What was going to ask if I ought to use that or if it was even on and Clearly, it was on.
Okay. So we will be. I can turn the page. We will be in Acts chapter 15 for the most part tonight.
And we will be talking about a group of people who are, yeah, Dan was just.
Thanking God that we had the opportunity through the blood of Christ to be saved. And we're going to be talking about a group of people who are trying to hammer out the details of of what that means and if anything else kind of goes along with that.
Some people show up and say that maybe there's more to it than that. And Paul as you might imagine objects.
So.
Rather than sort of give a full account. I think most of us are this must not be on since I just hit it.
That's good. It didn't pop out there, right? I didn't hear it.
All right, good. So rather than give an account, I think most of us are relatively familiar with the story that it gets called it's even titled in my Bible the Jerusalem Council.
I think counsel is a little bit of a strong term for it and as a historian and I just did.
About a year ago now did a long series on early Christianity. And we talked about. Various church councils that early Christians had.
Some people try to roll this into it as if it were the first council. And I guess you could make kind of an argument for that.
But I think to call it the Jerusalem Council, which I'll probably slip up and do, but to call it that implies a whole lot more about what they were thinking.
When they held this meeting, then they actually were. But we're probably mostly familiar with it. Paul's in Antioch.
Trouble arises in any arc because of some people who come up from Judea. And so a delegation is sent down to Jerusalem.
To consult about this question.
One question that I want to raise before we even get into the text is to say that we think about it as a question about salvation by grace.
Is this a salvation by grace versus works, salvation debate? And that comes into it, certainly, but I think we have to be careful not to read too much of that into it or at least not to read that into it too heavily.
Because that plays into it. But this is actually, this goes beyond that. This goes to the question.
Of what is the church. Who are the people that are going to be saved? And, and what is What is the way that God is operating it through that church in the world?
All of that is behind the questions that the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem have to talk about here.
So this and like I say this question comes up because of verse one so we can go ahead and look at chapter 15 verse one.
It comes up because of what these men were saying. But some men came down from Judea. And we're teaching the brothers unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.
So that clearly is going to raise these kinds of questions and that's what they're getting into.
Will hold off on some of those details of how that plays into something bigger until we get a few more verses in.
But I'll just sort of tip my hand there. So first question is, who are these men from Judea?
You know, we, we can't quite tell. Just from this, we just know that they are some men.
Who come down from Judea. And they're they're spreading this teaching.
From the whole context to the passage, I don't think that these are people who we shouldn't understand.
That these are people who are commissioned by the church in Jerusalem. To go and and teach. In Antioch or go and teach anywhere else.
These aren't, you know, commended workers that have been sent. They're not people who have been who are apostles.
There's no reason I think even to believe that they're leaders in the church in Judea.
I think they're Christians who had come to faith in Christ. And had been part of their church either in Jerusalem itself or maybe in some other town and Judea.
They had been part of their church there. And now they've come to Antioch. Probably not on a mission.
They're probably in Antioch because Antioch is one of the most important business centers. Economic and financial centers in the ancient world, they're in Antioch.
The same way that one of us might go to Chicago or go to New York or wherever we might need to go.
They're in Antioch, I think. Can't prove this, but I think they're an antioch for business reasons.
Maybe they've moved there. They may not even just be there on a business trip. They may have moved there and are now associating with the church in Antioch.
And they noticed that This church in Antioch seems to be doing things a little differently than I would have expected.
And so they say, wait a minute. Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.
Continuing in verse 2. And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension, I think that's an understatement probably.
But had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem.
To the apostles and the elders about this question. So, Paul and Barnabas here argue with these Judeans.
And as it says eventually, The church at Antioch. Decides that the best thing to do because this debate is continuing on here and there's no agreement, right?
It's probably getting a little hot so they decide the best thing to do is going to be to send a group of people a group of our people down to Jerusalem.
To consult with the church there to seek answers from the apostles.
Does this mean that The church at Antioch is Subject to the church at Jerusalem that the church at Jerusalem is some sort of a supreme authority.
And they have to submit to the rulings of the church at Jerusalem.
I don't think so. I think this is clearly An important question. And they don't want to just handle this all by themselves.
They want to handle this in consultation with other believers. It's beyond what They feel competent to, to deal with and also Right, there there's no YouTube.
There's no, there's no VCY where they can listen to the preachers down in Jerusalem and hear what they're saying.
For all they know, maybe this really is what they teach. Down in Jerusalem. And so there's a possibility.
