In Acts 15, the most interesting piece of information that I saw, was when Paul and Barnabas separate. Barnabas wanted to take John, known as Mark, with them to visit the believers in the cities they have visited. However, Paul disagreed because Mark had left them in Pamphylia. The text does not tell us exactly how the argument or disagreement played out, but it does say that this argument resulted in the separation between Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas took Mark with him and went to Cyprus, while Paul to Silas to Syria and Cilicia.
This story shows us, that the apostles were sinners, they were not perfect. Sometimes today, people feel that they cannot share their faith because they feel they are not "good enough" or righteousness enough. Paul and Barnabas are an example of men who are called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel and yet they still have arguments and still make mistakes.
At the end of Galatians 2, Paul explains his faith. Once a persecutor of Christians, Paul has become one of the most devout followers of Christ. Paul reminds us that we are not saved by works, but through Jesus Christ alone. Something that I notice about Paul, is that as he grows in Christ he sees himself growing smaller and small and sees Christ getting bigger and bigger. He says in verse 20, "...it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Paul sees himself as an instrument of God. As he lives, he becomes less prideful and more humble. This passage is a great example of someone who wholeheartedly has faith in Christ and sees himself, as he says in another passage, "The least of sinners."
Excellent recaps of those parts of the passages RW! I think you hit on an interesting and important point about Paul and Silas still being sinners, despite their incredible enthusiasm for the Gospel. It makes me wonder if they were both in the wrong, or if only one was making the faulty decision. The answer obviously doesn't matter, but I can't help wondering. Mrs. G mentioned last week that John Mark did eventually go on to become a strong missionary for Christ.
As for your thoughts on Galatians, I was reminded of John 3:30 (which essentially says the same thing): "He must become greater; I must become less."
“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality…” Acts 15:29
In the Acts 15 reading, I found this verse (above) in the Council’s letter rather interesting. As a Christian, I’ve “always” known that we’re commanded not to eat food sacrificed to idols, and to abstain from sexual immorality. And I’d never intentionally eat any kind of blood anyway, ick! But the part about not eating strangled animals is something I’ve never really taken serious note of. Sure I recall reading it before, but it always seemed like kind of a strange rule to be thrown in that particular mix. Does anyone know why we’re commanded not to eat strangled animals? All animals we eat are obviously dead, so I’m simply curious why it matters how the animal came to be dead. While strangulation is obviously a very cruel action, is the mere cruelty all that sets it apart? I’m sure there must be some significance; I’m just not familiar with what it might be. Anyone able to shed some light on the subject?
“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” Galatians 2:15
With this verse from Galatians, I found it interesting how Paul refers to the Gentiles as “sinful gentiles.” He’s in the middle of giving a chastising speech to Cephas (his fellow Jewish Christian), so perhaps he’s using sarcasm to add some sting to his words. After reading the whole chapter, which is all about equality among Jews and gentiles in the eyes of God, it was rather strange to hear Paul say something that seems rather contradictory to the rest of the chapter. The verse essentially separates the “sinful gentiles” and the law abiding Jews into different categories, so to speak. As I said before, I assume it’s either Paul’s sarcasm as a means of chastisement, or just a cultural way of speaking at that time. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
I think what Paul means in Galatians is that, culturally/traditionally, the Jews are God's chosen people, whereas the gentiles are 'ethnically' sinful (this could also be a reference to lack of circumcision). He follows up on surface, traditional distinctions regarding the social relationship between Jews and gentiles by criticizing Peter, saying "If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to life like Jews?" Yet Paul then throws this (yes I think sarcastic) chastisement out the window saying that under Christ, there is no distinction between us, regardless of ethnicity and traditions.
Amos 9:11-12: "In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes all these things known from old."
One thing that strikes me about the early church is that it is constantly looking back to the Old Testament and thus recognizing the fulfillment of prophecies. In the Jerusalem council, as the apostles discussed the feasibility of non-Jewish Gentiles becoming Christians, Paul and Barnabas relate their experiences with Gentiles and the Gospel. James stands up and quotes the above prophecy from Amos. Throughout the New testament, we see the early Christians comparing scripture to scripture, making sure everything lines up. Paul even says in I Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything...."
