Paul over and over, again and again arguing with Barnabas "Not him! No way! Not him!" The Greek is a bit more "derogatory" (if you will) for him is literally "that one," (touton) and Marvin