Acts, 13:44-14:28

What I'd like to do though is go through a few things. The truth is I started thinking about, you know, last week I forgot to cover something, a question that's not written down but I kind of threw at you in addition and didn't address it. So that was one thing and a couple other things I wanted to touch on too. So anyway, we'll take a look at the slides here for a minute. One question is Dr. Luke.

Is he Jew or Gentile? Author of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. Jew or Gentile? That was the question I left you with two weeks ago. I don't know if that kept you awake at night or if you slept just fine or what. Looking at that question, any thoughts on it? The name would sound Gentile. That's a good pointer. Anything else? Any other thoughts? The truth is there are several different things that kind of point to his background, and some are a little more solid than the others. One of them that Bob pointed out here was that the name kind of has a Gentile sound to it.

We don't hear of any other Jews in Scripture as being called Luke, so that would be one pointer. Church tradition. There are traditions, not in Scripture, that Luke was from Antioch. There are also some indications within the context of, and we'll be seeing it later on in Acts, in Acts 16 that sound like Luke was quite familiar with Philippi.

The other thing is a lot of the doctor training for medical doctors in that day was more typically Greek and not so much Jewish. Now that doesn't say that he wasn't a Jew that had been trained Greek, so that's a possibility, but it points towards a Greek background. But I think there's one passage, and we'll be getting to it as we go through our study of Ephesians and Colossians.

Let's take a look at it here, Colossians 4.10-14.

He writes, Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings, and also Barnabas' cousin Mark, about whom you received instructions, becomes to you. Welcome him. verse 11, and also Jesus, who is called Justice, these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision. Ah! You see, send you greetings, and now in verse 14 below, what do we see? Luke, the beloved physician, sends you greetings, and also Demas. So Luke is listed separately, sending greetings with Paul, but not listed as Jewish.

Make sense? So that also, agreeing with Bob's observation here, that also points to him being non-Jewish, Gentile. The evidence that he may have been from Antioch, that his familiarity with Philippi, which also has a medical school, and the fact that at one point as we go through Acts that he's traveling and he keeps using the pronoun we, we, we, we, and he gets to Philippi, and all of a sudden it drops off, as if he stayed there. So there seems to be some familiarity with Philippi, too, where the medical school is located, that also points again to more of a Gentile background. Real interesting.

But that also means something else. He's the only author of any book of Scripture that appears to have pretty solid evidence for him being a Gentile. So, real interesting, huh? had about 40 authors of scripture, and here's Luke, who appears to be the one, so far as we know, solidly Gentile author of the two books. What he writes makes up over a quarter of the New Testament between the Gospel of Luke, which is fairly lengthy, and the Book of Acts. Alright, now, that's one point. The other thing we looked at here, here is another issue Last week I was talking about Paul and Barnabas escaping from Pisidian Antioch and running off to this other territory.

I think, Joanne, you had some questions about the location. I tell you, looking into it, I found massive confusion among the references. I was just astounded. Hardly a one that agrees with another even here what you see is real common, you know to see where Galatia They'll show Galatia and Sicilia, but put no lines between them That's real common. So And then I found another place where Galatia had those three maps and it says it one time it was here another time it was here another time so lots of shifting around and the instability and tough to get solid answers, so I I got comments out of evidence and Paul's journeys. That's where my comments were largely from. And looking at this book here, Archaeology in the New Testament, published in 1991, at least at that point in time, it says that none of this area has been excavated in terms of archaeology.

So they have a tough time to confirm things with solid evidence. That may explain why all the information that I got was all conflicted. I'll see what I can do to try to research it further, because it would be nice to get some clarity. It may be one of those things where there's been some study since then that's cleared things up. Hopefully that's the case, but at any rate, I'll take a look at it further and see if I can come up with something more definite for you. So put it on ice for now, okay? Okay.

The last point I want to bring up, and this is one we showed both in church history and in Bible background, but I want to bring it up here because it's definitely something we see already and we're going to continue to see as we step through the book of Acts.

The reaction of Jews to the gospel. You've got the one end here, extreme, intense, negative reaction. Killed the Christians. do him in. And Saul, as an unbeliever, was in that spot, wasn't he? You've got various people that Paul calls false brethren and false apostles at various places. And then on the other hand, you've got the Christians and some of those having legalistic tendencies. And notice here, Saul, the extreme anti-grace man turns over to the other end. Isn't that amazing? He is the one of all that communicates grace. So, an amazing transformation.

