History of the New Testament Church

Well, thank you again, Mr. Blakey. Happy Sabbath, brethren. Always good to see you here with us. Recently, as you may recall, we had our annual church survey, and one of the things we asked you in the survey, the kind of messages that you want to hear, and a couple of things that were mentioned, the types of messages you want to hear in the sermons, was history and prophecy.

So I thought today I would have a little series on the history of the New Testament Church.

Why do our beliefs differ so much from others?

The doctrinal beliefs and teachings that we hold very dear as a result of our faith are due to something that's rather unique to us. We believe in the validity of Scriptures over traditions or secular human history.

If you were to talk to many people about where their doctrines come from, they would go back to a group of individuals called the early Church Fathers, who lived hundreds of years after Paul and John, and they would say, well, this early Church Father said that the early Church believed this, and that they did this, and that they did this. In contrast to that, we believe that the Scriptures mean what they say, and that the Book of Acts, and what we can learn about the early New Testament Church, has validity. And it has greater validity than what someone said who lived a couple, a hundred years later, who wasn't an eyewitness to the events. So that's one of the things that separates us and our view of doctrine and our view of what we feel we need to believe, in contrast to many others. Many churches make the claim that their doctrines are from the Bible, but if you look at the early influence of Greek philosophy, and the teachings of what became known later on as the Catholic Church, it influenced their doctrines more than they're willing to admit, or more than they acknowledge. A Church of God truly believes what the Scriptures reveal, and we live by the principle that the Bible is valid and the Bible is accurate.

We had a visitor here about three years ago from a gentleman who was researching for a website that's very critical of the United Church of God, very critical of organizations that don't accept the Trinity. And he visited us, one Sabbath, you may remember, when he was here. He actually sat in the front row there, and he went through the entire service. And then he interviewed me. We had an interview together, and he said to me, as we actually ate at the McDonald's down the road, and we had a little hour or so in which we had a coffee and chatted. And he said to me, I don't agree with your doctrines. He said, but one thing I'll say for you people, and that is, you really believe what the Bible says. You really do. Now, we laugh because we take that for granted.

But see, in his mind, what the Bible says has to be filtered by the writings or the opinion of an early church father who lived in 200 or 300 AD, hundreds of years in cases, beyond what really happened in the book of Acts. So we just take it for granted. We are so used to using the Bible as our source that we just accept it. But others find that rather different and rather remarkable.

So today I'd like to begin a history about the New Testament Church. And my hope is to cover New Testament history today by surveying the book of Acts. And then next time, depending on how far I get into the book of Acts, next time we'll take a look at Church history from about 70 to 500 AD. This is going to be a different sermon than a lot of them that I give because there's going to be quite a bit of history, and there's going to be some quoting from some valuable biblical resources, including a few scholars.

And I hope it's interesting to you if, when the sermon is over, you say, that was terrible. Mr. Thomas' sermon was like two-day old manna. It stank in breadworms. I can only tell you that I think this is very interesting, and hopefully it will solidify your faith as we realize why we believe what we believe. So again, today in Part 1 of our history survey, we're going to review the only history book that exists describing what actually happened in the New Testament era. We're going to look at the book called The Book of Acts or The Acts of the Apostles.

It is the only eyewitness history of what the early Church was doing. There's no parallel secular history. Yes, you can go to Josephus and a few other individuals who might have a sentence about how these early Christians lived and what they did, but there's only one eyewitness account of someone who said, in that generation, I was there, I saw Paul do this, we did this, and that happens to be the book of Acts. Well, the book of Acts was written by a gentleman named Luke. So first we're going to start out by learning more before we get into the book of Acts.

We need some background. We're going to learn a little bit more about Luke. So I'm going to read to you a few paragraphs. Please bear with me. From the Holman Bible Dictionary under the article named Luke. And here's what it says. Very good information. Author of the Third Gospel, that's the book of Luke, and the book of Acts in the New Testament and a close friend and traveling companion to Paul. The Apostle called him beloved. That's in Colossians 4, verse 14. Luke referred to his journeys with Paul in his company in the book of Acts. Many scholars believe Luke wrote the Gospel in Acts while in Rome with Paul during the Apostle's first Roman imprisonment.

