We left Paul and Barnabas in Antioch encouraging all the believers by telling them what God had done through them and how God had opened a door for them to preach to the Gentiles.
If there is one thing we know as Christians, is that there are and always will be questions that need to be answered. And when those questions come we need to go out of our way to answer them.
And that’s what Luke tells us happens next here. Luke tells us that certain men who were apparently Pharisees and were in close association with James caused a great uproar in the Gentile churches.
And what they were teaching was, submission to the Law of Moses, as demonstrated by circumcision, was required for a person to be saved. They also taught that it was improper for a Jewish Christian to eat with Gentile Christians, especially those who had not been circumcised.
But their teaching didn’t go unnoticed, their teachings led to Paul and Barnabas raising some serious questions with each other. And now, the united church has split into two distinct camps, circumcised and uncircumcised. And it seems from the text that Barnabas was taking part in the Judaizers’ acts of hypocrisy, Galatians 2:12-13.
And so, commanded by the Lord and commissioned by the church in Antioch, Paul, Barnabas and some unnamed others went to Jerusalem to get answers to those questions.
Remember the church is still in its infancy and already we’re beginning to see a division within the Lord’s church between the circumcised and uncircumcised.
Notice a very important point in the very next verse.
When Paul and Barnabas were on their journey they didn’t stop everywhere and tell everyone they met about the problems the church in Antioch was having. Instead, the group reported the conversions which had been occurring in the Gentile world because of the preaching of the Gospel.
Notice that they didn’t rejoice in the things which Paul and Barnabas had accomplished, they rejoiced because of the things that God had accomplished. Paul and Barnabas didn’t speak to anyone about the problems in Antioch until they got to the people they wanted to ask the questions to.
The point I’m trying to make is that what we talk to others about, is our choice. If all we focus on is problems, we’re going to miss out on the things which God is accomplishing in front of our eyes, Proverbs 10:19-21.
News travels fast these days, especially with the internet and telephones, but it never ceases to amaze me how news travels fast during Biblical times.
Luke tells us that when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, they again reported on the good which had been done among the Gentiles. The background to these events is found in Galatians 2.
And it seems from Galatians 2 that Paul first reported to a small group of reputable men. Why did he do that? Why didn’t he gather everyone together? He didn’t want to cause even more division within the Lord’s church.
Paul spoke to a small group of men first because by doing that he could avoid a public confrontation between the apostles. Luke says that converts from among the Pharisees still pressed their point by saying that all Gentiles who wanted to go to heaven would have to submit to the Law of Moses.
This is a perfect example of a grace plus Gospel, where people say we need to obey the Gospel of Christ but we also need to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved. Legalism is nothing new, in fact, it’s still very popular within certain religious groups.
There are too many legalistic Christians in the world who are quick to condemn some people because of something they don’t agree with. Christians who make huge issues out of things like what translation of the Bible we all must use. We can only use the favourite hymns from the church hymnbook for singing. We can only worship in a building that doesn’t have a kitchen in it.
We don’t rely on anything we do for salvation but we totally rely on what Christ has done for our salvation. In other words, we don’t try and be faithful to live the Christian life for our salvation, we try and live faithfully the Christian life because of our salvation.
We need to keep away from the Jesus plus, plan of salvation because all that does is create a legalistic attitude among the saints where some saints think they are better than others, 2 Corinthians 10:12-13.
Paul and Barnabas have some questions from the saints in Antioch and these other circumcised believers in Jerusalem which need to be answered.
Luke says that the questions which needed to be answered were placed before the apostles and elders and it seems as though quite a discussion followed. And I think that this too is an important point to raise here.
Luke says, ‘after much discussion’ Peter addressed the rest of them. A discussion involves more than one person and the reason I believe this is important is because we need to have many resources to get our answers.
We shouldn’t just settle for an answer from one person, look at our resources and ask as many people as we can. And that’s what these people did and then Peter addressed the rest of those gathered. Although Peter’s actions were not always commendable, as when he dissembled in Antioch, it is clear that the apostle knew the truth.
He insisted that God intended for the Gentiles to receive salvation through Jesus and such was the rule of authority for the church. He reminded them that God had sent him to the house of Cornelius to preach the gospel and they were accepted on the basis of the same obedient faith demonstrated by the Jews on Pentecost.
He asked why they would burden them with a law that neither they nor their fathers, had been able to keep? In fact, Peter said placing such a requirement on the Gentiles would tempt God. Instead of meriting salvation through perfect law-keeping, all would be saved by the grace of God.
