A Study of the Book of Acts
Sermon # 22
"Legalism Rears Its Ugly Head"
Acts 15:1-23
Tonight I want to speak to you on the very touchy subject of legalism. I thought, Oh well I spoke on money this morning I might as well make a day of it and speak on legalism tonight.
"One of the most serious problems facing the orthodox Christian church today is the problem of legalism. One of the most serious problems facing the church in Paul’s day was the problem of legalism. In every day it is the same. Legalism wrenches the joy of the Lord from the Christian believer, and with the joy of the Lord goes his power for vital worship and vibrant service. Nothing is left but cramped, somber, dull, and listless profession. The truth is betrayed, and the glorious name of the Lord becomes a synonym for a gloomy kill-joy. The Christian under the law is a miserable parody of the real thing." [S. Lewis Johnson, "The Paralysis of Legalism" as quoted by Charles Swindoll. The Grace Awakening. Dallas: Word Pub., 1990) pp. 76-77]
What is Legalism? Legalism is the human attempt to gain salvation or prove our spirituality by outward conformity to a list of religious does and don¡¦ts. The sad truth is that legalism is often disguised as spirituality, obedience or maturity. It is not wrong to have personal standards and convictions in your life, it is wrong to judge another Christian¡¦s spirituality or maturity by your convictions.
I. LEGALISM LEADS TO DIFFICULTIES
"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."
The specific issue of circumcision has long since passed away as a concern to us; but the principle behind it is very, very present with us today. The enemy has simply changed the issues. He has substituted some different issues on the same old divisive platform. Substitute baptism, or separation issues, or speaking in tongues, or the necessity of good works for circumcision and you bring the problem right up to date. What were these legalists actually doing and why was it so dangerous? They said, "Unless you are circumcised¡you cannot be saved." They were attempting to mix law and grace. To add anything whether it is baptism or good works or whatever it may be as a requirement for salvation is to diminish grace.
Paul puts it very clearly in his letter to the church at Galatia (3:1-3). The J. B. Philips translation renders it this way, "O you dear idiots of Galatia, who saw Jesus Christ the crucified so plainly, who has been casting a spell over you? I shall ask you one simple question: Did you receive the Spirit of God by trying to keep the Law by believing the message of the Gospel? Surely you can¡¦t be so idiotic as to think that a man begins his spiritual life in the Spirit and then completes it by reverting to outward observances."
The problems that confronted the church at Antioch seem easier to understand if we keep several things in mind. First, all of these men who came down from Jerusalem were evidently sincere. I don’t know that they came down trying to make trouble; they were deeply committed to their conviction that unless a Gentile first became a Jew by circumcision then, he had no right to call himself a Christian.
Secondly, no doubt these men had scriptures to back up what they believed. Their position even seemed to be supported by the church at Jerusalem. It is no wonder that Luke says that "they stirred up,no small dissension and dispute" (v. 2).
II. LEGALISM MUST BE FACED HEAD ON vv. 2a-4
"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. (3) So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. (4) And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them."
When the dispute could not be settled within this local body they decided to appeal to the church at Jerusalem. It is a reasonable suggestion for several reasons. First it was where the apostles would be found, or at least some of them. Secondly, it was the church it would seems that the Judaizers had come from and since the Judaizers seem to have given the impression that they spoke for the apostles and the church at Jerusalem, who would have been better to confirm their teachings or to confront their error?
vv. 5-6
"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.(6) Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter."
There appears to have been at least four different meeting involved in this conference;
(1) a public meeting welcoming Paul and his associates (v. 4),
(2) a private meeting of Paul and the key church leaders (Galatians 2:2),
(3) a second public meeting at which the Judaziers presented their case (vv. 5-6, Galatians 2:3-5), and (4) a public discussion (v. 6).
vv. 7-12
"And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: ¡§Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) So God, who knows the heart, acknow-ledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, (9) and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.(12) Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles."
Peter who had up to this point been listening stands and speaks. He first makes the point (vv. 8-9) that what the Judaizers are advancing is unnecessary; because it is obvious that God has already saved the Gentiles without it. The Judaziers had been saying to the Gentiles that "without circumcision you cannot be saved." But they were ignoring one very stubborn fact, those Gentiles were already saved.