And I think this chart's helpful, especially because you get some kind of personalities and scripture passages charted there, and it kind of gives you a sense of how are people responding to the gospel? How are the Jews, particularly, responding to the gospel? Are they reacting to it with something slightly negative or profoundly negative, or are they responding and understanding grace.

So, anyway, with that, let's turn to your handout. Let's go over the questions. All right. Acts 13.44 through 14.28. Everybody got that, by the way? Just make sure everybody's on mute. Okay. Alright, on the bottom of the second page, we've got our first question there. And it goes like this.

It often seems like Paul and his companions encountered more trouble from the Jews than from the Gentiles. Is this a cultural problem or a spiritual problem? And then in retrospect, should they have done anything different? That is, Paul and his companions. Should they have done anything different? And if so, what? If not, why not? So, first question there. What are your thoughts on that? Is the Jews response a cultural problem because of the culture among the Jews or is it a spiritual problem? Thoughts? You're saying both. Why would you say both?

Well, it's interesting. In other words, you've got lots of response. There are places in Axe where you see the whole city, everybody came. I think a lot of those things, what it appears to be is like a representation of lots of different people. If you talk about all the different groups and samplings of different occupations, different social and economic backgrounds, lots of people representing all these different groups would probably be the understood meaning there, but still a substantial response.

At the synagogue, yeah. Basically, you know, the Gentiles were welcome to come, because, you know, in the Pharisees' mindset, and it was the Pharisees who would be the ones who would establish the synagogues, the Pharisees' mindset, everybody's supposed to come through Israel anyway, right? So to have them come to the synagogue would be a fine thing. To have them get the gospel message was not quite what they had in mind, to have the whole city come to the synagogue, they'd be jumping up and down for that kind of response.

Other thoughts there? Really, if you look at it, there is a culture, because certainly you've got the Pharisees' mindset, the Sadducees' mindset, and obviously it's largely the Pharisees that they're getting reaction from. That Pharisaical mindset. There is a culture behind it. Pharisees were a cultural development, but it is also a spiritual issue. And scripture addresses both of those, essentially. Yeah, it is both. I'm asking you to pick one or the other. The truth is, yes, there are both. But it would be a mistake to see it as just one or the other in truth. Both are taking place.

How about, should the apostles have done anything different to avoid the reaction? Should Paul have said, no, I'm going to kind of do this or that to avoid the reaction? What do you think? Okay, head shaking. No, don't do it. Don't do it different. What would be wrong with doing something different? Okay, he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Good. And what else? Yeah, he was laying out the truth. So, yeah. However the truth hits, that's how it hits, right? Yeah.

You're going to find that there are going to be people that really want it and other people that, you know, don't put that in my face. I don't want it in my ear, you know. I don't want to see it. I don't want to hear it. And so you're going to get both reactions. Paul expresses that when he says, you know, an aroma from life to life, death to death. It's the same aroma, okay? But it smells different to different people. And yeah, that's true. They should not have done anything different than they did. The reaction was not their problem. The reaction was the problem of the ears receiving it. Alright, now, let's look at the last page there, page 3, that second question.

Barnabas was the one who introduced Peter to the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. and seems to have had a more prominent role earlier, then Paul clearly surpasses him in profile and expression. This does not at any point seem to bother Barnabas or cause him to be disturbed or jealous. Why is this the case? What application does this have to us? You don't hear Dr. Luke writing down, Barnabas was really ticked. And Barnabas went up and grabbed the podium. You don't hear that, do you? No. How come? Is Barnabas just kind of passive? What's the reason that he doesn't seem to get under his skin?

Okay. Alright. Paul had a special role, you say. Introduction people and working with people who have sort of an underdog type position and Then he kind of drops that and takes on the next one. We'll see before too long here John Mark who was his cousin? As we saw up there in the passage in Colossians John Mark was one that kind of he felt kind of fell off the wagon so to speak when he started off on his missionary journey and They get through at Cyprus and he says, I'm going home.

Okay. So Paul's looking at him and saying, Hey, I'm this guy's bailing. I'm not going to spend any time with him. So what happens Barnabas takes him under wing. And that will be what we see later on. And we saw it in this Colossians passage. We just looked at what we see later on is Paul says that John Mark ought to be welcomed. And at one point even asked for him.