Luke tells us that the stage was now set for Paul and Barnabas’ dramatic report of the miracles God had worked through them among the Gentiles.
Luke tells us that James, the Lord’s brother, asked the group to listen to him as he reminded them of Simon Peter’s work with Cornelius. And he went on to quote from Amos, which he saw as referring prophetically to the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s people, Amos 9:11-12.
James says this has always been God’s plan from the very beginning, that all those who weren’t Jews would be welcomed into God’s kingdom.
And so James said that he judged that they should not place legalistic requirements on the Gentiles which God had not placed on them, Galatians 1:7. All legalists do is throw us into confusion, but they will pay the penalty for doing so, Galatians 5:10.
However, here, instead of the church in Antioch going into confusion, they went somewhere else for another opinion on the matter. And so James goes on to list four simple rules for the Gentile Christians to follow.
Basically, they were not to eat of things polluted by idol worship or participate in sexual immorality which was sometimes associated with idol worship. They also were not to eat meat from an animal that died by strangulation or the blood of animals.
These last two rules actually predated the Law of Moses. They were first essentially given to Noah just after the flood. Just after the flood, God said to Noah, ‘But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it’, Genesis 9:4. But since the Law of Moses was still being read in the synagogues, this served as a good means of maintaining fellowship.
The group decided to send Paul and Barnabas back to the Gentiles along with some men closely associated with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Judas Barnabas and Silas were specially selected to go help deliver a letter that explained the thinking of the assembled group.
Why did the church choose these men to deliver the letter? No one is sure, but one commentator suggests that these men might have been sent because they had not been associated with converting the Gentiles and would be ‘above suspicion and of undue partiality toward them’.
He went on to suggest that they ‘might use their influence with the Jewish brethren to encourage them to accept the teaching of the letter’.
The reason why they sent these men isn’t vital to our understanding of this passage, what’s important is the content of the letter itself.
Remember we’ve already established that this chapter demonstrates that the Law of Moses was not to be bound on Gentiles for their salvation. James’ conclusion concerning those Gentiles who were turning to God was not to trouble them except to inform them to avoid the following four things.
1. Things polluted by idols, in other words, things associated with the worship of idols, like various kinds of meats.
The apostle Paul made it clear that there was nothing sinful in eating meat that had been offered to idols, 1 Corinthians 8:1-6. However, some Christians with Jewish backgrounds at that time thought it was sinful to eat such meat, 1 Corinthians 8:7.
Remember that the Lord’s church is still in its infancy during this point but can you see the danger here? This was a barrier endangering the fellowship between these two groups in this infant stage of the church.
Therefore, the Christian thing to do was to avoid eating such meat if it would cause a brother to stumble, 1 Corinthians 8:9-13.
My point is James was saying that Christian love on the part of those Gentile converts should motivate them to avoid such things associated with the worship of idols. In fact, James says that it was ‘necessary’ to do that.
2. They were to avoid fornication.
3. They were to avoid the eating of things strangled. Why strangled food? Simply because the blood had not been drained from the animal.
4. They were to stay clear of was the eating of blood.
Now common sense tells us that other things were sinful and forbidden by God, whether one was of Gentile or Jewish background. But why were these four things specified by James?
It appears these four things were specified because they were sins that were very common among the Gentiles. In fact, these were things that most Gentiles did not think were sinful, and now we see why this special emphasis was needed.
These four things also caused a very large barrier to social and religious unity among the Christians with Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. But I also think it is important for us to note, that these things were not just forbidden by the Law of Moses.
In other words, even Noah was told about the sinfulness of eating blood and that was ‘before’ God gave the Law through Moses, Genesis 9:3-4.
Do these restrictions still apply to Christians today?
Let us look at those four restrictions again.
First, things polluted by idols.
There is absolutely no doubt that any form of idolatry is forbidden by God, Galatians 5:20. However, the eating of meats offered to idols is acceptable as long as it does not wound the conscience of a beloved brother or sister in Christ, 1 Corinthians 8.
The second restriction is fornication.
Fornication is another work of the flesh which is sinful and will keep us from heaven if we do not repent of it, Galatians 5:19-21.
The third restriction was eating things strangled.
I believe that the context of this chapter shows us that every effort was being made to accommodate the new Gentile converts by not placing unnecessary burdens upon them. They have been accepted by God based on the death of Jesus.
However, since the church embraces both Gentiles and Jews, a courteous concession needs to be made on behalf of the Jewish believers.
Nothing must be done, by the Gentiles, to cause needless offence to Jewish brethren. The Gentiles, ‘out of a spirit of love’, must make some adjustments to their menu and their moral behaviour.