Of some real division. And before they get to that point. They want to, you know, meet face to face and actually talk through this.
Before they say, yeah, Andy Christians don't go to Jerusalem and Jerusalem Christians best not come here.
They want to actually get together and see what's going on with this. And there's also the fact that this is a time period when you still have the apostles.
Walking the earth. James, if I remember right. James is dead, not James. Who will come to in a few verses.
But the apostle James has already been executed by this point. I think. I should have checked, but I think he he's executed back in chapter 12, I think.
Yes, okay, good. Somebody saw the Saw the verse. I'm hearing yes, so I can keep on.
But for the most part, the apostles are still alive. The greatest concentration ofs in Jerusalem.
So if you want to find out, all right, what do the apostles say? Let's go to Jerusalem.
Let's go to Jerusalem. And see what's going on down there. And so that's what they do.
So it is. He says, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others. We don't know who the others are.
He doesn't tell us. I think it's not. Impossible but I don't think it's likely.
That one of the others was actually Peter himself. I think it's more likely. That Peter was, and I'll tell you why in just a second, but I think it's more likely that Peter was in Antioch.
At the very beginning of this controversy. But by the time they're actually sending a delegation down to Jerusalem, I think he may not be there anymore.
I think he may have already left. Partly because if Peter had been there they could have answered the question of, well, what would the apostles say?
We've got this one right here. Why don't we just ask him? And so I think he was probably already back in Jerusalem.
But I do think that there's a good possibility that he was there. At the beginning of the controversy.
I also think it's unlikely. If Peter had been there, that Luke would have. Wrapped Peter into the phrase.
And some of the others. I think it would have been Paul, Barnabas, and Peter and some others.
Right, look what enough just left him. In the extras list. So Joel asked me this past Sunday.
So do you think Paul wrote Galatians right around this time? And I hadn't actually thought about that question in quite a few years.
But in looking back at it, yes, Joel, I think Paul writes Galatians right around this time.
Let's look. Yeah, let's go ahead and turn over to Galatians chapter 2.
Because different different scholars sort of put this timeline together a couple of different ways. And I don't think any of them are make or break.
I don't think you lose your salvation if you take the northern Galatia. Theory or any of that but I think it's interesting to look through and I I want to give you essentially what I think, how I understand these 2 passages.
To play together. Some people think that in the middle of Galatians 2 when Paul is talking about his interaction with Peter.
That he's describing what happens in the middle of Acts 15 and I don't think that's the case.
Ruth doesn't either. So I can I can see her shaking her head like no. Course not.
So I can see I've got another southern Galatians theorist over there. So without taking the time to read all of chapter 2.
I'll skip through a little bit. In Galatians 2 verse one he says then after 14 years he's talking about his own ministry.
After 14 years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas taking Titus along with me.
Alright, one of the things that he's doing in this passage in Galatians is establishing On the one hand, his own authority and the authority of the gospel that he teaches, but also the fact that this comes directly from the Lord.
This doesn't come from any human authority, not even the apostles. And so he's recounting for them.
The times that he has been to Jerusalem, the times that he has dealt with the apostles.
So he says, I went up because of a revelation and set before them. Sorry, this is verse 2.
Set before them, though privately, before those who seemed influential, the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
And he says, but even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised.
So he goes and he later on in the Chapter he identifies. Let's see. In verse 9, he says, and when James and Cephas, which is Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars.
So I think here he's identifying. Who those influential believers in the Jerusalem church were that he met with privately.
And they perceived back in verse 9. Perceived the grace that was given to me. They gave me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Only they asked us to remember the poor. The very thing I was eager to do. So he's come through here and he's talking about this time when he was in Jerusalem and I think it's likely although It's not definitive.
I think it's likely that this is describing when he's in a in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 11.
I've lost my. Oh, here we go. And acts possibly in Acts, 1130.
So in Acts, 1130, it talks about him. Having been sent from Antioch. To Jerusalem to take an like an offering, a contribution.
To the church in Jerusalem because they were. Very poor and needed. Had great need and indeed There had been a prophet who had come.
In Adiac and had. Told them about all of this. So I think it's likely that this is the incident that he's talking about at the beginning of chapter 2.
Then we get into verse 11. And I think there's a big time jump from verse 10 to verse 11.
He says, but when Cephas came to Antioch. I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.
For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself.
