Home » Posts tagged 'Acts 15'

Tag Archives: Acts 15

The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church

The New Testament Meaning of Church

God revealed His Word, which is the special revelation of every and all of His Words by God the Spirit through human authors.  Those words communicate plainly the will of God to man, including the nature of the church.  The church is what scripture says it is through its cumulative usages in the New Testament.  What the Bible says the church is, is what it is, regardless of what occurs in the world or what men may say or have said that it is.

The New Testament shows that in its rudimentary sense, the church is local only.  The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means “assembly.”  The church is an assembly.  It is always an assembly and that’s what the word means.  Even if the New Testament addresses the doctrine of the church in a generic way, a church is still what it is, an assembly.  And yet today, people will say and have said that the church is mainly not an assembly, but a mystical or spiritual universal entity, not local or visible.  How did this happen?  It didn’t start out that way.

Historical Theology

Historical Theology or the History of Christian Doctrine can show the changes in the meaning of words and doctrine.  The meaning of ekklesia and the doctrine of the church changed from its usage and teaching in the New Testament.  The church changed into something it was into something it was not and is not.  More than changing, outside influences through history actually perverted the meaning of church and the doctrine of the church.

The history of Christian doctrine tells a story of external factors.  One of the values of historical theology is chronicling the culture of the world, governments, and other societal elements that affected the beliefs of Christianity.  External factors have affected the interpretation, meaning, and doctrine of God’s Word.  Instead of reading out the plain meaning of the text of the New Testament, people read into the text something not in it.  This is another attack on scripture by Satan and the world system.

How Changes Occurred

One of the benefits of studying the history of Christian doctrine is investigating the changes in doctrine and how they occurred.  Outside circumstances affected how people understood the biblical writings and their teaching.  False teaching also begets more false teaching.  A major component to change is fear.  The Roman Empire opposed Christianity in the first three centuries and people adapted their belief and practice out of fear.  Scripture reveals how that fear can and will modify what people will believe.

In addition, teachers of scripture mix biblical teaching with human philosophies, such as Platonism and mysticism.  Through the decades and centuries since Christ, students of scripture allowed the influence of other writings to affect their understanding of the Bible.  Traditions sometimes took precedent over sound exegesis of the biblical text.  Predominant teachers held greater sway in the minds of people.  Powerful men put their thumb on the scale of their preferred scholars and instructors, giving them an oversized impact on contemporary thinking.

Once John finished writing the book of Revelation in the late first century, which completed the New Testament and the canon of scripture, apostolic authority ceased.  Scripture stood as the final authority.  Also, authoritative leaders were in individual churches, not anything greater than that.  The New Testament shows no hierarchy.  Pastor and deacons were the only church officers.  The pastor presided over their prospective, individual churches, each under Jesus Christ. Individual churches would fellowship with other churches of like faith and practice.

Just Individual Churches

The New Testament shows that churches cooperated with one another in non authoritative ways.  They passed around the New Testament books (Galatians 1:2, Colossians 4:16).  Churches met together to settle disputes with one another (Acts 15).  A church would host and provide hospitality to those traveling from other churches (3 John).  Several different churches might send funds to help out another church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3).  An individual church would send support to a missionary from another church (Philippians 4).

According to the New Testament, no other church had authority over another church.  Jesus was the Head of each church and accomplished that headship through scripture.  The demarcation between churches could and did impede the spread of false doctrine.  No evidence exists in the New Testament of one church having authority over another.  The spirit of the New Testament is serving one another (Philip 2:1-5, Eph 5:21, Matt 20:25-28), not domination over one another.

Authority in Individual Churches

God gives authority to pastors over individual congregations and nothing greater than that (Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:1-3, Titus 2:15, 1 Timothy 5:17).  Even the pastors with authority over their individual, separate churches (assemblies) also are themselves under the authority of their churches (1 Timothy 5:19-20).  After the end of the apostolic era, this is all someone sees in the New Testament.  Apostles had authority greater than one church, but no one else.  The apostle Paul still submitted to church authority though, the authority of the single church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).

