Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today”, Sunday, July 14, 2013

Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, July 14, 2013 Read – Acts 15:1-35 We have now reached the mid-point of Luke’s second volume. It is not surprising that perhaps the most important, yet most problematic chapter in the book of Acts is chapter 15. The decision that the church made regarding circumcision and how Gentiles can become Christians and what that means both for Jews and non-Jews set the course for all of the Christian faith. Had a different decision been made Christianity would likely look a lot different today than it does. The question is not whether Gentiles can become Christians. That bridge had been crossed in the story of Cornelius (Acts 10-11) and furthered by the ministry of Barnabas and Paul in Galatia (Acts 13-14). The Gentile mission had received the blessing of the Jerusalem Apostles (Acts 11:22-23). The question was whether or not Gentiles would need to observe the ordinances of the OT with respect to what it means to be a Jew. Do Gentile Christians need to be circumcised as the OT required? The OT is rather clear on this issue with regard to the children of Abraham. In Genesis 17:14 God says, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Can anything be clearer than that? Circumcision was the sign of what it meant to be a Jew! The issue is engaged when “certain individuals from Judea” come to Antioch and begin to teach that unless Gentile males are circumcised they cannot be saved (Acts 15:1). We need to remember that Luke has made a large issue out of the authenticating work of the Jerusalem church. Were these men representatives of Jerusalem? The story will demonstrate that they were not, but in the initial encounter of these men with the church in Antioch, and for the readers of Acts, the nature of their authority is not clear. The preaching of these people who claim that circumcision was a necessary practice in order to be saved caused no small problems for Barnabas and Paul. In fact, the whole Gentile mission was now placed in jeopardy. In a way that is typical of the book of Acts, the church in Antioch appointed a delegation, which consisted of Barnabas and Paul and some others, to go to Jerusalem and settle the issue. When they arrived at Jerusalem Luke tells us that they were welcomed by the church and the Apostles – they were not the source of this controversy (Acts 15:24). Luke provides us with a bit more information when he tells us that it was believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees who spoke out against Barnabas and Paul – demanding that “it was necessary for them (Gentiles) to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). There are two things to notice about this information. First, it is significant that there were Christian Pharisees! Being a Christian and being a Pharisee are not mutually exclusive. These are not Pharisees who were opposed to Jesus – they believed in him and were his followers. We need to recall that from Luke’s point of view Christians were simply Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Secondly, so far in the book of Acts, and even to a great extent in the gospel of Luke, the Pharisees have been presented in a very favorable light. They do not participate in the trial and execution of Jesus. A Pharisee, Gamaliel, has rescued the Apostles from the Sanhedrin. Pharisees are not the enemy. Here, though, they are the source of the controversy. The Apostles, who are the normative force in the Christian movement, gather to discuss the issue and determine a solution. Among them are Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. They step forth as the spokesmen for the group. Peter speaks first. He reminds the church that “in the early days” God had chosen Peter to be the one through whom God would reach out to Gentiles – his reference is to the Cornelius encounter (Acts 10). He goes on to remind the church that God poured out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles then and in the process made no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Peter’s argument is that to lay a burden on the Gentiles now, a burden that even Jews have never been able to bear, would be to oppose God. Peter speaks in opposition to those who would require circumcision. Incidentally, this is the last time we will hear from Peter. He will now disappear from the book of Acts. Now it is Barnabas and Paul’s turn to speak. They are not given much press by Luke – certainly this is his way of downplaying them and lifting up the regulatory nature of the Jerusalem Apostles. Luke gives them one verse. Next, James the brother of Jesus speaks. James speaks in support of Peter. And, most significantly, he bases his argument upon OT scripture. Quoting from the prophet Amos (Amos 9:11-12 in the Septuagint version), James argues that the inclusion of the Gentiles has been God’s plan all along. Clearly James has emerged as the authoritative leader of the Jerusalem church and now he gives his decision. The Gentiles who are turning to the Lord will not be troubled – circumcision is not required! So far so good. Actually James declares two decisions. The first is the most important and one that Barnabas and Paul would wholeheartedly agree with – the decision that circumcision would not be required. The second decision, however, is what creates a great deal of trouble for readers of Acts and readers of Paul’s letters. James adds to his declaration that circumcision