He says, he's very useful. What has happened? Barnabas has a place of not just going out and being the leading guy all the time, but taking somebody kind of under wing that other people may have said, hey, this guy needs to be sidelined, and bringing them along. Ah, yeah, a mentoring. Good way to put it. A mentoring. He does not, hey, I'll take a chance with this person.

And yes, we will spend some time Together and then what we find is like here's here's Paul who started out being the one that everybody says Paul you know a believer I'm gonna I'm gonna believe that when I see it and maybe not them and Barnabas comes along and says Hey, this guy's okay John Mark Flaked out and what does Barnabas do spend time with him and gets him to a point of understanding and growth? To the point where Paul says send him he's useful So this is a neat thing. So as we look at this, we see the character of Barnabas just repeated again.

He's not there to take a high-profile spot. He doesn't mind doing it, but that's not his role. But he does with Paul and with John Mark both. Take somebody on who might otherwise be looked at as risky and help them grow. Grow to the point where they're indeed useful. Let's take a look at the third question.

Though Paul had later written over a dozen letters to churches and individuals that became a part of the New Testament, why does this all seem to happen later in the timeline of Acts and beyond? Why doesn't Luke mention any of the letters written by Paul or the other apostles or other authors of the New Testament? Here's the Book of Acts. So far, we haven't really seen any mention of any of the books of the New Testament in the Book of Acts. We, as we go through, will not find any other mention of the books of the New Testament. It appears from where we date things that the books were from about the time where we're at now, and on, they're written. and they appear to be later. Why do you think Dr. Luke makes no mention of any of the letters? Any ideas on that? Why doesn't he say something? It took a while for the letters to get around. Yeah, okay. One reason is it took a while for the letters to get around. Okay, good point. Any other ideas on that? Right, right. Yeah, later on. What's the name of the book that we're studying? The Axe.

It's focusing on things that they did and accomplishments and not you know, not a cataloging of here's, you know, he wrote this and he wrote that. So part of it is what's Dr. Luke trying to tell about, okay? So it isn't like he's trying explicitly to be hush-hush about the things that they wrote, but simply to focus on this happened and this happened and this happened, okay? Sure. He's writing to the same guy that he wrote the Gospel of Luke to. And now he's writing kind of part two. Here's the Acts, the follow-up account. And none of it is focused on cataloging, you know, you're writing this and writing that. It is focused instead on what happened. Who said this? Where did they go? What do they do? That's the focus. That's largely what he's looking at.

We will find some places where we can connect things up. We'll find, for example, Acts 16. Paul will go into Philippi, and then we'll find out later, now we've got this book of Philippians, and it'll connect up. So there are places that connect to the book of Acts, in some cases like that, very clearly. We'll find in the second missionary journey that Paul writes to this church that he had seen there, that he'd begun in the second missionary journey, Ephesus.

And that's the book that we're studying. So we'll find good places of connection, but not specific reference because that's not Dr. Luke's purpose. So it's just kind of important to keep that in mind. It's not a matter of trying to plug in and catalog all the letters of the New Testament, but to tell us here are the Acts of the Apostles, and even in that, focus initially on Peter, and then towards the latter end on Paul, with some crossover. Okay, last question.

In Acts 14.23, we read that Paul and Barnabas, on their return trip through the churches they had just established, appointed elders in each of the churches.

Why did they appoint elders? Do we have any idea what, if any, criteria they used? Were those criteria identical to those of Timothy 3, 1-7 and or Titus 1, 5-9? Why doesn't it say that they appointed deacons at the same time, while they were at it? How many elders did they appoint in each church? Oh boy. Lots of questions. Well, at least I didn't give you two lines. Okay. What were your thoughts on those? What were your thoughts on those?

Does it talk anything about the criteria that they used? It really doesn't say anything about what criteria they used. It doesn't talk about it at that time. The criteria that are written to Timothy, 1 Timothy 3, and to Titus, Titus 1, those were written later, after this time. So it's tough to say that he used explicitly those criteria.

How about there's no deacons appointed or mentioned? Do you think that they were appointed and just as mentioned? Or do you think that they actually didn't have deacons appointed and that's on purpose? What do you think is going on there? Okay, you think the elders would have been the ones to appoint the deacons.

Okay. All right. Ah, okay. Yeah. There was the experience at the Jerusalem church was, you know, we have leaders of the church. And then at some point in time, and then we know it was chapter six, verses about one through six, where they said, Hey, we need the deacons. So there's a point of recognition.