Paul says in Galatians 2:1 that he was gone fourteen years before returning to Jerusalem. IF ONLY we had found this verse Thursday, it might have helped immensely when time-lineing Paul's ministry. After a VERY long sentence of subordinate clauses, Paul teaches that Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles alike, despite disagreements among other apostles. Paul says: "But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild, what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor." He refers to those already Christians making mistakes (compare with RW's response). But the true Christian, seeming a slave to sin, when confronted by it, will turn around, or 'rebuild," yet not in himself. For "Christ lives in him." Just though he put that well (better than I did here at any rate!).
Ha, I had that thought too. And in regards to your comments on the Acts reading, I've always loved passages about the fulfillment of the Scriptures. There's something so satisfying about the prophecies in the Old Testament matching up with the New Testament.
In Acts 15 some of the interesting points of the passage were the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it's not very clear of why the separated. It's also interesting to think about how God can and will use anyone to get the gospel out to others. So why it might not seem like the separation of Paul and Barnabas was for the greater good, when you think about it it's probably better. Because you have two great teachers that split up and in the end the probably converted more people to Christianity that way.
In Galations i like when Paul tells that only way to get to heaven is threw Jesus Christ, this is just great reminder for all of us, as R.W. already said. Its also interesting to think about how Paul was such a zealous persecutor of the Christians, then God worked through Pal to make him one of the greatest teachers of the word of God.
I thought the Jerusalem council and Paul’s commentary in Galatians to be both encouraging and amazing. It really was the first time the Church outlined the doctrine of sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. But Paul points out three things regarding salvation that I guess I knew but they really jumped out at me in an impactful way after reading this passage several times. First, he points out that no one was ever able to follow the law – it was a restriction “our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The anonymous author of Hebrews echoes this by saying “the law…could never make perfect those who draw near” (Hebrews 10:1). The law was there to show us that we could never follow it perfectly. It was a mirror of sorts so we could see our own depravity. Paul says it is useless to require things that we never meant to be, or could be followed perfectly. He explains point blank that no act of ours is capable of justifying us before God: “By works of the law no one will be justified.” (Gal. 2:16) Second, he points out the hypocrisy of such requirements, since the Jews themselves were not following the laws they were laying out. They were just as sinful as the people they were converting. That was a new and interesting perspective.
Paul uses this to transition into his final point, which was my favorite. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I live now in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (2:20) Hebrews 10 (not coincidentally) comes to the same conclusion, saying we should have “full assurance of faith” (10:22) because “he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (10:14). I thought Paul’s perspective was really neat: the law no longer binds us! We are sanctified. Christ lives in us, he has purified us. We failed to be perfect people, so Christ has redeemed us. We don’t have to follow the strict codes of the Old Testament for the forgiveness of sin because Jesus is our salvation. The moral law of God is not void (as the Jerusalem council writes to the churches), but we should be not be promulgating more rules that cannot be followed by sinful people, but living our lives to spread the gospel that Jesus Christ is the redeemer. We are no longer in chains to sin. We don't have to rely on our own imperfect selves. There is no better news than that, I think. Amen?
"And after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." Acts 15:36
As I read Acts 15, this verse really stuck out to me. What Paul is suggesting here is to go back to all of the places they have shared the Good News and see how the new converts are doing. Or to "check-up" on them, so to speak. The new converts and churches had just come out of a pagan culture, so Paul wants to make sure that the church was standing firm in the faith and whether or not any of the churches needed to be strengthened. The reason this stuck out to me was the fact that Paul actually cared enough about the people that became saved as a result of his preaching to go back to ALL of the different cities he has "proclaimed the word of the Lord..." Now of course, as R.W. and Sam have mentioned, this decision ended up causing Paul and Barnabas to go their separate ways. This is just an example of how God's sovereignty used the disagreement to spread his word. Despite human shortcomings, God strengthened the church through Paul and Barnabas' separation.
As for Galatians, I think the point of salvation by GRACE alone cannot be stressed enough. It is only as a result of the grace of God that we are saved. As human sinners, we rightfully deserve death and eternal separation from God. Yet God, in his abounding love, nullified that punishment through His son. The other thing I thought was great was the fact that Paul boldly and directly confronted Cephas about his sin. I know that I would be hesitant to confront someone about something that I can see that they are doing wrong. Worrying wether or not it is even my place or if I even have the right to confront him/her. Thank God that we can do "all things through Christ..." who gives us strength.