Secondly, Peter says that he is puzzled as to why the Judaizers want to saddle the Gentiles with the burden of keeping the law (v.10). He reminds His Jewish listeners that they had not been able to bear it, so why heap on others what they themselves could not do. He tells them that it is unwise to test God, refusing to believe that he has saved the Gentiles.
Then he ends by very graciously saying not they were save just like us, but rather we were saved just as they were.
III. LEGALISM MUST BE SOUNDLY DEFEATED vv. 13-23
"And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, ¡¥Men and brethren, listen to me: (14) Simeon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. (15) And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: (16) After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; (16)After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; (17) So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.(18)Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19) Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, (20) but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.(22) 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. (23) They wrote this, letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings."
What James has to say is very important. Notice that he began by referring not to Paul but to Peter. When he addresses him he does not call him by his Greek name Peter (Petros which means stone), and you may not catch this in some of your translations, nor even by his Jewish name Simon, but by the most Jewish form of his name Simeon. It was Simeon who had first shown how God had shown his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. How it must have startled the Judaizers when James called these saved Gentiles "a people of His [God’s] name"(v. 14), because this is the title that the Jews alone had carried for centuries.
James then quotes the Old Testament prophet Amos (vv. 15-18) to prove that God has always been just as concerned about saving the Gentiles as he was the Jews.
James’advise (v. 19-21) was that no additional requirements to faith be added to the Gentiles. He advises the Gentile believers to stay away from anything that has to do with idols. This is an area of where the sensitivity of other believers is to be considered. They are to avoid fornication (the Greek is porneia which is a general term covering all kinds of sexual sex both before and after marriage, and can include homosexuality and incest). And they are not to partake of meat that has been strangled or has blood in it. Some maintain that this a return to the Old Testament law that he has just said did not apply. However, the instructions against eating blood was actually given by God before the time of the Law (Gen 9:4).
According to verse 22 the apostles and the elders and the whole church accepted the wise words of James. But considering the situation they thought it best to send men chosen from among themselves to go with Barnabas and Paul to Antioch to present the decision and the letter. These men would be able to confirm the truth of what would be contained in the letter as well as the fact that the whole assembly had been unanimous in standing behind it.
Let me conclude with three summary principles.
*LEGALISM MUST BE RESISTED BECAUSE OF WHAT IT DOES TO THE WORD OF GOD
Nothing can be added to salvation by grace and it still be grace. It cannot be grace plus baptism or grace plus works.
Paul says it clearly in his letter to the Ephesians (2:8-10) ¡§For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9) not of works, lest anyone should boast. (10) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.¡¨ (NKJV)
* LEGALISM MUST BE RESISTED BECAUSE OF WHAT IT DOES TO US
Dr Howard Hendricks has remarked that he grew up in a legalistic home where the use of fingernail polish was enough to condemn one to Hell. He said, "I repudiated legalism intellectually and theologically in 1946, but in 1982 I am still wrestling with it emotionally." [R. Kent Hughes. Acts: The Church Afire. (Wheaton, ILL; Crossway Books, 1996). p. 197. ]
*LEGALISM MUST BE RESISTED BECAUSE OF WHAT DOES TO OTHERS
James gives us principles for living under grace. First, as people under grace we are not to make non-biblical require-ments of others. This means that we cannot make areas of lifestyle that are not spelled out in scripture, normative for others in order that they be considered good Christians.
Charles Swindoll in his book on Grace puts it this way, "You want to mess up the minds of your children? Here’s how guaranteed! Rear them in a legalistic, tight context of external religion, where performance is more important than reality. Fake your faith. Sneak around and pretend your spirituality. Train your children to do the same. Embrace a long list of do’s and don’ts publicly but hypocritically practice them privately . . . yet never own up to the fact that its hypocrisy. Act one way but live another. And you can count on it emotional and spiritual damage will occur." Charles Swindoll. The Grace Awakening. Dallas: Word Pub., 1990) p.97
