Dennis Tuuri

Scripture is Acts 11:1-18. Acts 11:1-18. Please stand for the reading of our Lord’s word. And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest into men uncircumcised, and did eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descended, as it had been a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners, and it came even to me.

Upon the which, when I had fastened my eyes, I considered, and saw four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, “Arise, Peter, slay and eat.” But I said, “Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.” But the voice answered me again from heaven, “But God hath cleansed that; call not thou common.”

And this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. And behold, immediately there were three men already come into the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me. And we entered into the man’s house. And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” And as he began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. For as much then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. What was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Let’s pray.

Father, we take this word from you. We take it gratefully and thankfully, knowing that in it you reveal who you are and give us also a picture of who we are. We pray Lord God that you would use this word now in this time to bring glory to yourself by causing us to be humbled for our sin and to be exhorted and built up and comforted with the knowledge that Jesus has paid the price for that sin. Help us Lord God to move from death to life as we hear the message of your word.

May your spirit be amongst us then to empower us to understand it and to apply it into our lives in Jesus name and for the sake of his kingdom we pray. Amen.

I know a man who sat in his house one evening with a house filled with children—a house filled with the messes that can accompany children from little babies up to teenagers, the disorder in the house that can occur physically. And this man likes to have a little routine on this particular night. He’s going to be preaching the next day. And so on that particular night, the night before he preaches, he likes a little routine of coming home at a particular time and things going fairly orderly, the house being orderly, and then having a couple of hours in the evening to reflect upon his studies over the week and to think through how to present the material to the congregation the next day.

As this man reflected upon his talk, he mostly reflected upon the disorder that seemed to be in the context of his house that evening. The question came to him: what relevance does this text have for a man who has a number of children, a busy life—as people do have busy lives—who has a number of children and civic responsibilities, church responsibilities, family responsibilities, vocational responsibilities, etc.? This man had gotten upset at the disorder, had gotten upset at his wife for being a little bit late and getting things done.

His wife had spent the previous day—spent at least two hours the previous day in a car—so that the children of the family, several of them, could be in fellowship with other children from the church they go to. And she’d spend another couple hours on the Saturday itself so she could be in fellowship with one of her teenage daughters and have a relaxing time to some extent that day. And also, it’s been a couple of other hours being with her children, her younger children, comforting them and having a good time with them and causing them to rejoice in God, placing them in the context of such a loving mother.

And yet, this disrupted the order of this man who was going to preach the next day. And as a result, the question came: what relevance does the text he was going to preach on have? The text speaks of a business meeting held 2,000 years ago which involved primarily the retelling of events that had been told already a couple of times in the very context of the passage and which didn’t really seem to solve anything in terms of the problem that was raised.

The problem seemed to be solved for the moment, but the problem that was raised went on and on and on in the history of the church. What relevance is that account of a 2,000-year-old business meeting that didn’t really fix anything to the life of the people that sit in the context of busy homes disordered through the natural affairs of life—perhaps through our own sloth but primarily through the natural affairs of life and requirements of relationships that God has given to us in the context of the family, the church, and our civic responsibilities?

I think it has a lot of relevance. That man is me, of course.

I think that this text has a lot of relevance to the things I’ve just mentioned. I think God’s word is always sure and relevant to us. As R.J. Rushdoony is want to say, it’s a sure word from God and it’s a relevant word. It brings to us information that is very important for how we live our lives. And this text is no different. And we see in this text a development of the Christian community, a glimpse, a little snapshot window into a particular portion, an event that had happened.

Peter has ushered in the Gentiles into the visible church through baptism. He has eaten with them. Now, we would expect that since he has told us that after the baptism of the Gentiles occurred in Caesarea that worship was probably conducted. We don’t know how long Peter was there. He was there for a while instructing them in the faith. And we can—I would say we can almost be certain—that communion was participated in and eating then might refer to the table of the Lord itself.

Rumors of this had gotten back to Jerusalem as rumors are wont to do. Rumors happen. Rumors are a fact of life that we can do nothing about. And if you think that somehow you can stamp out rumors, you’re wrong. They’re going to happen. And some of those rumors are spread, the accounts are spread with a good intent. And some of those rumors are spread for a bad intent. And so in this case, I’m sure there were people who said, “Our savior told us, ‘We’re going to take the message to all the world.’” And you know what? It’s happening right now. It’s happening in Caesarea, the town that bears the name for Caesar who rules all the world. But now the gospel of the greater Caesar, the greater rule of all the world, has come into Caesarea and erupted the life of that city in the house of a man named Cornelius. And the Gentiles have been ushered into the church of Jesus Christ without going through the ritual of circumcision, without becoming Jews first, but coming directly from being God-fearing Gentiles into the church of Jesus Christ.