In Acts 15 a really cool verse was vs12, "And all the assembly fell silent and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles." I just love the "and ALL the assembly fell silent and listened" In Galations 2: I really think the point that Paul made in vs14 is a good one, "I said to Cephas before them all, 'if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
I thought that the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New was very interesting while reading these passages. The Jews of the New Testament regard the OT Law as mostly a physical thing; be circumcised, don't eat unclean food, keep the Sabbath. In reality, it had a spiritual aspect, but the NT Jews seem as if they would rather ignore this. Deuteronomy 30:6 says that "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (ESV) The gospel brought about a circumcision of the heart, rather than of the flesh. Pharisees in the NT would rather nitpick about Sabbath laws than have a "circumcised" heart. The death of Christ fulfilled the old laws that had no salvation in and of themselves, and brought about a New Covenant, in which all peoples of the world could be saved, and no physical laws could keep them from being so. In this way the gospel was truly brought "to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8, ESV)
“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”
-Galatians 2:14-16
Paul’s exhortation to Peter and the more traditional formerly Jewish converts was extremely important to the early church, not only because it symbolizes Christianity’s break from Judaism, but also because it explicitly states that salvation comes through Christ alone, by faith alone. Believing that anything, in this case circumcision, is needed in addition to Jesus is a dangerous error that Paul emphasizes throughout his writings. The Jerusalem Counsel was formed in order to determine generally whether the law of the Old Testament was applicable for gentile Christian convert, specifically the practice of circumcision. Interestingly enough they determine that circumcision is irrelevant, yet that some Old Testament laws, such as abstaining from food that had been strangled, food offered to idols, and blood were upheld. There could be many reasons for this, one that readily comes to mind is that circumcision is a physical marking of the body while the others were merely dietary choices and thus simpler for new converts to follow, but there are probably others. What do you guys think?
Personally, I love the book of Acts. It seems like every time I read it, something new jumps out at me. This time when I read Acts 15, I was astounded at the fact that there were Christians who genuinely believe that Gentiles should not be able to accept Christianity without being circumcised. "since God is the one-who will truly justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Romans 3:30-31 This scripture is basically saying that, God will judge everyone the same, whether they're circumcised or uncircumcised, whether Jew or Gentile, it will not matter in the end.
After watching “In the footsteps of St. Paul,” last week I was able to read these passages with new eyes. In particular I found the verse in Acts were James says “we should not make it difficult for the gentiles who are turning to God…..” This passage seems to be in accordance with the video when it said Paul was able to change all the rules, and convince even the apostles to follow suit. Yet I believe there is something the video is missing. In John 5:24 Jesus says that whoever hears and believes in him and in God will go to heaven. Yet he also say in Mathew 5:17-20 that the law is irrevocable and even says that you must be more righteous that a Pharisee or teacher of the law. This is where Paul comes in, Paul catches what Jesus is actually saying in these verses and throughout his whole ministry. In Mat. 5:18 Jesus says not the smallest letter shall be changed from the law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. What he means is that the law should be fully obeyed until Jesus dies. Paul was not changing the way Christianity worked he was simply reminding the apostles and other disciples that Jesus had already fulfilled the law. In fact there would not have been a problem in the first place if the people from Judea had not come confusing the masses that you must be circumcised.
Having now read all of Acts, chapters 1-2 in Turning points, as well as chapters 1-10 in Lost to the West, I can now see a much clear change in the church, which I find quite remarkable considering this takes place over the course of, in retrospect, a handful of years. I thought I would just say that over the past few weeks the timeline has really become clear. As I am unfortunately fairly late in posting, I am at a lack as to adding anything that has not already been discussed. In addition, I enjoyed reading all of the comments as I was going to follow in much of the same manor. However, this is one thing I found to stand apart from all the verses we just read. Now in Galatians 2:20-21 I think you can see a truly remarkable change in Paul's character. "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” This quote stood out at me for through it, you can see how dedicated Paul truly is in God's mission. In addition, the wording, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live," is extremely powerful when you think about. Paul has so fully dedicated himself to Jesus that He now lives through him, which at that time, I think was a rather foreign concept... Yes, I realize I have my tenses confused, but I hope you see what I am trying to say.
Now to try to answer Ian's Question: "The part about not eating strangled animals is something I’ve never really taken serious note of. Sure I recall reading it before, but it always seemed like kind of a strange rule to be thrown in that particular mix. Does anyone know why we’re commanded not to eat strangled animals?"
