Dennis Tuuri

We have ascended the mountain of the Lord. We have come away from the world. We have turned our feet away from the world to walk in God’s paths this day to ascend to his holy hill. And he has received us confronted with the awesomeness of his holiness. We’ve confessed our sins before him. We’ve fallen down as it were in our minds as dead men. And he has raised us up in new life in Jesus Christ our savior.

But we come to the source of all life this day to the throne room of God and he also descends as we sang earlier to meet with us and they give us spiritual blessings from the heavenlies. He now begins to feed us. He’s called us together to worship him but he’s also called us that we might be fed by him or fed through his word and we’ll be fed later in the service through the communion elements both representing Jesus Christ who is the word incarnate.

We come then to the message from God’s word that hopefully will be clear, cool water from the mountaintop to you and to your soul. Indeed, while it isn’t necessarily apparent at first, the scripture reading this morning, which is found in Acts 15, the first six verses, correlates to what we just sang of, the wicked men that trouble the church, aren’t mentioned as the text reaches its conclusion at the council of Jerusalem. They are not seen anymore in the earth.

Let us stand then and hear that refreshing word from our Savior and from the king whom we worship this day found in Acts 15:1-6. Let me read actually beginning at verse chapter 14:28 to put the proper context. You remember from last week they’ve returned from the first missionary journey and gladly now are resting with the church at Antioch and enjoying the fellowship there as we read in verse 28.

And there they abode long time with the disciples. And now in Acts 15:1-6 And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, “Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.” When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem under the apostles and elders about this question.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. We thank God for his word, and we pray now that he would illuminate to our understanding.

Hopefully, you’ve picked up one of the outlines that are available as you come into the sanctuary. And I also might mention there are a couple of other handouts there as well today. One new one is kind of a one-page overview, one side of the page of our worship service. And I know it’s a bit more formal and a little different than what some may be used to. And we have tried to self-consciously reform our worship according to the principles and precepts stated in God’s word. And that is spelled out for you in that overview of that sheet. It is good reading I think for yourself and for your family to understand how we worship if you get to train your children this order of worship etc.

Also we have a missionary update sheet that we produce monthly now and while this is missionary sharing Sunday normally in our communion time our communion is going to be in the first half of the service. and so that is really by way of formal sharing with you updated prayer requests for the different missionaries that we support with our prayers. We’re going to have, by the way, in case you’re wondering, communion in the first half of the service.

We were concerned about the heat and decided not to extend communion after the meal, which is our normal practice, fearing that the heat may be fairly intense. The young ones may be tired and may need to go home for naps or whatever, or just rest. So, we moved communion into the first half of the service. So, we’ll have both halves together this Sunday, which is somewhat unusual for us. It’s kind of interesting, too, because, as it turns out, this is probably the hottest place in the structure. It feels warmer to me than the gymnasium was. In any event, today we begin discussions of the council at Jerusalem, a very important passage of scripture.

Of course, all scripture, I hate to say that because all scripture obviously is of equal importance, but there are very few indications in the scriptures as to polity, church arrangement, organization. The Jerusalem council is one of those texts that many people look to for guidance and direction and this is good that this is done. It occupies a major portion of scripture, some 30 verses here. Luke thought it very important to record this in some detail. And so we’re going to spend a couple three weeks on it at least, probably two or three weeks.

Today we just want to deal with part one of the Jerusalem Council, which is the controversy itself that arose that created the need for the Jerusalem, the so-called Jerusalem Council. And then we’ll look at the deliberations probably next week and then in a couple of weeks after that, look at the conclusion of it and the effects of it upon the churches that were now being planted across that part of the world.

I want to do this because I think it’s very important to understand the nature of the controversy and you know the origins of the council are very important to understand what actually happens there. We ought to be very careful not to read into using eisegesis instead of exegesis to read into the text what we want to see there. And so it’s very important that we talk about this deliberately and self-consciously.

This is particularly true because as most of you know the decision of the Jerusalem Council and the prohibitions that they placed upon the churches to which they sent these this decree do not lend themselves to easy exegesis from most people’s perspective. Indeed while we’re not going to talk about it today, but apparently from my studies what I think is the correct understanding of the text was only really talked about very broadly beginning in the 1930s. and so it’s a difficult thing commentators have struggled for centuries over exactly why these sets of prohibitions were laid out by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

And I think it’s fairly clear once you understand the whole context of this. But we do want to work up to it gradually and then deal with that in some detail next week in the following sermon as well.