Fearing the circumcision party. So. Not a hundred percent sure, but it sounds like These men from James and first 12 are the same as or at least similar to maybe there was a Maybe there was constant stream of problematic people showing up from Jerusalem.
Who knows? Certainly, they these men from James seem to have had a similar effect when they came to Antioch.
As the men from Judea in Acts chapter 15 when they came from Antioch. So that's why I'm saying, I think.
That there's at, there's at least some overlap. Between these 2 groups. And Peter had already been in Antioch before they arrived.
And at that point, he was. Living with within complete freedom. He was not holding himself to the Jewish law.
He was He was eating with the Gentiles, as it says. I don't know if he was actually having the ham sandwich.
Or if he was just content to sit there while they ate a ham sandwich. But I mean Donna can tell you, I'm not going to turn down a ham sandwich.
So I think he was eating the ham sandwich. Until these men from James showed up. And they started saying all this other stuff.
And Peter felt like, you know what, I need to put on a good show. I need to, maybe they're right.
I need to not. I need to live like my mother taught me to live and so he's not having the ham sandwich.
There's no bacon with his eggs in the morning. There's a theme here, isn't there?
Or would be one of the hardest parts of the Jewish law for me to observe if I had to.
But he sets all that aside and not only that and I think here's one of the keys that comes into it.
He's separated himself. So maybe, maybe Peter doesn't know what's good. And even when he's in Antioch at the beginning of this, he's like, no, thank you.
I'll. I'll just have some some roast beef. That'll that'll be fine. I don't want any of the ham.
I'm not going to have any port maybe he was doing that, but at least. He was sitting at the table with him.
But now he's separating himself. He's breaking the unity. Of the Christian body.
Over. Over these points that. You know, he had a bunch of animals come down. On a sheet.
And he was told, you know, don't call this unplan. And now he's breaking the unity of the body over it.
And so Paul says he confronted him. He says, I opposed him to his face. And he continues on in verse 13 still in Galatians.
And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with them so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
But I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth, truth of the gospel.
I said to Cephas, if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?
So. We've got this episode. And I think in my historical reconstruction. I think Peter is completely convinced by this argument.
And he knows that indeed, Paul, you're right. You're right. And so I think Peter.
Stops separating he probably has at least a few meals with the whole community eating right there with the Gentiles?
Probably, I think, eating what they were eating. But at least eating with the Gentiles. And then most likely so that he's not included in the.
Acts 15 reference to and some other people. Then I think he heads back to Jerusalem at that point.
Paul and Barnabas and some others are saint So, oh, and then I think after this and so obviously after that incident.
All right, Scalations. Paul can't write Galatians before that incident or it would be like futuristic speculative fiction.
And I don't think he's doing that. Right, so obviously after he and Peter have their confrontation.
Paul writes the book of Galatians, and I think then He is, he along with Barnabas and some others are sent to Antioch.
It's also possible that they're sent to Antioch and while he's on the road before he gets to Jerusalem, He writes and sends the letter to the Galatians.
But I think certainly he's already sent the letter to the Gallatians before he arrives in Jerusalem because the interaction there is a little different and also I think if he had been to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Council, had taken place.
Before he sent the letter to the Calations, he would have included specific information about what they said. Galatians would have.
You know, the Galatians could have benefited from the letter that we haven't even gotten to yet because I'm going too slowly.
But from the letter that's later in Acts 15. If it had already been written by the Jerusalem Church.
So let's get back. To. Acts chapter 15.
Verse 3. So being sent on their way by the church. They passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles and brought great joy to all the brothers.
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.
So they chose rather than going from Antioch. To the sea and catching a boat. Down to near Jerusalem and and heading in, they chose to travel by land, which definitely took them longer.
The sea route, sea route in the ancient world is almost always faster. Than than any land route. It's just walking is slow.
So, but they chose to take the land route. And I think they chose to do that specifically so that they could visit these Gentiles believers along the way.
And what I love is how he describes it. Because I think it's emphasizing Who this church is going to be.
This new work that God, I mean it's only been. I don't know, 1520 years, I'm not sure exactly how long.
But it hasn't been that long, so I'm still going to call it a new word.
That God is doing, a new people. That he is calling out for himself. And Paul wants to travel through these regions and Luke wants to highlight a couple of them in order to emphasize who these people are going to be.
Mostly? We're still probably talking about ethnic Jews.
Many, many Jews in Anioch, many, many Christians in Antioch, are Jews. That's where most of the early missionary work started, right?
They go to the synagogue. They'd say, hey, you have parts A through, I don't know, double you.