WARNING: THE SQUEAMISH SHOULD NOT READ THIS! :P
From my understanding, in Jewish law there are obviously restrictions in what can and can not be eaten. As we are all aware, blood is highly frowned upon. So the thinking is in the fact that when an animal is killed by a knife, the heart pumps out all of the blood. When an animal is strangled, this means when it is caught in a snare, it dies by suffocation. By the time the hunter reaches the animal, the heart is obviously not pumping. Thus, no matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to remove all of the blood. Also, there is a law that states that an animal may not be killed in a violent manner, such as a dead fall or in this instance, strangulation. I hope that clears up an confusion!
I found both chapters of reading this week fascinating as they continue to follow two themes we have been studying so far: the spread of the Church, and how everything fall into fruition according to God's perfect plan. There is a great deal of significance that goes along with the Council in Jerusalem. As Christianity began to spread beyond the realm of Israel and into the "Gentilian" lands, Gentiles who wished to fully devote themselves to Jesus Christ reached the barrier of circumcision. Gentiles feared the public ridicule and possible persecution of their pagan Gentile brethren due to this physical alteration called for by the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Acts 15 verse 19 brilliantly epitomizes the entire chapter: "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." And in the letter sent out to Gentile believers, it goes deeper, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28) Not only does this letter relieve the burden of being circumcised from the Gentile's shoulders, but it also doesn't overwhelm them with wordy, complex theological laws that could fill several volumes if they liked. It simply gives them a springboard to begin serving God purely. But this also marks a dramatic shift where a large number of Gentiles begin converting and spreading these laws outlined in the letter to help spread the Word of God and the Church. Isn't amazing how God so brilliantly pinpointed every conversation and letter in this council so it would have the greatest impact possible?
In Acts 15, the most interesting piece of information that I saw, was when Paul and Barnabas separate. Barnabas wanted to take John, known as Mark, with them to visit the believers in the cities they have visited. However, Paul disagreed because Mark had left them in Pamphylia. The text does not tell us exactly how the argument or disagreement played out, but it does say that this argument resulted in the separation between Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas took Mark with him and went to Cyprus, while Paul to Silas to Syria and Cilicia.
ReplyDeleteThis story shows us, that the apostles were sinners, they were not perfect. Sometimes today, people feel that they cannot share their faith because they feel they are not "good enough" or righteousness enough. Paul and Barnabas are an example of men who are called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel and yet they still have arguments and still make mistakes.
At the end of Galatians 2, Paul explains his faith. Once a persecutor of Christians, Paul has become one of the most devout followers of Christ. Paul reminds us that we are not saved by works, but through Jesus Christ alone. Something that I notice about Paul, is that as he grows in Christ he sees himself growing smaller and small and sees Christ getting bigger and bigger. He says in verse 20, "...it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." Paul sees himself as an instrument of God. As he lives, he becomes less prideful and more humble. This passage is a great example of someone who wholeheartedly has faith in Christ and sees himself, as he says in another passage, "The least of sinners."
Excellent recaps of those parts of the passages RW! I think you hit on an interesting and important point about Paul and Silas still being sinners, despite their incredible enthusiasm for the Gospel. It makes me wonder if they were both in the wrong, or if only one was making the faulty decision. The answer obviously doesn't matter, but I can't help wondering. Mrs. G mentioned last week that John Mark did eventually go on to become a strong missionary for Christ.
DeleteAs for your thoughts on Galatians, I was reminded of John 3:30 (which essentially says the same thing): "He must become greater; I must become less."
“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality…” Acts 15:29
ReplyDeleteIn the Acts 15 reading, I found this verse (above) in the Council’s letter rather interesting. As a Christian, I’ve “always” known that we’re commanded not to eat food sacrificed to idols, and to abstain from sexual immorality. And I’d never intentionally eat any kind of blood anyway, ick! But the part about not eating strangled animals is something I’ve never really taken serious note of. Sure I recall reading it before, but it always seemed like kind of a strange rule to be thrown in that particular mix. Does anyone know why we’re commanded not to eat strangled animals? All animals we eat are obviously dead, so I’m simply curious why it matters how the animal came to be dead. While strangulation is obviously a very cruel action, is the mere cruelty all that sets it apart? I’m sure there must be some significance; I’m just not familiar with what it might be. Anyone able to shed some light on the subject?
