Atos 15:10-11

DISCOURSE: 1783
THE QUESTION ABOUT THE OBLIGATION OF THE CEREMONIAL LAW DECIDED

Atos 15:10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

IT is a favourite idea with many, that the Gospels contain all that is needful for us to know, and that it would have been better for the Church if they only had been transmitted to us. But this is indeed to make ourselves wiser than God: for if God had not judged that the other parts of the New Testament would be useful to his Church, he would not have inspired men to write them, nor would he have preserved them for us with such peculiar care. We acknowledge that in the Gospels there are intimations of every thing which we need to know: but will any one say, that in the other parts of the New Testament there are not clearer explanations of them, or that the Gospels are not rendered far more intelligible by the light reflected upon them in the Epistles? Will any one say, that the purposes of God towards his Church, in the call of the Gentiles, the rejection of the Jews, and the future union of both Jews and Gentiles under one Head, are not more fully understood, than they would have been if the Acts of the Apostles had not been recorded? or that the correspondence between the law and the Gospel would have been so manifest, if it had not been pointed out to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews? We have now the advantage of knowing what objections were urged against the Gospel, and how those objections were obviated. To go no further than the passage before us: There was a controversy which agitated the whole Christian Church, insomuch that not all the authority of Barnabas or Paul were able to settle it: and a reference was made to the whole college of Apostles at Jerusalem for their decision of the point. That we may have a just view of it, we shall consider,

I. The subject in dispute—

The question was, Whether the Jewish law was obligatory on the Gentiles?
[This I say, was the original question; but it involved much more, even the whole plan of the Gospel salvation.
Many insisted that circumcision [Note: ver. 1.], and the observance of the whole Mosaic law [Note: ver. 5.], were necessary to salvation. They contended that these were of Divine institution; that the observance of them constituted the grand line of distinction between the Lord’s people, and all the rest of mankind; and that the severest judgments were threatened for a wilful neglect of them: and consequently, that they must be obligatory on the Lord’s people to the end of time. (It must be remembered, that the advocates of these opinions were not Jews, but Jewish Christians.)

On the other hand, it was maintained, that these laws were never imposed with a view to men’s justification by them; (for that Abraham was justified before even circumcision itself was ordained [Note: Romanos 4:10.]:)—that to require the observance of them from the Gentiles was contrary to God’s avowed design; (since he had manifested his acceptance of them in their uncircumcised state, precisely in the same way as he had of the Jews who were circumcised [Note: Atos 11:15.]:)—that it was impossible for any man to be justified by the observance of them; (since one single deviation from them would utterly condemn him [Note: Tiago 2:10.]:)—and that to blend the observance of them with the merits of Christ as a joint ground of our hope, was to invalidate the whole Gospel, and to make Christ himself of no effect to us [Note: Romanos 9:30.]—]

A question precisely similar is agitated amongst us at this day—
[Circumcision and the Jewish law are indeed, by common consent, rejected by us. But many amongst us proceed on the very same principle as those Judaizing Christians did, and make works, either ceremonial or moral, the ground of their hope before God.

Some, and some of no mean name, have gone so far as to assert, that the very act of baptism saves us. Verily, if such sentiments were not expressed in terms which cannot be mistaken, we should think it a libel to impute them to any man who calls himself a Christian, and much more to any one who would make his sentiments in theology a standard for the Church of Christ. It seems incredible that such Jewish blindness should exist at this day in the Christian Church.
Others, even the great mass of nominal Christians, imagine that the attending of the house of God and the Lord’s supper, together with common honesty, is sufficient to procure us acceptance with God; or that, if a little more be wanting, the merits of Christ will turn the scale.
Others, who come nearer to the Judaizing Christians of old, maintain, that though our hope is certainly in the Lord Jesus Christ, yet some works of ours are necessary to make his merits effectual for our salvation. This is a principle so generally avowed, that to controvert it would be called by many an unchristian heresy.
But (not to notice the two former opinions, which need only to be stated, and they will carry their own condemnation along with them,) this more specious principle is in reality founded on an ignorance of both Law and Gospel. For,

1. The moral law was not, any more than the ceremonial, given with a view to justify men: it was given rather to condemn them, and, as a ministration of death, to shut them up that they might receive life by the Gospel [Note: 2 Coríntios 3:7; 2 Coríntios 3:9; Gálatas 3:21.].

2. It is impossible that any man can be saved by his obedience to the law, because the law requires perfect obedience; which never has been, nor ever can be, rendered to it by fallen man [Note: Gálatas 3:10.].

3. To blend our obedience to the law with the merits of Christ, is to establish a ground for boasting; which it is the main scope and tendency of the Gospel to destroy [Note: Romanos 3:27; Efésios 2:8.].

4. Such an union of our works with the faith of Christ is declared to be an utter “subversion of men’s souls [Note: ver 24.],” and a superseding of all that Christ has done or suffered for us [Note: Gálatas 5:2.].

Here then the question, whether as debated formerly, or as existing at this hour, is fairly stated.]
We now come to,

II.