Here's XY, and z. So it's a whole lot easier to do evangelism.
If you start with people who have the first A through W. So that's how most of it starts.
And that's who most of the Christians are. But Luke doesn't say he visited the Jewish believers who lived in these towns and Luke doesn't say, like he frequently does, that he showed up and he went to the synagogue to preach.
Now he says.
They pass through Phoenicia and Samaria.
Samaria? Are those outcasts? From a Jewish perspective, They are the outcasts who are at best half breeds.
Right, they might have some Jewish ancestry. But there's a whole lot of Heygan, heathen, Gentile, mixed in with that.
And even though they try to observe the law, and they try to talk about Moses. They are not real Jews.
That's the attitude to Samaritans. And with Phoenicians, It gets worse. Because the Phoenicians If you look through the Old Testament, you're not going to find Phoenicians, at least not called that.
What you will find is you will find the exact same people or at least their ancestors. You won't find the same people.
People are dead. But you'll find their ancestors. And they're called the Canaanites.
The Phoenicians are the Canaanites. That the the cities of Tyre and Sidon and a handful of others those are the to really famous ones.
Both in Old Testament times and in New Testament times. Those are Canaanite cities. These are not just Not Jews.
They're not just Half-freed Samaritans, they're not just the nations.
These are the people. That Israel was supposed to. Cast out of the land. Push out of the land, hill out of the land.
Destroy their buildings, their livestock, every well not their buildings, I guess you take them over, but destroy everything.
And that's who Luke highlights. He says they passed through Phoenicia. This new church.
It involves Samaritans. It involves Canaanites who we call Phoenicians now. That's who he's passing through.
And so then he arrives at Jerusalem. And the Jerusalem church welcomes him. And.
And they declared all that God had done with them. Telling them about some of these things. And some of these, the mission work that they'd had among Gentiles, not just among Jews.
That were dispersed out. All over the world. But also the missions work that they'd been able to do among the Gentiles.
But of course the controversy never stops. In verse 5 we found out. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, it is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.
I don't think these guys are saying that circumcision saves. I don't think they're saying that saying it in quite that way.
I think what they're saying And it's the words that Luke gives to him is that This is NASA.
We have to also do this. It's not enough. Just to put your faith in Christ, we also need you to do these things.
To be circumcised, to Keep the law of Moses. Essentially what they're saying is and they have good reason for this they have good reason for thinking this way they're just wrong.
But what they're saying is before you can enter the people of God. You have to. You have to join the people of God.
You have to become a part of Israel. Before you can become a part of the church. They're thinking of the church.
As sort of a a subset. Of Israel as a subset of, well, Judaism is technically a little bit later, but as a subset.
Of that true religion. That starts with Abraham. Well, starts and is separated. With Abraham, right?
There were people before Abraham. Who worshiped the one true God. We'll come to them in just a few minutes.
But, but this separated people that start with Abraham. These people who their their political leanings are Pharisee.
And that's one thing we have to keep in mind is that these, the, you know, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the zealots, the Essenes, the essays we never hear about in the New Testament, largely because they were so so far out there.
Both geographically and on some theological points. But the others we hear about, the zealots we hear about, and it's easy to remember that they're a political group.
Right? They want to, they're all about armed revolution. But the Pharisees and the Sadducees, they have religious perspectives.
But they're also kind of political groups. And that's the political alignment that these people that it's referring to in verse 5 have.
They are Pharisees. That is the party. That they come from. That is the theological perspective that they grew up in.
And so it's no surprise that they would think obedience to the law was really important. Pharisees were a whole lot more attentive.
To obedience to the law than the Sadducees were. And so it doesn't surprise me that they're the ones raising this.
But they're wanting them to, to, to take on. These characteristics, obedience to the law of Moses.
And circumcision. Specifically that set people apart. From broader Mediterranean culture of the time.
Israel by this point is one of very few in the Old Testament there are actually more. But by this time, Israel is one of few societies that practice circumcision or anything like it.
And the obedience to the Old Testament law, to the law of Moses. Yeah, that's that's Israel and The Samaritans in their own kind of way.
And the Samaritans were very attentive to it, but they had some differences. But these things set you apart.
DNA testing, it might be hard to tell the difference between an Israelite and a Phoenician and some of the Egyptians and all that.
We might have a lot of trouble with it in our DNA labs. But when you got right down to brass tacks.