“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” Galatians 2:15
With this verse from Galatians, I found it interesting how Paul refers to the Gentiles as “sinful gentiles.” He’s in the middle of giving a chastising speech to Cephas (his fellow Jewish Christian), so perhaps he’s using sarcasm to add some sting to his words. After reading the whole chapter, which is all about equality among Jews and gentiles in the eyes of God, it was rather strange to hear Paul say something that seems rather contradictory to the rest of the chapter. The verse essentially separates the “sinful gentiles” and the law abiding Jews into different categories, so to speak. As I said before, I assume it’s either Paul’s sarcasm as a means of chastisement, or just a cultural way of speaking at that time. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
I think what Paul means in Galatians is that, culturally/traditionally, the Jews are God's chosen people, whereas the gentiles are 'ethnically' sinful (this could also be a reference to lack of circumcision). He follows up on surface, traditional distinctions regarding the social relationship between Jews and gentiles by criticizing Peter, saying "If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to life like Jews?" Yet Paul then throws this (yes I think sarcastic) chastisement out the window saying that under Christ, there is no distinction between us, regardless of ethnicity and traditions.
DeleteAmos 9:11-12: "In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes all these things known from old."
ReplyDeleteOne thing that strikes me about the early church is that it is constantly looking back to the Old Testament and thus recognizing the fulfillment of prophecies. In the Jerusalem council, as the apostles discussed the feasibility of non-Jewish Gentiles becoming Christians, Paul and Barnabas relate their experiences with Gentiles and the Gospel. James stands up and quotes the above prophecy from Amos. Throughout the New testament, we see the early Christians comparing scripture to scripture, making sure everything lines up. Paul even says in I Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything...."
Paul says in Galatians 2:1 that he was gone fourteen years before returning to Jerusalem. IF ONLY we had found this verse Thursday, it might have helped immensely when time-lineing Paul's ministry. After a VERY long sentence of subordinate clauses, Paul teaches that Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles alike, despite disagreements among other apostles.
Paul says: "But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild, what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor." He refers to those already Christians making mistakes (compare with RW's response). But the true Christian, seeming a slave to sin, when confronted by it, will turn around, or 'rebuild," yet not in himself. For "Christ lives in him." Just though he put that well (better than I did here at any rate!).
"IF ONLY we had found this verse Thursday..."
DeleteHa, I had that thought too. And in regards to your comments on the Acts reading, I've always loved passages about the fulfillment of the Scriptures. There's something so satisfying about the prophecies in the Old Testament matching up with the New Testament.
In Acts 15 some of the interesting points of the passage were the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it's not very clear of why the separated. It's also interesting to think about how God can and will use anyone to get the gospel out to others. So why it might not seem like the separation of Paul and Barnabas was for the greater good, when you think about it it's probably better. Because you have two great teachers that split up and in the end the probably converted more people to Christianity that way.
ReplyDeleteIn Galations i like when Paul tells that only way to get to heaven is threw Jesus Christ, this is just great reminder for all of us, as R.W. already said. Its also interesting to think about how Paul was such a zealous persecutor of the Christians, then God worked through Pal to make him one of the greatest teachers of the word of God.
I thought the Jerusalem council and Paul’s commentary in Galatians to be both encouraging and amazing. It really was the first time the Church outlined the doctrine of sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. But Paul points out three things regarding salvation that I guess I knew but they really jumped out at me in an impactful way after reading this passage several times. First, he points out that no one was ever able to follow the law – it was a restriction “our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The anonymous author of Hebrews echoes this by saying “the law…could never make perfect those who draw near” (Hebrews 10:1). The law was there to show us that we could never follow it perfectly. It was a mirror of sorts so we could see our own depravity. Paul says it is useless to require things that we never meant to be, or could be followed perfectly. He explains point blank that no act of ours is capable of justifying us before God: “By works of the law no one will be justified.” (Gal. 2:16) Second, he points out the hypocrisy of such requirements, since the Jews themselves were not following the laws they were laying out. They were just as sinful as the people they were converting. That was a new and interesting perspective.