And so God has taken away this middle wall of partition that kept the two elements of the church away from each other until the coming of Messiah, who would bring all believers together in one body with no distinction of Jew and Gentile or circumcised or uncircumcised. It’s a great thing that’s happening over there in Caesarea. But I’m sure there were other rumors that were a little different. You know what that Peter has done? You know what that crazy apostle—no, he was the one who denied the Lord three times. He screwed up a lot. He’s kind of an impetuous man. Well, in his impetuousness, he went to Caesarea and actually had Gentiles baptized without having them circumcised first. What is the guy thinking of? Well, yeah, we’re supposed to go to the ends of the earth, but they’ve got to go through Judaism first.

You can imagine the rumors that were occurring.

And our text tells us that indeed the rumor had come, reports had come to the apostles and the brethren in Judea, and they had heard of what had gone on in Caesarea. And so the account tells us that Peter then comes in the context of this situation back because there’s contention. These rumors are received in different ways. We know that some men received the rumor not in a good way. They thought this is not a good thing.

Peter comes back to Jerusalem and he’s confronted by men of the circumcision. Now remember that all the church were of the circumcision in the sense that all were circumcised. But this is apparently a particular subset of those Christians at the church of Jerusalem who to them circumcision was a big deal. They were identified—and we’ll see this more formally later on in the development of the early church. We’ll see in Acts 15 that there’s a party of the circumcision, a sect within the church who hold this as a pivotal doctrine.

Now, that is not the case here; it appears that there’s not yet a formal schism, but there were men here who already considered themselves of the circumcision. The importance of that—they might call them legalists—who focused on one particular liturgical element, the rite of circumcision perhaps. Well, at any rate, they contend with Peter.

That’s what the text tells us in verse two. They contended with him. They argued with him, saying, “You went unto men uncircumcised and ate with them.”

Now, that’s an interesting charge to make against Peter. And there’s a couple of possibilities for why the text says it that way. It could be that by that point they’re really referring to the whole incident by which Peter went to Caesarea and including the baptism of the Gentiles. It could be that, or it could be—as I mentioned earlier—that this is a liturgical eating, that this is a ceremonial worship eating, that the eating referred to here is the Lord’s Supper. I mean, after all, the really contentious thing—certainly it’s contentious somewhat to those who had added extra-biblical regulations about separation, not eating with Gentiles. But it also is, of course, the main thing that happened was Peter ushered them into the church through the rite of baptism and undoubtedly then also welcomed them to the Lord’s table.

We don’t know for certain, but all we know is that there was contention and they got on Peter’s back, so to speak, about this. They argued with him about it.

Now, before we go saying, “Why these idiots? What’s the matter with them? This is an apostle they’re talking to, after all. You’d think they’d do well.” And by the way, the text doesn’t appear to indicate that any apostles questioned Peter. The apostles seem not to have had this problem. It was a subset of the brethren here, apparently, that is having the problems.

And before we go chastising the subset of the brethren, let’s remember what’s going on here. Let’s remember that this is a momentous act, changing thousands of years of the way the church was organized. This is a momentous act. These people had been conditioned to thinking that they had a unique national identity and that this unique national identity was what was approaching fulfillment with the coming of Messiah onto the scene.

You see, they were now being urged to abandon that thought through this addition of uncircumcised Gentiles to the fold. They’re being asked to accept—as one commentator put it—a reinterpretation of ancient prophecies, to admit a spiritual rendering of old promises accepted and cherished as literal and material, to see Israel, that is the Old Testament Israel, melt into the church, and the minority of the chosen lose identity, privilege, and special place in a new global organization.

Now, for them to accept this—as the commentator said—called for insight, faith, self-abnegation, self-denial, in other words, magnanimity and a transcendent view of God rarely found in any but the most enlightened souls. And this commentator went on to say, “It would be better for us to look upon such agonizing appraisals with a sympathetic eye and to approach and to appreciate rather the greatness of the men who rose to the occasion and especially of the mighty spirit toward those whose work the story is attending.”

The point of that is that it’s easy for us to make fun of these people or not to make fun, but to say “What is their problem?” But remember how disordered their life had become. It’s to take the disorder that I felt last night—not having my normal ability to have my sequence of Saturday occur just like I wanted it to occur—that is about a one on a scale of 0 to a thousand. This is like a 999. This is a big disordering of their world as they knew it.

