This chapter takes a slight pause from the excitement of God's miracles and healings and we see two separate disagreements that come up within the believers of Jesus. While disagreements are generally not desirable, the fact of life is that they do and will happen. The key is how to deal with them in a correct way.
The first issue that comes up relates to circumcision and represents a classic struggle between tradition and new - the way we've always done things versus new ideas or patterns. In this case, circumcision wasn't a tradition of man but was God's command to the offspring of Abraham, the sign of the covenant. The question though was about the Gentiles who believed in Jesus. There was a traditionalist group, some of whom where Pharasees (as Paul had been), that insisted Gentile believers must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas sharply disagreed and debated with them. The group who was making the claim came from Judea, where Jerusalem is (the headquarters of the church at that point), so Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to get an answer from the apostles and elders about this topic.
Notice some principles of how to handle the disagreement 1) Paul and Barnabas spoke up when they disagreed (it is proper to speak up and not just keep silent). 2) They began by discussing with the persons who were making the statements 3) When that didn't resolve the conflict, they then escalated the discussion to the local church, the authority over Paul and Barnabas 4) When the conflict still existed, they escalated to the apostles in Jerusalem, the authority over those bringing the message as well as over the church in Antioch. 5) They didn't bring the discussion to the secular government or people since it didn't apply to them 6) They only involved those who were directly involved or the authorities over each of them. This is in keeping with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18:15-19.
The topic of circumcision is definitely interesting but I don't have time to go into all of the details. The apostles decided that based on what God was doing with the Gentiles and based on Scripture that the Gentiles shouldn't be required to be circumcised. Paul writes about circumcision in several letters as does the writer of the book of Hebrews. Basically, circumcision is a sign of the old covenant, the covenant with God through Moses, where baptism is a sign of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
So the apostles send their decision back to the church in Antioch and to other believers that they don't need to be circumcised but that they should only refrain from eating blood, from sexual immorality and from things polluted by idols, and these prohibitions are still in place for believers in Jesus today.
Some additional principles is that the apostles sent 1) a written document back 2) other persons as witnesses (Judas and Silas who were themselves prophets - another interesting topic :) ).
The believers were encouraged by the message and the additional messengers stayed for some time and strengthened and encouraged them as well.
Then the second disagreement happens. Paul wants to go back to the encourage the new believers that he and Barnabas had led to Jesus on their last long missionary trip. Barnabas wants to bring John Mark, but Paul doesn't because Mark had withdrawn from them during the previous trip. So the two of them split up. Barnabas took John Mark and went to Cyprus, along the path of the beginning of the previous trip where John Mark had previously accompanied them, and Paul took Silas and set off in the opposite direction, heading to the places that were at the end of their previous trip.
In the past when I've read this, I didn't realize that Barnabas was headed back to the believers as well. I just thought that he took John Mark and headed out somewhere, but this time I noticed that it was in fact where they had gone last time (Chapter 13.4) when John Mark had been with he and Paul. As we read in Paul's other writings, John Mark does become important to Paul at a later time, and we see Barnabas again being the "son of encouragement" who comes alongside believers who others aren't happy with and encourages them and trains them so that they can become all that they are meant to be in Christ Jesus. We need Barnabas's! Lord Jesus help me to be an encourager and a true pastor like Barnabas who goes after the lost and wounded sheep!
Other principles in this second situation 1) Paul and Barnabas agreed to disagree on the matter. All the details aren't described, but they appear to have split up the task and separated amicably.
There is much more to be said, but for now, I'll end and commit you to the grace of God for the work to which you have been called!
Amen
The first issue that comes up relates to circumcision and represents a classic struggle between tradition and new - the way we've always done things versus new ideas or patterns. In this case, circumcision wasn't a tradition of man but was God's command to the offspring of Abraham, the sign of the covenant. The question though was about the Gentiles who believed in Jesus. There was a traditionalist group, some of whom where Pharasees (as Paul had been), that insisted Gentile believers must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas sharply disagreed and debated with them. The group who was making the claim came from Judea, where Jerusalem is (the headquarters of the church at that point), so Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go to Jerusalem to get an answer from the apostles and elders about this topic.