Do you keep the law of Moses? Are you circumcised? Those are the markers that set you apart.
And these Pharisees are saying, Those markers need to be there for someone who is coming to Christ.
That's what they're saying. And that's what Paul is objecting to. He's saying that Those markers don't mean anything anymore.
So, and I'm giving Paul more of a hero role here. Than the text does. I keep saying Paul because he's the one who got into a scuffle about it in the first couple of verses.
But Paul won't actually take. That big of a role in the rest of the chapter, it's kind of surprising, or at least it is to me.
Alright, let's let's continue on. I'll start try to stay a little bit more on track.
So in verse 6, the apostles and the elders were gathered to consider this matter. And in verse 7, We find out after there had been much debate.
Peter stood up. Okay. This is something that is important to note. This was not an open and shut case.
After it, I mean we could ask the elders here if somebody came in and said Brad Joel, Jim.
Right? I got a question. Do I need to do a whole bunch of other things? In addition to faith in Christ or or just faith in Christ, that'd be a short meeting, right?
Or at least the answer part of it. It might. It might then be a long meeting with the person after you'd given the answer.
But it wouldn't, I hope. Take you a long time to get to the answer.
This meeting after there had been much debate. This really needed to be talked through. There were a lot of implications.
A lot of people had things that they needed to say about this, and a lot of things needed to be weighed.
And then Peter stood up. And and he stood up. And in verse 5, those Pharisees stood up.
I think what we've got is kind of a a legal statement. I think this is offering. You know, testimony or or a decision or something along though or an accusation I guess.
In the case of the Pharisees. But I think we're talking about a process, a set out process here.
But Peter stood up and said to them, I'm in verse 7. Brothers, you know that in the early days, God made a choice among you that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
And God who knows the heart or witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.
And he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why are you putting God to the test?
By placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.
But we believe that we will be saved. Through the grace of the Lord Jesus. Just as they will.
Alright, so that's Peter's testimony.
Short version is Peter says no.
But the longer thing.
The longer thing to recognize here is that
Peter is not making an argument here. 4 justification by faith.
He seems to be assuming that. He seems to be assuming that all of these people will say yes. To justification by faith.
The argument he's making. Is that A, that's the only thing. And that B, if we start laying these other kinds of things on them.
It's just going to be additional points of failure. Just like it was for us and that there's no reason for us to make them.
Enter Israel. In order to enter the church. That's, that is not how this works.
These Pharisees and the people from Judea and the people at this meeting. Who agreed with them and the people at this meeting who At least want to hear both sides talked out before they make a decision.
There I said that they have a decent reason for thinking about it that way. And it's because think in the Old Testament.
When when Abraham is called when Israel, who's his grandson, But when Israel, sort of in.
You know, in the very earliest form is separated out from the nations. Abraham is told through your seed.
All the nations of the earth will be blessed.
And if Israel, not not This didn't go very far. But if Israel had taken that seriously.
Hebrew religion in the Old Testament should have been a missionary religion. It really should. They should have yes.
Followed the law of Moses. They should absolutely have practiced circumcision. They should have remained separated from the nations because that was part of the law of Moses.
But they also were supposed to be blessing. The nations with the truth that they were given. That they didn't do so well.
Now, I mean, the nations are partly to blame because they kept. Attacking them and stuff like that.
Only occasionally Do you hear about someone from the nations, some Gentile? Who actually enters into Israel or who even adopts the religion, the faith of Israel in the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
We have a few examples, right? Is one. Ruth is a moabite. She's a Gentile.
Ray Hab is a Canaanite. Right? She's a Gentile. The, the widow of Xerophath.
Is a Gentile. She's she's another Canaanite. And all of these people confess the truth of God.
And come to faith in God come to come to I've almost said Christ but this is Old Testament so they come to faith in Israel's God and Ruth and Ruth and Rahab.
Maybe Uriah, I'm not sure about his whole status but Bathsheba at least.
Enters into Israel, becomes a part of Israel. Ruth, Rajab and Bathsheba are even counted in the genealogy of Christ.
Right? They are, they are not just. Part of Israel. They are central to it.
And even the ones who wouldn't agree that Christ was central, right? Israel might not agree to that, but, but Ruth and Rahab are in the genealogy of King David.
So they'd have to acknowledge them.
That could have been a really major part of what Israel was doing through all those centuries. But it hadn't been.
Now, I think some of these people are thinking That is still the method. Enter into the worship of Yahweh.