ReplyDeletePaul uses this to transition into his final point, which was my favorite. “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I live now in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (2:20) Hebrews 10 (not coincidentally) comes to the same conclusion, saying we should have “full assurance of faith” (10:22) because “he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (10:14). I thought Paul’s perspective was really neat: the law no longer binds us! We are sanctified. Christ lives in us, he has purified us. We failed to be perfect people, so Christ has redeemed us. We don’t have to follow the strict codes of the Old Testament for the forgiveness of sin because Jesus is our salvation. The moral law of God is not void (as the Jerusalem council writes to the churches), but we should be not be promulgating more rules that cannot be followed by sinful people, but living our lives to spread the gospel that Jesus Christ is the redeemer. We are no longer in chains to sin. We don't have to rely on our own imperfect selves. There is no better news than that, I think. Amen?
"And after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." Acts 15:36
ReplyDeleteAs I read Acts 15, this verse really stuck out to me. What Paul is suggesting here is to go back to all of the places they have shared the Good News and see how the new converts are doing. Or to "check-up" on them, so to speak. The new converts and churches had just come out of a pagan culture, so Paul wants to make sure that the church was standing firm in the faith and whether or not any of the churches needed to be strengthened. The reason this stuck out to me was the fact that Paul actually cared enough about the people that became saved as a result of his preaching to go back to ALL of the different cities he has "proclaimed the word of the Lord..." Now of course, as R.W. and Sam have mentioned, this decision ended up causing Paul and Barnabas to go their separate ways. This is just an example of how God's sovereignty used the disagreement to spread his word. Despite human shortcomings, God strengthened the church through Paul and Barnabas' separation.
As for Galatians, I think the point of salvation by GRACE alone cannot be stressed enough. It is only as a result of the grace of God that we are saved. As human sinners, we rightfully deserve death and eternal separation from God. Yet God, in his abounding love, nullified that punishment through His son. The other thing I thought was great was the fact that Paul boldly and directly confronted Cephas about his sin. I know that I would be hesitant to confront someone about something that I can see that they are doing wrong. Worrying wether or not it is even my place or if I even have the right to confront him/her. Thank God that we can do "all things through Christ..." who gives us strength.
In Acts 15 a really cool verse was vs12, "And all the assembly fell silent and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles." I just love the "and ALL the assembly fell silent and listened"
ReplyDeleteIn Galations 2: I really think the point that Paul made in vs14 is a good one, "I said to Cephas before them all, 'if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
I thought that the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New was very interesting while reading these passages. The Jews of the New Testament regard the OT Law as mostly a physical thing; be circumcised, don't eat unclean food, keep the Sabbath. In reality, it had a spiritual aspect, but the NT Jews seem as if they would rather ignore this. Deuteronomy 30:6 says that "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (ESV) The gospel brought about a circumcision of the heart, rather than of the flesh. Pharisees in the NT would rather nitpick about Sabbath laws than have a "circumcised" heart. The death of Christ fulfilled the old laws that had no salvation in and of themselves, and brought about a New Covenant, in which all peoples of the world could be saved, and no physical laws could keep them from being so. In this way the gospel was truly brought "to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8, ESV)
ReplyDelete“If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”
ReplyDelete-Galatians 2:14-16
Paul’s exhortation to Peter and the more traditional formerly Jewish converts was extremely important to the early church, not only because it symbolizes Christianity’s break from Judaism, but also because it explicitly states that salvation comes through Christ alone, by faith alone. Believing that anything, in this case circumcision, is needed in addition to Jesus is a dangerous error that Paul emphasizes throughout his writings.
The Jerusalem Counsel was formed in order to determine generally whether the law of the Old Testament was applicable for gentile Christian convert, specifically the practice of circumcision. Interestingly enough they determine that circumcision is irrelevant, yet that some Old Testament laws, such as abstaining from food that had been strangled, food offered to idols, and blood were upheld. There could be many reasons for this, one that readily comes to mind is that circumcision is a physical marking of the body while the others were merely dietary choices and thus simpler for new converts to follow, but there are probably others. What do you guys think?
