Dennis Tuuri

at the end of the service that before we just we before we break up for five minutes and then come back for questions there’ll be a couple of important announcements right at the end of the service itself proper so that nobody will miss them going to review a little bit before we get into this particular portion of the scripture we’re going to look at this morning what we’ve been doing over the last few weeks in Acts 15.

But I suppose the song we just sang is a pretty good review of what our aim is as a church and also of what the church was doing from Antioch. The victory they were accomplishing at great cost of course to Paul almost losing his life in terms of preaching the gospel to the cities around. We’ve talked about one way to remember this portion of the book of Acts is to remember the book of Joshua and what’s going on here in Acts is that the gospel is being proclaimed now the resurrection power given to them in Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

And that gospel is having fruit. He’s, as it were, the Holy Spirit is slaying the Gentiles and offering up those sacrifices to God as living sacrifices, though not as dead ones, converting them from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. And so, there’s the establishment of a kingdom going on here and the spread of that kingdom into all the nations around the known world at that time. And of course, that’s what we just sang about.

May she holy triumphs win, overthrow the host of sin, gather all the nations in. We beseech thee hear us and we can pray that confidently because we know that God has commanded us to go into all the nations discipling them and making converts of all the nations preaching the gospel of Christ and that’s what’s going on in the book of acts here setting the stage for the Jerusalem council in the midst of that of course there was controversy both from without the church from the Jewish element and the cities that they would preach the gospel in and then finally the return to Antioch to rest they have controversy within the church from Judaizers who had come down from Jerusalem who taught works righteousness and Paul of course reb that in the book of Galatians specifically he talks about the necessity of understanding of the law itself taught the necessity of regeneration not generation the necessity of grace and not works he pointed to the law he said if you who listen to the law why or you who preach the law why don’t you listen to the law why don’t you do it yourself and he then went on to instruct them that the law itself taught the need for regeneration and not generation additionally in Galatians 3 we spent some time last week talking about how Paul said that the law itself is part of the covenant of grace.

It doesn’t enol the promise. It doesn’t change the promise that preceded the law. It is part of that promise and so indicates the correct way in which the covenant mediator would fulfill all righteousness and also how we’re to live being recipients of God’s grace of salvation. And so to pervert the law to take the law as a means of salvation is to rip it out of its all its intended use that God had always had for it which was to instruct men in the need for faith righteousness and the righteousness of the covenant coming covenant mediator and then also to tell men how to live on the basis of the grace that he had given to them.

So we see then that the attempt to split the church and to create disunityity in the church actually led to an increasing unity. The organic unity of the church was assumed when they went to the church at Jerusalem to resolve the matter. That organic unity was assumed. It was defended at the council of Jerusalem and that organic unity was expanded into an institutional unity and into a governmental unity as well by the issuing of the decree from the council of Jerusalem.

This was a binding decree upon all the churches that at the time in that process of government then and the growth of government we see that this growing kingdom knowledge we’ve been talking about is now beginning to get more organized in terms of institutionalized government as well and so we have the development of this binding decree coming out of the council of Jerusalem and we also see the important place of the special officers of the church in that council remember that it was the elders and the apostles who basically came up with the decision the congregation and concurred in that decision.

And so you have the two-fold witness that we find throughout church actions of the special officers and then the church concurring in the decision that those officers render. But we have the elders here obviously acting as judges in the matter. And that’s very important to recognize. They’re judging things here. They are binding and loosing and they are binding certain things and they are loosing certain things and they certainly loosed people from the requirement of works righteousness for salvation.

They were exercising their office of the keys opening and closing. They were opening the door to the Gentiles and saying, “Yes, you are part of the visible church of Jesus Christ because you’ve exercised faith in him.” And so we acknowledge that God has opened the door to you and we open the keys to the church as well with no other requirements than faith in Jesus Christ. And of course, they were acting as a role of guardians also guarding those members who they had let in from the evildoers who are seeking to trouble and pervert their souls.

George Gillespie, we quoted last week from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, a very important work developed at the time of the Reformation, says this about Acts 15. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsical ecclesiastical power of assembling together synodically of choosing and sending commissioners with a synodical epistle to the churches and other parts of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies, scandals and schisms arising in the church.

Of making and imposing binding decrees on the churches will infallibly prove from scripture authority another government in the church besides magistrate. The point is that this is absolute proof that there is ecclesiastic government that is to be exercised in churches apart from the civil government. And that’s really the one of the major thrusts of Gillespie’s book of course is to establish the fact that church governments are legitimate and necessary within the church apart from civil government.