So let’s begin by talking about the controversy. And we have, as you can see in your outlines, first we’ll talk about how the controversy originated. There were men involved. Men are important in scripture. Getting a little ahead of myself. Let me just take a parenthetical note here that men are very important.

And that’s rather obvious, isn’t it? But it is interesting that it is men who originate this controversy. It’s men who complete the controversy. When we get around to Paul and Barnabas and the others finally going to Jerusalem, they don’t send an epistle. They don’t send a letter. They go, they present themselves. And it’s important to recognize that each of you is a representation of your life, your worldview, etc. And to try to reduce your thoughts to through writing is certainly appropriate and useful at various times but it’s very limited.

So let’s notice first of all the originators of the controversy are men and specifically they’re men who come down from Judea which I think is another term for Jerusalem. Luke usually uses it that way. We’ll look at why I think that these men came down from Jerusalem by the way there again I mentioned we’ve ascended the mountain of the Lord today. We’ve come up to Jerusalem. We’ve come up to the residence of God. We’ve come to meet him in holy worship and command performance worship. We have ascended to the throne. He also is talked about in scriptures descending to meet with us.

But in the scriptures repeatedly, Jerusalem is something you go up to. And as people come from Jerusalem, as these men did, they go down away from Jerusalem. Old Testament high places are where you worship God. God is transcendent. And so we come together to worship God. We bring our minds and our thoughts to heavenly worship with God. He gives us a heavenly perspective on all areas of our life. And so these men are coming down from Jerusalem to Antioch. and they come with a false gospel.

So you have the originators of the controversy. Second, the crux of the controversy is I believe legalism or works salvation, works righteousness. And we’ll talk as we get to that part of the outline about a proper use of God’s law. Paul’s proper use of the law that the law is not intended to justify indeed circumcision itself, the thing that embodies the law and the thinking of these Judaizers. Circumcision itself teaches that the Judaizers are in error the very way they use circumcision.

And then we’ll talk about the three-fold witness of circumcision. Three times in scripture, we read in the New Testament that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but something is important that circumcision pictures for us. And we’ll talk about that and then we’ll talk about delighting in the law. I want to spend some time there because many people will use this text from Acts 15 to say that the New Testament church wanted nothing to do with the law.

He had men trying to keep tell Christians to keep the law and the Jerusalem Council says no, you don’t got to keep the law except for a couple little arcane ones that we don’t quite know why they did that. Maybe he was an accommodation to the Jews etc. But don’t worry about the law and that is not what happens at the Jerusalem council. So we want to take some time to talk about that.

Then we’ll talk after the crux of the controversy then being works righteousness not sanctification. That is not what’s being discussed as the controversy develops. It is salvation. Then we’ll talk about the respondents to the controversy where Paul and Barnabas and the church at Antioch respond to this controversy at Antioch and send men to Jerusalem. We’ll talk a little bit there about the discouragement of trouble within the church and by way of application we should encourage each other in the context of the convocated host here on the Lord’s day.

Particularly then we’ll talk about the means chosen to resolve the controversy a delegation is sent to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders specifically and we’ll begin to speak there as your outline shows of some initial principles of conflict resolution some initial principles and next week when we get to the discussion of the issue itself and the way the Jerusalem Council was conducted we’ll see more principles of conflict resolution. How to go about conflict resolution in a godly way. And this is a much application to our lives. We’re always involved in some degree of conflict whether it is small or large conflicts in the family or in our place of work or with our friends or in the church or in political matters.

There are principles here that are very important from us in the scriptures to see how godly men handled controversy. And we’ll talk about that a little bit today. And then we’ll conclude with the context for the controversy. Interestingly enough, we really begin with the United Antiochian Church. It’s the Judea who come down from Jerusalem who trouble it. And what we’ll find as we go to the Jerusalem council itself and preparations for it is that the context is the turning of the Gentiles the result and join the extended church and the controversy really exists at the Jerusalem church not at the Antiochian church.

Now that’s where it finds itself because these men go down from the Jerusalem church to trouble the Antiochian church. But really the controversy exists in Jerusalem and God uses this controversy uh this division to bring unity. The end result of the Jerusalem council is a greater unity at Jerusalem itself and then to the extended churches as well than existed before. So the end is not bad. It isn’t just damage control. God does what I call here ecclesiastical jiu-jitsu.