The apostolic decision of it—

And here we will view,

1. The Apostle Peter’s judgment respecting it—

[After the point had been long debated, St. Peter rose to give his opinion. His argument was extremely plain and simple. He reminded the Church, that the Lord Jesus had given to him the keys of the Gospel kingdom, and had commissioned him to open that kingdom both to Jews and Gentiles. To the Jews he had opened it on the day of Pentecost; and to the Gentiles about six years afterwards, when he preached to Cornelius and his friends: and on both occasions God had given the same testimony of his acceptance to the people, pouring out upon the uncircumcised Gentiles, precisely as he had done on the circumcised Jews, his Holy Spirit, both in his miraculous and sanctifying operations [Note: Compare Atos 11:15. with ver. 7–9.]. From hence he inferred, that God had unequivocally declared his mind and will, and had shewn, beyond all controversy, that in his eyes “neither circumcision was any thing, nor uncircumcision was any thing; but faith, that worketh by love,” was all that he required. To require therefore from the Gentiles an observance of the Mosaic law was to “tempt God, and to put on their necks a yoke,” which God had never intended to impose.

Having stated thus the grounds of his judgment, he proceeded to give, what we may call, his confession of faith. He viewed salvation as a free gift of God to man, for the sake, and through the merits, of the Lord Jesus Christ. This salvation he regarded as wholly gratuitous in all its parts, and as equally so both to Jews and Gentiles: to the Jews it was not given because they were circumcised: nor should it be withheld from the Gentiles because they were uncircumcised: both to the one and the other it would be freely given, the very instant they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ [Note: Compare the text with Romanos 3:29.]. No good works were required to merit it; nor was any thing required to make the merits of Christ more effectual: it was given freely, without money and without price; and from first to last must be wholly of grace.]

2. The sentence of the whole College of Apostles at Jerusalem—

[After Peter’s sentiments were delivered, Paul and Barnabas confirmed his argument, by stating what God had done among the Gentiles by them; and, by thus uniting their testimony to his, they convinced at once the whole assembly. James, who appears to have presided in the council, drew up the sentence in which the whole Church concurred. He appealed to Simeon’s, that is, Simon Peter’s, testimony, as exactly according with the words of prophecy: and then declared that no such yoke was to be imposed on the converted Gentiles. There were indeed some things which, under existing circumstances, it would be necessary for the Gentiles to forbear. They in their unconverted state had not merely regarded fornication as lawful, but had actually practised it in their idolatrous worship: they must therefore be especially on their guard against this, not only because it was sinful in itself, and therefore to be shunned by all, but because any approaches towards it would appear like a return to their former idolatry. On the other hand, there were some things forbidden to the Jews, such as “eating of things offered to idols, or things strangled, or the blood” of any animal; and it was necessary that the Gentiles should abstain from these things, lest they should put a stumbling-block in the way of the Jews, or cause disunion in the Church. But, as to their submitting to any rites, or their performing of any works, in order to obtain justification by them, no such thing was required, nor ought any such thing to be required: for, in fact, the requiring of them would only “subvert their souls,” and ruin them for ever.
Now this decision goes to the whole question as it now exists: for, if the performing of any act in order to obtain salvation by it, either in whole or in part, was unlawful then, it is unlawful now; and if it would subvert their souls, it will equally subvert and destroy ours [Note: Romanos 11:6; Gálatas 2:16.]

We shall conclude with,
1.

Some cautions respecting yourselves—

[In maintaining this doctrine, there are two cautions especially to be attended to: the one is, that you do not abuse it; and the other, that you do not ever lose sight of it.

Do not abuse it. If, by an indiscreet statement of it, you give reason to think that you despise morality, you will do incalculable injury to the souls of men. On the one hand, we must never be afraid to assert the doctrine of salvation by faith alone: but, on the other hand, we must shew the necessity of good works as fruits and evidences of our faith, and must declare in the strongest terms, that an unproductive faith is no better than “the faith of devils [Note: Tiago 2:19.].” We have only to distinguish between the foundation and the superstructure of a building. Every one can see that they are both necessary, though not necessary for the same ends: so they may see that both faith and works are necessary, though for different ends: both are good in their proper place: but they are good only for the ends and purposes for which they are required [Note: 1 Coríntios 3:11.].

Again: Do not ever lose sight of it. We see how even Peter himself was, not long after this, turned from the principles he had so firmly maintained [Note: Gálatas 2:11.]. So there is in us a wonderful tendency to lean to legal views, and self-righteous principles. Remember how jealous St. Paul was on this subject [Note: Gálatas 1:8.]; and “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free [Note: Gálatas 5:1.].”]

2. Some directions respecting others—

[As the oppugners of our principles are apt to be intolerant towards us, so it sometimes is found that we speak too contemptuously of them. Now it is certain, that many who have an unfeigned zeal for God, have very imperfect views of this subject [Note: Romanos 10:2.]: and they ought to be regarded by us with love, and be treated by us with the greatest tenderness. See how the whole Church met together to deliberate on this point for the satisfaction of their weaker brethren: and should not we exercise forbearance towards them, and labour with patience to lead them to clearer views of the subject? If God has given you a more just conception of this great mystery, be thankful for it; but make use of your knowledge, not for the indulgence of vain conceit, but for the edification of men, and the glory of God.

And whilst you seek the benefit of your fellow-Christians, do not forget your elder brethren, the Jews. “They have been broken off from their own stock on account of their unbelief; and we have been graffed in upon it:” remember them with pity, and strive by all possible means to promote their welfare. You see that the blending of their law with the Gospel was destructive to those amongst them who embraced Christianity: What then must be the state of those who reject Christianity altogether, and have no hope but in their law, which yet it is impossible for them, under their present circumstances, to obey? It is a shame to the Christian world, that we take so little pains to enlighten their minds, and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth. Consider then with yourselves what can be done for them, and how you yourselves in your respective stations may contribute to their good. And pray to God, that he will bring them back to his fold, and unite them with us under one Head, that “through the whole world there may be but one Lord, and his name one [Note: Zacarias 14:9.].”]