That by way of review today we’re going to turn more to a detailed analysis of the specific decision itself, and we know that in this letter that was sent out which was then read to many churches in the area, there are at least several portions. We’ll go over them briefly. First, there was a censure of course which we just read. Verse 24, for as much as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying you must be circumcised and keep the law to whom we gave no such commandment.

And so there’s a censure here of the Judaizers that supposedly represented themselves as coming from the church at Jerusalem. They say these men are troublers. They’re troubling the people of God. They’re subverting the faith of the people of God. Strong charges. And not only that, but they call them liars here. We gave no such commandment. They are lying to you. And so there’s a strong censure of that element of the church.

They brooked no quarter as it were with those men. And the first thing you want them to the church at Antioch to understand is that these men are under censure from the senate that was assembled at Jerusalem. Secondly, they say that circumcision obviously is not necessary for salvation. We didn’t give this commandment. It’s not true. And then later on in the chapter, we impose upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.

The burden of works righteousness will not be imposed upon these believers because it is an ungodly burden and it is a perversion of God’s law. And so they clear them from that burden and they reaffirm then the doctrine of sola fide, by faith in Jesus Christ. Grace alone is the mechanism of our salvation. And then they go on however to talk about some other elements of this and this is what we’re going to spend our time on today.

In verse 28, they say that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. Verse 29, that you abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, from fornication, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fair you well. There’s a lot of controversy in Acts 15, as we’ve said all along, over various elements, the church government element, various perspectives on the law. Some use this text as their pretext for what they’re trying to establish.

And the portion of scripture we just read is really a fairly controversial one. What was the Jerusalem Council saying here? Were they giving advice to facilitate intercourse with Jewish Christians? Were they trying to calm the waters as it were between the Gentile and Jewish elements of churches that they were addressing this to? Was it an accommodation then? Or on the other hand, was it a command from the Jerusalem Council in terms of the beginning point of sanctification?

Was it command of sanctification or was it an accommodation to the consciences of certain Jewish Christians? Now, I’m going to take the position this morning that it was a command to sanctification. We have here affirmed the law of God by the Jerusalem Council. I’m going to base that upon five proofs. The first thing we’re going to look at is the lack of an offended party.

The second proof will be the binding nature of the decree itself. The third proof will be a biblical study of the prohibitions themselves and what they mean. The fourth proof will be the promise attached to the prohibitions. And the fifth proof will be the use of the decree in Acts 21.

So we’ll start number one by looking at the lack of offended parties. Second, we’ll look at the binding nature of the decree. Third, an analysis of the prohibitions. Fourth, the promise attached. And then fifth, the use of the decree in Acts 21. And I think that all five of these elements could encompass more, but we look at these five lines of evidence as it were and I think that they all point us to the fact that this was a binding decree, a command to sanctification to keep the law of God as the goal as it were, as the standard by which we live by this standard.

Now, you know, I want you to be aware of the fact going in that this is not a commonly held opinion. Lensky, a Lutheran commentator, wrote about this particular portion of the book of Acts that involved eternal advice. Greg Bahnsen in the Christian Ethics says, “What we have here is a request to smooth the path of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.” Calvin says, “What we have here is an attempt for brotherly concord with a recognition implicit in this that the ceremonies cannot pass away too quickly.” So, Calvin, Bahnsen, and Lensky all see this in terms of some sort of attempt at brotherly concord and accommodation.

Rackom also in his commentary sees this as a concession out of charity to the Hebrew parties to facilitate intercourse with Jewish brothers. Now, nobody denies that these things are of course important and certainly brotherly love, certainly not wounding somebody’s conscience is certainly clearly taught in scripture. And so we’re not rebutting that no other requirement than faith in Jesus Christ.

They were exercising their office of the keys opening and closing. They were opening the door to the Gentiles and saying, “Yes, you are part of the visible church of Jesus Christ because you’ve exercised faith in him.” And so we acknowledge that God has opened the door to you and we open the keys to the church as well with no other requirements than faith in Jesus Christ. And of course, they were acting as a role of guardians also guarding those members who they had let in from the evildoers who were seeking to trouble and pervert their souls.