What drew together the churches of the New Testament into unity was having the same Head, Jesus, the same source of authority, scripture, and an identical gospel, means of salvation. Jesus calls His church, “my church,” in Matthew 16:18.  He congregation distinguished itself from other assemblies by the means expressed by Him in the Gospels and then through His inspired followers in the rest of the New Testament.  Churches could become something less than or other than a church or a true church, like the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-21.

Separate Churches Protecting Doctrine and Practice

When Jesus wanted to bring back a church toward Him, so that it didn’t become a Laodicean church, He worked through individual messengers through an inspired message.  He didn’t operate through a greater hierarchical system.  One can understand how that having a so-called catholic church with hierarchical authority could bring immediate and widespread false doctrine, heresy, and apostasy.  With the head corrupted, everything below it would corrupt too.  The autonomy of individual churches could protect the truth using the means given only to individual churches.

Separate churches could protect the doctrine and practice of the church through separation.  God gave each church pastors to protect the separate church and church discipline.  Church discipline could not operate through anything greater than a single church.  It was designed for one church.  The Lord’s Table was given to a separate church, which had accountability with its own membership.  Body parts function in one location with the witness of all the other parts.  Parts of a body do not work together outside of a single locale, which is what “body” itself communicates.

Body, Local

The Apostle Paul in defining the body, didn’t say “we are the body,” but “ye are the body,” excluding himself (1 Corinthians 12:27).  That didn’t mean Paul wasn’t himself in a body.  He was, even as he says in Romans 12:5.  The oneness of a body though is in a particular body, not in bodies spread out all over the globe.  Unity occurs in churches, which were given by Christ the means to do so.

With the plain understanding of church in the New Testament, how did other teaching develop through the centuries?  This is a story and strongly relates to a few significant factors.  Judaism and then the Roman Empire persecuted the first church and then the churches proceeding from that church.  Judaism crossed regional boundaries and the Roman Empire was itself spread over the then known world.  The Roman Empire was mammoth and with tremendous military and political power.  It threatened the very existence of the first churches that started across its empire.

More to Come

Application in the Story of the Rift Between Paul and Barnabas, Starting in Acts 15:35-41

Acts 15:35-41:  Barnabas and Paul

The Jerusalem and Antioch churches settled a dispute in Acts 15.  After that, a rift occurred between long time fellow laborers.  Here is the text (verses 35-41):

35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

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.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

I have heard at least 3-5 sermons in my lifetime on this passage and listened to many discussions on it.  In addition, I’ve read an abundance of commentaries and articles on this story.  Men take many, many different positions.  They describe it different ways.  The most common overall position I could represent with these following comments.

How To Take The Story

First, I don’t now who wrote this, but it mirrors the next three comments:

Either way, Luke does not write this account in such a way that puts Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong, or vice versa. They made a mutual decision to split ways because neither could agree with the other. In a way, they both were right. It wouldn’t have been productive for Paul to take Mark when he didn’t trust him, but Barnabas saw the long-term potential in Mark and gave him another chance.

Robertson

Second, here’s A. T. Robertson:

No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One’s judgment may go with Paul, but one’s heart goes with Barnabas…Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times.

Gill

Third, I quote John Gill:

thus as soon almost as peace was made in the church, a difference arises among the ministers of the word, who are men of like passions with others; and though it is not easy to say which was to blame most in this contention; perhaps there were faults on both sides, for the best men are not without their failings; yet this affair was overruled by the providence of God, for the spread of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest; for when these two great and good men parted from one another, they went to different places, preaching the word of God:

Spurgeon

Fourth, here’s what Spurgeon said and wrote:

There was no help for it but to part. Barnabas went one way with his nephew, and Paul another with Silas. Mark turned out well, and so justified the opinion of Barnabas, but Paul could not foresee that, and is not to be condemned for acting upon the general rule that he who puts his hand to the plough and looks back has proved himself unworthy.

This separation, though painful in its cause, was a most excellent thing. There was no need for two such men to be together, they were each able to lead the way alone, and by their doing so double good was accomplished.

What Not To Do

What no one should do is to read into the text or the story and argue from silence.  No one should use this passage to show that he’s right and someone else is wrong.  It is a very weak section of a chapter to make strong, dogmatic application.  Even with quotes like the four above, some church leaders will read into Acts 15:35-41 application that just isn’t there.