And so the wonder is not that there were a few men who objected. The wonder is that most of them didn’t object and at least raise the question “What is going on here? Interpret these facts for us.” So the wonder is not that anybody objected. The problem is the wonder is that not all of them objected.

So let’s remember that because it is important for us that when our lives become disordered to remember that this is the hand of God in one way or the other—maybe for good, maybe the events may be bad, maybe sin involved, maybe not. But when our lives are disordered, it’s important to have this transcendent, magnanimous view that these men who are going to accept this account had and that Peter had toward the working of God in their life.

God, you know, I remember an old analogy about the Holy Spirit. Some people think the Holy Spirit’s like a bar girl tickling the men under the chin, making them feel okay about their lives as they’re sitting with their drinks. But in the scriptures, in this analogy between pioneers and settlers, in pioneer theology, the Holy Spirit comes in and shoots his guns off and wakes up the whole town and causes a big ruckus. And really, that second account is much more often the truth. Now the spirit is a spirit of comfort to us and assurance. It’s very important to understand that. But frequently the spirit is a spirit who blows in like a mighty wind of God through many difficult events, driving us toward grace.

It was amazing to me—I was listening in the context of my disorder last night. I increased the disorder by having the television on. I like music going while I’m doing my studies, etc. And Paul Simon is on, doing his concert about grace, and he’s singing and he’s saying that you know, losing at love is like having a window in your heart when everybody sees things breaking apart. And the wind blows—he said, and the wind is blowing you to grace.

Well, the point of that line—I think—is that the difficulties that come are provisions from the wind blowing us toward grace. And the Holy Spirit comes that way. He comes troubling our lives. And part of the comfort of the spirit is knowing that God is in control. To think and live as a Calvinist who says that this wind of God blowing—and that’s what our Lord compares the spirit to—is a wind that wind is driving us to grace. It’s driving us to God’s acceptance of us on the basis of Jesus Christ and it’s driving us to a maturation of who we are based upon an appreciation of grace.

Well, these men had a disordered time now, and it’s important for us to recognize God’s grace driving us toward maturation, his spirit driving us to grace and maturation. And as our lives become disordered and have problems and difficulties—real problems—well, then in this contention then occurs.

And Peter then does not assert apostolic authority and say “shut up.” Peter then explains to them the facts of what had happened. Now remember it is important to remember that like I said, he is an apostle and apparently none of the apostles brought up the problem. But there’s not a denial of the concern of these men. There’s an answering of the concern. And Peter then explains the facts, the matter in verses four and following, and we read in verse four that Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning and expounded it by order unto them, saying. And that’s an important verse for this reason, I think.

Those there are two different phrases there: “rehearsed the matter” and then “expounded it by order” refers to a logical presentation of a case. And I think it lends credence—along with the designation that the apostles and brethren in Judea had heard of this and then this discussion happened, this contention and resolution happening—I think what we’re seeing here is, as I said, a business meeting, a congregational meeting of the church to discuss the matter and consider it. There’s a formal presentation, I think, is what verse 4 indicates here from Peter. He rehearses the matter before them.

And you notice the way that he handles this sort of dialogue in the context of what I think is a very important congregational meeting of elders and officers. He simply gives a recitation of the facts, and of course, he interprets them with God’s word. He talks about how he was in the city of Joppa. It’s interesting. He mentions the city of Joppa. He mentions later the city of Caesarea. And we see the movement from one of the oldest cities to the new city. We’ve talked about this before, but it’s a good literary device to keep in mind.

He was there and he describes the vision that he saw. He leaves out his hunger, which is okay. But he describes a vision. Here we have the particular emphasis given in verse 5 that the sheet came down to him, showing the personalness of the vision to him, him being an eyewitness of it. And he simply essentially explains what had occurred in the context of this—the events. He gives the historical account.

Now we read in verse 12 there were six brethren, and this is the first time we have that in this third retelling of the story. Now we’re actually given this additional detail of six brethren. It’s been pointed out by some commentators that in Egyptian law seven witnesses were required. In Roman law there were seven seals on a covenant which, you know, has witness capability to it. In the book of Revelation, we see the book of the covenant having seven seals upon it, and the opening of the seals indicating the direction of history. It’s one of the overall structures of the book of Revelation: the opening of the seven seals.

And so that the sevenfold witness of circumcised members of the church accepting these gentile believers—gentile believers rather—without being circumcised is a sevenfold attestation to the correctness of the action. So he brings that up, and Matthew Henry also talks about how Peter did not act separately. Peter acted with advice. He did not act rashly. He acted with deliberation. There were six other men involved in this process. And so it’s important to understand that we see, by way of implication here to us, the need to be involved again in relationships, communication with other brethren.