George Gillespie, we quoted last week from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, a very important work developed at the time of the Reformation, says this about Acts 15. These four considerations being laid together concerning an intrinsical ecclesiastical power of assembling together synodically, of choosing and sending commissioners with a synodical epistle to the churches and other parts, of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies, scandals, and schisms arising in the church, of making and imposing binding decrees on the churches will infallibly prove from scripture authority another government in the church besides magistrate. This is absolute proof that there is ecclesiastic government that is to be exercised in churches apart from the civil government and that’s really the one of the major thrusts of Gillespie’s book of course is to establish the fact that church governments are legitimate and necessary within the church apart from civil government.

That by way of review today, we’re going to turn more to a detailed analysis of the specific decision itself, and we know that in this letter that was sent out, which was then read to many churches in the area, there are at least several portions. We’ll go over them briefly. First, there was a censure of course, which we just read. Verse 24, for as much as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, you must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.

And so, there’s a censure here of the Judaizers that supposedly represented themselves as coming from the church at Jerusalem. They say these men are troublers. They’re troubling the people of God. They’re subverting the faith of the people of God. Strong charges. And not only that, but they call them liars here. We gave no such commandment. They are lying to you. And so there’s a strong censure of that element of the church.

They brooked no quarter as it were with those men. And the first thing you want them to the church at Antioch to understand is that these men are under censure from the council that was assembled at Jerusalem. Secondly, they say that circumcision obviously is not necessary for salvation. We didn’t give this commandment. It’s not true. And then later on in the chapter, we impose upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.

They just told the church earlier in this letter that those men are troublers, subverters, and liars. They just issued a synodical decree that these men are under censure. They went out of their way to accuse these people of some grievous sins such that we read in the Psalms earlier would cause a person to be cut off from the assembly. I don’t think now the council is going to turn around and try to accommodate those men.

The council has cut those men off as it were. Unless they come to repentance for their actions, they’re not going to accommodate those men. The council, remember Paul in writing about these men in Galatians calls them false brethren come in to spy out our peace. And with that, the censure of in verse 24 agrees the council of Jerusalem is not going to go after that particular offending party and try to accommodate them.

They have just gone through a tremendous amount of dissension in the church. Tremendous amount of debate and decisions at the council of Jerusalem to break down the idea that the ceremonial law is necessary for salvation. Are they going to erect now that same law in the minds of believers that it might be necessary for their salvation again? Are they going to reinforce the teaching of these people that have subverted the brethren?

I don’t think so. So there’s no offending party in the text to read in an offending party is to do just that is to read it into the text. There is no indication the church at Antioch had difficulty between Jewish and Gentile Christians at this point in their development. I think that’s reading it into the text. So, the lack of an offended party spells, I think, a serious blow to the idea that verse 29 is an accommodation to a group.

They wouldn’t accommodate the perverters, the liars, and they wouldn’t and there’s no evidence that there was another group that they would be accommodating. Secondly, the binding nature of this decree, I think, is another serious blow to the idea that this is a fraternal advice given to accommodate or intercourse between the two different groups of Christians. Even if there were an offended party in Jerusalem, not an offended party, an offended party that were Jewish and so wanted to keep certain portions of the law.

Even if there were an offended party, can the church go beyond the plain teaching of scripture in requiring the way in which individual believers are to accommodate an offended brother? Now, the fact is that what we have here is a real problem because we have a binding decree. Now, Lensky and Bahnsen both I think recognize that and so Lensky calls this fraternal advice and Bahnsen says it’s a request but does that does that square with the text before us do they say please think about not doing these things well no it doesn’t let’s look at the text in verse 20 first of all when this decision was made when James announces it in the council my sentence is verse 20 that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols clear statement My decision is we write to them, tell them don’t do these things.

Don’t do these four things. He doesn’t say request that they don’t do these things. He says we write to them telling them to abstain. In verse 28, then in the letter itself, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. Well, the clear thrust of that language is they’re laying the burden on of these things, aren’t they? And a burden, you know, is something that is laid on somebody.

They didn’t say think about taking this burden upon yourselves. We’re laying this burden on you. They say these four things. We’re not laying the burden of works righteousness, but we’re laying this burden on you. It’s not a request. And they go on to say then that ye abstain in verse 29. These are clearly commands. Plus in verse 28 before we go on, it’s a burden being laid upon him. Then these necessary things, they don’t say these things that may be something you might want to think about.