And one of the things we notice in in first Timothy three, Paul gave to Timothy, here's the criteria for elders, and then right after that he said, here's the criteria for deacons. But that was after the church had been established a while. When he sends Titus out to Crete, he says, I sent you there to appoint elders. He didn't say anything about the deacons. And the reason is that the churches were very young, and it would be like we saw in Acts chapter 6, there would be a recognition of Boy, do we need some deacons, okay? So the elders are appointed because the Lord has established that is to happen first. The deacons are appointed because there is a recognized need.

The church comes to the place of seeing, you know, we need some deacons because this and this and this is going to happen. And if the elders, if they're looking at what their job is, they're going to see, I better have some deacons or I'm going to get distracted. you know, carried off, taking care of this and that responsibility, and then I'm going to lose track of what the Lord appointed me to do. So, I think that one of the things that you see in here, as well as throughout the New Testament, is that the need for deacons comes at a time when the church says, yep, we sure do need them.

And there's a recognized need for them, not just we want to have an office, just to make an office, or just to call somebody. by a name. The need will be apparent, and when it is apparent, it most certainly needs to happen. But as a church is beginning, typically the first thing that you see is elders, then deacons. It's part of the pattern that we see overall. Elders appointed first, deacons next, when the need is apparent. Because the elders need to stay being elders, and the deacons then Essentially have have the job of keeping the elders from getting distracted.

Okay, it's one way to put it Okay, that was a lot how about the how many elders did they appoint do we have any idea what that was Is there a magic number Yeah, yeah, what's interesting is you see a pattern throughout the New Testament they appointed elders in each church or in each of the churches, and that's a consistent pattern throughout the New Testament. That's not like one or two places, it's like close to a dozen, where you see that plurality of elders and then one church, and that match-up is real consistent. We see that, for example, in the very introduction to the book of Philippians, that there are overseers and deacons, but plural, to the one church. Any other thoughts or questions on that one? Did I ask enough questions? Okay. Let's grab then the next one, Acts 15, 1-35.

This is a passage that's often called the Jerusalem Council. The issue that's coming up here Because the pattern had been, well, the Jews are the door for the Gentiles. So the Gentiles have to come to God through Judaism. That had been the pattern. And that's what you see, you know, fixed in the mindset of people. Now, here we have this belief in Christ, and we see, you know, back in chapter 10, the door's been swung open to the Gentiles. So now we've got to really settle this question, because you've got Christians kind of scattered throughout the eastern Mediterranean by now, and you've still got this kind of lingering question.

Well, what's the relationship between these Gentiles and these Jews? Do the Gentiles really have to kind of become Jews and then they're okay? Do we stay with that pattern, or is there something different going on? So, that's what question is being addressed here.

So the apostles and the elders meet there in Jerusalem, and there are others gathered, people not just from that church, but people from varying areas coming around for this council. Barnabas and Paul come there, and it's interesting, while Paul at various places has a lot to say in the book of Acts, here as he speaks, a kind of summary statement. He recounts the things that this is what happened on our missionary journey up there. And at this time there had only been one missionary journey. We have no explicit record that Paul had written any of the letters that we know about now. That he's just saying we were on this missionary journey.

Interestingly, while we saw a flip in the sequence of the names, previously where it was first Barnabas and Paul and then Paul and Barnabas. In this passage it switches back. And so here's Barnabas and Paul. Now Barnabas seems to have a prominent position again and it's interesting. It's tough to get too conclusive about exactly what that means. But here's Barnabas and Paul and they're recounting, hey we went into these Gentile areas and we had all these different things that we've been studying over the last several chapters.

And this is what took place. And what we found is that the Gentiles responded directly to the gospel. And we found that many of the Jews were in fact rejecting it. I'm sure that their question was, if we're supposed to still ask them to come through the Jews, how are we going to do that when we've got Jews rejecting it? So this is a Serious practical problem, okay, so that was their account there and then finally There's a conclusion Drawn up by James. You know hey I think the bottom line is we just need to tell the Gentiles that salvation is by faith for the sake of not grossly offending the Jews that are now believers we ask that they restrain themselves in three areas here and But other than that, not encumber them with anything else. We don't make them come through Judaism. And our request that they not express, you know, do things in this and this and this way as they have in the past is in part just to have unity within the body, not a salvation issue. So now, let's get into this background here.