Apparently, Luke remained nearby or with Paul also during the Apostle's second Roman imprisonment. Shortly before his martyrdom, Paul wrote that, quote, only Luke is with me. End of quote. And Paul says that in 2 Timothy, chapter 4, verse 11. Let's continue another paragraph. Quote, early church fathers droam about 400 AD, and Eusebius about 300 AD. So again, these are church fathers, but they're long past the time that the original disciples lived. That Paul, or John, or Peter, or Luke lived. Anyway, it says, they identified Luke as being from Antioch.

His interest in Antioch is clearly seen in as many references to that city. Luke adopted Philippi as his home, remaining there to superintend the young church while Paul went on the Corinth during the second missionary journey. One final paragraph here from Holman's Bible dictionary. Paul identified Luke as a physician. It's Colossians chapter 4, verse 14. And distinguished Luke from those of the circumcision.

Early sources indicate that Luke was a Gentile. Tradition holds that he was Greek. The circumstances of Luke's conversion are not revealed. An early source supplied a fitting epithet. Quote, He served the Lord without distraction, having neither wife nor children. And at the age of 84, he fell asleep in Viosa. That's a city, by the way, in central Greece.

He fell asleep in Viosa, full of the Holy Spirit. So he was never married, according to tradition, never had children, and was faithful to God's way of life at the end. Now, one paragraph from the Amplified Bible, a part called, it's an introduction to the book of Luke. And I will read it. Quote, Very likely Luke was a converted Gentile from Antioch in Syria, who joined Paul at Troas on a second missionary journey. The language and structure of Luke and Acts reflects a man of high literary ability, excellent education, and a Greek background and perspective.

So for our first scripture today, let's go to Colossians chapter 4, and we'll pick it up here in verse 7. And what I want to point out is that Paul lists a number of associates of his who were of the circumcision, meaning they were circumcised. And then when that list stops, he begins to mention those who were not of the circumcision. Obviously, someone who was a Gentile would not be of the circumcision.

They had not been circumcised. That was a Hebrew or a Jewish custom and teaching, certainly not one in Greece. So Colossians chapter 4, beginning in verse 7, he begins as he's writing this wonderful letter to the church at Colossae. He says, "'Tidicus, a faithful brother, a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.

I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that he may know your circumstances and comfort your hearts with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.'" So Onesimus may have literally come from, that may have been his hometown, Colossae, but he says he's one of you. He may also have been a Greek or a Gentile, who was circumcised as some Gentiles were, who became proselytes to the Jewish faith at that time. "'Who is one of you, they will make known to you all the things that are happening here.' Verse 10, "'Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, about whom you received instructions.

If he comes to you, welcome him.'" And then Paul continues, verse 11, "'And Jesus, who is called Justice.'" Then he says something very profound here. "'These are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God, who are of the circumcision, and they have proved to be a comfort to me.'" So he just gave a list of individuals. He says, "'These are the only fellow workers, people who work with me personally in my ministry, who are circumcised, who are of the circumcision.'" Then he begins to list other individuals, starting here in verse 12.

"'Ephaphras, who is one of you,'" again, probably a Greek, in this case not circumcised. So again, Colossae may have been his hometown, whether he meant who was one of you, whether he meant a Gentile, or literally came from that city. We don't really know. "'But,' he says, "'Ephaphras, who is one of you, a bondservant of Christ, greets you, always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him witness that he has great zeal for you, and for those who are in Laodicea, and those in Heriopolis.'" Then verse 14, he's continuing this list.

He's continuing to discuss those who were not included as those who are of the circumcision. He says in verse 14, "'Luke, the beloved physician and Demas, greets you.'" So this is scriptural evidence that Luke was a Gentile. Paul did not include him in the list of those who were of the circumcision. Again, I want you to remember that Colossians was a prison epistle, written about 61 or 62 AD, while Paul was under house arrest in Rome.

This scripture also shows Paul's excellent leadership qualities. By the way, he's training Gentile disciples to become leaders in the Gentile congregations. He understands, he knows the importance of having leaders who, quote, "'are one of you to be leaders in those congregations.'" So that people who are of that culture, of that language, can grow and benefit from the leadership examples in their own community and culture. And if you don't do that quickly, you actually create a long dependency upon you. If you don't have that leadership ability, and immediately begin training people of a particular culture and community to serve in their culture and their own community.