Notice some principles of how to handle the disagreement 1) Paul and Barnabas spoke up when they disagreed (it is proper to speak up and not just keep silent). 2) They began by discussing with the persons who were making the statements 3) When that didn't resolve the conflict, they then escalated the discussion to the local church, the authority over Paul and Barnabas 4) When the conflict still existed, they escalated to the apostles in Jerusalem, the authority over those bringing the message as well as over the church in Antioch. 5) They didn't bring the discussion to the secular government or people since it didn't apply to them 6) They only involved those who were directly involved or the authorities over each of them. This is in keeping with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18:15-19.
The topic of circumcision is definitely interesting but I don't have time to go into all of the details. The apostles decided that based on what God was doing with the Gentiles and based on Scripture that the Gentiles shouldn't be required to be circumcised. Paul writes about circumcision in several letters as does the writer of the book of Hebrews. Basically, circumcision is a sign of the old covenant, the covenant with God through Moses, where baptism is a sign of the new covenant in Jesus Christ.
So the apostles send their decision back to the church in Antioch and to other believers that they don't need to be circumcised but that they should only refrain from eating blood, from sexual immorality and from things polluted by idols, and these prohibitions are still in place for believers in Jesus today.
Some additional principles is that the apostles sent 1) a written document back 2) other persons as witnesses (Judas and Silas who were themselves prophets - another interesting topic :) ).
The believers were encouraged by the message and the additional messengers stayed for some time and strengthened and encouraged them as well.
Then the second disagreement happens. Paul wants to go back to the encourage the new believers that he and Barnabas had led to Jesus on their last long missionary trip. Barnabas wants to bring John Mark, but Paul doesn't because Mark had withdrawn from them during the previous trip. So the two of them split up. Barnabas took John Mark and went to Cyprus, along the path of the beginning of the previous trip where John Mark had previously accompanied them, and Paul took Silas and set off in the opposite direction, heading to the places that were at the end of their previous trip.
In the past when I've read this, I didn't realize that Barnabas was headed back to the believers as well. I just thought that he took John Mark and headed out somewhere, but this time I noticed that it was in fact where they had gone last time (Chapter 13.4) when John Mark had been with he and Paul. As we read in Paul's other writings, John Mark does become important to Paul at a later time, and we see Barnabas again being the "son of encouragement" who comes alongside believers who others aren't happy with and encourages them and trains them so that they can become all that they are meant to be in Christ Jesus. We need Barnabas's! Lord Jesus help me to be an encourager and a true pastor like Barnabas who goes after the lost and wounded sheep!
Other principles in this second situation 1) Paul and Barnabas agreed to disagree on the matter. All the details aren't described, but they appear to have split up the task and separated amicably.
There is much more to be said, but for now, I'll end and commit you to the grace of God for the work to which you have been called!
Amen
The principles of how to handle the disagreement also work in my daily life and help me to solve disagreement appropriately. I remember in my research I tried many times but I could not reproduce the results obtained by a group member. We worked together for the project. I wanted to tell the discrepancy to our project manager. After prayer, I thought I need to talk with the group member first. We checked the calculation procedure together and found a mistake was made in his calculations. But we already presented the results to people many times. I sent an email to project manager (and also cc to the group member) about the discrepancy and the mistake. Later, we corrected the results together. I think following the principles will be helpful for everyone in the situations.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about whether Christians need to abstain from the meat of strangled animals, and in our daily life how to recognize the way that the animals are killed?
Good question about the meat of strangled animals. Yes, I believe that this is still a prohibition and it goes back to the OT statements that the life of the animal is in the blood (Gen 9:4 - Noahic covenant; Lev 17:11; so we are not to eat/drink blood either).
ReplyDeleteIn most situations, meat when slaughtered is hung up and the blood drains out. The methods of strangulation such as catching an animal in a snare, (the animal dies and the blood is all left in the body unless it is quickly removed and the blood is drained before it can coagulate) is generally not used. All the meat you see for sale in the grocery stores in the US has had the blood drained out, so it isn't a problem. That is not to say that there is NO blood in meat, but most of it has been drained out. The meat that hasn't been drained and blood itself are prohibited.
I can understand it now. Thank you for the answer.
ReplyDelete