The idea is to use somebody else’s strength and turn it against them. And that’s what God does here. He uses the possibility of division and dissension. and instead brings greater unity. So that’s what we’re going to do today and hopefully we can do this fairly quickly.

Now if you would turn in your scriptures first to Galatians, the book of Galatians, I want to talk about this for a little bit setting us up for what this outline does because the book of Galatians is written to the same region in which uh many of the gentile churches f were in them. We’re we’re in you know, okay, we’re talking about let me just remind ourselves here what we’re doing. Paul’s return to Antioch Syria.

Remember there’s another Antioch or Antioch Pisidia. There are actually 14 different Antiochs at least in this region at the time being named after Antiochus. So it’s important we recognize this is Antioch Syria. They’re the church that commissioned Paul and Barnabas to go out and on that first missionary journey where they converted men at Antioch Pisidia and at Iconium Lystra and Derby. These were the gentile churches. The church at Antioch Syria was gentile. There were also Jews there as well.

So the implication is you got Jerusalem establishing Antioch Syria. Antioch Syria establishing Antioch Pisidia, Lystra, Derby and Iconium. Those churches in the meantime other churches have been developed as well as we’ll see as we go through this text. The Antioch Pisidia and Lystra, Derby, Iconium, those cities are up in the area of Galatia. And so the churches up in there are the churches that Paul is writing to in the epistle to the Galatians.

And I believe that there’s some controversy about this, but my understanding of the text today is that what Paul writes about in Galatians is primarily this very incident with the Judaizers going up to Antioch Syria, and at least with the principles that of their division and heresy. And so there’s relevance Galatians 1 and following to what happens at the Jerusalem Council. We understand we can interpret some of what happens in the basis of what Paul tells us in the book of Galatians because it’s written about at least the same error and maybe the very same incident.

Turn your scriptures into Galatians 1. We read in verse 7 he says that there are those who would trouble you who would pervert the gospel of Christ. Important to note that pervert the gospel of Christ. And then Paul goes on to say, and you’ve probably heard this over and over in reference to heresy. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which has been preached unto you, let him be accursed. Mathema, you know, under God’s curse. He repeats it again for emphasis in verse 9.

And he important in this to say that Paul saw the Judaizing influence that salvation comes from works and from keeping the law of God from being circumcised, he saw it as a completely different gospel. And anybody who teaches that, anybody who teaches that, whether it’s an angel from heaven, is to be seen as a curse. He distances himself from that teach. He wasn’t confused about that teaching is what I’m saying here. He doesn’t go to Jerusalem to get his mind straightened out. Really, he’s not confused by it.

Then in chapter 2, he talks about having that in Galatians chapter 2 and verse one, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me. Also, controversy again amongst the commentators whether this was the very trip to Jerusalem from Antioch or not that we discussed the Jerusalem council, but I think it is and I think by way of application at least it’s important to us. and then in verse three, neither Titus who was with me being a Greek was compelled to be circumcised. He said, “I’ll have to have my gospel tested to make sure I hadn’t run in vain.” But they did not compel Titus to be circumcised.

Some people think that Titus was taken along to the Jerusalem Council as a test case. A test case because he was not circumcised. Would the elders and apostles at Jerusalem instruct them to circumcise Titus? And what Paul is saying is he wasn’t compelled to be circumcised. At least at some point in time, he was a test case. Then in verse four, that because of false brethren, and unaware is brought in who came in privy to spy out our liberty which we have in Jesus Christ that they might bring us into bondage.

This is his commentary on the Judaizers who would come from any church including Jerusalem to try to produce salvation through circumcision and keeping of the law. He calls them false brethren. He said they would pervert the faith. He said they taught a different gospel and he summed all that up repeatedly in Galatians by saying you cannot by works of the law be saved. The text tells us that clearly. The interpretation from the book of Galatians tells us that clearly and the Jerusalem council when Peter addresses the council also reaffirms to us that the problem was not works as in terms of the sanctification standard of the law rather was works as a means of salvation.

Then in verse six, But of these who seem to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. God accepteth no man’s person. For they who have seemed to be somewhat in confidence added nothing to me. And what he’s talking about here is when he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter, James, and John, these were the pillars of the church. He says they seem to be something. They have a good reputation. But he points out very clearly that regardless of the person’s reputation, it means nothing to him.

Now their standing in the Lord means something to him. Their standing in the context of the church means something to him and their adherence to scripture means everything to him. Apart from that, their standing in the church, their reputation meant nothing to him. He’s not going to bow down to anybody. He’s only going to submit himself ultimately to the word of God as ministered through people. But it is the word to which he’ll submit and not the reputation of others.

Going on verse 11, when Peter was come to I withtood him to his face because he was to be blamed. And again in verse 13, Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. What he’s talking about here is these men at first when they came and were with the Gentiles would have food, fellowship with the Gentile Christians, they would eat with them, commune with them, fellowship with them. But then when Judaizers came from Jerusalem to them, Peter pulled back from eating with the Gentiles and having food fellowship in that sense with them. And Barnabas also stumbled somehow here and Peter withtood them to his face.

Peter was one feisty dude, he was strong in the Lord. And he didn’t Mickey Mouse around about what was right and wrong according to the scriptures. And when he saw sin, even if it was in the rulers, even if it was in Peter, for heaven’s sake, the man who walked in the water, the Lord, you know, his right-hand man, so to speak, the one that was so important in the development of the preaching. He’s the apostle to the circumcision and actually was the first one that entered ushered in the uncircumcised into the faith. We’ll see that related to the Jerusalem council.

Even with Peter, Paul would not back down and in fact confronted Peter and said, “This is wrong that you’re doing this. Stood firm for the principles of scripture.” Then in verse 16, knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law. See that over and over again in the book of Galatians. But it’s important to recognize that Paul says the controversy was about being justified by works of the law. Indeed, he tells in verse chapter 5 verse 4, he says that whoever of you are justified whoever whosoever of you are justified by the law, you are fallen from grace. Christ is of no effect for you.

Galatians 5:4, if you go down that road, he says, the road of being circumcised and keeping the law as a means of salvation, you’ve fallen from the faith. Strong, strong words. All those things I wanted to reference first because they help us move fairly quickly now through the first sections of the outline.

First of all then the origins of the controversy again is number one these are teachers. Verse one tells us certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren. The word taught there is in the imperfect tense in Greek. It means they continually didn’t just didn’t teach it once and that was it. They were teaching the brethren. In other words, taught perpetually over a period of time. And it seems to imply that these men were looked upon at least or presented themselves as teachers commissioned from the church at Jerusalem. Okay? They were teachers. In other words, they weren’t just simple men. These men were from Jerusalem.

Now, we read that we read indeed that they were from Judea, but as I’ve pointed out to you before, the term Judea frequently Luke uses it in reference to Jerusalem. When they took the famine relief to Judea, they actually took it to the elders of the church at Jerusalem. And indeed, and the in the council of Jerusalem, itself. when they go around to write the decree, they said, “Certain men came out from our church who supposedly said, “We told them to teach this stuff and we did not command them to teach this.” So, one of the things James ends up saying in this decree to the other churches. So, we know that these men came out from the church at Jerusalem.

It’s significant for a couple of different reasons, which we’ll get to in a minute. These men were teachers. They were from Jerusalem. And as we saw from Paul’s commentary in Galatians, They had a false gospel. The crux of the controversy was indeed legalism, work salvation. It was not whether or not the law was a standard for how the believer was to live his life. That’s not what the discussion was about in Antioch. Rather, the discussion was about unless you’re circumcised, you must be circumcised to be saved. The implication is if you’re not circumcised, you’re not saved. Okay, very clearly.

Again, this is point out for us in Acts 15 when Peter in rebutting this error at the Jerusalem council says we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they he’s speaking of those who were circumcised members of the Jewish church and the Gentiles who are grafted in he’s talking about his going to meet with Cornelius and baptizing them into the church of Jesus Christ and he’s saying that it is through the grace of Jesus that we are saved even as they are the term is inclusive He’s not saying that the Gentiles are saved by faith and we were saved by works. He’s saying we’re all saved by faith by grace of by the grace of God.

So he’s combating the error not of what the means of sanctification is or what the standard of sanctification is rather but rather he’s combating the error of what brings us into salvation, what brings us into saving faith, the law, the works of the law or the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. And he says emphatically, it is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now I want to spend a little time here because again you need to understand that some people will use this text to try to take away the law as a standard by which we’re to run rule our lives and to run our lives. so it’s important as we said to really stress this thing. The problem is not the law in terms of a standard of sanctification. The problem is the law as a means of salvation. Paul has told us we just read it that these were false brethren. He said that they had perverted the faith. He said they taught a different gospel and he summed all that up repeatedly in Galatians by saying you cannot by works of the law be saved.

The text tells us that clearly. The interpretation from the book of Galatians tells us that clearly and the Jerusalem council when Peter addresses the council also reaffirms to us that the problem was not works as in terms of the sanctification standard of the law rather was works as a means of salvation. That is the problem that’s addressed by the Jerusalem council. not the law as a standard of sanctification but the law as a means of salvation.

And we also will read in the Jerusalem council the heavy burden that would have been placed upon these men. And we know also from other texts there was a base text produced that has some historical relevance. It’s not inspired but it adds a explanatory note in this verse that these false these men that came down from Judea were of members of the Pharisees. And indeed when we get to the Jerusalem council we see that it is the sect of the Pharisees who had believed who pick up the banner of these false brethren in Galatia in Antioch.

And so what I’m saying here is the second problem that is addressed by the Jerusalem council. The primary one is works righteousness, but there’s also the problem picked up of additions to the law. They weren’t just trying to bring them under the law of God. They’re trying to bring them under all the extensions of the law of God that the Pharisees had developed as well. So we’re not uh talking here about circumcision being required as an evidence of salvation. They didn’t say that. That would have been wrong. But they’re not saying that. They’re not saying circumcision as an evidence, but rather circumcision as means of salvation. Justification by works was the problem.

You want to ask yourself, here’s an interesting question. If these men had said the same thing to Jewish converts 50 years before this, okay, before the birth of Christ, If they had told people coming into the Jewish faith, you have to be circumcised to be saved, would they have been any more correct? No, they wouldn’t have been. They would have been just as wrong because circumcision was never given as a means of salvation, nor was the law. Very important you understand that.

And that’s why Peter says they’re saved just like we’re saved. My implication, the way we’ve always been saved is by grace and not by works. And Ask yourself another question. Would these men have been correct if they would have made what we think is the legitimate substitution of baptism for circumcision? We think the scriptures clearly teach that circumcision was sign and seal of the old covenant. That baptism is one of the signs and seals of the new covenant. It is the right of initiation into the church. A picture of that.

Would these men have been more correct if they would have said you must be baptized in order to be saved? What do you think? No, they wouldn’t have been more correct. there would have been a different set of discussions, but the fact is that no work, including baptism in the context of the institutional church, no work is the means of salvation. Now, they might have said 50 years prior, if you’re saved and if you believe in God, you really ought to be circumcised. And here’s why. Here’s why it’s a point of obedience to you.

That would have been correct. And they would have been correct. And you’re correct in telling somebody who becomes a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ that Christ would have you to be baptized if you haven’t been baptized already. Those things are okay as an evidence as a means as a picture of our obedience. Okay? But not as a means of salvation. So the problem is as a means of salvation.

Over and over again the scriptures paint as does Luke and the book of Acts New Testament believers as followers of the law. The question of following the law is not the issue here. The application of the law and its specification of the sacrificial system requirements become an issue as we’ll see at the decision of the council. But whether or not people are going to be lawkeepers or not was not the issue. Repeatedly New Testament believers are pictured as lawkeepers.

Steven was accused of being of speaking against the law. In his defense, he didn’t say the law isn’t applicable. What he said is you guys don’t keep the law. We keep the law. You don’t keep the law. Paul will say the same thing to the Galatians. He’ll say, “Don’t you listen to what the law says?” We do. and he’ll explain it to them. So in the New Testament, believers are always pictured in relationship to the law in a positive sense, not as a means but as an evidence of our salvation.

Now just briefly, Paul in the law positively used in Romans 1:32, Paul says the judgment of God is that those who commit such sins that he has just listed are worthy of death. He appeals not simply to some moral law that believer can either accept or reject. He appeals not to an actual one of the laws of God that says that the punishment for certain sins including sodomy in that has been biblically according to the rules of evidence been discerned. Paul says that these men are worthy deserving of death.

God’s civil penalty upon these men I think is what Paul is referring to should be death. So Paul affirms the penalties of Old Testament law relative to a particular civil sanction. In Galatians 5 Paul says all the laws fulfilled in the This is the very word to this is the very epistle of course to combat works righteousness. He says that all the law is fulfilled in one word even in this thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself says the law isn’t done away with all the law is fulfilled in this term though you shall love your neighbor as yourself and if you don’t do that then you’re not keeping the law but if the law is done away with we don’t have to do that anymore either do we because that’s a law and Paul isn’t saying that at all he says indeed that the love of the neighbor is indeed the fruit of the spirit love joy peace longsuffering gentleness goodness faith that follows in verse 22 from chapter 5 chapter 5 of Galatians and he goes on to say that against these things there is no law then he says in chapter 6:2 bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ okay no this is not a different law it’s the same law Christ yesterday today and forever the standard is the same yesterday and today and forever has different application in terms of the sacrificial system but in terms of the commandments themselves there’s no difference So Paul affirms the law over and over and over.