So we understand here, hopefully, that Luke was a Gentile. So why are the Book of Acts, or is the Book of Acts, so important as a source of history? Well, the Book of Acts of the Apostles begins with the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven after spending approximately 40 days on earth. At the other end of it, 28 chapters later, it ends with Paul's first imprisonment under house arrest in Rome for two years, around 61 AD. And Luke records Paul's three missionary journeys, and even though not specifically mentioned in the Book of Acts, most of Paul's epistles were written during the history recorded by the Acts of the Apostles.

You can sometimes go into one of his epistles, and Paul will say, I wrote this book when I was in that city. You can go back to the Book of Acts and see when Paul was in that city. You can connect the dots and understand many times when a particular epistle may have been written. The Church has traditionally taught that Paul was later released after the end of the Book of Acts and traveled, perhaps, for a few years to Spain or Britain.

And later in 66 AD, Paul was arrested again in tradition and records. He was beheaded at the command of Nero around 67 AD. So Paul may have lived only about five years after the conclusion of the Book of Acts. To understand the Book of Acts, to read it without bias and with an open mind, is to understand what's really going on in the early New Testament Church.

Without bias, without looking at people who lived decades, centuries later, what they said people were living like, why not go to an actual eyewitness account of people who were there, who said, this is what we did, this is what we said, this is how we lived? So it's very important. There's no other eyewitness source even available to tell us what happened in the earliest days of the Church. The only source that we have are the Acts of the Apostles.

Again, the so-called early Church Fathers, who were not there and wrote hundreds of years later, oftentimes had an agenda. By then, certain doctrines had already been solidified in a church that had changed, and they had an agenda and they wanted to imply that what they believed was the same thing that the Apostles taught and believed. So they had an agenda. Many are not credible sources of what was actually going on. The book of Acts is the book of action, and Luke is an independent source who asked others in his generation about events and what things happened before he came on the scene.

So at this point, I'd like to read another paragraph from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. And if you're interested in studying the Bible and having a really good encyclopedia, it's one that I would recommend. Again, it's called the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. It has a conservative orientation. I'm going to be reading from the 1956 Revised Edition. This is under the article Acts of the Apostles, Volume 1, page 43.

Quote, There's no real evidence that Luke made use of any of Paul's epistles. He was with Paul in Rome when Colossians was written in Colossians 4 and verse 14, and may indeed have been Paul's amenuensis. That just basically means someone who was taking dictation for Paul. So Paul may have dictated some of his epistles, and because Luke was very good with writing, very educated, very good with grammar, he may have been the one dictating what Paul was saying in some of the epistles.

Continuing here, For this epistle and for Ephesians and Philemon, this may be the case. Some similarities to Luke's style have been pointed out. But Acts closes without any narrative of the events in Rome during the years there, so that these epistles exerted no influence on the composition of the book. As to the two preceding groups of Paul's epistles, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, there is no proof that Luke saw any of them.

The Epistle to the Romans was probably accessible to him while in Rome, but he does not seem to have used it. Luke evidently preferred to appeal to Paul directly for information rather than use his epistles.

Final sentences, and this is powerful. The book has, therefore, the great advantage of covering some of the same ground that was discussed in the earlier epistles, but from a thoroughly independent standpoint. The gaps in our knowledge from one source are often supplied, incidentally, but most satisfactorily from the other. And I'll give you a classic example. Someone may go to a scripture in Romans or Galatians and say, well, Paul is implying here that the seventh-day Sabbath has done away. Well, really? Well, why don't we go to the book of Acts and see what he says? Why don't we go there and see what his example is rather than allowing someone to proof text one of the epistles and say, this is what we believe Paul was teaching here?

Why not go to the actual history of the early New Testament church? So Luke does this as they again, they call him a thoroughly independent standpoint with what he does. So the book of Acts provides an independent balance to those who proof text many of the writings of Paul and distort his doctrines.

So why did Luke write the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts? Why? We've talked about who Luke was. Well, let's talk about why he would have written it. If you'll turn to me with Acts 1 and verse 1. And actually, we'll spend 99% of the rest of the sermon today here in the book of Acts. So Acts chapter 1 verse 1. Let's find out why Luke wrote those two books of our Scriptures. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. He says here in Acts chapter 1 verse 1, The former account I made, O Theophilus, and that former account was the Gospel of Luke.

You can look at his writings as part 1 is the Gospel of Luke. And part 2 is he picks up where it left off and continues in the early history of the New Testament Church. The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to both do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after he, through the Holy Spirit, had given commandment to the Apostles whom he had chosen.