Someone could say, “I’m Paul in this story, and the other guy is Barnabas.”  Well, how do you get to be Paul?  It reminds me of playing with my brother as a child.  I say, “You are him, and I’ll be this guy,” choosing the favorite for myself.  “Hey, let’s play these characters and I’ll be David and you get to be Saul. How’s that sound?”

The story of the divisive contention between two godly men says essentially the following to me.  This kind of division occurs between even two godly men, based upon differing opinions.  God does not come down on one side or the other in the story.  I could explain both men as wrong, or one or the other wrong, just using speculation.

Something to Learn

When a sad split occurs, one that we really, really wish wasn’t happening, this story with Paul and Barnabas says to us, “It even happened to Paul and Barnabas.”  It isn’t an example for division, an affirmation of fighting and severing a relationship.  God doesn’t leave out of His Word these types of events.  Almost anyone reading here know these kinds of incidents occur.

Later Paul and John Mark

Rather than depend on speculation, which is not rightly dividing or practicing scripture, the Bible gives non-speculative truth concerning the rest of the story.  A quite well-known fact, the rest of the New Testament says many good things about John Mark.  He wrote the gospel of Mark, which some call the gospel of Peter, even as the Apostle Peter was close to him (1 Peter 5:13).

The Apostle Paul also later speaks of John Mark well, working closely with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:23-24).  ,When the Apostle Paul is at the very end of his life, he writes 2 Timothy.  In that final state with his execution imminent, he says about John Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11:  “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.”  In his final hours, of the few things he could request and of all people, he wanted John Mark.

Later Paul and Barnabas

The events of Acts 15 and the split between Paul and Barnabas occurred around 49-50 AD.   Paul wouldn’t have written 1 Corinthians until a few years after that at least, so at least 53, if not 55.  When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he wasn’t traveling with Barnabas anymore. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 9:6 Paul writes the church at Corinth:  “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?”

The Apostle Paul wrote for the continued financial support for the missionary work of Barnabas.  He treated Barnabas as an equal to him in the work of the Lord, not something lesser.  Pay Barnabas.  He had the right to forbear working.  Muzzle not that ox that treads out the corn (1 Cor 9:9).  For sure, Paul wasn’t laboring toward the discontinuation of support of Barnabas, arguing to the church at Corinth that Barnabas should not receive money from churches.  Just the opposite.  He uses his name in the argument after the rift between them.

Whatever the rift in Acts 15 between Paul and Barnabas, it wasn’t there in 1 Corinthians 9:6.  He advocated for Barnabas as a missionary and for his receiving support as one.  That didn’t mean they still didn’t have a difference between each other.  Men have differences.  I’ve never met a man that did not have at least one difference with another man.  Some men think they’re always right in every single difference.  Everyone needs to submit to them.  They’re pretty close to stop listening to anyone else.

Judging Situations

I know my heart, that I’m sincere when I look at situations to judge them.  In addition, I’ve prayed and maybe even fasted.  Everyone else has got to be wrong.  And then later I find out that I’m not always right.  This is why the Apostle Paul could write in Romans 7:19:

For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Paul gets it wrong.  Everyone gets it wrong.  It’s even a law, a principle.  He writes about that in Romans 7:21:

I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

When Paul would do good, a principle resides in him, like gravity, that opposes his doing good.  Always that law functions in his body parts when he would do good.  This is why everyone needs mediation, something Paul certainly understood by the time (60-62AD) he wrote Philemon.

Acts 15:35-41 is a wonderful group of verses in the Bible.  Everyone can learn from them.  At the same time, anyone could speculate about them too, and then go ahead and use them for personal reasons.

The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2

Part One

Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.

Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.

The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.

Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons.  Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.

Mediation and Neutrality

I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos).  He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”

When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones.  Neutral ones stand under cross examination.  Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.

A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.

Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too

Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each.  The true mother deferred.  She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one.  Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts.  The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.

You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased.  Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.

Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation.  When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.

Pitfalls to Mediation

What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation?  The other party rejects.  Maybe you reader too reject mediation.  Think about it.

People very often want vengeance in an issue.  Maybe they have a grudge.  They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea.  At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader.  Mediation will require humility.

Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences.  Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination.  Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.

During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.”  With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could.  The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.”  Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy.  Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.

More to Come, Lord-willing

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives