Acts 15:1-16:5 TT Answers
Session #22 – 2/6/08
Christ Church of Dubuque
Questions
- What was the issue behind the first dispute in this chapter?
Some from Jerusalem (probably Pharisees – v 5) were teaching that the Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved.
What sorts of people in our culture add things to the Gospel for salvation?
There are Catholics who add sacraments, some charismatics who add speaking in tongues, others who add baptism, etc.
- How is the Jerusalem church’s acceptance of Barnabas and Paul great confirmation for our proclamation of the Gospel of free grace?
To see that the foundational apostles accepted and loved (25) Barnabas and Paul who proclaimed the Gospel is affirmation for us, because it helps us see that this has been the same message ever since those who were originally with Jesus. We carry on in this tradition.
- Who testifies against the Pharisaic believers?
Of course, we can answer “Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James,” but this may undercut the emphasis in each testimony that God is the One who is really making His case.
What method does each testifier take?
· Peter appeals to God’s conversion of Gentiles (Cornelius and company).
· P & B appeal to God’s miraculous workings among the Gentiles.
· James appeals to the OT to show that God had it planned beforehand.
In what ways might this help keep us from cowardice as we stand up for the Gospel?
We aren’t merely giving apologetics for a set of ideas, as many religions do, but rather we are standing firm in God’s acting within history. God’s acting in history is our only hope, and this is a cause for great confidence and boldness.
- More specifically, what points does Peter want to get across in his speech (7-11)?
· By God’s choosing, He has saved some who are Gentiles.
· The Gentiles are saved only by faith, in the same way that we (Jews) are.
· God clearly confirmed His salvation for them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, in the same way that He gave Him to us.
· Therefore, you must not make them obey the Law for salvation, because neither Jews nor Gentiles can attain to it.
- What does James want to get across (13-21)?
· God “took from the Gentiles a people for His name.”
o “In evx evqnw/n lao.n [“out of Gentiles, a people”] the two nouns stand in sharp contrast to each other. Out of those who are by definition not Jews, who are not the people of God, God takes men... to be a lao,j [“people”], to be his own people, even though they lack what has hitherto been the necessary qualification for this: they do not belong to the right race and have not been circumcised as proselytes” (Barrett, 724).
o Zechariah 2:11 "Many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.
· The Gentiles are flooding in because the house of David has been restored. Jesus is reigning.
o “...the Gentile mission is viewed as the fulfillment of this promise: the fallen fortunes of the house of David are restored by the raising up of Jesus as the Messiah of David’s line, who extends his sovereignty over the nations through the Gentile mission, so that people everywhere are now seeking the true God and are being called by his name through faith. The apostolic council recognized the Gentiles, apart from the law, as full heirs of salvation and as members of the people of God” (Kostenberger/O’Brien, 151).
· Therefore, we shouldn’t trouble the Gentiles coming into the people of God by making them obey the Law.
- Why does it seem that the Gentiles are only given a few stipulations and not the whole Law?
For the sake of evangelism to the Gentiles and for the sake of fellowship. We see that Paul circumcises Timothy (16:3) probably for these very reasons (16:3). Paul adhered to the Law at times and at times he didn’t (even though he was a Jew!) for the sake of winning them over to the Gospel (1 Cor 9:21).
It seems that if Christianity would have wholly broken with the customs of the Law all at once, it would have caused many cultural clashes, and the Jewish and Gentile Christians may have never found common ground to fellowship upon because of the Jews’ background (as noted by 15:21).
“Calvin’s comment (2.51f) is worth quoting: ‘He warns that it is not possible for the ceremonies to be abolished so quickly, as if at one fell swoop, because the Jews had already been accustomed to the teaching of the Law for many generations, and Moses had his preachers; that agreement therefore must be gained for a short time until the freedom, procured by Christ, should gradually be more clearly understood; in other words, as the common saying goes, that the ceremonies had to be buried with some decency’” (Barrett, 738).
- How would the flavor of the letter have changed if “to the Holy Spirit” (v 28) wasn’t included? What about if “you will do well” (v 29) were changed to “you will be accepted?
First of all, it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit has led them to this conclusion based upon God’s workings amongst the Gentiles from the prior speeches. It is important to note that this was God’s initiative “known from long ago” (18), and not merely man’s compromise.
Secondly, it is important to note that their acceptance to the people of God is confirmed on the basis of faith alone and not upon their ability to follow this new legal code consisting of four laws. These four laws would (quite suggestively from the authoritative Jerusalem church) be well for them to follow for the sake of fellowship and evangelism. These are not new commands that all Gentiles must then keep.
What might we learn from the suggestions of the Jerusalem council?
There may be times when we will voluntarily give up our freedom for the sake of loving others, either in the situation of evangelizing them or fellowshipping with them.
- What was the disagreement between Barnabas and Paul about (vv 36-41)?
It’s interesting that it is not a theological difference between the two, but rather a difference concerning what would be best for the next missionary journey. Here Paul resists taking him along because of his desertion from their first mission. It is hard to tell exactly why he left them, but one might speculate that it had something to do with his disagreement with the Gentile mission or possibly just his lack of commitment. It doesn’t seem that Paul would have resisted taking Mark along unless there was some theological or character flaw within him.
However, it must be noted that there was some reconciliation between Mark and Paul later on such that Paul desired Timothy to bring Mark to him for his usefulness (2 Tim 4:11). We also see Mark’s commitment to the Gospel later on in his imprisonment with Paul (Philemon 23).
What might we learn from disagreements between Christians as we handle similar circumstances?
· In non-theological differences like this, we can learn that there may be room for differences of opinion. However, these should embitter us toward each other, but rather we must continually recognize the others as colleagues and co-workers for the Gospel.
· However, this doesn’t mean that there is no room for opinion, but this must also be tempered by our understanding of leadership and functioning within a local church.
· Regarding theological differences, we certainly see that foundational theology (such as concerning the Gospel itself) must be stood for at all costs, even as we saw at the Jerusalem Council.
· There may be differing levels of standing up boldly between the foundational theological differences and the non-theological differences.
- What is wrong with Paul that he would circumcise Timothy right after the Jerusalem Council (16:3)?
It seemed to have to do with Paul’s desire for evangelizing the Jews. Since Timothy’s mother was a Jew and his father a Greek, he wasn’t seen to be fully Jewish. For the sake of this not being a stumbling block to the Jews as they sought to evangelize them and fellowship with them, Paul went ahead and circumcised him.
What does this teach us about what the level of commitment to the Gospel should be in our lives?
Normally we think about our actions for the Gospel in terms of what might be comfortable for us. Circumcision is not comfortable, especially as an adult. However, we see here Timothy’s willingness to do anything for the sake of the Gospel. This should be our attitude as we approach different types of people. We should be willing to sacrifice our time, preferences, and comforts for the sake of sharing the Gospel with people.
Acts 15:1-16:5 TT Session #22 – 2/6/08
Christ Church of Dubuque
Summary Sheet