Let me just deal very quickly now. I know this is I know this is review for a lot of you, but for many of you it isn’t. You haven’t thought through these texts very clearly perhaps or had the time to take to work them through. It’s important that you understand this very important principle. We cannot understand the council of Jerusalem and the decision of it if we get a wrong understanding of what this problem was all about and let alien presuppositions somehow these men are against the law itself usher into our thinking on this matter.

We’ll see the very I believe in the very decision of the council of Jerusalem they affirmed the law from the book of Leviticus that next week. okay I just want to reference here that in Romans 6:14 St. Paul declares you’re not under the law but under grace. And many people will use these kind of verses to reinforce what there is a wrong interpretation of Acts 15. And I don’t want to deal with this lot today, but I do want to give you a couple of quotations from Murray on this point.

Murray says in reference to Romans 6:14, the following law in this case must be understood in the general sense of the law as law. That it is not to be understood in the sense of the Mosaic law as an economy appears very plainly from the fact that many who are under the Mosaic economy were the recipients of grace and in that regard were under grace and also from the fact that rel from the Mosaic law as an enemy or as an economy rather does not of itself place persons in the category of being under grace.

Law must be understood therefore in much more general terms of law as commandment. Okay? He says, well, he’s not talking about the Mosaic law because if he’s saying that you’re not under the law but under grace and anybody under the law was not under grace, he can’t say that because we know that people in the Mosaic economy were saved by grace and were recipients of grace. Over and over again, we have witness in the Old Testament.

So that can’t be and plus he says even if you make the Mosaic economy it’s too restrictive of what he’s saying here. If you’re under any system of law to obtain salvation whether it’s a Mosaic law whatever it is or some other law the states law that’s wrong we’re not under law we’re not in that kind of relationship to law of salvation but rather we’re under grace. Charles Hodge commenting on the same verse says the following by law here is not to be understood the most Mosaic law.

The sense is not sin shall not have dominion over you because the Mosaic law is abrogated. The word is not to be taken in its widest sense. It is the rule of duty that which binds the conscience as an expression of the will of God. This is plain. One, from the use of the word throughout the epistle and other parts of the New Testament. Two, from the whole doctrine of redemption, which teaches that the law the law from which we are delivered by the death of Christ is not simply the Mosaic law. Making the same point that Murray did. We are not merely delivered from Judaism but from the obligation of fulfilling of the law of God as a condition of salvation. Any law of God is not the condition for our salvation.

The point of those verses is not that you’re not under the law in terms of having the law as a standard for what we do as believers. It’s saying that we’re not judicially under the law as a means of salvation. Whether it’s the Mosaic law, the Noahic law, the law to Adam in the garden, whatever law of God is never the means by which we’re saved. We’re always under grace. The law isn’t dead, but we have died to the law in Jesus Christ. We celebrate today the death of Jesus Christ and our inclusion covenantally in that death.

We have died to the law. We are under grace. Any law is a means of salvation. So Paul properly understood never rejects the law as a standard for how we live our lives. He says over and over again that we’re not justified by the law. Acts 13:39 in preaching at Antioch Pisidia that we’re not justified by the law of Moses. Galatians 2:16, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Galatians 3:11, “But no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident for the just shall live by faith, etc., etc., etc.”

Indeed, Paul tells these Galatians who had entered this or these not the Galatians, but the Galatians as well, but he tells those who would hold such a position in Galatians 3:24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us into Christ that we might be justified by faith. The law itself teaches that no one can be saved by keeping of the law. It is a schoolmaster in the sense it brings us to an understanding of justification by faith. Galatians 4:21 Paul tells them, “Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” And he goes on to say, he talks about circumcision.

In other words, the very act of circumcision itself is a picture for us as a schoolmaster, a tutor that our works will profit nothing. What is circumcision? It is the cutting off of the organ of generation of humankind. It says that I cannot produce through my works godly results, godly seed for God. Can’t do it. Interesting. I don’t want to get into this and it’s somewhat controversial, but I will mention it anyway that When Eve rejoices in the birth of Cain, there is indication that she may have misunderstood her ability to create a godly children.