There's no particular reason to turn there, but I'm going to read how he opened the Gospel of Luke. Luke chapter 1 and verse 3, It seemed good to me, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus. So he's writing both of these books, part 1 and part 2, the Gospel and the Acts, to a gentleman named Theophilus. According to the International Standard Bible Dictionary, here's what it says about him. Luke writes as a man of serious purpose and is the one New Testament writer who mentions his careful use of his materials.

We read, or just mentioned in Luke chapter 1, he said he was writing an orderly account to Theophilus. Continuing, quote, His attitude and spirit are those of the historian. He reveals artistic skill. It is true, but not to the discredit of his record. He does not give a bare chronicle, but he writes a real history and interpretation of the events recorded.

He had adequate resources in the way of materials and endowment and has made conscious and skillful use of his opportunity. So Luke wanted to write an orderly account. He wanted to be professional. He wanted to say, here is the history, step by step, of what occurred in the Church. And before I came on the scene, I talked to Paul. I talked to people who were there. And that is what I have included in this orderly account. So he is a historian here. He is able to document the ministry of Jesus and the Gospel of Luke from actual eyewitnesses who saw and heard Christ. Even though he was not there yet, he interviewed people who were still alive. And that is where he got the information that he had. The book of Luke has been recognized by many as the most complete representative account of the life of Jesus Christ. Here are some things you may not know. Within the Gospel of Luke, he also gives more emphasis than any other Gospel on women, children, and the poor. More than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or John. Why? Because he was a Gentile. Those were things he was particularly interested in because of his culture.

To him, those were big deals of what Jesus came and what Jesus said and lifted up the status of women, cared for children, even picked them up in his arms, said, I had plenty of time to hug these little children and spend time with them. And how much he walked around and healed and encouraged the poor and created bread out of nothing to feed thousands.

This was really important to Luke. Here's something else you may not realize. The size of the Gospel, if you put Luke and Acts together, these two books add up to about 25% of the New Testament. That makes them the largest of all scriptures written in the entire New Testament. Taken as a whole, Luke and Acts are a larger work than the combined letters of Paul. So that's how important this history is that we're talking about today. Alright, one final quote from an outside source. Thank you for bearing with me. And then we'll get into the actual scriptures. This is from Holman's Bible Dictionary and it's going to tell us a little bit about Theophilus.

Quote, it's a personal name, meaning friend of God. The person to whom the book of Luke and Acts were written. However, his exact identity is unknown. Speculation has ranged from the generic friend of God, intended to all Christians, to a specific benefactor, perhaps in high social or political standing. If the latter is true, the name may be a pseudonym to protect the individual from persecution.

One conjecture holds that Theophilus was unsaved and that Luke wrote the letter to persuade his belief in Christ.

Now, perhaps the most awkward part of the book of Acts for biblical scholars and Bible students is how and why a Greek Gentile like Luke, writing to another Gentile named Theophilus, continually mentions the Sabbath and Holy Days. How would Luke know about these days if he didn't observe them himself, if they weren't required for the Gentiles? Some say he mentions these days only as time demarcations. Why would one Gentile, writing to another Gentile, use Hebrew Sabbath and feast days as time demarcations? Why not Greek seasonal terms and Greek festivals as time demarcations? Luke is not traveling with Paul until about 50 AD, until about a year after the famous ministerial conference in 49 AD. So what he writes beforehand comes from personal discussions that he has with Paul. He spends lots of time with Paul as his traveling companion and as his personal physician, I might add. And he says, well, Paul, when you were in Philippi, what did you say? What did you do when you went there? So he puts all of this together before he comes on the scene. He interviews Paul. He talks to others so that he can do what he said he wanted to do in Luke 1 and verse 3. Create an orderly account of eyewitnesses who were there who participated in those events. All right, so with all of that, now let's look at some highlights of this early history of the Christian church as recorded by Luke. Let's go to Acts 2 and verse 1. We'll begin there. It's a great place to begin since we observed the Feast of Pentecost last Sunday. Acts 2, verses 1-4. When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. So there's unity there. They're all together. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as a rushing, mighty wind. And it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire. And one sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

So let's start there. God started the New Testament church in Jerusalem at 31 A.D. on an Old Covenant Feast Day. Because, as we're going to see later in Paul's journeys, the Old Covenant Feast Days are also to be observed in the New Covenant only with different meaning, spiritually with added meaning. So that's why God chose the Day of Pentecost to do this.