You enter it through circumcision through the law. Through Moses through Israel. That's the argument they're making.
And the response that Peter gives is
You know, it didn't work last time.
Didn't even work last time and that's not what's going on now. We've already seen the evidence.
We've already seen proof. God told me to talk to Cornelius and he didn't tell me to circumcise him and he didn't tell me to make him obey the law of Moses.
And just as well that he didn't, because none of us have been able to. We already believe.
That were saved the same way they are. So why should we ask them to shoulder a burden we couldn't bear?
Peters making Pretty close, not quite. Paul's argument in the book of Galatians.
It's not quite the same because there's a different question at issue. Then there is, you know, technical details in Galatia.
But he's making a very similar argument. So he makes this argument. And then in verse 12, 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. So they listen to. To that testimony. This is.
This is the part that Paul plays in this whole meeting is that he's giving that testimony. I'm sure he's bends that testimony to emphasize his point of view.
But he lets Peter. Who they already know and they already trust. He lets Peter carry that argument.
And then the next step of this. Is in verse 13. After they had finished speaking after Barnabas and Paul had finished giving that testimony.
James replied. James this James is the brother of Christ
And seems to be a major leader in the Jerusalem church at this point. James replied, Brothers.
Listen to me. Simeon. That's what he's calling Peter. Simon in a in a really Jewish spelling.
Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles. To take from them a people for his name.
And with this, the words of the prophets agree. Just as it is written. Verse 16.
After this, I will return. And I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen. I will rebuild its ruins.
And I will restore it that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord. And all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord.
Who make these things known, says the Lord who makes these things known from of old. Therefore, my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.
But should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.
Or from of ancient generations, Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him. Where he has read every Sabbath in the synagogues.
So James gets up and agrees with Peter. Which makes sense. James was part of that group. That Paul talked about and, that sometime earlier had you know listened to Paul's assessment of his own mission and said no this seems good we need to send it to the Gentiles and God has called you to that work and gifted you to that work.
So. Go do that work. James was one of those pillars of the Jerusalem church. Who had said that so it doesn't surprise me, Pride and surprise Peter.
And it may have surprised some of the Pharisee Christians that were there, but it doesn't surprise me that James would be a agreeing.
Here with what Peter has said.
Let's see. So. The question that I have here, and I think it's an interesting one, is What is he doing with this quotation from the Old Testament?
It's if you've got notes, you already know where it's from. But I'll tell you it's from Amos chapter 9.
And if you want to hold your place there and flip back. To Amos chapter 9 verses. 11 and 12.
And if you flip back and forth, you'll see that it lines up. Pretty good. Doesn't line up exactly.
Bill Lorilla at the Lord Supper this past week. Told us a little bit about some differences.
That were there between septuagint and Hebrew Old Testament readings. And if, if we look at the septuagint of these 2 verses in Amos chapter 9, we'll see that James is Pretty much, although not not exactly.
But he's pretty, maybe he had the new Greek standard version. And somebody else had the new King Herod version.
I don't know. But he was pretty much following the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint.
Especially with a couple of the significant differences that that we see. So one of them that may or may not show up in your text.
Is in mind, let's see, in mind it says I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen.
And in Amos it says and that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen.
Some of you are think if you're using King James or New King James, you have tabernacle in both those places, is that right?
Okay, so. They are. They are different words. And we get a little extra confusion because of how we use tabernacle.
And also how Greek uses what it translates there. In in. In Hebrew, the tabernacle that you have in Exodus is a word that's Mishkan.
And that refers to God's house in the tabernacle structure, the the sanctuary there.
And this word is. The same word in Hebrew. Is the same word that's used.
For the festival of tabernacles or the Festival of Booths. That we learn about in Leviticus and it's called Sukote and it does that's the The Festival of Sukote or the the booth or the tabernacle would be called a sukkah.
And if you have Jewish friends, during the holiday sucoat. They build a sucker, usually out.
In their backyard or somewhere. And they're supposed to live in that for the course of that week.
But those are 2 different words so we we don't want to roll
Like the Exodus Tabernacle. Into this. This is talking about a booth or a tent or a dwelling.
And Greek doesn't make as much of a distinction. It uses the same word. And so I think that's why they they get pulled together a little bit here.
But then the other one is a little more striking. Has anybody noticed the other difference between what Amos says and how James quotes him.
What's the remnant of in either verse? Amos 9 12 or 1517.
Nobody was scanning ahead trying to get ahead of me. Okay, Edom is where? Edom is an Amos.
