(8)
Scripture Reading: Acts 15:1-34
Acts 15:1-34 records the trouble caused by those who insisted that one cannot be saved without being circumcised according to the custom of Moses (v. 1). Concerning this matter a conference of the apostles and elders was held in Jerusalem (vv. 1-21). In this message we shall consider what took place at this conference and what was the solution to the problem (vv. 22-33).
“When much discussion had taken place, Peter rose up and said to them, Men, brothers, you know that from the early days God chose among you that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, the Knower of hearts, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit even as also to us; and He made no distinction at all between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (vv. 7-9). Peter’s word about the cleansing of our hearts by faith indicates that God does not care for outward legalistic ordinances which cannot cleanse man’s inward being; rather, He cares for the inward cleansing of man’s heart. This corresponds to the Lord’s emphasis in Mark 7:1-23. The cleansing of man’s heart can only be by the Holy Spirit with the divine life, not by outward ordinances of dead letters.
In Acts 15:10 Peter continues, “Therefore why are you now testing God by placing a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” This yoke is the yoke of the law, which was a bondage under slavery (Gal. 5:1). The yoke in slavery in Galatians 5:1 is the bondage of law, which makes the lawkeepers slaves under a binding yoke. To require people to keep the law of slavery not only enslaves them but also tests God. Even God could not and would not make man keep the law of letters.
In Acts 15:11 Peter goes on to say, “But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe that we are saved, in the same way also as they are.” This grace comprises the Lord’s Person and His redemptive work (Rom. 3:24). Peter and the Jewish believers were saved by this grace, not by keeping the law of Moses. As far as God’s salvation is concerned, to keep the law means nothing either to the Jews or the Gentiles.
According to 15:7, Peter spoke only after much discussion had taken place. Actually, Peter should not have allowed all that discussion. Immediately he should have said, “Brothers, let me remind you of what the Lord Jesus said to us. He told us that we would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and even unto the remotest part of the earth. Do you think that the Lord meant that we need to circumcise all the Gentiles? Certainly He did not mean this.” If Peter had spoken in this way, those attending the conference would have listened to him.
Peter’s speaking in 15:7-11 was good, but it was not strong enough. Why did he not refer to the Lord’s word in 1:8? Why did he simply remind them that God had chosen that through him the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe? Peter should have said, “You know that from the early days the Lord Jesus told us that we should be His witnesses even to the remotest part of the earth.” In Acts 15 Peter may still have been somewhat fearful. He was not bold, and he did not exercise the authority assigned to him by the Head. If Peter had exercised this authority, he would have solved the problem and cut off the flow of the “poison” of heresy. He would have dealt with the very source of this flow. Peter, however, failed to do his job adequately.
In 15:8 Peter refers to God as the Knower of hearts. This is a rather weak expression. Peter should have said that God is the Planner of His economy, the One who formed His economy, His dispensation. Paul, who was bolder than Peter, spoke of God in this way in his Epistles. Was God’s giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles only due to the fact that He knew their hearts? Was this the only reason that He cleansed their hearts by faith? Did the Lord give Peter the keys merely that God may come in to cleanse the hearts of the Gentiles? No doubt, Peter makes a number of good points here, but his presentation is too weak. This weakness may cause us to question whether he really knew God’s economy adequately.
In 15:10 Peter asked, “Why are you now testing God?” Actually, they were not only testing God — they were nullifying God’s economy. Once again, Peter’s word in verse 10 was good, but it was still weak. Peter was the leading apostle, and the Lord had given him a measure of authority. However, in Acts 15 he did not exercise this authority. Nevertheless, we praise the Lord for Peter’s testimony and fellowship.
We have pointed out that Peter should have reminded those at the conference of the Lord’s word in 1:8. Peter should also have testified to them concerning the vision he saw in Joppa (10:9-16). He should have said, “Let me tell you what happened to me in Joppa. While I was praying, I saw a vision of a vessel like a great sheet in which were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and birds of heaven. Then the Lord told me to slay and eat. When I refused to do this, the Lord told me a second and a third time to slay and eat. The Lord told me that what God has cleansed I should not consider common. After seeing this vision, I went to Caesarea. As I was speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon those in the house.” Peter should have testified concerning the Lord’s word in 1:8, the vision he saw, and what happened in the house of Cornelius. Peter should have taken these things as the ground to tell those at the conference to forget about the law, circumcision, and the Levitical dietary regulations. But Peter lacked the boldness to do this.