These necessary things, the word necessary means it’s needful. You have to do it. So the clear language here is that it’s a needful thing. It’s not a request. It’s not advice. It’s a binding decree. Verse 29, that you abstain. Again, a plain statement. No equivocating about it. No that you might think about abstaining. A plain command that you abstain. In chapter 16:4, there’s a reference to this decree as Paul and the others take it through other churches, deliver it.

In verse four of chapter 16, we read the following. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep. that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. So they took this letter and they didn’t just go to Antioch and Cissia and the other churches. They went Paul took it to other churches as well. It was an ecumenical decree binding upon all these churches.

And Paul says he takes it here and takes to these other churches. And look what he calls them. They deliver to them the decrees for to keep. Now that word for decree is the Greek word dogma. And that’s the basis for the understanding of dogma in the church today. It means a binding decree upon somebody. Dogma. That’s what the word delivered. to the churches. This letter was a decree. It was not advice. It was not a request.

It was dogma. And it was dogma that was ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And they were decrees for to keep, not for to think about. They were decrees to keep. There was a binding nature of these things. I think it’s evident in all these different references.

One more reference in Acts 21:25 when we’ll go back to this at the end of the talk today. But when James talks about this in terms of a controversy that was occurring some years later with Paul, James or Acts 21:25, James says, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from strangled, and from fornication.

So we have concluded and written that they keep themselves from these things.” Not again request, not suggest. I think the plain teaching of all these verses is that this is a binding decree, not fraternal advice nor a request.

Gillespie agrees with this and Aaron’s Rod Blossoming. He says the following. So likewise in this place, the word here that says it seemed good to us is not men of an opinion only. For an opinion, as schoolmen define it, is properly such a judgment of our ascent to a thing as is evident and firm and not certain. So that opinion cannot be ascribed to the Holy Ghost. It is therefore therefore here a word of authority and decree. Then he says also observe the words imposing in burden. They do impose some burden although they are careful to impose no burden except in necessary things.

He says I cannot pass the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the original tongues Mr. Lelay and his critic of sake of the New Testament on the word dogma. Wheresoever dogma is found in the New Testament is put for decrees or laws as Luke 2:1 Acts 17:7 it is put for the decrees of Caesar Ephesians 2:15 Colossians 2:14 for the ceremonial laws of Moses and so frequently by the Septuagint in the Old Testament for decrees as in Daniel 2:13 3:10 29 4:6 and for laws in Daniel 6:8 the word is consistently used for things that were binding upon people decrees and not suggestions Gillespie agrees that what we have here is not fraternal advice it is binding decrees now if that’s the case If what we have here is a binding decree and if we say that binding decree is not the teaching of God’s law but rather an accommodation to a group of offended Christians, we now have a serious problem with church government.

There is manifold witness throughout the scriptures and we can’t take the time to go into it now, but I think that most people here would understand if you’ve done much study in the area of church government that I cannot get up here on Sunday morning and tell you to wear green socks tomorrow on Monday for the sake of not offending the Irish Catholics in the state. I can only get up here before you as a preacher of the word of God to tell you what God’s word explicitly says by way of command or authority.

The church cannot command obedience in things other than what God has plainly told us out of his scriptures. The civil government is different. I believe now there’s some reason to think through some of that, but certainly a parent is different. A child has to walk in obedience to a parent even though the parent may not be able to prove what they’re telling them to do from a particular text. And they have a different sort of authority over their children than the church does over the members of the church.

The church can only teach what God explicitly tells it to teach. And if I get up here and tell you to wear green socks tomorrow, you’re under no obligation from God to wear green socks. You are under obligation by from God probably to bring charges against me for attempting to instruct you by way of eliciting obedience under the threat of church censure in something that God has not instructed you to do clearly from the scriptures.

So if we’re going to say now that the church at Jerusalem made a binding decree that was somehow not a portion of God’s law, but rather was telling Christians how to go about accommodating a particular group of offended people. We have really now gone down the road to Rome in terms of church authority. And of course, this specific portion of scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church to say that yes, the church can go can create all kinds of binding decrees upon people.

And so, the church at Rome says that anytime a church council meets, no matter what it does, since these guys can go beyond the plain teaching of scripture and go beyond God’s law in terms of instructing people what to do. We can too today. And remember that this decree is not primarily an apostolic decree. As we pointed out before from Acts 21 and from Acts 16, this decree is identified not with the apostles but with the elders of the church of Jerusalem.