Does anybody have Edom in their New Testament? If so, I'd like to know what translation you're using.
What do you have instead of? He. Mankind.
Yeah, that's the next sentence. Don't you have mankind before that? Or man, okay.
So here, I think this one's kind of cool. I just realized that I'm not using that microphone so I can, I can still move right now.
Yes. Okay, thank you. So I think this one is really cool. I think it has theological importance.
So now we're going to have a very short Hebrew lesson. And we're not gonna have visual visual aids because I didn't make any but if anybody wants them print it out I can send it to you it's very short it's just 3 letters So first of all, Hebrew in the original text doesn't use vowels, right?
If, if it's not right, then it's just now, you know, Hebrew in the original text didn't use vowels.
They added vowels much later. Because that was make it a whole lot easier to tell what's actually being said.
Now you can try it out sometime, you can. Get their English passages like this out there, usually in Hebrew textbooks, where they give you a paragraph.
That has no vowels in it. And you can still pretty much tell what it's saying.
Meaning is carried on the consonants. And the vowels. We just changed them around a little bit.
In fact, most of the time, a lot of the time, we just changed them a little bit slightly.
In order to alter the meaning of the word. But I'm getting too deep into that. Right now I just need you to know that.
They leave out. The vowels. It's just consonants. Eden would be a consonant that makes Almost no sound.
It's just a It's just there to hold on to a vowel later. Called Olaf.
The next would be a D, so a doll it. And then the last is a main, the M sound.
Duh.
Alright, so there's another word that's also olive, doll it. M or sort of D.
It's Adam or Adam. You've probably heard of this guy, right? Alright, Adam in Genesis.
Is kind of like a proper name. And it kind of just means mankind. It is the word that means mankind or means humanity.
It doesn't mean it like I'm a man and Donna's a woman. It means that in the sense that we are all mankind.
We are all human beings. And so just the consonants. These 2 words are the same. And if you're just looking at them.
You have to decide from context. Which it is. How many of you have ever read or written poetry?
Even if only because some teacher forced you to. Okay.
People writing poetry, by the way.
Probably half of the Old Testament is poetry, even the parts that don't look like it. People writing poetry?
Love to mess around with any of that kind of confusion. And so, while it definitely refers to a specific people.
Right? We, there are descendants of Esau. They lived south of Israel. They had a country that was called that.
It was near Moab. We know who that is. But when you're writing poetry, like Amos is, Sometimes.
You use item. To to point to a specific but to refer to a whole. And the whole When you point to the specific item, the whole that you point to is all of humanity.
And so there are lots of places. Some interpreters, and this is the kind of stuff that Old Testament professors get into fights over at conferences.
Some professors, if you're still in Amos, you can flip over one page to Obadiah.
Where Obadiah says, the vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord concerning Edom.
All Testament professors will get that far into the book. And at that point, they'll get into fights for the rest of the weekend over this.
What is this talking about this one little country? Or is Obedaya actually trying to make?
A statement about all of humanity. And I, I don't get into that fight because. Those guys know a lot more Hebrew than I do.
But the point is that this word can be used to carry both of those and the Septuagint translators when they came along translating Amos.
They said, I think he's playing here. I think he's wanting to. To suggest he's wanting to say eat him and suggest Adam.
And James is at least willing to go along with that. Especially because this plays into what he's trying to say so well, right?
If we go back. To act. This is exactly what he's trying to say because there's another little sort of shift in the action.
In Amos, that they talking about israel when they have been restored to power that they may possess the remnant of Edom.
And when you shift that to mankind, you get a little bit different of an emphasis. And it's possible in the Hebrew also.
There's everything's very subtle, especially in Hebrew poetry. But now it's that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord.
That is exactly What James wants to emphasize. He wants to say. This isn't about Israel. This is about mankind.
And look what I found in Amos. He's already telling us that. So this is what.
This is what James is doing with that sort of shifting that. And saying that here is the way that all these nations are being reclaimed.
By God. Now there's one more. There's one more point here that's really confusing.
But I think it plays into this question of God reclaiming. These people and that is in these last.
These last 2 verses, basically. Now, really next to last verse, 20. And yeah, and I'm only gonna get to 21 tonight even though my notes go to 34.
There's he puts 4 restrictions on it.
Right, he says. We shouldn't trouble the Gentiles who turned to God. We shouldn't put, and that word for trouble.
It's like we shouldn't put any stumbling blocks in their way. Put anything in the way to cause them to trip.