Remember that immorality was viewed as a terrible sin by the Jews, whereas, the Gentiles would not have been as offended by such behaviour, even though it was wrong.
I don’t think that the decision of the council is applicable today. Why? Because they were dealing with a specific problem that does not confront us today at least in this country. Yes, the principle remains in force, but nothing more.
But the fourth restriction was eating the blood.
Can we eat meat with blood in it today? It is important to recognise that the law prohibiting the use of blood for food does not come from the Mosaic Law. It preceded the law and existed in the Patriarchal Age, Genesis 9. This is the first indication of the importance that God attached to blood.
The Covenant with Noah was after the flood had subsided and Noah and his family had emerged from the Ark that God spoke about the Covenant which was to be made, not merely with Noah but with ‘every living creature of all flesh’.
Notice the terms that God used in speaking about the covenant, because they are both important and significant, Genesis 9:9-17.
Notice what God says, He says in verse 9, ‘I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you.’ He calls it, ‘My covenant’ in verse 11. He says that ‘the covenant is for all perpetual generations’ in verse 12. In verse 13 He says it’s ‘a covenant between Me and the earth.’
In verse 15 He says, ‘I will remember My covenant’. And in verse 16 he says it’s an ‘everlasting covenant between God and every living creature’. And finally, in verse 17, He says it’s a ‘covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.’
Remember that this law was not given to Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews alone, because the passage makes clear that the Covenant that God made, was made with all mankind, as an ‘everlasting covenant’ the sign of which remains with us even today, the Rainbow!
As so to answer the question, can we eat meat with blood in it today? Not according to what God said to Noah, yes, the Law of Moses isn’t binding anymore. But this isn’t dealing with the law of Moses, the issue of blood here is dealing with an ongoing covenant.
Luke says that they got to Antioch, where a multitude of believers assembled to hear the letter from the apostles and elders. And after they heard they were to be accepted into the church without submitting to the Law of Moses, there was great rejoicing.
And further words of encouragement were delivered by Judas and Silas, who Luke says were prophets. The brethren told them they could return to Jerusalem after they had spent an unspecified amount of time with them. However, Silas apparently chose to remain in Antioch.
Instead of division, there was love. Instead of using a spirit of anger, they used a spirit of love. Instead of getting into all the rights and wrongs, they approached the matter sensitively and created great joy and peace within the Lord’s church, Matthew 5:11-12 / Romans 12:18.
The apostle Paul knew the importance of continued teaching and encouragement for young churches. He understood what it was like to be a baby, and so to avoid leaving these young converts to look after themselves, Paul approached Barnabas about visiting the brethren in all the cities in which they had previously preached.
And if there is one lesson the church can learn from this, it’s this, young converts need teaching and encouragement. Jesus says to teach them, baptise them and teach them again, Matthew 28:19-20. That’s one of the reasons why Paul wanted to go back to these young converts.
And it seems from our text that Barnabas had a strong desire to take his cousin, John Mark, on the journey but for some reason, Paul did not want to go with John Mark.
Why that is, no one is sure, possibly because of what Luke told us earlier, that John Mark left Paul and his companions to return to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13.
But both Paul and Barnabas were so firm in their opinions, even to the point of being provoked to anger, that they had to separate.
We must note that though they had a big dispute, even though they couldn’t agree with one another, even though they separated under the cloud of anger. This did not stop them from focusing on the good things about each other.
Paul chose to remember the good about Barnabas. In fact, Paul later used Barnabas as a good example of one who worked to support himself while preaching the Gospel, 1 Corinthians 9:6.
Paul also chose to remember the good about John Mark. He described John Mark as one who was useful in ministry, 2 Timothy 4:11.
The point is that despite this early dispute between them neither of them allowed the dispute to hinder the work of God.
Luke tells us that God used the disagreement between these two great men of faith to produce two teams to go in different directions with the Gospel. And so Barnabas went with John Mark to Cyprus which was his homeland, Acts 4:36.
It seems as though Paul took Silas, one of the leading men among the brethren at Jerusalem, with him. Acts 15:22. And it appears he had to return from Jerusalem, but Luke doesn’t give us the details of how he and Paul got together.
But as Barnabas and John Mark were heading off in one direction with the Gospel, Paul and Silas were moving in another direction. They went through Syria and Cilicia to southern Galatia and along the way, they strengthened the churches.
And its whilst they are on this journey that we are introduced to a young man named Timothy in the next chapter.
"But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me"