Matthew Henry also points out the efficacious events that occur when we consider things with one another, talk about things to understand the interpretation. The fact that Peter goes in the context of community—again, not isolated by himself, but in the context of other men, other believing men—is important in terms of the recitation of Peter’s account certainly. And it’s also important as an object lesson to us.

Matthew Henry said, “It is good for those that have communion with God and keep up a correspondence with heaven to compare notes and communicate their experiences to each other, for hereby they may strengthen one another’s faith.” And that’s what’s going on here as well.

So, we have both the telling of the event itself in the context of the dissension of brethren comparing notes on what had occurred, and we have Peter saying that when he did this—when he went to usher the Gentiles into the church—he did it in the context of consultation with other men as well.

So, he records these historical facts for us. He also says in verse 13—this is just to point out very briefly—he showed us how he had seen an angel. Actually, a better translation is “the angel.” It’s a definite article attached to the term “angel.” And that’s important because again, when he says that he talks about the angel, he’s saying you’ve heard about this angel already. So he’s not simply telling this for the first time to these men. He’s giving, as it were, a legal testimony to what had occurred in the context of a formal meeting, a congregational meeting. And that’s pointed out by his use of the definite article in terms of angel.

In any event, he goes on to say that Cornelius had heard from this angel in verse 14 that Peter would come and tell the words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And that’s significant for us to realize that salvation comes through a word, a communication. And Peter is going to bring the word to Cornelius’s household. And now God is using words as a way to resolve the potential problem of schism and division within the church. Words, communication, dialogue.

“And I began to speak. The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.”

The Holy Ghost—he doesn’t say that the Gentiles were picked up and immersed in the Holy Ghost, are plunged into the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost descends on them from above. This is significant because Peter says a couple of things here. He says this was just as on us at the beginning. He’s talking about the church, the reorganization of the church in the day of Pentecost. So he draws a specific correlation to the Gentiles and to their—the Jewish Christian experience at Pentecost. And he goes on to say that then he said that he remembered the word of the Lord: how that he said “John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

So there’s a correlation between John’s water baptism and spirit baptism. And conversely then with Cornelius, a correlation between the outpouring of the spirit on these men and then Peter saying, “Who can deny them water?” I think that we can make a case for a mode of baptism of water coming down from above, whether you’re sprinkling it, pouring it, whatever it is—water coming down upon them. It’s a picture of the descent of the Holy Spirit on a particular person. And it is important here to recognize, as I said, the correlation back to Pentecost.

And so the tongues here, which is not directly mentioned in the text at all—it’s not important for Peter. The only important thing is that there were visible signs of the descent of the Holy Spirit. What they were is not singled out for him in this retelling of the account in the context of this head of household meeting, so to speak. But that tongue occurrence was the same as on the day of Pentecost. It had to be because Peter says this was just what happened to us at the beginning. And he also says “This is what Jesus promised us.”

And what’s he talking about there? John said frequently in the gospels, “I baptize with water. One will come who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” He said that, but our savior—who is being quoted here—and our savior is being quoted from Acts chapter 1. In Acts chapter 1, in the first opening verses of Acts, Jesus tells them before he ascends to be at the right hand of the father. He tells them that indeed John baptized with water, but in a few days I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

And so he’s correlating this again to what happened on the day of Pentecost and particularly the savior’s prophecy of that occurring. And “ye” is an important term here. Jesus said he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. You’ll be baptized with the Holy Spirit. You will. And the Gentiles are part of you. You understand? They’ve been baptized with the Holy Ghost. They’re part of you, the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, even though they’re uncircumcised. They’re part of you.

Now, he’s showing the unity of these two groups being brought together through the demonstration of Pentecost, a similar event to Pentecost—that is, the same manifestation.

So then Peter kind of wraps up his argument. This recitation of facts now leads to his conclusion, verse 17. He said nothing but facts up to now—not what his ponderings were, not what his thoughts were, but only facts. Then he says in verse 17, he interprets these facts, given the fact of the word of the savior interpreting them. He says, “For as much then as God gave them the like gift—another indication exactly the same manifestation of tongues—gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. What was I that I could withstand God?”

You know, Paul Simon last night: “Who am I to blow against the wind?” Who is Peter to withstand God? Well, people try to do it all the time, but they don’t do it. God’s purposes are not thwarted. His hand is not shortened. So, Peter says, “Look, you’ve got a problem with this, okay? But your problem isn’t with me. It’s with God. God did this stuff. All I did was respond aptly, so to speak, in response to what God did with water baptism, including the eating. And so certainly I could fellowship with them in their house and with their food. Or if the phrase means liturgical eating, certainly they would also be welcomed to the communion table.”

So Peter simply gives a recitation of facts interpreted by scripture and then comes the conclusion that God has spoken.

Well, so we have this contention, we have this discussion, deliberation of the matter apparently in a formal setting, and then finally we have the resolution of the matter based upon this summation of the argument. The men who had the problem and who were contending then are pleased.

Verse 18: “When they heard these things, they held their peace.”

Now, a better term might be they acquiesced. It means more than just that they were quiet. The word means there that they actually acquiesced. They agreed with Peter’s conclusion based upon the facts. And this goes on—is indicated of course by the fact that they glorify God saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance and delight.” Okay, they said, “Great. Sounds good to us. Praise God. The gospel’s going forward.”

And so the resolution is a good one.

Now that’s basically all we have in this text. Pretty straightforward account, pretty straightforward set of occurrences. But let’s draw some lessons from it for our lives. Let’s talk about some implications of this for how we live our lives, to myself in the context of what can be unsettling circumstances to me in my home and to the church as it goes through—and as it has for 2,000 years, as the song we just sang indicated—as we go through the perils of schism and division, as the church has always had. As we go through problems, let’s look at this particular problem because this is going to form the basis this particular controversy of much of the controversy of the early church.

We’ve talked about that before. Well, first of all, let’s see as one lesson from this text: the importance of men in the government of the church. Now, as I said, I believe what we have here is a specific congregational meeting, and this is relating to the governance of the church. Now, on the outline I made a little mistake as I did some cutting and pasting in my word processor—at least on my copy of the outline—it says “the importance of me to the governance of the church.” Me, or you could read that as “me to the government of the church.” I left out the “n” in the space.

What it should say in your outline is “the importance of men to the governance of the church.”

And I mean this in a couple of ways. First of all, I mean it in the generic sense for humanity. What I mean here is that people are important. People are the primary bearers of God’s image. You know, of course, Jesus is the ultimate image of God and man united, but man is made in the image of God. We bear God’s image. The documents that we create do not. They just don’t. God’s word, of course, is a very important document, but we tend to want to draw up documents and things to cause a reliance upon those documents. And it’s important to remember that this matter was not resolved with the development of nor an appeal to a book of church order.

Now, there undoubtedly were books of church order in the early church. Don’t get me wrong, but what I’m saying is that what this story tells us is the importance of men and people, the community of the church, in terms of conflict resolution within the church. Documents are only as good as the men who administer them.

We’re going through a little—we’re going through the foundational building blocks of developing the Oregon Alliance of Reformed Churches. And I have a conversation with this last week with one of the pastors trying to come up with the statement of who will be able to get into this organization. And I don’t want to bore you with all the details, but on one hand, the reformed school—I’m going to bore you with some of them anyway. My apologies. Apparently on one school of the reformed churches, or one group, one culture. It can be seen as the reformed as opposed to the Presbyterian.

We’ve talked about this before. The Christian Reformed Church is the largest reformed church and it’s somewhat conservative still in the country. It is reformed as opposed to Presbyterian. There’s this development of two different cultures, so to speak. One coming from the Three Forms of Unity, the other coming from the Westminster Standards. And the reformed churches have, at least in the CRC and most denominations, their form of subscription. By that I mean: what do the ministers have to assert if they can be ordained as a minister in the CRC? Well, the form of subscription says that you must believe in every point of doctrine and article in the Three Forms of Unity: the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgian Confession, Cannons of Dort.

The Westminster—the Presbyterian tradition, on the other hand—there’s been much debate about this. Generally, the denominations hold for ordination purposes that you have to believe in the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards—every point of article, every point of doctrine or article—system of doctrine, which is right. And as we develop the OARC, we ought to be able to include churches that affirm either the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards, which is fine. But then we’ve got to talk about what form of subscription.

And I believe that the system of doctrine is correct. And because texts like this show us the importance of men as they administer these things, the point is that people should—as they come into an organization or denomination—talk about their differences with the secondary standards, what they might have a concern over. But any attempt to say that anybody who objects in any point of article or doctrine with the secondary standards essentially can be seen as canonizing it, giving it the place of scripture.

And the important thing I wanted to stress here—and I guess I bore you a little bit with the details—the important thing I want to stress is that as I’ve struggled through this issue over the last few months, as we’ve tried to disguise wording for the OARC, and I’ve talked to several men from both traditions in the context of this, what everybody who is sound, I think, comes up with is that ultimately it’s the men in the group who’ll be the ones who will have to—who will be the safeguards to the group as it keeps to an orthodox position.

It may sound like every point of doctrine or article is better, but there’s a denomination, the CRC, that makes its ministers affirm that very thing. And yet whose very ministers now, many of them, teach theistic evolution—which is definitely contrary to the standards—and many other things as well. So, what I’m saying is: first of all, we see in this the importance of men in the governance of the church. God’s image-bearers, men are important.

And secondly—and I want to make this point now briefly and develop it later—we get to Acts 15. Men as men in the general sense, then people as God’s image-bearers. And secondly, men as opposed to women. Okay. Men govern the church. Let the scriptures make that clear. And you will not find—at least I cannot find—any occurrence in Old Testament or New Testament in a congregational meeting where things like this are being discussed and determined where women are a part of that discussion. That doesn’t mean they’re any worse, but it means a difference of function. They’re not called to that particular office of deliberation and voting on the governance of the church.

And we’ll talk about that more later in Acts 15. But it’s an important issue for us as a church. We’re developing wording right now for the conducting of our heads of households meetings. And what we’re moving toward is wording that says that while there are informational items that the elders may bring that women can freely discuss, there are deliberative items which will require a vote in the sense of the elders. And those matters, we’re not going to allow for women to discuss those matters. That’s the position we’re headed toward now—at least until we can have clarity from the scriptures. Otherwise, we’re looking to look at that—but it’s very important in the context of our culture today, which is egalitarian, which is saying that there is no functional difference between men and women. That’s simply incorrect. God has given men a covenantal headship in the family, and ideally then in the church and in the state as well. And that’s just a claimed fact from scripture.

This text again reaffirms that by talking about the brethren and the apostles, all who were men.

So, men as opposed to women. Now, this has relevance to our situation at home because the governance of the family is the governance of the church. The church, the scriptures tell us, is the household of God. It is God’s family. And it has direct correlation then to our households. And in terms of my state of disorder last night, one of the things that this text should bring home to me is the importance of people, men in its generic sense.

Now, in terms of the governance of our lives, community is important. And yes, it brings difficulties. If there were fewer people in the church, if the apostles were the only members of the church, this issue wouldn’t have come up. It would have been a lot cleaner for them. But it wouldn’t be better for them. God wants us to fellowship in the context of community. He wants us to have a lot of kids if that’s, you know, what he blesses us with. And those children create difficulties for us. But so what? They create much more blessings for us.

I was talking—I think it was Chris W. said that he, I think, was quoting Iacocca, who said that it never—he’s never—there’s never been an account of a man on his deathbed who said he wished he spent more time with his business. You know, no. On your deathbed, eternal realities get clearer in focus as you approach your death usually. And people usually spend—I wish I would have spent more time with my family. See the importance of people. And so my wife, for instance, was completely correct in putting off, you know, cleaning up this particular room or that room for the sake of the people in the house. And it’s important that you realize that the great estimation God wants—the great value God wants us to put upon the people in our household and the people in the extended household of Jesus Christ.

I think it’s good that people in their death could think of their family. But you know, I’ll tell you something. I think that the spirit of God will probably also motivate believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who at their deathbed to say also, “I wish I would have spent more time with the church, the people from the church, the family of God.” That’s what it’s called. I think it’s unfortunate that our day is characterized as one where “focus on the family” is a big thing. It’s a very important thing. But what about “focus on the church,” the community of God, the family of God? That’s very important as well.

Well, one other point I want to make before I move on from this application, and that is this: that in Hebrews 12, we’re talking about the importance of men and the governance of the church. And by implication, the family and also the state. But this is very important to keep in mind, and it’s you know this already, but it’s important that you hear the word of God reiterating this, I think, regularly. And that is in Hebrews 12, we read about the chastisement of the Lord. And it says how you’ve had fathers who chastised you, and we gave them reverence. He said, when they chastise us—well, that’s not true of everyone, but hopefully in the household of faith, children, older children, learn to reverence their parents, to give them weight and evaluation even as they’re being chastised by them.

And he goes on to say in verse 10: “For they—that is the fathers—verily for a few days chastened us, but he, that is God, for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.”