When James in that passage we read from Acts 21 just now said that we the elders decided these things and it’s still abiding decree coming forth from the elders of the church of Jerusalem, the court there. So The fact that this is a binding decree, which I think is absolutely obvious from those passages we’ve just gone through, means I think that we can no way say that this is an accommodation to offended Christians, albeit Jewish Christians.

If we say that, we have seriously perverted the authority structure of the church and made it into a dictator church. Now, instead of a servant church, preaching and teaching only God and his law, the church is under obligation to teach people to walk in obedience to God’s law and to bring God’s sanctions against those who refused to do so. And there’s every indication here that if the churches did not act in obedience to this decree, there would have been sanctions brought against the churches.

And so I think we can assume then that what the council is teaching here is an application of God’s law. And now we’ll turn to the text itself for our third line of evidence that is exactly what’s occurring here. We’ve seen that this is not an accommodation to obviously the men who are troublers and perverters of souls and who are liars. There’s no other group that to be seen to be accommodated here in the text in a specific context.

And we I’ve also seen this as a binding decree which also seems to weaken the case for a accommodation. And now the text itself I think will demonstrate to us the problems that interpretation has. People who believe that believe it’s fraternal advice or request to facilitate intercourse always have trouble with the specific prohibitions. you know it’s it’s the question is why do they pick these particular things?

You know well I guess the Jews were offended by these things particularly eating of blood. But you know you think if it was to keep the Jews from being offended, you’d think that pork would be included in here, wouldn’t you? Clean, unclean food. That was a obviously a big deal in terms of table fellowship and diet, but it’s not mentioned. What we have is blood, fornication, pollutions of idols, and strangling.

And also people who think this is an accommodation under certain portions of the ceremonial law, they have problem with fornication. Of course, fornication here is not is a fairly broad word. Includes all kinds of sexual sins. And to say that they instructed these people not to involve themselves in fornication so they wouldn’t offend the Jews is really ridiculous, isn’t it? I mean it’s not okay to involve yourself in fornication.

Now I’ve seen some people take this passage of scripture and just do incredible things that when I’m not I think it was when either Bahnsen or Sutton was at Mount Noah School of the Bible, one of the students there seemed to imply and I asked him later and he said that indeed was his opinion that what this meant was when we went out and plant churches in churches. The only thing we could tell the natives in Africa, for instance, that they can’t do are these four things.

We can’t tell them it’s it’s wrong to murder or steal or whatever. All we do is instruct them these four things. You know, it’s the limit of it. Incredible. But and he had obviously no idea why these four things, but he figures, well, these four things must be at least we’ll stay with them. But any event, people who seek accommodation have trouble with the fornication verse. to get around that, Dr. Bahnsen in his book says that fornication here refers strictly to the prohibition on the degrees of consanguinity.

Consanguinity means one flesh. In Leviticus 18, which we’ll look at in a few minutes, there’s prohibitions against marrying, you know, cousins and, you know, in-laws and that sort of stuff. And Dr. Bahnsen believes that portion that is a ceremonial law that’s no longer obligatory for Christians, these degrees of consanguinity being prohibited within marriage. I think he’s wrong there. But in any event, I think that the use of the term porneia here which is the Greek word is not restricted to degrees of consanguinity.

It’s used in certain portions of scripture for incest but it’s also used for much broader cases of adultery and just overt fornication. So I think to reduce this term fornication to referring to Leviticus 18 and consanguinity or the prohibitions against marrying close relatives is again reading into the text what isn’t clearly there. You begin with an interpretation that it’s fraternal advice to accommodate Christians and you end up changing a word to match your interpretation.

Well, why did these four things? Why were these four things chosen out by the apostolic council? Was it the culture? I don’t think so. Was it the offended Jews? No. They would have used pork. They would have used some other things I believe and they wouldn’t have included fornication. I think though that there’s a real obvious reason why these four things are chosen. And of course, like everything else, we get our answers from the Bible.

And if we’ll turn to the book of Leviticus, let’s focus on it for a while now. In Leviticus chapter 17 and 18, we’ll see these exact same four prohibitions being annunciated in those two chapters. If we could turn to Leviticus 17 for a while, remember you’re being challenged this morning to follow along and don’t just believe what I tell you because this is somewhat controversial.

Now, before we actually get into an analysis of these two chapters, first of all, we’d like to set the stage for these chapters, okay?