Personally, I love the book of Acts. It seems like every time I read it, something new jumps out at me. This time when I read Acts 15, I was astounded at the fact that there were Christians who genuinely believe that Gentiles should not be able to accept Christianity without being circumcised. "since God is the one-who will truly justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Romans 3:30-31 This scripture is basically saying that, God will judge everyone the same, whether they're circumcised or uncircumcised, whether Jew or Gentile, it will not matter in the end.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching “In the footsteps of St. Paul,” last week I was able to read these passages with new eyes. In particular I found the verse in Acts were James says “we should not make it difficult for the gentiles who are turning to God…..” This passage seems to be in accordance with the video when it said Paul was able to change all the rules, and convince even the apostles to follow suit. Yet I believe there is something the video is missing. In John 5:24 Jesus says that whoever hears and believes in him and in God will go to heaven. Yet he also say in Mathew 5:17-20 that the law is irrevocable and even says that you must be more righteous that a Pharisee or teacher of the law. This is where Paul comes in, Paul catches what Jesus is actually saying in these verses and throughout his whole ministry. In Mat. 5:18 Jesus says not the smallest letter shall be changed from the law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. What he means is that the law should be fully obeyed until Jesus dies. Paul was not changing the way Christianity worked he was simply reminding the apostles and other disciples that Jesus had already fulfilled the law. In fact there would not have been a problem in the first place if the people from Judea had not come confusing the masses that you must be circumcised.
ReplyDeleteHaving now read all of Acts, chapters 1-2 in Turning points, as well as chapters 1-10 in Lost to the West, I can now see a much clear change in the church, which I find quite remarkable considering this takes place over the course of, in retrospect, a handful of years. I thought I would just say that over the past few weeks the timeline has really become clear. As I am unfortunately fairly late in posting, I am at a lack as to adding anything that has not already been discussed. In addition, I enjoyed reading all of the comments as I was going to follow in much of the same manor. However, this is one thing I found to stand apart from all the verses we just read. Now in Galatians 2:20-21 I think you can see a truly remarkable change in Paul's character. "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” This quote stood out at me for through it, you can see how dedicated Paul truly is in God's mission. In addition, the wording, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live," is extremely powerful when you think about. Paul has so fully dedicated himself to Jesus that He now lives through him, which at that time, I think was a rather foreign concept... Yes, I realize I have my tenses confused, but I hope you see what I am trying to say.
ReplyDeleteNow to try to answer Ian's Question: "The part about not eating strangled animals is something I’ve never really taken serious note of. Sure I recall reading it before, but it always seemed like kind of a strange rule to be thrown in that particular mix. Does anyone know why we’re commanded not to eat strangled animals?"
WARNING: THE SQUEAMISH SHOULD NOT READ THIS! :P
From my understanding, in Jewish law there are obviously restrictions in what can and can not be eaten. As we are all aware, blood is highly frowned upon. So the thinking is in the fact that when an animal is killed by a knife, the heart pumps out all of the blood. When an animal is strangled, this means when it is caught in a snare, it dies by suffocation. By the time the hunter reaches the animal, the heart is obviously not pumping. Thus, no matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to remove all of the blood. Also, there is a law that states that an animal may not be killed in a violent manner, such as a dead fall or in this instance, strangulation. I hope that clears up an confusion!
It's a pity I'm squeamish...now I'll never know your answer. Jokes, jokes!
DeleteInteresting point Ben! Thanks for sharing. I wouldn't be surprised if you're right.
That is really interesting! Good thing I'm not very squeamish! *blog*
DeleteI found both chapters of reading this week fascinating as they continue to follow two themes we have been studying so far: the spread of the Church, and how everything fall into fruition according to God's perfect plan. There is a great deal of significance that goes along with the Council in Jerusalem. As Christianity began to spread beyond the realm of Israel and into the "Gentilian" lands, Gentiles who wished to fully devote themselves to Jesus Christ reached the barrier of circumcision. Gentiles feared the public ridicule and possible persecution of their pagan Gentile brethren due to this physical alteration called for by the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Acts 15 verse 19 brilliantly epitomizes the entire chapter: "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." And in the letter sent out to Gentile believers, it goes deeper, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28) Not only does this letter relieve the burden of being circumcised from the Gentile's shoulders, but it also doesn't overwhelm them with wordy, complex theological laws that could fill several volumes if they liked. It simply gives them a springboard to begin serving God purely. But this also marks a dramatic shift where a large number of Gentiles begin converting and spreading these laws outlined in the letter to help spread the Word of God and the Church. Isn't amazing how God so brilliantly pinpointed every conversation and letter in this council so it would have the greatest impact possible?
ReplyDelete