Acts 14 - 15:35
Paul's first missionary journey & the first Jerusalem council
This portion deals with the end of Paul's first missionary journey that won plenty of Gentiles over to Jesus. But then this led to another crisis - should Gentiles have to follow the law of Moses? The first crisis in the church was when the Hellenistic Jews were not treated equally; the second was when the persecution started with the stoning of Stephen.
Note verse 4 where it says "apostles". It appears that Barnabas is also considered as an apostle along with Paul. There is debate whether there are apostles in today's world. It appears that the apostles had a direct link to Jesus; and there are not many; and that they were able to perform great miracles.
Paul and Barnabas boldly proclaims God's word and suffers incredible persecution. In the process, they refuse to take glory for the miracles they performed in Iconium.
Acts 14:22 is answer to the question of prosperity gospel:
“We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Paul's work among Gentiles won him many enemies among the early church. A section of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem creates a false doctrine and tries to divide the church. But the early church under Peter and James' leadership aptly counters it.
Acts 15:19: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
This is relevant for today's church as well. Let's not make it difficult for new believers to come to church.
Another great debate in today's church:
FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION versus FAITH + Nothing = SALVATION > which produces WORKS
The answer is in the statement of the first Jerusalem council. The simple statement of Acts 15 is that you (the Gentiles) do not have to be like us (the Jewish Christians) to be followers of Christ.
See below for some further references:
Paul's first missionary journey & the first Jerusalem council
This portion deals with the end of Paul's first missionary journey that won plenty of Gentiles over to Jesus. But then this led to another crisis - should Gentiles have to follow the law of Moses? The first crisis in the church was when the Hellenistic Jews were not treated equally; the second was when the persecution started with the stoning of Stephen.
Note verse 4 where it says "apostles". It appears that Barnabas is also considered as an apostle along with Paul. There is debate whether there are apostles in today's world. It appears that the apostles had a direct link to Jesus; and there are not many; and that they were able to perform great miracles.
Paul and Barnabas boldly proclaims God's word and suffers incredible persecution. In the process, they refuse to take glory for the miracles they performed in Iconium.
Acts 14:22 is answer to the question of prosperity gospel:
“We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Paul's work among Gentiles won him many enemies among the early church. A section of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem creates a false doctrine and tries to divide the church. But the early church under Peter and James' leadership aptly counters it.
Acts 15:19: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
This is relevant for today's church as well. Let's not make it difficult for new believers to come to church.
Another great debate in today's church:
FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION versus FAITH + Nothing = SALVATION > which produces WORKS
The answer is in the statement of the first Jerusalem council. The simple statement of Acts 15 is that you (the Gentiles) do not have to be like us (the Jewish Christians) to be followers of Christ.
See below for some further references:
Are there apostles for today?
This
depends on how apostles are defined. Biblically, the word "apostle"
literally means "one who is sent." So, anyone who was sent by the Lord
to do something would be an apostle. But, such a liberal definition is
not a sufficient answer. Biblically, an apostle was someone who was
involved with Jesus and/or knew of Jesus before His crucifixion and
after His crucifixion. Consider the following two sets of verses.
Question: "Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?"
Answer: The movement to restore the offices of apostle and prophet bases the claim that apostles and prophets are to be a part of the church on Ephesians 4:11-12. These verses say, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."
During the first century of the church, there was an office of apostle and there was a spiritual gift of apostle. The office or position of apostle was held by the 12 disciples of Jesus plus Matthias, who took Judas’ place, and Paul. Those who held the office or position of apostle were chosen specifically by Christ (Mark 3:16-19). The replacement for Judas is seen in Acts 1:20-26. Note in this passage that Judas' position was called an office. It should also be noted that Paul was chosen by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:1; 2:6-9). These men were given the task of setting up the foundation of the church. It should be understood that it was for the universal church that these men were a part of the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). The foundation of the church (universal church) was laid in the first century. This is why the office of apostle is no longer functioning.