When the Lord Jesus referred to the cases of the widow of Sarepta of Sidon and of Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-27), implying that His gospel would turn to the Gentiles, those in the synagogue were filled with anger and wanted to kill Him. In contrast to the Lord in Luke 4, Peter was very cautious, not daring to mention the vision he had seen. The fact that Peter did not mention the vision given to him by the Lord may indicate not only that he was lacking in boldness but also that the atmosphere in Jerusalem was very heavy.
Actually when this heresy concerning circumcision arose at Jerusalem in the very beginning, Peter should have exercised the gift that the Lord had given him to clear up the cloudy situation in Jerusalem concerning God’s New Testament economy, according to the revelation that the Lord had given him and the other apostles in Acts 1:8 and the vision he had received at Joppa in Acts 10 concerning the Gentiles. If he had done this, the Judaic heresy would have been cut off at the very beginning in Jerusalem and would not have spread to the churches in the Gentile world. But he failed to do this, so Paul had to rise up to perform the surgery to cut off the racial cancer that could have destroyed God’s New Testament economy and killed the Body of Christ.
When Peter finished his testimony, those attending the conference were silent. Then “they listened to Barnabas and Paul relating all the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (v. 12). Following this, we have the fellowship given by James (vv. 14-21).
In 15:13-14 James said, after all were silent, “Men, brothers, listen to me. Simeon related how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.” Here the name “Simeon” denotes Simon (John 1:40, 42).
In verses 16 and 17 James quotes from the book of Amos to show that the words of the prophets agree with taking out of the Gentiles a people for God’s name: “After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen; and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will erect it again, so that the rest of mankind may seek out the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name has been called.” The tabernacle of David refers to the kingdom of Israel. To rebuild the tabernacle of David is to restore the kingdom of Israel.
The use of this Old Testament quotation by James uplifts the nation of Israel. In Acts 1:6 the apostles asked the Lord Jesus, saying, “Lord, are You at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” The kingdom of Israel, which the apostles and other devout Jews were looking for, was a material kingdom. It differed from God’s kingdom of life, which Christ is building up through the preaching of His gospel. When the apostles asked the Lord about the restoring of the kingdom of Israel, He replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the remotest part of the earth” (vv. 7-8). Although the Lord had spoken such a word, James, in order to take care of the situation in Acts 15, uplifted the nation of Israel once again. The words “so that” in 15:17 indicate that first the Lord will rebuild the nation of Israel and then the Gentiles, the rest of mankind, will seek out the Lord.
Actually, the portion James quotes from the Old Testament does not apply to the situation in Acts 15. Rather, it is a prophecy related to the Lord’s rebuilding the nation of Israel after His coming back. At that time, according to the prophecy, all the nations will seek after the Lord. A similar prophecy is found in Zechariah 8. According to that chapter, when the nation of Israel is restored, “many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord” (Zech. 8:22). If we study the Scriptures carefully, we shall see that such portions of the Word are not concerned with the present age of grace but with the time after the Lord’s coming back. In the coming age the Lord will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; that is, He will restore the nation of Israel. Then the Gentiles will come to Israel in order to seek the Lord.
When we point out that the portion used by James in Acts 15 applies to the coming age, some may say, “You should not interpret the verses used by James in this way. Instead, you should only interpret it according to principle. Here James was saying that in principle sooner or later the Lord will take in the Gentiles.” But concerning the situation in Acts 15 it is not adequate to say that sooner or later the Gentiles will come in. In this chapter James used a quotation from the Old Testament without discernment. He quoted verses that refer not to the present age but to the coming age. James, therefore, actually borrowed a quotation from the Old Testament.
At this point it is helpful to compare James’ use of the Old Testament with that of the Lord Jesus in Luke 4. By citing the cases of the widow and of Naaman the Lord was indicating that God was about to set the nation of Israel aside and turn to the Gentiles. In referring to these cases the Lord Jesus was bold, and those in the synagogue were offended and wanted to put Him to death. James, by comparison, was trying to please the Judaizers by telling them not that God would set the nation of Israel aside, but that He would first rebuild the nation of Israel and then turn to the Gentiles. If we compare James’ use of the Old Testament with the Lord’s, we shall see that James quotes the Scriptures in a very weak manner.