is not required the decision that four injunctions are to be followed by Gentile Christians – they are to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what has been strangled, and from blood. It is here that the bone of contention is joined. Paul would never have agreed with these injunctions! And we have the book of Galatians to prove it! We are going to look at the book of Galatians over the next few days paying special attention to Paul’s version of this same meeting. What we will discover are some irreconcilable differences. We will deal with those differences as we listen to Paul in his letter to Galatians. For now, we are attempting to hear what Luke has to say. As Luke tells the story in Acts, it appears that everyone is pleased with the outcome – that includes Paul and Barnabas who return to Antioch with representative of the Jerusalem church – Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas – who will once again authenticate the matter. A letter is written and delivered to the church in Antioch and even to the churches in Cilicia where Paul had been ministering. According to Luke, soon Paul will deliver this message to the churches he and Barnabas had founded in Galatia (Acts 16:4). It is interesting to note that the church in Jerusalem says, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” in announcing the decision. Clearly their understanding is that this decision is somehow both by the inspiration of God and by their own judgment – they own the decision. God has allowed the church to make important decisions – to participate in those decisions. The church today still makes decisions – and God still honors the participation of people in those decisions – “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Back in Antioch the letter is delivered and the church rejoices! Controversy that might have ripped the church in pieces is avoided. Luke has told us a story that is marked with much harmony – he has put the best construction on the whole episode. You may have picked up from my tone of writing that I don’t think this was the whole story. We will hear what Paul has to say in the next few days – and that will complicate the matter. But there are some important things that we need to gain from the story Luke has told us. Most important is that decision that Gentiles can become Christians without first becoming Jews – circumcision is not required. Had the church decided that Christians must all be circumcised it is likely that Christianity would have remained a far more “Jewish” experience than it has. It is also likely that the Gentile mission would have collapsed. It is important to say that all agreed on the issue of circumcision and that the long held belief that circumcision was the mark of what it meant to be a person of God was abandoned. What had been clearly stated in the OT was no longer the case. That may strike us as either tremendously freeing and positive or it may strike us as a frightening reality fraught with all kinds of danger. How can the Word of God change? Is there nothing that is solid? If circumcision is abandoned what else will follow? Certainly there must have been people at that time who said these things and feared that everything would crumble to the ground. The decision of the church was indeed an incredibly bold decision! Before we move on to hear Paul’s point of view, it is important that we consider why James, and the normative church in Jerusalem, might add some injunctions to the decision. While circumcision was a determinative marker in what it meant to be a Jew there were some other things that helped Jews define who they were. Much of that had to do with some practices through which a Jew would remain pure – not eating specific foods, not touching dead bodies, not eating pork, not eating blood, and a variety of other practices. It is important that we say that the Jewish people never understood abstaining from all these things as a means of salvation. That is not the question – but becoming contaminated by these things made a Jewish person unfit and unable to participate in the rituals which were part of their relationship with God. Because Gentiles did not abstain from all these things, they were contaminated and a source of contamination for Jews who might come into contact with them. How were observant Jews to relate to Gentiles – now fellow-believers in Jesus? The injunctions set down by James were not meant as a means to salvation but rather as a means through which observant Jews could maintain their religious practices and yet relate with Gentiles. So, we might say, Gentiles were asked to observe these things for the sake of their Jewish brothers and sisters. Is it asking too much of the Gentiles to observe some basic injunctions which would make it possible for them to relate to Jews without contaminating them? From this perspective a whole now possibility emerges. In actuality, Paul will say something similar in his discussion of these issues. We will wait to hear Paul’s view later. Christians differ with one another about a number of things. One of the main things we might take away from Luke’s story in Acts 15 is that Christians can hold very different views and disagree about things and yet remain in fellowship with one another. No one is being accused of not really being a Christian even though they disagree with one another. Luke has shaped a very difficult experience in the early church in a very harmonic and conciliatory way – perhaps we ought to listen to him.