Here's Peter, and it's interesting. This is the last time we see Peter mentioned in the Book of Acts. This is it. He has not been mentioned for a few chapters. And now we see him mentioned for the last time. He says a few items that are quoted here, and that's the last thing we find of him recorded in the Book of Acts. either mentioned or said or anything of the sort. And it's interesting what he says.

I'm going to read it here because it's very pointed and succinct. Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. Isn't that interesting? What are they going to do? They're going to hear the word of the gospel and they're going to believe. Now how complicated is that? Not. Okay? Peter is really getting it, isn't he? He says, you hear the word of the gospel and you believe that's it.

That's the bottom line. And God who knows the heart testified to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did also to us. Remember this was the same thing he said in the beginning of chapter 11 when he went back to Jerusalem to these same people in great part. Said this is how it happened it happened to them just as it did with us, and he's kind of summarizing that here And he made no distinction between us and them cleansing their hearts by what by working real hard at it By faith boy this guy's getting it man. This may be Peter's last words But he's not getting long-winded here is he he's getting down to the point This is cool stuff.

Now, therefore, why do you put God to the test? Woo! Do you see that? Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? How about that? Peter just speaks with incredible potency here. Real simplicity. But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they also are. Wow. What words. Really neat words.

So here's Peter. That's the last thing he says recorded in Acts. We hear about him again in a few places in Paul's writings. Peter writes 1 and 2 Peter. And that's it. Real interesting. Peter who has been a powerful voice early in the book of Acts. and a kind of a leading personality. This is his last statement, but what he says is right on.

Right on target, it's not complicated, and he hits the nail right on the head. Now, then the other thing we have, here's James, and what James has to say is fairly much to the point, and this is, by the way, the same James, quite apparently, who wrote the book of James, okay?

He says, Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. It's interesting Do we not trouble those? I make a point there in the paragraph below that. There's a particular word that he chose out of the Greek Old Testament.

It's the word that was the trouble of Daniel being in the lion's den. So when you trouble these people, we're not talking a little bit of Bazaar, okay? Laying the law on them is a major hassle, okay? Isn't it interesting? This is James' point. Laying the law is a major hassle, a major problem, not a minor one. It's also the word used when Samson is nagged severely by Delilah. A harassing nagging that goes on there. So that's the word that James chooses here. It says, to trouble them.

So it is interesting If we were to place the law on them, Peter's perspective is that we would be testing God. James' perspective is that we would be troubling them profoundly, severely. That we would be loading on them a major hassle. So it's interesting. Now, notice that what James doesn't say just leave it all to the wayside. He does make a few statements, not as the basis for salvation.

But there are issues of personal purity, and that has to do particularly with the fornication, and then issues where he brings up the idols and then the strangling and from blood. Let's talk about those. The idols were obviously a big issue, because in the Gentile world, the idols were a huge problem. Paul characterized it, as he wrote to the Corinthians, that worshipping idols is essentially worshipping demons. So this is a serious spiritual problem. So that's why he says, hey, they need to realize that there's a fork in the road here. If you're going to be a believer in Christ, you don't do that and the idols too.

The other end of this that you see is the strangling. They would strangle the animals or they would somehow kill them but leave the blood in the animal. It was something that the pagan deities supposedly liked. They liked to have the animals strangled or they liked to have the animals with the blood in them.

And of course the Jews found that offensive because even their own sacrifices, you know, don't have the blood, and you don't eat the meat with the blood in them. So that's why the restriction here. The Jews are obviously going to find this very offensive, one. And two, it's related to the pagan sacrifices. You're pleasing the pagan gods. The other point, and one that I stepped around for the moment, was the fornication issue. Sexual immorality in the pagan world of the Roman Empire was rampant. It was all over the place, and as we go through Ephesians and Colossians some more, we're going to see that. It was everywhere.

Basically, adultery was not having sexual relations outside of marriage. Adultery was legally defined in the Roman Empire only as having sex with another married person outside of your own spouse. So anything else was fair game. And there was, you know, if you went to the theater in Ephesus or any of the Greek cities, any of the women in the orchestra or on the stage were for sale.