Like the Lord Jesus, Paul was also bold in his use of the Old Testament. Consider what he did in Acts 13. When the Jews rejected the word of the gospel, Paul said boldly, “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken to you first; since you thrust it away and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (v. 46). Then Paul quotes Isaiah 49:6: “I have set you for a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation unto the remotest part of the earth.” As we have pointed out, this quotation refers to Christ as God’s Servant, whom God makes a light to the Gentiles that His salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Because he was one with Christ in carrying out God’s salvation, Paul applied this word to himself in his ministry of gospel preaching for the turning of the gospel from the Jews, because of their rejection, to the Gentiles. In His ministry on earth the Lord expressed the same thing to the stubborn Jews in Luke 4:24-27. In Acts 13 Paul did not say that they turned to the Gentiles because God had rebuilt the nation of Israel. On the contrary, he declared that they turned to the Gentiles because the Jews had rejected the word of God.
In Acts 15 James’ quotation from the Old Testament was warmly welcomed. If James had been as strong as the Lord Jesus and Paul, quoting the proper portions from the Old Testament concerning God’s setting aside Israel and visiting the Gentiles, the Judaizers would have opposed him strongly.
Our examination of James’ use of the Old Testament should help us learn the proper way to study the Bible. We need to see into the depths of the written word. If we truly know the Bible, we shall rightly criticize James’ quoting of the Old Testament. I really wonder why James didn’t quote the Lord’s clear and emphatic word in Acts 1:8 instead of quoting some indirect word from the Old Testament. This shows he was much more of the Old Testament and not so much of God’s New Testament economy.
In 15:19 and 20 James went on in fellowship to give his judgment: “Wherefore I judge that we do not harass those from the Gentiles who turn to God. But that we write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and fornication and what is strangled and blood.” This word is much inferior to the charge Paul gave to the believers in chapters thirteen and fourteen. Suppose someone said to you, “Dear saints, you know that we are living in a crooked and perverted generation that is full of idol worship and fornication. I charge you to abstain from pollutions of idols, fornication, from anything that has been strangled and from blood.” To be sure, the saints today would not be pleased to hear such an exhortation. Nevertheless, this was James’ fellowship in Acts 15.
In verse 21 James gives the reason for his judgment concerning the matter: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who proclaim him in the synagogues, being read every Sabbath.” Here we have the basis for James’ fellowship. He tells us that in solving the problem caused by the heretical Judaizers we need to take care of the fact that the law of Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. This is the reason James gives for charging the Gentiles to abstain from pollutions of idols, fornication, anything strangled, and blood. This solution could not have been satisfactory to Paul, who says in Galatians 2:19, “I through law have died to law that I might live to God.” In contrast to such a word, James’ fellowship causes the New Testament believers to return to considering the law. This indicates that the concluding word given by James was still under the influence of the Mosaic law, due to his heavy Judaic background. As we shall see, the influence of this background still remained even at the time Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-26).
According to what he says in his Epistle, James must have been very religious. It might have been due to this and his practical Christian perfection that he was reputed along with Peter and John to be a pillar, even the first, in the church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). However, he was not strong in the revelation of God’s New Testament economy in Christ, but was still under the influence of the background of the old Judaic religion — to worship God with ceremonies and live a life in the fear of God. This is proved by Acts 21:20-24 and James 2:2-11.
James 2:8-11 indicates that the Jewish believers at the time of James were still practicing and keeping the Old Testament law. This corresponds to the word in Acts 21:20 spoken by James and the elders in Jerusalem to Paul. James, the elders in Jerusalem, and many thousands of Jewish believers remained in a mixture of the Christian faith and the Mosaic law. They even advised Paul to practice such a semi-Judaic mixture (Acts 21:17-26). They were unaware that the dispensation of law was altogether over and that the dispensation of grace should be fully honored. They were also unaware that any disregard of the distinction between these two dispensations would be against God’s dispensational administration and would be a great damage to God’s economical plan for the building up of the church as the expression of Christ.
I feel very sorry that James’ judgment was altogether based upon his piety, his godly living, as indicated by the items of idol worship, fornication, what has been strangled, and from blood, which he referred to; but not at all based upon the administration of God’s New Testament economy. This shows he was altogether under the cloudy atmosphere of his Judaic background, not under the clear sky of God’s New Testament economy.