Now, he doesn’t mean by that the fathers chastise kids for their pleasure, ’cause they enjoy doing it. What he means that phrase actually be better interpreted that they chastise us for a few days as they saw fit. As they saw fit. But God—not as he sees fit but as he knows is efficacious for our well-being. Children, your parents are going to make mistakes, but God never does. Your parents chastise you for a few days—is what the text tells us in Hebrews—as they see fit. But don’t despise that. Thank God for that because it says earlier in the text that if a person doesn’t endure chastening, he’s a bastard. He’s no son anymore. He’s outside of the family. If your father doesn’t love you enough to discipline you and chastise you, he doesn’t love you, not as a son or a daughter.

And so the point I’m trying to make here is that while people are important and we should reverence those in authority in the family and in the church and in the state, they’re going to make mistakes—very clearly so. And if somehow we see every mistake as a reason to separate from them, we’re not reverencing them. We’re not understanding again the importance of people as image-bearers of God. And of course, we’ve got to remember to think like Calvinists in this process.

Children, you’ve got to remember to understand that God is in control. While your parents may be doing it even for evil purposes, God intends it for good. He’ll use it for good in your household. And same in the church, same in the state. Very important as we look at the state today to not somehow let the institution itself be dragged through the mud and the have the confidence of the people in any ruler be ripped apart because of what may be very small errors of judgment or practice. Very important for us.

So: the importance of men in the governance of the church.

Second, we see here the danger of pride in the governance of the church. These men who begin this contention, they are satisfied here. But we know that others will not be. We know that in Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem is held specifically in response to a Judaizing influence. We know that the epistle to the Galatians is written specifically about this issue: men who tell old gentile, God-fearing people who became Christians, “You have to be circumcised. You’ve got to go back to that old system, which whole purpose was designed to separate people instead of bring them together.”

And that separation was good, holding all things in fulfillment in advance to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. So we know that while these men were satisfied, it was the beginning of a major, major schism, division problem in the church. And that problem happens because—almost always at the root of most sins—is pride.

Pride can destroy or at least severely hinder the governance of the church. It begins to manifest itself here. It will manifest itself later in a large way. Pride. Pride leads to schism and to break up. And I want to talk a little bit from Galatians 5. And why don’t you turn there into your text. Galatians 5 in your scriptures. We’re going to go over verses 5 and 6, really briefly.

Galatians 5 is all about this very issue that’s being discussed here for the first time. It’s an important issue. It’s why, you know, Luke had a scroll, a parchment. You know, he didn’t have a word processor, and the parchment was about long enough to contain all of the book of Acts. It’s about exactly the length of the parchments were at that particular point in time. He had a very limited material to put it on if he wanted to get it on one scroll. And yet in the context of that limited length, he devoted a chapter and a half to this incident. It’s that important to them. It’s that important to us.

And so Galatians 5 tells us the importance of this and tells us, I think, that the root of all this stuff is pride.

Verse 12 of Galatians 5, Paul says, “I wish that they were cut off, which trouble you.” A very graphic description of what he liked to have happen to these people that trouble the church of Jesus Christ.

Goes on in verse 13, he says, “We’re called into liberty, but use your liberty to love one another.” Verse 15: “If you bite and devour one another, take heed be not consumed one another.” This problem of circumcision uncircumcision was resulting in biting and devouring—a schism in the context of the church. And Paul says in verse 16 that you’re actually fulfilling the lust of the flesh. And to avoid this, you’ve got to live in the spirit.

And then move ahead to verse 25. Paul says, “If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.”

Paul hit to the root of the problem. It was pride on behalf first of those who wanted others to be like they were—circumcised. They were proud. They were men of the circumcision. They were proud of it. And that pride caused them to sin grievously against other members of the church. But Paul is warning them here that isn’t the only way that pride can work. You can be proud of the fact that you’re a gentile who wasn’t circumcised. You can think you’re better because of that. So Paul, in the context of this controversy, warns them against pride—the desiring of vain glory.

Then he says in verse 6:1 (too bad about these chapter divisions—they’re not inspired, you know. These chapter divisions are not anywhere in the text where men think they could be), in verse one, then says, “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. Bear you one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

Now, we hear those verses and again, it’s like J. Adams and, you know, we need context. Acts because verse one of chapter 6 is the verse that almost any book of church order in reformed churches will quote in terms of restoring a brother. You’ve got to be careful you don’t fall into sin. And the implication is, if you’re for instance dealing with a brother in sexual sin, you’ve got to be careful you don’t fall into sexual sin. I don’t really think that’s what the text is getting at. Now, that’s a good application of it. It’s a good application. But listen, you know, as one who is experienced in such matters—counseling people along various sinful actions—when you see the devastation of a particular sin in a person’s life, usually you’re not tempted in that area anymore.