There was also a spiritual gift of apostle (this is not to be confused with the office—they are separate). Among those who had the spiritual gift were James (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:6), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), possibly Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:7), and Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6, 9). This latter group had the gift of apostleship but not the apostolic "office" conferred upon the Twelve and Paul. Those who had the gift of apostle, then, were those who carried the gospel message with God’s authority. The word "apostle" means "one sent as an authoritative delegate." This was true of those who held the office of Apostle (like Paul) and those who had the spiritual gift (like Apollos). Though there are men like this today, men who are sent by God to spread the gospel, it is best NOT to refer to them as apostles because of the confusion this causes since many are not aware of the two different uses of the term apostle.
- Acts 1:21-26, “It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection. 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed, and said, You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
- 1 Cor. 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”
Question: "Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?"
Answer: The movement to restore the offices of apostle and prophet bases the claim that apostles and prophets are to be a part of the church on Ephesians 4:11-12. These verses say, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."
During the first century of the church, there was an office of apostle and there was a spiritual gift of apostle. The office or position of apostle was held by the 12 disciples of Jesus plus Matthias, who took Judas’ place, and Paul. Those who held the office or position of apostle were chosen specifically by Christ (Mark 3:16-19). The replacement for Judas is seen in Acts 1:20-26. Note in this passage that Judas' position was called an office. It should also be noted that Paul was chosen by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:1; 2:6-9). These men were given the task of setting up the foundation of the church. It should be understood that it was for the universal church that these men were a part of the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). The foundation of the church (universal church) was laid in the first century. This is why the office of apostle is no longer functioning.
There was also a spiritual gift of apostle (this is not to be confused with the office—they are separate). Among those who had the spiritual gift were James (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:6), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), possibly Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:7), and Apollos (1 Corinthians 4:6, 9). This latter group had the gift of apostleship but not the apostolic "office" conferred upon the Twelve and Paul. Those who had the gift of apostle, then, were those who carried the gospel message with God’s authority. The word "apostle" means "one sent as an authoritative delegate." This was true of those who held the office of Apostle (like Paul) and those who had the spiritual gift (like Apollos). Though there are men like this today, men who are sent by God to spread the gospel, it is best NOT to refer to them as apostles because of the confusion this causes since many are not aware of the two different uses of the term apostle.
Galatians 1-2
Paul bats for the Gentiles
Paul fights for what he believes is right. The critical issue for Paul is justification by faith alone. There are doctrines and differences of opinion that are not worth fighting to death for. But, for Paul, this is a matter of critical importance.
Galatians 2: 15-16: “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
What's Paul's issue with the Jewish Christians?
1. "Doing things" can never make you right with God.
2. Only be justified by faith in Christ can make us right with God.
Galatians 1: 9 - "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"
It is the message not the messenger that is important evaluate the messenger in light of the message; do not evaluate the message in light of the messenger. This is one of the reasons why we need to “know the Word”.
Galatians 2:11-19 is very important in understanding how two strong personalities behave when they are under Christ's love. Paul identifies a mistake in Peter's behavior and corrects him. Also note how Peter responded to it.
Paul felt the need to confront and rebuke Peter.
a. Paul took the risk because a fundamental principle was at stake.
b. He was obeying the New Testament injunction to “admonish one another”.
c. Peter responded positively to Paul’s rebuke.
1) He accepts it.
2) He did not hold it against Paul - he is still his dear brother in the Lord.
Paul bats for the Gentiles
Paul fights for what he believes is right. The critical issue for Paul is justification by faith alone. There are doctrines and differences of opinion that are not worth fighting to death for. But, for Paul, this is a matter of critical importance.
Galatians 2: 15-16: “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
What's Paul's issue with the Jewish Christians?
1. "Doing things" can never make you right with God.