Acts 15:22-33 describes the solution to the problem. Actually, this solution was a compromise, but it was better than nothing.
Verses 23 through 29 give an account of the letter that was written by those in Jerusalem and sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. In verse 26 we are told that Barnabas and Saul were “men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Literally, the Greek word rendered “lives” means “souls.” This word refers not only to their lives, but also to their very being, which they had given up for the name of the Lord.
Verses 30 and 31 say, “So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude together, they handed them the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the consolation.” On the one hand, the believers in Antioch rejoiced because it was not necessary for them to be circumcised. On the other hand, they still had to observe certain requirements of the law. The “fox” of the law had been buried, but the “tail” was still visible. The solution, therefore, was actually a compromise.
According to chapter eighteen of Acts, not even Paul was fully free from the Judaic influence. Verse 18 says, “Paul, having remained there yet a considerable number of days, took leave of the brothers and sailed away to Syria and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow.” This was a private vow that could be performed in any place by the Jews for thanksgiving with the shearing of the hair. It differed from the Nazarite vow, which had to be carried out in Jerusalem with the shaving of the head. Paul was a Jew and he kept the vow, but he did not impose it on the Gentiles. According to the principle of his teaching concerning God’s New Testament economy, Paul should have given up all the Jewish practices which belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. However, he still had such a private vow. I find it hard to believe that Paul, the writer of Romans and Galatians, could still keep this vow. In principle, Paul was wrong in this matter. Of course, he was not nearly as wrong as James was in Acts 21. As we shall see, the Lord did not tolerate Paul’s joining those who had made a Nazarite vow.
The point we are emphasizing here is that the solution to the problem in Acts 15 was a compromise. The problem was solved, and the turmoil was calmed. However, the root of the poison was not cut. Because the root was allowed to remain, it appears again in chapter twenty-one. The mixture we see in Acts 21 was already present in Acts 15. This is a religious mixture, a mixture of God’s New Testament economy with the Judaic religion of the old dispensation. This mixture was the result of compromise. Because of this compromise, the problem in Acts 15 was not fully solved. Nevertheless, this partial solution was better than nothing.
In principle, the situation today is the same as that in the book of Acts. There is still a great deal of compromise. Therefore, we are studying the Bible not merely to learn doctrine, but also to be warned and to be trained to face the present situation.
In 1964 I wrote some hymns on Christ being the Spirit. One day a friend of mine, who was a co-worker, said to me, “Yes, the New Testament does say that Christ is the Spirit. But if we teach this, Christians will not accept it. It is better for us not to teach that Christ is the Spirit.” I said to this brother, “Justification by faith was recovered through Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was opposed to this. If Luther had decided not to teach justification by faith because the Catholic Church was not willing to accept it, how could there ever have been the recovery?”
Some who were once among us in the Lord’s recovery have compromised Brother Nee’s teachings. They know what he taught, but because they are afraid of traditional Christianity, they do not dare to teach the same thing. Instead, they compromise. In translating certain of Brother Nee’s books, the translator has even changed some of his words in order not to be condemned.
In 1964 I was invited to speak, for the fourth or fifth time, to a particular Christian group in Dallas. My host warned me saying, “Brother Lee, please do not talk about the church. The people here will not accept your teaching concerning the church. However, we welcome you to minister on Christ as life. We like this, and we are helped by it.” Without saying either yes or no to this brother’s request, I replied, “Brother, as long as I minister Christ as life, the issue will be the church. How can you ask me to minister Christ and expect that this will not issue in the church?” I went on to tell him that my ministry is a ministry of Christ, and the issue of this ministry will always be the church.
I spent a week ministering to that Christian group in Dallas. I did not speak on the church until the last night of the conference. My speaking spirit could no longer bear for me to be silent regarding the church. I did not care whether I would be invited back again. I knew I had to say a word about the church. When I asked those attending the meeting to turn to Romans 12, my host knew that I intended to speak concerning the Body of Christ, the church. Those who invited me were disappointed. Nevertheless, I went on to give a strong word concerning the church, and through that message someone was gained for the Lord’s recovery.
All these cases teach us to beware of compromise. May we all learn from our study of Acts how to face today’s compromising situation.