Because this Feast Day is like no others, it pointed to the future, like all of God's Holy Days do, and God's plan for mankind. So just as the reaping of the first small harvest was celebrated during Pentecost, so God began to call a small number of His first fruits, providing the gift of His Holy Spirit to them.

This very fact that God chose to give His Spirit in one of the Holy Days originally mentioned in Leviticus 23 should tell us something about the validity of it as part of the New Covenant. Here's the thing about God's Holy Days. You can't treat them like a smorgasbord. You cannot pick and choose which ones you want to observe. You can't say, I like Pentecost because I get to wear white, and that's fun. But I don't like this atonement thing because you don't eat. Well, I'm sorry, as we'll see later on. Paul observed the fast, the Day of Atonement, many, many, many years after the death of Jesus Christ. I think about approximately 20 to 30 years when we get there. We'll read that. He also, as we'll see in the book of Acts, went to the Feast of Chabbernacles.

He also observed other days of the Days of Unleavened Bread, as we know in 1 Corinthians. So you cannot just smorgasbord, like pick and choose which Holy Day seems to fit your agenda or your theme. They come as a package because they all reveal what God is doing in a plan to save humanity throughout human history.

All right, let's go to Acts 2 and verse 32, part of Peter's sermon. He says, Jesus has raised up, of which we are all witnesses, therefore being exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he poured out this which you now see and hear, referring to the miracle of God giving his Holy Spirit to those who were there that day. Verse 34, Till I make your enemies my footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now, when they heard this, this was the audience, they were cut to the heart, they were emotionally stricken. It had an impact on them. And said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, repent. And of course, that word means to turn around and head into a different direction. Stop walking towards darkness and make a commitment to walk towards the light, towards God. So repent means to literally turn around and go in a different direction than you were going in. Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. The promise is to you, it's promise to the faithful believers in 1000 A.D. It's a promise to the faithful believers in 1953. It's a promise to those same faithful believers of the generation who sit in that building in Grafton, Ohio in the year 2018.

As many as the Lord our God will call. It's the same promise throughout generations. So on this powerful sermon on Pentecost, Peter speaks of the process of conversion and the state of the dead. He tells them that even King David, who had God's Spirit, whom they idolized, is one of the... in the pantheon of Hebrew tradition, even David was not in heaven, but was dead and was looking forward to a resurrection. Let's take a look at Acts, chapter 5 and verse 30. Acts, chapter 5 and verse 30. It says, The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to the right hand to be prince and savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses to those things. And so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those whom obey him. Here it's describing whom God gives the awesome power of his Holy Spirit to. He doesn't give it to rebellious people. He doesn't give it to people who have a secret agenda, even if they go through the motions and go through baptismal counseling and are dunked in water and have hands laid onto them. He gives it to those who obey him, to those who are willing to do what God says and become a disciple, which means a learner of Christ. As the prophet stated in Isaiah, chapter 66 and verse 2, and I'll read from the Good News Translation.

I myself created the whole universe. I am pleased with those who are humble and repentant. Remember what the word repentance means. Who are humble and repentant, who fear me and obey me. Now that's very important because many believe, looking at the writings of the early church fathers or the tradition, that all you have to do is believe in Jesus. All you have to do is utter his name. I believe in Jesus and sound like some magical spell. You somehow are saved. All you have to do is say that enough times, kind of like the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz. I do believe, I do believe, I do, I do believe. Well, I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. There's a commitment on our part, and that commitment is a desire to become a child of God, which means we are open-minded, humble, and willing to learn. So there's more to receiving God's Holy Spirit than just, quote, confessing that you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. Acts 6 and verse 1, let's go to the sixth chapter.

It says, now in those days, when a number of disciples were multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenist. So what's happening here? Well, there are two types of Jewish believers. One type are of Hebrew culture, and they obviously live around Judea. And they speak Aramaic, or they speak the language of that part of the world, and they have Jewish cultures and Jewish customs.

But then there's another type of believer. Remember, when Judah went into captivity, many Jews went all over Europe. And the Jews who had lived in Europe now for centuries since Judah went into captivity had adopted Greek culture. Greek language, yes, they kept the food laws, and they observed the Ten Commandments, and they went to synagogue in their local cities.