And we’re going to look at the overall structure of the book of Leviticus. And I’ve got an outline here. I’m going to read the primary points of from Gordon Wenham’s commentary on Leviticus. Many people would share the same outline. The book of Leviticus is very easily outlined, as you’ll see as we go through this outline, and this is not there’s nothing controversial about this outline. Most commentators would agree with this with maybe minor differentiations.

Leviticus starts with the first seven chapters of Leviticus talking about laws on sacrifice as specifically the first five chapters talk about instruction for the lay person for the common man in terms of sacrifice and then chapters 6 and 7 talk about the instructions for the priests. Okay. So the first seven chapters of sacrifice lay and priests. Chapters 8-10 talk about the institution of the priesthood. Once you establish these sacrificial requirements you have to have a priesthood.

And so the priesthood is established in Leviticus 8 through 10. In Leviticus 11-16 then uncleanness and the treatment of uncleanness is talked about in terms then of this sacrificial system that’s been built up. And Leviticus 16 ends with the initiation of the great day of atonement. And so the first 16 chapters of the book of Leviticus are obviously oriented toward a sacrificial system which pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ which pointed to the great day of atonement that occurred 2,000 years ago and prefigured that with this whole sacrificial system and the requirements of that system building up to the great day of atonement at the end of Leviticus 16.

Leviticus 17-27 then forms the bulk of the rest forms the rest of the book. In Leviticus 17-27 is commonly referred to as a holiness code. One calls it prescriptions for practical holiness and then there’s various areas of holiness that are enjoined upon believers. The point is that Leviticus is two sections. The first section is priestly and has to do with ceremonial law sacrificial system. The second section beginning with 17:1 begins a holiness code which has moral obligations upon it upon everybody apart from the sacrificial system generally.

So that’s important. Understand that where do we find the very first portion of that holy code in Leviticus 17 and 18? What do we find God talking about? Well, I’ll tell you what we find God talking about and it’ll be very instructive for our analysis of Acts 15. In Leviticus 17:1-9, we have prohibitions on the killing of animals for food. If an animal is going to be killed for food, the animal has to be brought to the tabernacle to the sanctuary where it has to be killed there and its blood poured out.

Verse 7 says specifically, they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute forever unto them throughout their generations. The word demons here is probably some of your modern translations are translated goat demons. Specifically in the Hebrew Standard it calls it goat demons. Here it says demons. It’s probably goat demons is a lot more literal translation.

The point is that those first nine verses of chapter 17 have to do with meat, the eating of meat, and the prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols. He said, “Don’t go killing those guys out there in the wilderness with the goat demons. You bring them in here to the sanctuary, you kill them there. You offer them to God. You recognize he’s given us life. You don’t offer them to the demons. All things are offered to God and thank we thank God for our food, not the demons.” So verses 1-9 talk about the prohibition against eating meat sacrificed to idols.

And he says, “Don’t do that. Don’t sacrifice meat to idols.” Verses 10-14 deal with the prohibition of eating of blood. Verse 11, the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. And so, there’s a requirement here that you cannot eat blood. I might point out here that most of us don’t like to eat blood, do we?

We have a fairly natural revulsion of the idea of slitting some animal’s throat and drinking that blood. I mean, it’s not something you want to do. And I think that God tells us in the scriptures that we’ve been given consciences that those consciences are at least in some way still have the mark of God’s law upon them. I think that’s why we have a revulsion for blood. It’s a fairly natural thing and somebody has to go really through a barrier as it were, a mental barrier, at least I would in order to bring oneself to the point of drinking blood.

And it’s a barrier we shouldn’t go through. It’s why it’s there. God has given to it for our good. But in any event, verses 10-14 prohibit the eating of blood. Verse 13 in that context says that whatsoever man there be for the children of Israel or of the stranger that sojurn among you which huntth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten he shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust.

So the large sacrificial animals that they’re going to kill out in the they don’t have to bring for instance a wild gazelle or a bird to the sanctuary. Those sort of animals they can kill out there and eat. Okay, but they got to let the blood out of the animals. They don’t eat that blood. Put the blood on the ground and then cover the blood with dust. Okay, so verses 10-14 prohibit the eating of blood. Verse 15, following right along that and really kind of part of the same thing.

Every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your countrymen or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Then shall he be clean. And that is a prohibition against eating meat that dies of itself. Why? Well, I think that the natural correlation here is that it follows the other passages.