2. Only be justified by faith in Christ can make us right with God.
Galatians 1: 9 - "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"
It is the message not the messenger that is important evaluate the messenger in light of the message; do not evaluate the message in light of the messenger. This is one of the reasons why we need to “know the Word”.
Galatians 2:11-19 is very important in understanding how two strong personalities behave when they are under Christ's love. Paul identifies a mistake in Peter's behavior and corrects him. Also note how Peter responded to it.
Paul felt the need to confront and rebuke Peter.
a. Paul took the risk because a fundamental principle was at stake.
b. He was obeying the New Testament injunction to “admonish one another”.
c. Peter responded positively to Paul’s rebuke.
1) He accepts it.
2) He did not hold it against Paul - he is still his dear brother in the Lord.
Galatians 3-4
Justification by faith
Faith in Jesus Christ justifies us in front of God. Not legalism, and certainly not observance of laws.
Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
This verse shows us that the reception of Holy Spirit is something all Christians have experienced. If you can be a Christian without the Holy Spirit, Paul would not have asked this question. Receiving the Holy Spirit coexists with salvation - but it comes with faith.
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Filling of the Spirit are two different experiences though. All Christians have the Holy Spirit (indwelling). They may not have the filling of the spirit though.
Gal 3:6 - "So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
See how Abraham trusted God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Law was given to make a man aware of his transgressions. By faith, we are saved. He redeems us; then adopts us as heirs.
Gal 3:16 - The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
Note how Paul mentions "seed" and not "seeds". This is another instance which points to the divine inspiration of the Bible. God foreknew that mankind would be redeemed through that seed - the one man - Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:21-29 is an allegory. Paul does not use allegory elsewhere. Then why did he say this here - how should we interpret it? Read this explanation written by John Piper to understand this passage -
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/hagar-and-slavery-vs-sarah-and-freedom
Justification by faith
Faith in Jesus Christ justifies us in front of God. Not legalism, and certainly not observance of laws.
Gal 3:2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
This verse shows us that the reception of Holy Spirit is something all Christians have experienced. If you can be a Christian without the Holy Spirit, Paul would not have asked this question. Receiving the Holy Spirit coexists with salvation - but it comes with faith.
Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Filling of the Spirit are two different experiences though. All Christians have the Holy Spirit (indwelling). They may not have the filling of the spirit though.
Gal 3:6 - "So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
See how Abraham trusted God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Law was given to make a man aware of his transgressions. By faith, we are saved. He redeems us; then adopts us as heirs.
Gal 3:16 - The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
Note how Paul mentions "seed" and not "seeds". This is another instance which points to the divine inspiration of the Bible. God foreknew that mankind would be redeemed through that seed - the one man - Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:21-29 is an allegory. Paul does not use allegory elsewhere. Then why did he say this here - how should we interpret it? Read this explanation written by John Piper to understand this passage -
http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/hagar-and-slavery-vs-sarah-and-freedom
Galatians 5-6
Freedom in Christ & the Fruits of the Spirit
1-2 - personal part of the argument
3-4 - the main theological argument
5-6 - practical chapters - helps us work out the implications of theology in living the life.
Paul presents such a pattern in all of his letters. He adds a practical section to the epistle after stating the theological argument.
a) Live in freedom. Stand firm. Don't yoke yourself with the ceremonies and the laws. We should not be driven by fear and be bonded to slavery. Christianity is a relationship with God. Keeping rules means bondage; Faith means freedom. If you have placed your faith in Lord Jesus, there is nothing more you have to do. You are free. Instead of living in freedom, there are thousands who live out their life, trying to work out their faith.
b) Use that freedom to serve one another in love.
Gal 5:22 - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Fruit of the Spirit is given more prominence than gifts. All of us have all the fruits. But we all do not have all the gifts of the spirit. The gifts of the spirit used outside the context of the fruits can be dangerous. We cannot exercise the fruits of the spirit on our own - it has to come from Him.