He says, we shouldn't trouble them, but. We should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols from sexual immorality.
From what has been strangled and from blood.
So why does he, why does he? Do this. I mean, why does he say no? We shouldn't put anything in the way.
Salvations by grace. Through faith, that's it. And don't eat blood and don't eat anything strangled and stay away from things that have been sacrificed to idols and also from sexual immorality or fornication if you have an old an old translation.
Right? Why does he throw these things in? Is our salvation? Now, I'm not endorsing.
Any of these, right? Definitely, I'm not endorsing fornication. Don't say that.
But!
Is my salvation dependent? On avoiding that?
Okay, good. I got at least Jim. Shaking his head very hesitantly.
It's not! It's not, and I don't think James is saying that it is.
James is not saying that. This is why I don't think that this question is just about. What is the means of salvation?
If it were, and James throws these things on, then James is just confusing the issue. I think we've got 2 things going on here.
One is the question that. Luke highlights at the beginning of the chapter where he says they have to do this in order to be saved.
But then the other one is the stuff that Paul talks about in Galatians. Where Peter's breaking fellowship.
With other believers because of these issues. And so James, I think, is, is putting these in.
As the basic. The basic standards of behavior by which a society that wants to honor God can function.
These actually line up. There are. A couple more, sometimes there are a couple different ones. But this lines up very closely.
With with a Jewish view. On what can be imposed on everybody as opposed to what can be imposed on a Jew.
How many of you have ever heard? Of the the Noah hide. Law. Probably not unless you hang out with a lot of Jews.
Okay, so the idea is that Jews are responsible. To obey the law of Moses. They have to like.
All the commandments in the Old Testament are obligations on them. They have to obey the entire law.
They can't impose that on me and so. Ham sandwiches, pork barbecue, whatever else I want like that.
I don't have to observe the law of Moses. But there are some things, especially if I want to live in Israel.
If I want to live in If I want to live a monk's Jews, there are certain things that they believe not just because they want to, but because they think they have scriptural warrant.
That they can expect of everyone. Right, and this list is pretty close to what eventually becomes. I don't know of anywhere that it's articulated already at this point.
Although we see some of it in practice. This list is pretty close. To that and where they get this idea is that there was a covenant with NOAA.
And do you know who's descended from NOAA? Yeah, pretty much have everybody.
Right? And so if everybody is descended from NOAA, then what God tells Noah You and your descendants need to do this.
Then they can expect that. Of everybody, even Gentiles. And so if you go back. The one that goes all the way back to knowa most easily, I'll just give you the references real quickly.
The idea of abstaining from blood? It seems like a little bit of a surprise, but right after the flood in Noah chapter 9 verse 4 is the direct part, but read the surrounding verses.
Huh? Genesis 9, thank you. In Genesis, I'm looking right at it saying, Genesis, in Genesis chapter 9, verse 4, Noah is told, first of all, you can't eat animals.
But he's told, don't drink their blood. And don't let anybody. If you look in Leviticus chapters 17 and 18, you get repetition of those prohibitions on blood.
You get something similar to the strangled, although it's not exactly the same thing. And you also get Expectations regarding sexual immorality.
That are to be imposed not just on Israel. But these requirements, unlike most of what San Leviticus, Our expectations even on the stranger or the alien who, sojourns in the land.
If you're gonna live. In Israel, this is the standard you have to meet. These are the rules that you have to make.
And so I think that is the framework. That James is coming from because he wants to preserve
He wants to preserve a society. Right, if we call the church a society where Jews and Gentiles are able to live together.
And yeah, there are certain things that he thinks. The Gentiles ought to do simply to be able to live.
In community with the Jewish Christians that are already there. So he puts those. He puts those expectations on them and I will I will end at that point.
The the very short version for those of you who are Just chopping at the bit to know. Is that they write a letter
Along these lines. Do the church in Antioch to let them know, Paul and Barnabas and some other guys take it back.
And it's received with great acclaim and everybody's happy and they're happy to live with those little restrictions.
But we'll talk a little bit more about versus 22 to 34. And what follows next week because Ray Wisley knew that I wouldn't be able to finish a whole chapter in a week.
So he let me have 2 weeks for this chapter. And then Fred, let me have chapter 16, cause he won't be here for it.
So thank you for your time, Fred's ready to get up. So we'll hold questions until either afterwards or next week.
Thank you.
Your son in law says you do.
Nice to