Introduction: Times change, but God does not change. Is the Church
authorized to modify or reject the commands of God? My natural
reaction is an emphatic, “No!” But, our study this week shows that an
emphatic “No!” cannot always be correct. That should make every
serious student of the Bible a little anxious because it moves the
foundation of our beliefs from the solid rock of the Bible. Except
for this: it is the Bible that suggests the rules can change. Let’s
plunge into this important Bible study and see if we can correctly
understand God’s will!
- The Problem
- Read Acts 15:1. Is this a true statement? Remember that at
this time the Bible consisted only of the Old Testament.
(Read Genesis 17:9-10 and Genesis 17:12-14. This makes
clear that circumcision applies to foreigners and those
who are not the “offspring” of Abraham. The text says
those who fail to be circumcised “will be cut off” because
they have “broken” a covenant with God.) - Read Acts 15:2. Why would Paul and Barnabas disagree with
this clear statement of the Bible? (This looks like a
practical problem to me. We have learned that converting
the Gentiles was God’s plan. We studied two weeks ago
about the acceptance of Cornelius and his household by the
Holy Spirit. However, in none of those encounters did we
find the Holy Spirit speaking against circumcision. Thus,
the practical objection must be that it makes converting
Gentiles more difficult.) - Read Acts 15:3. Why are Paul and Barnabas traveling to
Jerusalem? (They are advocates for the Gentiles and they
are opposed to circumcision. They are headed for Jerusalem
because that is the headquarters for the church. It is
where the “apostles and elders” lived. The purpose of the
trip is to ask them about this question.) - Why go to the church leadership to consult when the
Bible is clear on the issue? (Apparently, Paul and
Barnabas and the believers in Antioch did not view it
that way.) - If Paul and Barnabas, and the leaders in Antioch, are
confident in their views on circumcision, why submit
the issue to the leadership in Jerusalem? - Church Headquarters
- Read Acts 15:4. What kind of greeting does the leadership
give Paul and Barnabas? (It seems to be a warm welcome.) - Read Acts 15:5. Why does it seem that only converted
Pharisees have the pro-circumcision view? (The good news
is that this brings the two sides together for a
discussion. The bad news is that it suggests that the
leadership of the early Church was not behind the pro-circumcision point of view. I say “bad news” because the
pro-circumcision group seems to have the backing of the
Bible.) - Examining the Biblical Evidence
- Read Jeremiah 9:25-26. What concerns God here? (His people
are circumcised in the flesh, but not the heart.) - Does this mean that literal circumcision is not
enough? (Yes.) - Does that mean that literal circumcision is
unnecessary? (It does not. Rather, the logical
conclusion is that a person must be circumcised in
both the flesh and the heart.) - Read Romans 4:8-10. What does this tell us about being
saved? (That circumcision is not necessary for salvation.) - Of course, Paul is part of the group in Acts 15
arguing against circumcision! - Read Romans 4:11-12. Of what is circumcision a sign?
(Righteousness by faith.) - Let’s say that Paul is exactly right about the timing
of Abraham’s righteousness and his circumcision.
Let’s agree that Abraham was declared righteous apart
from circumcision. If he had not followed through
with circumcision, what does Genesis 17:14 say should
happen? (Abraham should be “cut off” as someone who
is not in covenant relationship with God.) - Some argue that being in a covenant relationship with
God is different than salvation. But, if that is
true, why does Genesis 17:14 say the result of
failing to become circumcised is that you are “cut
off” by God? How can that be understood any other way
than as a loss of salvation? - At this point you may be asking, “Bruce, what are you
arguing? The New Testament is clear that circumcision is
not required!” My goal is not to have you conclude that
circumcision is required, I do not believe that it is. My
goal is to have you see that the Bible-based argument of
the Pharisee converts in favor of circumcision is strong,
while the counter arguments are weak when considering only
the Old Testament. Why is that important? (The inescapable
conclusion for me, one that I do not like very much, is
that a strong Biblical argument should not always resolve
the question.) - If the strong Biblical argument does not win, then
how should we decide important controversies in the
church today? Let’s consider that next. - The Resolution
- Read Acts 15:6-9. What does Peter argue in opposition to
circumcision? (The Holy Spirit has clearly demonstrated
that Gentiles are accepted by God.) - Is that the question? (No. The question is whether,
after the Gentiles become Christians, must they also
be circumcised?) - Read Acts 15:10-11. What does Peter argue here? (He first
argues that circumcision is a burden, a yoke. That is the
practical argument that we previously discussed.) - Should a command of God be ignored simply because it
is a burden? - Let’s look again at Acts 15:11. What new argument is Peter
making here, and what does it have to do with the issue of
burden? (Peter argues that Jesus makes the difference. The
“burden” could not simply be circumcision, for the Jews
were circumcised. The burden was the law.) - This is so important that we must not miss it. How
does Jesus make the difference? How does He nullify a
direct instruction from God? (Jesus fulfilled the
requirements of the law on our behalf. “We believe it
is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are
saved.”) - Before we continue on with the arguments made against
circumcision in this Acts 15 meeting, explain how this
argument about grace applies to other commands of God? (We
are never saved by our works. We are only saved by what
Jesus has done for us.) - This still leaves the question about how we should
live. The Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to
be saved. But, should they do it as an act of
obedience to God? If they should not, should the
Church stop arguing in favor of God’s other
commandments? (Looking at this from our current point
of view, we include in the Bible the New Testament.
It is clear that baptism, not circumcision, is the
new sign of our relationship with God. Colossians
2:11-12.) - One of the burning issues in the Christian Church
today is homosexual sex. Those who believe that they
are homosexuals will argue that refraining from same
sex relationships is a great burden – probably
greater than circumcision. Should the Church view
this like circumcision? (I don’t think so. A major
reason is that homosexual relationships are not only
condemned in the Old Testament ( Leviticus 20:13), but
also in the New Testament ( Romans 1:24-27) – even
after the cross, after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
However, as with circumcision, it is true that no one
is saved by refraining from homosexual sex. That
“work” of refraining is no more meritorious than any
other work when it comes to being saved by our
works.) - Read Acts 15:13-18. What argument does James make against
the pro-circumcision group? (He makes a Biblical argument.
He says that the gospel going to the Gentiles is a
fulfillment of prophecy. He notes that the miracles done
among the Gentiles which were reported by Barnabas and
Paul confirm this.) - Friend, the judgment of the early Church leaders was to
free the Gentiles from the obligation to be circumcised.
What is the lesson for us today? (We need to carefully
consider controversies in the church. Just because one
group has a clear “thus saith the Lord” is not the end of
the discussion. We need to see where the Holy Spirit is
leading. We need to look at the full treatment of the
Bible on the subject. We need to accept that we are all
saved by grace alone.) - Are you on board with this?
- Next week: The Second Missionary Journey.