Paul states his CV at the end of the letter - in verse 11-18.
"for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." - scars from all the stoning and persecution he received.
He writes the last part of the letter in his own handwriting - he uses large letters probably because of poor eye sight. And that's probably the thorn in his flesh that he talks about in another portion.
Freedom in Christ & the Fruits of the Spirit
1-2 - personal part of the argument
3-4 - the main theological argument
5-6 - practical chapters - helps us work out the implications of theology in living the life.
Paul presents such a pattern in all of his letters. He adds a practical section to the epistle after stating the theological argument.
a) Live in freedom. Stand firm. Don't yoke yourself with the ceremonies and the laws. We should not be driven by fear and be bonded to slavery. Christianity is a relationship with God. Keeping rules means bondage; Faith means freedom. If you have placed your faith in Lord Jesus, there is nothing more you have to do. You are free. Instead of living in freedom, there are thousands who live out their life, trying to work out their faith.
b) Use that freedom to serve one another in love.
Gal 5:22 - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
Fruit of the Spirit is given more prominence than gifts. All of us have all the fruits. But we all do not have all the gifts of the spirit. The gifts of the spirit used outside the context of the fruits can be dangerous. We cannot exercise the fruits of the spirit on our own - it has to come from Him.
Paul states his CV at the end of the letter - in verse 11-18.
"for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." - scars from all the stoning and persecution he received.
He writes the last part of the letter in his own handwriting - he uses large letters probably because of poor eye sight. And that's probably the thorn in his flesh that he talks about in another portion.
Acts 15:36-17:34
Paul's second missionary journey
This great work of God starts with a feud between Paul and Barnabas. The latter wants Mark to be given another chance; but Paul does not want to do it. So they split and leave in different paths. Here are two spirit filled apostles - who do not agree, and are in conflict. Being good Christians does not mean we will agree in all matters. Unity in Christ does not always mean unanimity. The disagreement did not make them enemies. Paul subsequently used the example of Barnabas as a perfect Christian. By opposing Paul, Barnabas taught us this invaluable lesson. In fact, Mark does not fail Barnabas. His patience and willingness to give Mark the second chance led to him being the author of one of the gospel. Why did not God show Paul this aspect of Mark's transformation? We do not know. But this we know that it led to two powerful missionary movements rather than just one team.
Next we see how Paul picks up young mentees. Why did Paul get Timothy circumcised? Paul has previously spoken against it. This speaks volumes about Paul. He was adamantly principled, but was also practical. Timothy was half Jew and raised a Jew. So, he ought to be circumcised to gain credibility with the Jewish believers.
Paul is then directed away from certain places; and led to some other locations. God directs Paul's paths. He also uses the unknown God in Athens to bring the focus of the good news of Jesus to the learned Greeks. Very dramatic passages.
------------------------------------------
Why was Timothy circumcised and Titus not? - John Piper
Was Paul inconsistent when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3? After all, he had absolutely refused to let Titus be circumcised in Galatians 2:3-5. He said that the truth of the gospel was at stake. To concede that Titus should be circumcised would be tantamount to abandoning the gospel of justification by faith apart from works of law.
But what about Timothy? Acts 16:1-3 says,
1) Titus was a pure Greek (Galatians 2:3). Timothy was born of a Greek father and a Jewish mother. According to 2 Timothy 3:15, from childhood Timothy had been taught the Old Testament scriptures. In other words, his Jewish mother brought him up as a Jew. But his Greek father had not allowed the circumcision. For Titus the pressure was to become Jewish. Timothy was already very Jewish by race and by training. For him to be circumcised would not have had the implication of moving from Gentile status to Jew status.