That her and God have cooperated together to bring forth a godly seed. But God says that man’s generation will not produce salvation apart from grace. And Cain turns out to be a great picture for that of that to us as well. Over and over again in the scriptures, Leviticus 16:1 begins the day of atonement by referencing back to the sins of Aaron’s sons as They sought by their works, their attempt to keep God’s to make God happy with their sacrificial system, God killed them.

That circumcision itself teaches us that man’s works are ineffectual to bringing blessing only bring curse. We cannot bring forth Abels by our generation. That is the grace of God. We bring forth Cains. Our works are put to death. The concept of work salvation is put to death by the very picture of circumcision itself. And indeed in Romans chapter 4. Without reading all of it, you remember, of course, that the whole thrust of what Paul says to the Romans is that Abraham receives circumcision after righteousness by faith is his, not to attain it, but to remind him as a picture to him that the covenant is a covenant not of works, but of grace, grace, grace, grace.

And so, the very law itself in the sacrificial economy of the Old Testament and particularly the law of circumcision is a picture of the inability of what these very Judaizers are trying to use circumcision to accomplish. So Paul affirms the law and he says the law correctly understood reminds us that we cannot keep the law of God to obtain salvation. Now I want to just mention very briefly I love these texts. Circumcision the scriptures tell us is a picture of three things.

1 Corinthians or rather let’s start with Galatians 5:6 in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision but faith which works by love. Circumcision was supposed to be a picture of faith which works by love. That’s what Paul relates it to in Galatians 5:6. Galatians 5:15. In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth anything or uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Circumcision and baptism are pictures of a new creature. Children were circumcised on the eighth day, the day of the new creation. If you think of the seven days of the week becoming the eighth day, a new week starts the last day and the first day. A new creation is pictured. The altar in the sacrificial system was sanctified and not it was be able to be used on the eighth day. Sacrificial animals could only be used on the eighth day.

And the priest had to go through a period of consecration for seven days. And on the eighth day, everything comes together in the picture of God’s sacrificial system on the eighth day, a day outside of the week of man because it all pictures a new creation. And we know specifically from Galatians 6:15 that circumcision pictures a new creation wrought by God’s grace, not by man’s works. But listen to this one. 1 Corinthians 7:19, circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul isn’t putting commandments down here. He’s saying, “Yeah, circumcision, baptism, they do bring us into the new creature who loves to use his energies to try to conform to the law of his creator and redeemer. Paul says that as many as walk after this rule in Galatians 6:16, the new creature, peace be upon them and upon the Israel of God. Philippians 3:3, we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.

And then Psalm over and over in the Psalms we read the delight of the law. His delight is in the law of the Lord. In the law do he meditate day and night. Psalm 1, which path are you on? There’s only two paths. The path of rejection of God’s law as a standard and the path and the path of delight in the law of God not as a means of salvation or ultimately as the means of sanctification but is the delight of the Holy Spirit gives us that new creation power to delight in the law of God.

God wants us to delight in his law. It’s not a heavy burden. The heavy burden was legalism. The extension of man’s additions to the law or seeking through works of the law to obtain salvation of Psalm 40:8. I delight to do thy will, oh my God. Yay. Thy law is within my heart. Psalm 118:70. Their heart is as fat as grasp, but I delight in thy law. Psalm 119:7, “Let thy tender mercies come unto me that I may live, for thy law is my delight.”

The law is his delight, but he knows he needs the tender mercies of God and grace to live. He delights in God’s law, but he cannot keep it fully in his own manner or obtain salvation. Psalm 119:174. I have longed for thy salvation, oh Lord. and thy law is my delight. And Paul himself reiterating this in Romans 7:22, I delight in the law of God on my inward man.

The problem was works righteousness. And don’t think that we somehow get rid of the law as a standard here. The law is to be a delight to our hearts. We are dead to the law in the sense of a means of our salvation. But we delight in the law. We look at the law the same way our savior did who delighted to do the will of the father. The law is an expression of God’s character and as such we delight in it. Okay.

Respondence to the controversy. Point number three in your outline. Paul and Barnabas, the church at Antioch. After this controversy arises, there is no small dissension and disputation. Dissension means riot. There was a big fight that broke out. Maybe not fist fights, but the word means to stand up in commotion. And I got some texts for you there in your outline, I believe, that talk about commotion being like a riot. The riot at Ephesus, for instance, in Acts 19 in Mark 15:7 Barabbas is a member of the insurrection. And that’s the same word that’s used here. It was a big deal at Antioch when this problem happened because the Pharisees were telling these guys, “You’re not saved until you get circumcised.”