When you’re dealing with a person, restoring one who sins in a particular area, you’re usually not tempted to sin in that area. You see God’s judgment being revealed. And so you, if anything, you want to say, “Hey, I’m going to clean my act up right now.”

And you know, one of the things I did in the last few weeks as an example—you know, I think visible reminders are real important, like Richard’s going to talk about during his Proverbs talk today, visible reminder around the neck. I got my ring resized, put a visible symbol on myself that I’m married, that I’m wed to a woman, symbol to myself to love her, symbol to others that I’m in—I have my life’s mate—I’m in relationship covenant with her. Put those visible things upon yourself.

So I don’t think that’s what’s being said here. I think what he’s talking about here is pride. That’s what he says in verse 25-26: “Be careful of vain glory.” I don’t know for sure that’s the immediate context, but it’s certainly a good application. That’s what more likely than not—as you’re restoring a brother who is sinful—that is the temptation to you. That’s the temptation to me and the elders of this church as we work with people. We’re better than they are. Look how terrible they are. Look what sin they did. See, it’s pride that you’ve got to watch against as you’re working to restore a brother. It’s pride.

Because when somebody sins grievous enough to be in terms of church discipline or whatever, then you know, “Oh yeah, I never did that sin. I never did that thing. I’m not that bad.” And God says, “Oh, you fool. You’re just as wicked as that man. If you break the law in one part, you’re guilty of breaking the whole thing. In God’s sight, the best of your works are filthy rags to him,” you know. And that’s a really, you know, it’s talking about well, filthy rags to him. That’s what the best of your righteousness is. And don’t go thinking that you’re somehow better than the person that goes through a process of being restored in terms of sinfulness.

You thank God if by his grace you’ve avoided sin in that particular area. But watch yourselves. Don’t be tempted here. And so the same thing in the context of this circumcision uncircumcision thing. Paul sees fit to warn people over and over about the sin of pride in these matters of dispute in terms of the governance of the church.

“Bear you one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” It’s a command—a theonomic thing here. Bear one another’s burdens. Then verse four: “Then let every man prove his own work. Then he shall have rejoicing in himself and not in another.”

See, he continues on with warning them about pride. “Watch for yourself,” he said.

So it’s very important to see here the great danger, the potential for danger in the sin of pride relative to the governance of the church. These men who were beginning caused problems, the party of the circumcision—they were prideful. They were proud of their long heritage with the church of Jesus Christ in the wilderness as well. They were proud of their position. They were, as Matthew Henry compares them, to Jonah when Nineveh was going to repent: “I don’t want those guys repenting. They were wicked, mean, nasty guys. Cut them off. Destroy them, Lord God. Judge them.” Pride.

And we would suffer that same kind of thing if we had people, for instance, who repented of the sin of homosexuality and came into the church of Jesus Christ. We’d be tempted by pride, and that pride then can serve as a vehicle for schism and destruction of the community of the church.

Third, there’s the danger of professional jealousy—I’ve got in quotes there—envy, slander in the governance of the church. And again, we’ll see this pictured more and more as we go through the book of Acts and the kind of terrible battles that can ensue in the context of the visible church through the parties of the circumcised and the party of the uncircumcised.

For professional jealousy—not just pride now, but—if people come into the field at a much later hour than you did and they get paid the same thing, you’re kind of jealous of their position of privilege. You can be jealous of that. You know, it’s as if to bring our savior’s admonitions up to date. You know, remember he tells us: if a guy goes into the field 8:00 in the morning, the owner says, “I’m going to do a hundred bucks for this day’s work.” Somebody else comes into the field about 3:00—you’ve got to work 2 hours—you get the same hundred bucks. The guy who started 8:00 says, “Gee, whiz, this isn’t fair.” And your children will probably tell you that this isn’t fair.

No, it is fair, ’cause it’s God’s money. It’s the owner of the field’s money. And the point of Christ’s story, of course, is that we’re all recipients of grace. We didn’t earn any of this stuff. Our salvation isn’t earned. It’s merited not on the basis of our work, but on the basis of Christ’s work.

Now, you want to—if you want to bring that analogy into this story, imagine that the guy who started 8:00 in the morning, he got the same wages as the guy at 3:00. When he started at 8, he also had to have a union card. He had to be circumcised. He had to wear his union card. And the guy coming in at 3:00, he didn’t have to be circumcised. He didn’t have to come under all those regulations.