But they had adopted Greek culture and language that they were Hellenized. So here's what's happening here. The number of disciples were multiplying, and there was a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. So they're handing out food, and they're handing out other resources, and there seems to be prejudice here. There seems to be bigotry.

The Hebrew widows are getting more, or they're getting first dibs. And then those of Hellenist culture, who were believers, were getting short shrift. They weren't getting the resources or whatever they needed. That, anyway, is the concern. It says, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Verse 2, then, Verse 12, So Nicholas was literally someone who had been a Greek and had converted to Judaism or to the Jewish faith before he became a Christian.

From Antioch, Verse 6, A couple of things here we understand about the early New Testament Church. I want you to notice how the Twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples, and they sought their input and their opinion. They didn't decide arbitrarily who were going to serve them. You may have noticed in the annual survey that I hand out to the Church congregation, one of the questions is, who is serving you? And it's from that information that we, ordained deacons and elders within the Church of God, because your input, you're telling us who is serving you.

So that's very important. And I want you to also notice that the Twelve, it doesn't say a particular name or an individual, it says that the Twelve not only sought their input, but they worked together as a team. They didn't believe that they were above everyone else. There was no us versus them mindset, us being the ministry and them being the brethren. The perspective was we, we're a team, will do this together. You share your input with us, and we will do the ordination.

So that's very important. It said here the phrase, choose seven men full of the spirit and wisdom. And they did choose. The multitude, that is, there in verse 5. And notice the apostles approved of the decision. All seven men chosen were all Hellenized individuals judging by their names. Again, showing excellent leadership qualities. They were training Hellenized disciples and deacons to become leaders to their own brethren. And later on, of course, the Gentile congregations.

The Twelve know the importance of having leaders who is one of you. Remember that phrase we saw earlier? That Paul used, who's one of you. So the Hellenized brethren can relate and grow from the examples in their own culture and community. That's what leadership does. It doesn't have one ethnicity, one type of person in the leadership position. It trains people for the various cultures that exist. I also want you to notice that there's no example of one dominant leader. Yes, Peter may have given a very powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost.

But this doesn't say Peter. It doesn't say James. It doesn't focus on a man. It says the Twelve. Twelve apostles existed. Peter was simply the first among equals. He was not someone who was in charge or in control of the Church. Let's go to Acts 13 and verse 14. Acts 13 and verse 14. It says, But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch and Poseidia, and went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down.

So here Paul and his party went to the synagogue to worship and observe the Sabbath. And they used this opportunity to preach the gospel. Let me ask you this question. If the Sabbath day was done away at the cross, which many people believe, then they go back to the early Church Fathers who say that from the earliest days, the community of believers were keeping Sunday, which there's no indication of in the history of the Church, called the Book of Acts, they say the Sabbath was done away.

Well, if that's true, someone forgot to tell Paul, because this is 15 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul is still observing the Sabbath according to what he told Luke, because Luke isn't on the scene yet, but Luke is writing this orderly account. And obviously, Paul said, when we went into this city, this is what I did.

I went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and I sat down. Let's pick it up now, chapter 13 and verse 38. Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sin, and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

So he's saying, Jesus Christ justifies us. The law of Moses, it reminds us of how sinful we are. It's a law, and it reminds us of how far short we fall according to that law. It reminds us we need a Savior. We need someone to pay the penalty for our sins. He says, and that's why everyone who believes in Jesus Christ is justified. And of course, again, belief is not just a mantra. It's not just uttering a word. It's demonstrated by a way of life, a level of commitment, getting up every day and living according to the principles of Christianity. Doing everything you can, along with the power of the Holy Spirit, to be an ambassador for Jesus Christ.

That's what it means to believe, far beyond just the utterance of a few words. Verse 40, Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you. And he's quoting from Habakkuk, chapter 1 and verse 5 here. Quote, Behold, you despisers, marvel and perish, for I work a work in your days, a work which you will by no means believe, though one were to desire it to you. Verse 42, So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Now, when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and the devout Proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. So it's not just about law, not just simply about law. Law is good to convict us of sin. Law is good to remind us of how far we fall short.

But the law doesn't offer us a savior. It doesn't grant us salvation. Verse 44, On the next Sabbath, almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy. When contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. Here again, we see Paul's example of observing the Sabbath. He's teaching and preaching the Gentiles in God's Sabbath day, just like we do nearly 2,000 years later. Again, if you strip away what some of the so-called early church fathers write about Paul, 100, 200, 300 years later, and you look at the actual history of Paul's example here, you'll see that what he's doing is different than what an individual's later opinion or agenda is.