It’s prohibition blood. If an animal dies of itself, you don’t know what happened. You don’t know if it was bled properly. Probably wasn’t. Don’t eat it. If you eat it, that’s wrong. And so, you got to go through a cleansing ritual. And so, in verse 15, we have the prohibition against eating animals that are not bled properly. And strangled animals that we saw in Acts 15 are not bled, are they? When they’re strangled, they’re not their blood can’t come out of them.

And that concludes chapter 17. And then verse 16 talks about that same ritual verse 18 begins first with a preamble very similar to some of the things we’ve talked about in terms of covenant documents for the first five verses and then the rest of the chapter verses 6-30 talk about sexual sins the penalties for sexual sins penalty for all this stuff by the way throughout these prohibitions are to be cut off from the people very severe penalty not sure what that meant might have meant capital punishment might have meant just simple excommunication point is they were cut off from the congregation additionally the sexual sins it said that you’d be actually spewed out of the land as an additional prohibition.

We’ll talk about that in a little bit. The point is that Leviticus 18 goes on then to talk about fornication. And as I said, Dr. Bahnsen thinks it’s just those portions of Leviticus 18 that talk about close relatives that’s being talked about here. But there are other fornications involved in 18 as well. And so, what do we see here? What we see is after the first 16 chapters of Leviticus that deal with the sacrificial system and the ceremonial system leading up to the great day of atonement, the culmination of that sacrificial system, And of course that picture the coming of Jesus Christ and his atonement provided once for all.

Following that the holiness code starts and that holiness code starts with those same four prohibitions. Meat sacrifice to idols blood strangled animals or weren’t blood properly. And then finally fornication. The holiness code starts with 17 and 18 with those exact same four prohibitions. Now I think what we’ve got going on here then is that there’s an acknowledgement that the Gentiles have turned to God away from idolatry in Acts 15.

Those Gentiles have been brought to Leviticus 16 and the day of atonement. And the day of atonement will not be compromised by the Judaizers with the additional requirement of circumcision or anything else. The Day of Atonement taught the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross and his atonement paying the price for our sins as the basis for our right standing before God. And that’s what the Council of Jerusalem reaffirmed to those Gentile believers.

But the Council of Jerusalem went on to say, “Yes, you’ve been brought to the Day of Atonement, you’ve finished with the sacrificial system as it were. But now we begin the holiness code and this is where you’re at. And so you begin here and you build holiness into your lives the way that Leviticus goes on to instruct people to walk before God as holy because he is holy. And so the people, the gentile Christians in Antioch were, I believe, at the division point between 16 and 17, saved by faith, brought to faith in Jesus Christ.

And now they assured them that though the law was not necessary for their salvation, Yet the law was there to guide them into holiness. And so they were to act in obedience to those principles of the law that God gives us in Leviticus 17 and 18. Let’s look at another scripture that I think points out this same thing. Ezekiel 33. Ezekiel 33. First I’ll read verses 18 and 19. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness and committh iniquity, he shall even die.

thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Now remember folks, when you hear these sort of things, God never teaches works righteousness. That’s not what this passage of scripture is talking about. Ezekiel never thought that man could by his own good works live eternally before God. But he’s saying that man who is saved in covenant relationship with God has an obligation to walk in righteousness.

And if he doesn’t do that and falls away from the faith, he’ll demonstrate the fact that he never was in covenant relationship and will be cut off. There is penalties. There is cursings and blessings depending on our actions. If the wicked turn from his wickedness, verse 19, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Nice promise. And remember, these Gentiles we’re talking about in Acts 15 were doing just that, weren’t they?

They were the wicked cut off from the community of God, and they were now turning to God. And it says specifically that back in Acts 15:19, when James announces a sentence, “Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble them not which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” See, same language used. He says, “They’ve turned to God, and now because they’ve turned to God, he’s going to instruct them in the laws of holiness.” And Ezekiel 33 says the same thing.

Those which in verse 19, the wicked turn from his wickedness, do that which is right and lawful. He shall live thereby. Then down in verses 25 and 26, Wherefore say unto them, thus sayith the Lord, Ye with the blood and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood, and shall you possess the land? You stand upon your sword, you work abomination, and you defile everyone his neighbor’s wife. Shall you possess the land?

You see, those same prohibitions are mentioned here, aren’t they? Eating blood, idolatry, lifting up your eyes toward your idols, shedding blood. By the way, some people believe that reference to blood in Acts 15 could also refer to the shedding of blood and so they distinguish it from strangled there. I don’t think that’s correct, but it’s okay. And then in verse 26, you defile everyone your own neighbor’s wife.

