Think on These Things
July 2001
Acts
15 is a chapter on both doctrinal and personal conflict resolution.
Doctrine involves the entire local church (or churches) in which the
false doctrine is being taught. Personal
conflict should be isolated from the church so as not to cause the work of the
Lord to suffer. Further insight
into the difference between collective and individual responsibility is obtained
by continuing our reading into Acts 16:1-3: “And he [Paul] came also to Derbe
and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son
of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was
well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium.
Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him
because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father
was a Greek.” The natural
question is: “Why would Paul, who spoke out so effectively against
circumcision just a few weeks before (Acts 15:1f), now take and have his gentile
companion circumcised?”
Some
scholars proclaim Paul to be fickle and inconsistent, and use these events to
discredit his writings. However,
Paul himself explains his actions quite effectively in 1 Cor 9:19-22: “For
though I am free from all {men,} I have made myself a slave to all, that I might
win the more. And to the Jews I
became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under
the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are
under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being
without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who
are without law. To the weak I
became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men,
that I may by all means save some.” Paul’s
actions are totally consistent when seen as a response to his desire to save the
souls of all men. (Cont. on Pg. 3)
Back to the Contents
The goal of this page is to promote morality and justice in our society (Prov. 14:23).
Eco-terrorism.
Ecological terrorists are quite analogous to those who bomb abortion
clinics — taking the law into one’s own hands in a quest for what they think
is a greater good. The apostle Paul
stated emphatically that you cannot bring about good by evil means.
Rom 3:8: “And why not {say} (as we are slanderously reported and as
some affirm that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come?’ Their
condemnation is just.” Some were
accusing Paul of this, but his response: It is impossible to accomplish good by
practicing evil.
It
is quite important that we do not place all who have concerns for our ecology in
the class of the eco-terrorists. It
would be no more right to do this than to place all who oppose abortion in the
category with the abortion clinic bombers.
All causes are degraded by those who would use improper means to gain
their ends. It is important that
the cause being considered by evaluated objectively and not as a reaction to the
radicals who profess the same goals.
Ecology
is a very misunderstood area, and an easy prey for political demagogues.
For example, very few realize that the group that does more in terms of
creating wildlife refuges, conservation and wildlife preservation are hunters.
Do your homework and see where the money comes from — it is from sports
firearms and ammunition, a tax on which is dedicated to wildlife preservation.
In addition, hunters lease and purchase millions upon millions of acres
each year that are dedicated to wildlife management.
They grow far more than they could kill.
And yet, many professed “ecologists” would ban hunting and destroy
the essential balance that it maintains.
It
is important that we do not squander and waste our eco-systems, and that we
preserve the environment for future generations. But equally important is the proper and balanced use of these
resources to produce the food and fiber that our population needs to sustain
itself. Wise and intelligent
decisions can satisfy both of these essential goals.
Back to the Contents
Paul’s
actions in Acts 16:1-3 are totally consistent with those of Acts 15 when we
recognize that, under the New Testament, there is no directive with regarding
circumcision. This means that while
it was wrong to mandate circumcision as doctrine (which was what the Jewish
Christians were attempting to do at Antioch), it would be equally wrong to deny
the individual the right to practice it. In
other words, this was a matter that was left to the individual to determine.
But
how did Paul resolve this? In 1 Cor.
9:19 we have the criterion that he used. If
there was any way that his freedom could be used to influence someone in the
direction of hearing and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ, then that was the
course of action that he took. In
the case of Acts 16:3, there was bias on the part of the (non-Chrsitian) Jews
against Timothy that would cause some of them to fail to consider the gospel,
and perhaps prejudice others to do the same thing.
When
we consider the list of things mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:19f, we see this principle
exemplified over and over again. To the extent that he conscientiously could,
Paul behaved as a gentile when in the midst of gentiles so as not to
unnecessarily violate their sense of right and wrong.
His extreme statement is that he “became all things to all men that by
all means he might save some.” And
yet these means did not and could not transcend the law of Christ, for he
clearly stated that he was acting totally “under law to Christ.”
We can never win anyone to Christ by violating the law of Christ.
We
see then, that God has given us latitude, i.e., individual freedom, in some
areas. However, it is up to us to
use this freedom wisely. Circumcision
was one of these freedoms. However,
if, as a church, we either mandate it or deny the right of the individual to
practice it, we violate God’s law. For,
we can only require of our fellow Christians that which the New Testament
requires. This is where many
religious organizations go wrong. For,
what seems good for one individual to practice should not be mandated upon all.
The simple work and worship of the church as given in the New Testament
is exactly what God wants of his people collectively. When
we go beyond this, we are acting presumptuously and without divine authority (1
Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9).
Back to the Contents
Ye
often hear it said ...
“Church traditions are as
authoritative as scripture.”
but
Jesus said (Matthew 15:9) ...
" ... in vain do they
worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."
In
Matthew 15, Jesus was having a controversy with the scribes and the Pharisees as
to why Jesus’ disciples transgressed the tradition of the elders by not
washing their hands before eating. First,
recognize that these were the God-ordained religious authority of that time (Mt.
23:1-3): “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying,
‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do
not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.’”
(Their closest scriptural counterparts today would be local elders and
deacons.) Second, recognize that,
in and of itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with washing your hands
before eating. Most people do it
for health purposes, and that is good. However,
the religious leaders had elevated this to a ritual that they required, and, as
such, had usurped God’s authority, making that act one of vain (empty,
meaningless) worship. It is
important that we examine everything that we do in the name of religion and
assure to ourselves that it is authorized by God.
1 Pet 4:11: “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very
words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides,
so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the
glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.”
Back to the Contents