A few years ago—I'll never forget this—my wife and I both burst out laughing. I was doing something in her office, and she had on TV a religious show. It's probably on the religious comedy channel. A preacher's going through this verse, and a preacher says on there, and he says, The next Sabbath the whole city came together to hear the word of God. He said, and then the next day they all went to church on Sunday. He didn't say that. You might want to believe that, but it doesn't say that. So again, we're talking about what the history tells us, comparing to those who want to have an agenda, who are trying to rewrite history, and pointing to those who lived hundreds of years after the event to see what they said about the history.

Acts 15, beginning in verse 1. This is an incredible event that could have literally destroyed the Church of God, but it was handled in a very effective way. Acts 15, beginning in verse 1. And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. So what's the context here? What's being discussed in Acts 15, and going to be discussed at this conference?

What's referred to as the law of Moses? Does it say the entire law of Moses here? Or does it say, circumcision according to the law of Moses? What does it say here? And the reason this is important is, again, those with an agenda, turn back to this and say, This is when the council may obsolete all of the law of Moses, the Sabbath, the Holy Days, the moral laws, the Ten Commandments, all of those things that were part of the law of Moses, including circumcision and everything in the first five books of the Bible, which are known as the law of Moses, was done away and was no longer necessary.

Is that really what this is talking about? Well, let's see. Verse 5 reveals, it was actually former Pharisees who raised the issue in the early church. Circumcision was a physical external ritual that identified a Jewish male as belonging to God and being part of the Old Covenant. So the church had a conference in 49 A.D. in Jerusalem to discuss whether Gentiles would be required to be circumcised. And obviously, if you were an adult male and a Gentile, this wasn't something that you were necessarily looking forward to.

So many individuals, again, including Bible scholars, believe what is on trial here are the first five books of the Bible, what we call the Pentateuch, the law of Moses. And that all of the laws and statutes and prohibitions are listed there, are done away and obsolete. So how do we know it's not speaking about all the first five books of the Bible? Well, we know that that's the case because the apostles' letters, written after this conference, quote from the law of Moses, dozens of times to prove a point, to solidify a belief or a teaching or a way that a Christian would live.

It would be a gross contradiction to abolish the complete law of Moses at the conference and then use it as an authority dozens of times later on in Scripture. I want you to hold your place in Acts, but I do want you to turn to 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 9 with me. 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 9, 1 Corinthians was written about six years after the ministerial conference.

So between the crucifixion of Christ and the ministerial conference, everything that's ever going to be nailed to the cross has been nailed to the cross. Everything that's ever going to be done away, obsolete, put aside, whatever you want to call it, has happened a long time ago. So in Acts 15, the context, the fact that the law of Moses is obsolete, 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 9, the context here is providing financial support to ministers. Paul's a little upset because the Corinthians never offered him a penny to help him financially. Now, he dealt with that. He was a talented tentmaker, and as he traveled throughout the Greek world, the Roman Empire, he was more than happy to work with his hands and support himself when he needed to. But that's the context. Again, this is written in 55 AD, about six years after the conference. He says, quote, So is Paul like an American politician? Does he change his value system depending on who the audience is? No. Paul's an honest man. He does not believe that the law of Moses was done away. He believes that circumcision is no longer required, and he writes about that quite honestly. But how could you believe that the law of Moses is done away and then refer to the law of Moses, particularly when it pertains to you getting a paycheck? Wouldn't that be rather hypocritical? Wouldn't that be fraudulent for someone who believed that the law of Moses was done away at the conference in Acts 15 and now quotes it to support something that he desires? Of course it would be. It would be hypocritical. And Paul was not a hypocrite. Earlier in the book of Corinthians, he said in 1 Corinthians 5, he told the church that a man was committing incest. I don't need to know any more. Put him out. Where would Paul get the fact that incest was wrong? Maybe Leviticus 18, something from the law of Moses? You bet. So we need to understand that this rouge that the Sabbath and Holy Days and then commandments and everything pertaining to the law of Moses was done away in Acts 15 at that conference is not true. It's an agenda. Let's now take a look at the decision Acts 15 and verse 19. This is James speaking. Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled and from blood. By the way, all of those are part of the law of Moses. Continuing. For Moses has, throughout many generations, those who preach him in every city, being read in a synagogue, every Sabbath, and then it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas, who was also named Barsabas and Silas, leading men among the brethren. I'm going to read verse 21 from the translation of the New Century Version.