So these same four prohibitions are mentioned here in Ezekiel 25 and 26 as being central to acts of covenant disobedience on the part of God’s people who are supposedly in relationship with him. And those central acts of disobedience, the violation of those four prohibitions will cut off people from the land. Shall you possess the land? Clear inference is no, you shall not. One other passage of scripture that deals with a couple of these prohibitions is in Revelation 2:14 to the church of Pergamus.

Revelation 2:14. I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balaam to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel. And what was that stumbling block? To eat things sacrificed unto idols and to commit fornication. That’s the stumbling block that was present in the churches, church of Pergamus that was written to from Jesus Christ himself.

And so we see those two of those same four prohibitions, two of the central prohibitions there being applied to New Testament churches now, okay? Not just to the Old Covenant community in terms of being a stumbling block to the brothers and that if they don’t turn from it, they’ll be cut off. Repent, he says in verse 16, or else I will come unto thee quickly. We’ll fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

This is not fraternal advice here in Revelation 2, is it? He’s saying don’t do those things or I’m going to come against you with the word of my mouth and I’ll slay you and maybe even with that council, the decree from the churches that he established in Acts 15. That decree could have been used against that church of Pergamus as well. So what is so I think now we have a good idea of why James in his decision and the council of Jerusalem decided on those four things.

Beginning of the holiness road central to the covenant. But there remains another question and that is why does he start in other words where God started in Leviticus 17 and 18. But why does God start with those four prohibitions? I think we ought to spend at least a couple of minutes thinking about that before we leave this particular section of scripture. I think that these three or four prohibitions really speak to the centrality and to the essence of the Christian faith and that obedience to these prohibitions are absolutely essential in terms of an understanding of what God has given us to do.

to an understanding of the centrality of the gospel. These prohibitions deal with idolatry. They deal with diet and they deal with the marriage relationship. Now, man is essentially a religious being. He’s created by God. He is created with the spirit. Man is a religious being. He has to worship. The only way man cannot worship is to die. Man has to worship. Man is a physical being. He has to eat. He has to eat food and drink things in order to sustain his life.

And man also is a covenantal being. And apart from a marriage relationship. Apart from offspring produced through the covenantal relationship of marriage, the human race would die off in a generation. These things are absolutely necessary. Worship, food, marriage, offspring are necessary for the human race to survive. They’re essentials as it were and they teach us essentials about the faith itself. Now, what these things teach us, among other things, is that worship has to be God-centered.

Idolatry is prohibited because worship must be centered around the creator and not around the creature. That is of absolute essential to an understanding of the Christian faith that it involves a worship of the creator and not the creature. And so prohibition against idolatry is a central aspect of the faith. We must acknowledge God’s gift of correct worship and his ownership of our worship and his delineation of proper worship coming forward from his word.

Food. We must acknowledge food to be God’s gift of life. Life. We must acknowledge that it is only that from God’s gift that we have life itself. True life, eternal life cannot come from physical food. We know that God has encouraged us. He has brought us into the faith with an understanding that every Sunday we come together here and have communion, having food with Jesus Christ, eating Christ’s body and blood as it were, true food come down from heaven.

So food is an essential aspect of the faith. And by food, God teaches us the necessity of our participation of our appropriation into the covenant of grace through the work of Jesus Christ and through being one with him as it were through eating his flesh and eating his blood. Marriage also is something that we should be thankful to God for. Procreation must be acknowledged as a gift from God, but a gift from God that has no efficiency of itself to bring about life.

And we’ve talked before for several weeks now about the need to focus upon regeneration and not generation. Marriage is an important aspect of our lives. The offspring that heals is an important aspect of what a covenant would have with God and of the future generations of his people. Now, these three things, and I include strangled with blood here, so we’ll talk about three of them primarily here.

These three specific prohibitions reinforce that grace is the only means by which we can approach God. And so, the holiness code itself, while turning to practical living, reinforces, as it were, what we find at the end of Leviticus 16 was the day of atonement and the offer there of grace. After all, it’s only through the grace of God that he brings us into correct worship patterns with him. We have no efficacy of ourselves to accomplish that.

Food teaches us again that it’s the grace of Jesus Christ that we have to appropriate and not the blood of some animal to get life. And marriage teaches us that the grace of God that will produce regenerate children for us, not our procreative powers themselves that produces generated children.