No small dissension and disputation, arguing and reasoning about this thing. They determined that Paul and Barnabas certain others should go up to Jerusalem. The church determines this. They refers to the Antiochian church. We’re told at the very next verse that the church took them on their way. So the church then sends Paul and Barnabas with certain members of the church as well perhaps Titus maybe others up to Jerusalem. So the respondents are Paul and Barnabas of the church at Antioch.

I want to mention here can you can imagine now the context of this has been set. They’ve returned to Antioch after the missionary journeys. They dwell a long time with the brothers there. It’s a picture of peace. It’s a picture of Sabbath worship. It’s a picture of fellowship together and rest. And in the middle of that rest They have contention. People come and disturb their rest from outside of their church with contention. What a discouragement this must bring upon men upon the Antiochian church. it’s as if we’re in paradise and the snake raises his head again.

And here we have false brethren raising their head causing dissension and uproar. In the context of the covenant community, we should remind ourselves no matter how peaceable we may like to things to be, that it is God’s way to disturb that peace at times and yet it is for our good but it is discouraging to us. It is discouraging when controversy sweeps across a particular fellowship or sweeps across our family or the workplace.

I thought of this a little bit last night. I hope this isn’t too much of an odd illustration but I watched a little bit I think it was the night before last actually the hearings for the healthcare situation and the president in a Pizza Hut was appearing before one of the Senate panels and Senator Kennedy was dialoguing with him and I could not believe my eyes. You would think as you come the president of a of a prosperous business that has added employment and serves people well to a to the government whose purpose is to maintain peace and order so that you can do your business correctly. You would think there’d be some degree of commendation for the job you’ve done but not in this case.

Pizza Hut of course is the one of the self-professed asked people who don’t like the president’s healthcare plan. And so Senator Kennedy used the opportunity to just rail on this man, make fun of him, laugh at him, pointed out how terribly wicked that he didn’t use the word wicked, but the implication of wicked Pizza Hut was for not giving all their employees healthcare, etc., etc. And you know, I it’s discouraging to me to watch such a thing. To watch the government actually attack men who are operating their business in a very business-like fashion and producing a real service for the population.

It must discouraging for members of businesses that are perfectly proper and good and really it’s a godly vocational calling produce food for mankind etc to go before the government and receive that kind of discouragement must be terribly discouraging and it must have been terribly discouraging to these Christians at Antioch to have these men come and trouble their peace Paul has brought back news of persecution but he’s brought back news of the settling of gentile churches the word of God is being promulgated and Antioch can rejoice in that because they were part of that and they can rest in what God has done.

But here comes the devil banging away at that peace and by way of application I would just exhort you all to be encouragers in the context of this church whatever church you may be from day discouragement around is all around us in the world today all you got to do is watch C-SPAN for a couple hours usually and you’re going to be pretty discouraged over what’s happening in the civil arena and all you got to do is think a little bit about the extended church of Christ and the divisions that exist in the context of it the sin the backbiting, the envy, the jealousy, the wickedness, even the rejection of God’s law, the upgrading people for taking strong biblical positions on what the scriptures teach.

And it’s a discouraging thing. So, be encouraging to each other in the context of this church. I would encourage you in the context of whatever church you’re a part of.

I want to mention here, I want to read a couple of quotes from Matthew Henry to kind of, you know, you think about this and you say, “Well, we don’t have these kind of problems.” Well, I think we do. I think we do deal with these kind of problems. Let me just read a couple of comments by Matthew Henry. He said this is what they didn’t do. The men who came to talk about circumcision. This is what they could have done but this is not what they did.

He should he said they could have said you ought to be circumcised after the manner of Moses. It’ll be good it’ll be good service to the kingdom of Messiah if you if you be circumcised. It will u best accommodate matters between you and the Jewish converts. And we shall take it very kindly if you will and shall converse the more familiarly with you. In other words, they could have put this if this is what they believed. They could have put the argument in such a way as to produce dialogue. We think this is a good thing for you to do. This will help in dealing with the Jewish Christians as well. We think it’d be really good. It’s a nice picture of new creation, whatever it is.

But they don’t do that. The Judaizers say, “Except you be circumcised, you cannot be saved.” In Matthew, Henry, and common there’s a strange phenomena in us and a tendency to make our own opinion and practice a rule and a law to every