They should do these things, those things that he just mentioned, because for a long time in every city the law of Moses has been taught, and it is still read in the synagogue every Sabbath day. So James spoke last as the pastor of the Jerusalem church, was his congregation, so he had the right to speak last and sum up all of the discussions and the opinions that had been going on previously. And as a recognized conservative, he was respected by the Jewish brethren, and all four of those prohibitions are part of the law of Moses and were to be retained from the law of Moses. So obviously, not all of the law of Moses is being abolished. James was saying that any more questions about these four requirements, or the law of Moses, you can find out the answer if you go to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and you'll hear Moses read from the scrolls. So if you want to know what it means by sexual immorality, the law of Moses will define what it is. It's adultery, it's incest, it's a number of other things. If you want to know what that means, then the answer is at your local synagogue, because that's where the law of Moses is read on every Sabbath day. These prohibitions were necessary for better fellowship with Gentile and Jewish believers. Why? Why these four? Well, these four were the most offensive acts. If you would have asked a Jewish believer, what is it about the Gentiles that really bugs you? Those who are called in Christ and those who are baptized and receive the Holy Spirit, what are the things that really gall you? They would say idolatry. They bring their pagan ideas into the church congregation. They try to bring their pagan symbols in. They try to merge their former celebrations with the truth. It's idolatry. That's one of them that James mentions.

It's sexual immorality. That was the second one he mentions. The Gentiles are licentious. They're perverse. They have no sexual values. They come into the church and they carry with them their cultural view of sex, and it makes us sick. So that's exactly why James also mentions that.

The other two things are regarding making meat kosher. The Jews would have said to the Gentiles, they eat anything that moves. They boil it. They suck the slime out of the shell. They do anything they can to eat anything. It's sickening. That's exactly why James, the last two things, is about making sure you're draining blood from animals and that you're eating kosher meat.

So the absolute context spoken at this conference is the physical external ritual taught in the Law of Moses that we know of as circumcision. The purpose of the conference is not about the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, the feast days, and some—and I'll bring back a memory that I have from 1978— I had a theological instructor at Ambassador College who said that the only thing commanded of the Gentiles were these four requirements. No, what? I was only about 25 years old at the time. Of course, my hand—boing! My hand went right up. I said, excuse me, did I hear you correctly? Are you telling me that the only things that were required of the Gentiles were these four? Absolutely.

What about cannibalism? That's not mentioned.

Next!

But that's what I was taught in a class that I was in.

So it's a ridiculous idea that the only things that were put upon the Gentiles to obey were these four requirements.

You know, when Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3 and verse 16, that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for destruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Paul was referring to the Old Testament, including the law of Moses.

Now, not mentioned in this statement, by the way, to the Gentiles from the conference is murder, lying, deceit, stealing, coveting, kidnapping, extortion, cannibalism, using God's name in vain, bribery, greed, causing physical abuse, disobedience of civil law, and moral and ethical teachings.

So do you think anyone in their right mind could seriously believe that the only four things the Gentiles were told to do was what James mentioned? Come on!

What's really important is what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 2 and verse 29.

He said, circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit. You see, in the New Covenant, circumcision is for everybody, because we're circumcised with a heart.

In the Old Covenant, it left out 50% of the human race.

So there's a big difference between the circumcision of the Old Covenant and the spiritual circumcision of our heart in the New Covenant.

I think I'm going to conclude today, because I've gone an hour. I have more information here, but I'll carry it through the next time.

So as a quick review, what have we talked about today? We have talked about the importance of realizing that we are different because of the source that we use for our doctrinal beliefs.

That source, our eyewitnesses of people who were there, done that, been there.

That includes a man named Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Someone who was a traveling companion with Paul, a physician, a very educated man, who decided to write an orderly account, a historical synopsis of what occurred in the early church.

And before he arrives in the scene, he spoke to others who were there. He spoke to Paul, who was a close traveling friend and companion with Paul.

And it's from that source that we choose to believe what we believe, rather than looking to sources of individuals who lived 100 years later, 200 years later, 300 years later, to see what they said about what the early New Testament church was doing, what they said, what the early New Testament church believed. Well, that's it for today. Thank you. Have an awesome Sabbath day, and we'll have part two next time.