You and I think, well, I'll stop and spend the night at a motel, where you didn't have motels that weren't also brothels. And I'm just, this is an introductory comment, I could get more detailed and I won't. The point being, It was a big problem. And it wasn't necessarily limited to heterosexual relationships either. There were lots of problems with homosexual relationships. So, huge problem. And in the culture, they saw no moral problem with that at all. To the point that you saw in Ephesus, temple prostitutes. Same thing in many of the cities. Corinth was most famous for that, but the other cities had it as well. It was even a religious duty to go to these temple prostitutes.

So when you start looking at that as a background, for them to begin to understand, hey, this is way out of whack. They need to get that point across. Was it the means to their salvation? Nope. Peter had already laid that out real clear. It was still an issue in sanctification. Josiah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right.

It is not, it is not law. It is, it is between, you know, them And the Lord, as a matter of relationship, you aren't having relationship with the Lord because you're following the law. And you're not earning some kind of relationship with the Lord. It is salvation by faith alone. Grace.

And both Peter and James are clear on this, aren't they? They both lay it out. We're not going to lay a law on them. That's testing God. It's troubling them profoundly to tell them to do that. So this is how we're going to do it. He lays it out pretty clear. Verse 21, James makes an interesting statement. I put the literal statement. Moses has those who are preaching him. One of the things that James is recognizing is that throughout these Gentile lands, the Pharisees are there, and they're laying out law, and he says that we're going to continue to see that among them.

But we're going to be parting ways with them. They're going to do that. We're not among them. We're not with them telling people to just abide by the law. Notice Moses has those who are proclaiming him. He doesn't himself claim to be among them. It's them, not us. So this declaration that they have is a statement of parting words. They're going to continue to preach the law of Moses. We're not. We're not among them. That's them, not us. So they sent this word out here. Obviously one of the main places it's going to go, and was indeed read, was at Antioch.

And by the way, it points out what was typical church practice, and that was a letter would come in, and you can't just get on the photocopy machine and make sure everybody has a copy, right? So what happens, you can't send it out via email, So what happens is the first thing you do is you're going to take it to the church and it's going to be read. And that's what you see here. It's read among the churches.

Paul instructs at various places to have his letter read. In the book of Revelation at the beginning it said that there's a blessing for whoever hears this book. So reading the books was the first thing that they did. After it got read, then they would sit down and start making some copies because it's going to take a while. But the first thing that would happen is they would read through it.

That would be the standard practice. Come in among the churches, read the letters, read the word of God, read the pronouncement of the apostles and the elders from Jerusalem. That would be the standard. Okay? Okay. Let's take a quick look at the questions.

Looking at what Peter had to say in verses 7-11, what does it sound like Peter would say is required for salvation? Think about that. What real distinction does Peter make between how Jews and Gentiles are saved and brought into the church? First question. Give that some thought. Question number two.

Dr. Luke does not elaborate on the content of what Barnabas and Paul had to say, given the decisions that were made at this council. What does it appear that Barnabas and Paul did convey to the rest who were there? Because there seems to be a response to it, even though Dr. Luke doesn't elaborate. What appears to be their sense of what happened with Barnabas and Paul as they went on their missionary journey?

Question three. James is the last speaker whose comments and open testimony at this council were recorded. Does this mean that he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem Does it happen to be the last one to speak, or does it mean something else? Think about that.

The account of this council concludes that all of the apostles, I'm in question four now, all of the apostles and elders and the whole church gathered there were all in agreement regarding this decision. So, when a decision is reached in church matters, what if anything does this passage say about how those in the church should reach decisions today? Why or why not?

In this case, the decision in Jerusalem was conveyed to the church at Antioch. Does this mean that one church should direct the affairs of another today? How far may decisions at one church impact another church? Should we at Holly Hills make decisions for the rest of the churches in Denver? Or should we make decisions for churches back in Virginia? Or Jakarta? How far should that go? Give some thoughts on that. Other questions? Comments? Jubilations? Puzzlings? Bafflements? Is that a word? Should be, yes.

Especially after this lesson. Let's break. Lord, as we look at this passage, what a neat thing. Just hear a bunch of people gathered together, including some Jews who had spent time in Jerusalem around the temple, including Paul and Barnabas, a Pharisee and a Levite. And yet, what do they say?

Grace, by faith. And Lord, we're thankful for that message, that decision. And that it was spread throughout the churches. And we thank you how clearly it's laid out. And we just pray, Lord, that as it sinks into our minds and into our hearts, that we would be learning that lesson of grace. Marvelous grace. In Jesus' name, amen.