2) The people Paul resisted in Galatians 2:3-5 were false brothers. The Jews to whom he catered in Acts 16:3 were not even Christians. The pressure in Galatians 2:3-5 was from professing believers upon another believer to perform a work of law in order to be accepted. But Acts 16:2 says Timothy was “well spoken of by all the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.” No Christians were pushing for Timothy’s circumcision. Rather it was “because of the Jews that were in those places” (16:3) that Paul had Timothy circumcised. “Jews” is used over 85 times in Acts and almost without exception refers to unbelievers. And here they appear to be distinct from “brethren.” So it appears that Timothy’s circumcision was not motivated by “Christian” pressure from within but by a missionary strategy from without.
3) Titus was a “test case” in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), but Timothy was to be a constant travel companion (Acts 16:3). Therefore, in Titus’ case a clear theological issue was at stake. But in Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”
On the basis of these three differences, then, I would say Paul was not inconsistent when he resisted Titus’ circumcision but sought Timothy’s.
Paul's second missionary journey
This great work of God starts with a feud between Paul and Barnabas. The latter wants Mark to be given another chance; but Paul does not want to do it. So they split and leave in different paths. Here are two spirit filled apostles - who do not agree, and are in conflict. Being good Christians does not mean we will agree in all matters. Unity in Christ does not always mean unanimity. The disagreement did not make them enemies. Paul subsequently used the example of Barnabas as a perfect Christian. By opposing Paul, Barnabas taught us this invaluable lesson. In fact, Mark does not fail Barnabas. His patience and willingness to give Mark the second chance led to him being the author of one of the gospel. Why did not God show Paul this aspect of Mark's transformation? We do not know. But this we know that it led to two powerful missionary movements rather than just one team.
Next we see how Paul picks up young mentees. Why did Paul get Timothy circumcised? Paul has previously spoken against it. This speaks volumes about Paul. He was adamantly principled, but was also practical. Timothy was half Jew and raised a Jew. So, he ought to be circumcised to gain credibility with the Jewish believers.
Paul is then directed away from certain places; and led to some other locations. God directs Paul's paths. He also uses the unknown God in Athens to bring the focus of the good news of Jesus to the learned Greeks. Very dramatic passages.
------------------------------------------
Why was Timothy circumcised and Titus not? - John Piper
Was Paul inconsistent when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3? After all, he had absolutely refused to let Titus be circumcised in Galatians 2:3-5. He said that the truth of the gospel was at stake. To concede that Titus should be circumcised would be tantamount to abandoning the gospel of justification by faith apart from works of law.
But what about Timothy? Acts 16:1-3 says,
Paul came also to Derbe and Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.There are three differences between the Timothy situation and the Titus situation.
1) Titus was a pure Greek (Galatians 2:3). Timothy was born of a Greek father and a Jewish mother. According to 2 Timothy 3:15, from childhood Timothy had been taught the Old Testament scriptures. In other words, his Jewish mother brought him up as a Jew. But his Greek father had not allowed the circumcision. For Titus the pressure was to become Jewish. Timothy was already very Jewish by race and by training. For him to be circumcised would not have had the implication of moving from Gentile status to Jew status.
2) The people Paul resisted in Galatians 2:3-5 were false brothers. The Jews to whom he catered in Acts 16:3 were not even Christians. The pressure in Galatians 2:3-5 was from professing believers upon another believer to perform a work of law in order to be accepted. But Acts 16:2 says Timothy was “well spoken of by all the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.” No Christians were pushing for Timothy’s circumcision. Rather it was “because of the Jews that were in those places” (16:3) that Paul had Timothy circumcised. “Jews” is used over 85 times in Acts and almost without exception refers to unbelievers. And here they appear to be distinct from “brethren.” So it appears that Timothy’s circumcision was not motivated by “Christian” pressure from within but by a missionary strategy from without.
3) Titus was a “test case” in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), but Timothy was to be a constant travel companion (Acts 16:3). Therefore, in Titus’ case a clear theological issue was at stake. But in Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”
On the basis of these three differences, then, I would say Paul was not inconsistent when he resisted Titus’ circumcision but sought Timothy’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment