Conversion of the Gentiles

And also, I just want to thank you guys for just fighting through those distractions and

continuing to sing and worshiping the Lord.

It was such a beautiful thing for me to see from the back and to hear from the back.

Nobody stopped singing.

We just kept worshiping the Lord because God is here and He's all we need, and I'm just

so, I was so encouraged to see that.

So thank you guys for worshiping, singing songs of praise to God through that.

Please turn with me to Acts chapter 15.

Acts 15 · chapter mention

Acts chapter 15, verses 22 to 35.

Acts 15:22–35

We originally intended to cover verses 1 to 35 together because it's really one passage

with a single main point, but because it got so long, there's so many materials, so many

things in it to cover, I divided it into half, and so it's kind of an unusual place to be

to have preached this second half of this section by itself.

I'm going to try to bring in the main passage from the first part because that's really

where the main point of the passage is.

But please bear with me as we go through this.

Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's Word.

Heavenly Father, there are many things in this world, in our lives, that seek to control us,

that seek to master us.

But Lord, we are your people.

So we come once again this Sunday to worship you and to be governed by your Word.

We submit ourselves to the authority of your Word.

We incline the ears of our hearts to you.

Speak to us now.

Teach us.

And fill us with wonder again at your wonderful mercy and your amazing grace

that has reconciled Jews and Gentiles,

that have made a way so that we might be cleansed,

that our hearts might be cleansed by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Fill us with renewed joy at that wonderful reality today.

In Jesus' name we pray.

Amen.

Acts 15, verses 22 to 35.

Acts 15:22–35

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church

to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

They sent Judas called Barsabbas and Silas,

leading men among the brothers,

with the following letter.

The brothers, both the apostles and the elders,

to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia,

greetings.

Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us

and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds,

although we gave them no instructions,

it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord,

to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have therefore sent Judas and Silas,

who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us

to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements,

that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols

and from blood and from what has been strangled

and from sexual immorality.

If you keep yourselves from these,

you will do well.

Farewell.

So when they were sent off,

they went down to Antioch,

and having gathered the congregation together,

they delivered the letter.

And when they had read it,

they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

And Judas and Silas,

who were themselves prophets,

encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words.

And after they had spent some time,

they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them.

But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch,

teaching and preaching the word of the Lord with many others also.

This is God's holy and authoritative word.

There are many people in the world that wonder

whether or not they can ever be a Christian.

You know, can I become a Christian

if I'm Pakistani with a Muslim background?

What if I'm Indian with a Hindu background?

What if I'm Chinese with a Buddhist background?

That's the kind of question that Acts 15 has in mind.

Remember that Jews had a 2,000-year head start

in their knowledge of Yehovah, the Lord God,

the one God,

compared to the Gentiles.

But Jesus came as the Christ,

the King, the Messianic King,

and He died on the cross for our sins.

And by His death,

He broke down the dividing wall of hostility

between Jews and Gentiles.

It's a passage that Bailey shared from today in the prophecy.

And as a result of that,

all of those who put their faith in Jesus,

regardless of their ethnic background,

cultural background, racial background,

can be included and joined together

as God's one people.

But this new inclusion

naturally raised some questions for Gentiles.

Do I need to become a Jew

in order to be a Christian?

Should I dress like Jews?

Do I need to learn Aramaic?

Do I need to observe the Mosaic laws of ritual purity?

Should I get circumcised like Jews?

Now, we could extrapolate

and try to apply that to our context

and think about what kind of questions

people might ask nowadays.

Maybe they'll say,

well, do I need to renounce my culture entirely

in order to be a Christian?

Or do I need to behave like a Westerner,

dress like a Westerner?

Do I need to learn English?

Do I need to use certain hymnals

or liturgical handbooks?

We could come up with a thousand questions like this,

but the apostles and the elders

of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15

unanimously decided that Gentiles,

people of all non-Jewish backgrounds and cultures,

may be saved by repenting of their sins

and putting their faith in Jesus as Gentiles.

They are not to be troubled

with extra hindrances and burdens.

They don't need to keep the law of Moses

and be circumcised in order to be saved.

Verses 9 to 11,

Peter spoke forcefully that Gentiles,

like the Jews,

will have their hearts cleansed by faith

in Jesus Christ

and that they will be saved

through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And James concluded in verse 19,

therefore, my judgment is that

we should not trouble those of the Gentiles

who turn to God.

So that's the main point of this whole passage.

All those who turn from their sins

and trust in Jesus,

regardless of their background,

may be saved,

will be saved.

However, curiously,

after saying that,

right after saying that,

right after saying we should not trouble the Gentiles,

James proceeds to stipulate

four other requirements

that Gentiles need to follow.

He says in verses 20 to 21,

we should write to them

to abstain from the things polluted by idols

and from sexual immorality

and from what has been strangled

and from blood.

For from ancient generations,

Moses has had in every city

those who proclaim him,

for he has read every Sabbath

in the synagogues.

So that raises these questions.

How does this not trouble the Gentiles?

Aren't these requirements

troublesome for them?

Didn't they just say

that Gentiles do not need

to observe the law of Moses?

What then are these requirements

which are based on the Mosaic law?

So we'll answer those questions in two parts.

First, we're going to talk about

the requirements for Gentile converts

in verses 22 to 29.

And then we'll talk about

the rejoicing of the Gentile converts

in verses 30 to 35.

It seems that after arriving

at their final decision,

the apostles and the elders,

along with the whole church,

decided to choose men from among them

and send them to Antioch

with Paul and Barnabas.

And verse 23 tells us

that the delegation that they chose

included Judas called Barsabbas

and Silas,

who were leading men

among the brothers.

Among the brothers,

meaning that they're not

among the apostles,

they're not among the elders,

they're among the brothers,

they're lay people.

However, they are leading men,

which means even though

they don't hold any office

in the church,

any formal authority

in the church,

they are influential brothers.

They are called prophets

later in verse 32.

So the apostles and the elders

choose Judas and Silas

to accompany Paul and Barnabas

back to the church

in Syrian Antioch

because they need

some representatives

from the Jerusalem church

to verify the content

of the letter.

Because, I mean,

Paul and Barnabas

could just forge something

and say,

hey, this is what

the Jerusalem elders said.

And so they send

a delegation,

a representative

of their own church

to go with Paul and Barnabas

to the Syrian Antioch church.

But the church in Antioch,

if you look carefully,

is not the only intended

recipient of this letter.

The letter is addressed

to the brothers

who are of the Gentiles

in Antioch and Syria

and Cilicia.

So this letter is what

we call an encyclical.

It's a letter that is intended

for general circulation

among all the churches

with Gentile populations.

This is confirmed

by Acts 16, verse 4,

Acts 16:4

where it says that

Paul, Silas, and Timothy,

quote,

as they went on their way

through the cities,

delivered to them

for observance

the decisions

that had been reached

by the apostles and elders

who were in Jerusalem.

So basically,

wherever they go,

they're letting the churches know

this is what the apostles

and the elders

in Jerusalem decided.

In verse 24,

the apostles and the elders

provide the occasion

for the letter,

why they have to write it

in the first place.

Quote,

since we have heard

that some persons

have gone out from us

and troubled you with words,

unsettling your minds,

although we gave them

no instructions.

These are the men

mentioned in verse 1

who had come down

from the Jerusalem church

and were teaching

the Gentile brothers

that they cannot be saved

unless they are circumcised

and keep the laws of Moses

like the Jews.

We're learning here

that they were actually

not authorized

to teach in this way

by the apostles

and the elders in Jerusalem.

In other words,

they were rogue preachers

who had no business

teaching the church

in Antioch.

By transgressing

their bounds,

they sowed trouble

for the Gentiles,

the Gentile believers.

They sowed words

of trouble,

it says,

which is contrasted

with later Paul

and Barnabas

and Silas

and Judas' words

that were upbuilding

and encouraging

and strengthening.

And so this letter

written by the apostles

intended to set them straight,

set the record straight.

And then they commend

Barnabas and Paul

as beloved brothers

or risk their lives

for the Lord

so that people

are inclined

to listen to them

instead of the

rogue preachers

that had gone out

from them.

And then,

in verses 28 to 29,

they outline the stipulations

that they had agreed on

in verses 19 to 21.

Before we delve

into the significance

of these four requirements,

it's important for us

to note that this is

an authoritative decree

from the apostles

and the elders

in Jerusalem.

The phrase,

it has seemed good to us,

which is used

in verses 22, 25, and 28,

makes it sound like

the apostles and the elders

are just kind of

not that sure

of the matter.

It sounds like

a less than authoritative

kind of a personal opinion

on the matter.

It seems good to me

to do this.

But that's not

what that phrase means.

The phrase,

it seemed good to us,

is an idiomatic way

of expressing

an official decision

in Greek.

Greek.

So, for example,

over 3,000 Greek inscriptions

have been found

by archaeologists

that contain this phrase.

And most of them

occur in formulas

like this,

decision of the council

and the people,

indicating an official decision

of the rulers

of the city.

So this is why

the Christian Standard Bible,

which is another good translation

like the ESV,

translates verse 25

this way.

It says,

we have unanimously

decided to select men

and send them to you

along with our dearly beloved

Barnabas and Paul.

The CSB also translates

verse 28 this way,

for it was the Holy Spirit's

decision

and ours

not to place

further burdens

on you beyond

these requirements.

So this is an official

and authoritative

decision

reached by the apostles

and the elders

of the Jerusalem church

in obedience

to the will

of the Holy Spirit

to be enforced

in all the churches

with Gentile believers.

These are not mere

helpful suggestions.

So then,

what is going on here?

Didn't James conclude

in verse 19,

we should not trouble

those of the Gentiles

who turn to God?

What then are these

four additional stipulations?

Verse 28 says,

for it has seemed good

to the Holy Spirit

and to us

to lay on you

no greater burden

than these requirements.

First,

it's most important

to note

that these are not

requirements for salvation.

Remember what I said

last week

in my sermon

on Acts 15,

1-21.

Some of the Jewish Christians

who had a Pharisaical

background

were insisting

that Gentiles

must be circumcised

and keep all the laws

of Moses

in order to be saved.

But the apostles

and the elders

decided that these Gentiles

who had repented

and believed in Jesus,

who had gotten baptized

and had received

the Holy Spirit,

are already saved.

They said in verse 9

that God has already

cleansed their hearts

by faith.

And in verse 11

they said,

we are all,

Jews and Gentiles alike,

are saved through

the grace of our Lord Jesus.

So God has abolished

the ceremonial distinction

between clean Jews

and unclean Gentiles.

He makes no such

distinction anymore.

And He Himself

has given ultimate proof

of this

by giving the Gentiles

the Holy Spirit

in response

to their faith

in Jesus.

So the question

of salvation

has already been settled.

We know this

because even though

repentance,

faith,

and baptism

are the conditions

for receiving

God's saving grace,

as it says

in Acts 2.38,

the Jerusalem Council's decree

does not include

the exhortation

to repent and believe

and be baptized.

baptized.

That's because

they're speaking

to Gentile believers

who have already

done that.

They're saved.

However,

this does not mean

that Gentiles

could continue

to live

in their pagan lifestyles.

They don't need

to become Jewish,

but they do need

to live as Christians.

So the four requirements

stipulated by the apostles

and the elders

of the Jerusalem church

pertain to matters

of Christian obedience

that are particularly

relevant for Gentile

converts.

That's why verse 29

says,

if you keep yourselves

from these,

you will do well.

The language

keep yourselves

implies ongoing obedience,

and do well

is not a language

of salvation,

but a language

of obedience.

These are commands

that these Gentile Christians

must carefully observe

continually,

not in order

to become Christians,

but because they are

Christians.

But why these

four specific

stipulations?

And are these

requirements still

binding on us

today?

Those are the questions

that I have to answer.

There's a lot of

debate among pastors

and Bible scholars

on these questions,

and I will briefly

mention a few

of the most plausible

options before I tell

you what I think

is going on here.

Some people say

that these four

requirements are taken

from the laws of Noah,

which predate the laws

of Moses,

and therefore they are

binding even when

the law of Moses

has been fulfilled,

because these laws

apply not only to Jews

but to all of humanity.

That's what they say.

The problem with this

interpretation is that

the concept of the

laws of Noah

is foreign to Scripture.

It's only found in

extra-biblical Jewish

rabbinical sources.

And in Genesis 9,

verses 46,

God does command

Noah after the flood

not to eat animal

flesh with its life,

that is,

its blood.

However,

in that passage

where the laws of Noah

are repeatedly taken from,

there is no mention

of abstaining from

what has been sacrificed

to idols

or of sexual immorality.

And the laws of Noah

found in Jewish

rabbinical writings

include seven stipulations,

not four,

including the prohibition

of blasphemy,

murder,

stealing,

and perversion of justice.

So the parallels

are not very compelling.

Some other people say

that these four requirements

are taken from

Leviticus 16,

29 to 18,

30,

which specifically outlines

how Gentiles

who are sojourning

among the Jews

must,

how they should behave

in order to function

with Jews

without offending them

and following their customs.

So the Leviticus passage

prohibits offering sacrifices

at an altar

other than the one

inside the tabernacle,

which would have barred people

from eating meat

sacrificed to idols.

It also prohibits incest

and prohibits eating meat

from animals

that have been strangled

and it prohibits eating blood.

So there's a lot of similarities.

However,

once again,

the parallels don't fit

exactly

or as neatly

as we would like

because the Leviticus passage

also includes

the command for Gentiles

to observe the Sabbath,

which is not included

in the stipulations

in Acts 15.

And the term

sexual immorality

used in Acts 15

is much broader

than just incest,

which is the only thing

that Leviticus passage

is concerned with.

And that passage

doesn't tell us

specifically

not to eat meat

sacrificed to idols.

It only says

that you have to offer

the sacrifice

in the right place

at the entrance

of the tenth of meeting.

So even though

that passage

could have been

on the apostles

and the elders

on the back

of their minds,

that passage

does not seem

to be the immediate reason

for these four stipulations.

The most popular

explanation

of these stipulations

is that these

are not actual requirements,

that these are not

binding for Gentile Christians

for all time,

but that these are

temporary recommendations

for how Gentile Christians

should conduct themselves

among Jewish Christians,

lest they offend

their Jewish sensibilities.

For example,

in 1 Corinthians 8,

Paul argues that

even though he doesn't think

there is anything wrong

with consuming meat

that had been sacrificed

to idols

and are sold

in the marketplace,

he says he would never eat it

if doing so

would cause a fellow Christian

who has a weaker conscience

than he does to stumble.

So applying that logic

to this passage,

they argue that

there is nothing inherently wrong

with eating

what has been sacrificed

to idols

or eating strangled animals

or eating blood,

but that you should abstain

from them

for the sake

of the consciences

of your Jewish Christian

brothers and sisters.

In other words,

that these are not

actual requirements,

but accommodations

of Jewish Christians

and their sensibilities,

and therefore only relevant

where there is a church

made up of believers

from both Jewish

and Gentile backgrounds.

That is an appealing solution,

but I think it has

some insurmountable

exegetical problems.

First,

there is no indication

in the passage

that these stipulations

are temporary accommodations

of Jewish sensibilities.

The council's decree

does not say

that anywhere in the text

that Gentiles

should follow these guidelines

only when they are

in fellowship

with Jewish converts.

Rather,

the driving question

behind the Jerusalem council

is,

what does it mean

for a Gentile

to be Christian?

Remember,

this is a new problem.

Until recently,

all Christians were Jewish.

But now that Gentiles

are coming to faith

in Jesus,

what is required of them?

How are they to live?

Is there anything

that is unacceptable

due to their Gentile

lifestyle specifically?

And so verse 28 says,

for it has seemed good

to the Holy Spirit

and to us

to lay on you

no greater burden

than these requirements.

They're not adding anything

beyond these burdens,

but they are stipulating

these four burdens

as something that Gentiles

must do.

There's no contextual

or time limit

placed on these requirements

at which point

they would expire.

Second,

these stipulations

are called requirements

in verse 28.

They're not wise

or helpful suggestions.

The Greek word

translated requirements

refers to necessities,

things that are essential

in connection to something.

If the apostles

and the elders

were merely telling

the Gentile Christians

to abide by these rules,

even though they don't need to,

because there's actually

nothing wrong

with doing these things,

just to be sensitive

toward their Jewish

brothers and sisters,

then they give no indication

of that rationale,

that concern in the text.

Third,

the four requirements

do not pertain

merely to things

that would offend

Jewish sensibilities.

They are not just

ceremonial requirements

pertaining to ritual purity.

They are not merely

cultural or things,

but they are ethical concerns.

because eating meat

sacrificed to idols,

eating blood of animals

that have been strangled,

which means their blood

has not been let out,

and sexual immorality

are not enjoined

upon these Gentiles

because they offend the Jews,

but because they are

offensive to God.

This is not merely

about Gentile believers

respecting their Jewish

brothers and sisters,

because one clear example

of that is sexual immorality.

Sexual immorality

is not something

that is otherwise permissible,

but in this case forbidden

because they don't want

to offend Jews.

It's forbidden everywhere

at all times

because it offends God,

not merely because

it offends prudish Jews.

So for these reasons,

I am convinced

that these four requirements

are actual requirements.

They're binding

on all Gentile converts

everywhere.

Obviously,

these four requirements

are not all that is commanded

of Gentile Christians

after their conversion.

The apostles and the elders

of Jerusalem

are not saying

to these Gentile believers

that, well,

as long as you keep

these four things,

you can do everything you want

and live however you wish.

That's not what they're saying.

They, like every other Christian,

are expected to obey

all of God's word.

The fact that Christ

has fulfilled the law

does not mean

that the law ceases

to be the word of God.

Even though some aspects

of the law

have been made obsolete

by Christ's

one cent for all sacrifice,

all of God's word

is still profitable

for teaching,

for reproof,

for correction,

and for training

in righteousness

that the man of God

may be complete,

equipped for every good work.

As it says

in 2 Timothy 3, 16-17.

The word of God

teaches us

of God's character

and about God's will.

And so it is important

for us to heed them

and obey them.

The reason why

the apostles and the elders

are singling

these four things out

is that they were

particularly rampant issues

among the Gentile population.

For Gentiles

who were enmeshed

in their pagan culture

and largely ignorant

of God's word,

it was important

to point out these things

because those things

were considered acceptable

to them

in their upbringing.

So even in our setting,

right,

this is the case.

When we tell Christian,

what we tell Christian converts

who grew up in Christian homes

with godly Christian parents

is not exactly the same

is it always

with what we tell

brand new converts

from unbelieving backgrounds

who have no idea

what God's word teaches.

So just to give you an example,

we have had in the past

a person come

to our church

and they would come,

this person would come regularly,

a couple people,

they would come regularly

and they would say that,

well, I believe in Jesus now,

I want to be baptized.

But then as I started

talking to them

or interviewing them

for baptism

and for membership,

I find out that

they're actually cohabiting

with somebody

and having sexual relations

with this person

even though they're not married.

Right?

And so I had to tell them,

well, if you're going to be

a follower of Christ,

you need to stop doing that,

renounce that

and living in a different way

because that's what it means

to be a Christian,

to obey Christ

and to follow Christ.

Now, you don't need

to necessarily have

those conversations

always with people

who are raised

in Christian homes

because they already know

that that's the case.

I mean, nowadays,

maybe you can't assume that,

but that's generally the case.

So what's going on here

is the reason why

they don't spell these things

out for the Jews

is because all faithful Jews

already keep these commands.

But the Gentiles

who are being converted

have no idea

that these things

are not okay

because that's what

they're doing all the time.

And so the apostles

and the elders

are singling these things out

and saying,

you need to stay away from these.

Abstain from these.

So now let's look at

what exactly

these four requirements are.

First, they are to abstain

from things polluted by idols.

It says in verse 20,

this command is explained

more specifically

in verse 29.

It says abstain

from what has been

sacrificed to idols.

Because pagan temples

offered animals

as sacrifices to the gods,

they also often functioned

as banqueting halls

and butcher shops.

So some of the meat

would be consumed

on the premises

at the pagan temples

by the worshipers

and then some of the meat

that's left over

would be taken

to the marketplace

to be sold for profit

to the general public.

So I believe

what's being forbidden here

in particular

is in the first category,

meats that are offered

as sacrifice to idols

and consumed

on the premises.

Don't eat meat

sacrificed to idols.

And the reason why

I think that is based

on 1 Corinthians 8-10.

That's where Paul

gives very detailed guidance

on what to do

with all such food.

And his instructions

are consistent

with what we find

here in Acts 15.

In that context,

Paul is writing

to Corinthian believers

who are resisting

Paul's previous injunction

not to eat meat

sacrificed to idols.

Some of the Corinthians

were resisting

Paul's command

saying things like this,

well,

but we possess knowledge

that these idols

have no real existence

since there is no God

but one.

Idols are just figments

of our imagination.

So then why

can't we just go through

with the festivities

and enjoy some delicious,

freshly cooked meat

with a clear conscience?

That's what the Corinthians

were saying to Paul.

In response,

first,

Paul argues

in 1 Corinthians 8

that even if

they themselves

have a clear conscience

about what they're doing,

they should abstain

from eating food

sacrificed to idols

because they might

cause other Christians

who do not think

it's okay

to partake in such

pagan sacrifices

to stumble.

This is an argument

based on safeguarding

other Christians' conscience.

Paul is saying

even if you're right,

what you're doing

is wrong

because it's unloving

to your Christian brothers

and sisters

with more sensitive consciences.

And then in 1 Corinthians 9,

Paul offers up himself

as an example

of someone

who has given up

his rights

and entitlements

for the sake of others.

This is the truer

Christian way

to give up

even what we think

we are entitled to

out of love for others.

Now,

after saying that

in 1 Corinthians 10,

Paul makes another argument

against eating meat

sacrificed to idols.

And there he distinguishes

participating in the

pagan sacrifices

and eating the polluted meat

there on the premises.

He contrasts that

with buying meat

that had been sacrificed

to idols

but it sold in the marketplace

in the eating that afterwards.

So he gives two different

prescriptions

for those two scenarios.

He argues that

participating in the

pagan sacrifices

and eating tainted meat

in that temple

in the premises

is never allowed

under any circumstance

because even though

the idols themselves

are nothing,

demons,

evil spirits

are present

and involved

in such sacrifices.

This is what Paul says

in 1 Corinthians 10,

19-21.

What do I imply then?

That food offered

to idols is nothing,

anything?

Or that an idol

is anything?

No, I imply

that what pagans sacrifice

they offer to demons

and not to God.

I do not want you

to be participants

with demons.

You cannot drink

the cup of the Lord

and the cup of demons.

You cannot partake

of the table of the Lord

and the table of demons.

So a Gentile convert

may not participate

in this ubiquitous

Gentile practice

of eating food

sacrificed to idols

because to do so

is to consort

with demons themselves.

Paul does say,

however,

that as long as

you don't participate

in the pagan sacrifices

themselves,

Christians can eat

any meat purchased

from the marketplace

without raising

questions of origin

and questions of conscience.

So he's adopting

basically a don't ask,

don't tell policy.

So if you get a meat

from the marketplace,

don't ask them

where they got it.

Just eat it.

You're not participating

in an idol sacrifice.

You're not consorting

with demons.

It's just good meat.

Eat it.

That's okay.

However, he says,

if someone tells you

as they're serving you

that meat,

I got this

from the marketplace,

but it was actually

sacrificed to an idol

before,

then Paul says,

don't eat it

for the sake

of guarding the conscience

of that Christian brother.

So now,

it's kind of a complex argument.

I think you guys

are following me.

You guys are doing

really great.

I'm sorry,

this is getting

pretty detailed here.

I've been thinking

about this passage

for a long time.

And so,

that's the flow

of Paul's argument.

So,

you may never participate

in the pagan sacrifice.

You may never eat

such meat sacrificed

to idols.

You may eat the meat

you get from the marketplace,

but if someone knows

they was from

the pagan temple,

don't eat it

if they tell you that.

Right?

So,

it's actually

very consistent

with what

the apostles

and the elders

are saying

in Acts 15.

abstain from

what has been

sacrificed to idols.

So,

in certain European,

Asian,

Oceanian,

and African cultures,

ancestor worship

and the veneration

of the dead

is commonly practiced

even today.

Sometimes,

they set up tables

full of all kinds

of foods

as a way of

feeding their ancestors.

Sometimes,

in hopes that

they will watch

over them

or grant them

some kind of favor.

These kinds of practices

are often passed off

as expressions

of filial piety,

but we need to remember

that demons

are involved

in such pagan sacrifices.

Christians

would be wise

to abstain from that.

I don't have

very many memories

of my childhood

in South Korea.

I have a bad memory.

But I do remember

this very issue

becoming a point

of contention

between my parents

and their siblings

because every year

they would have

this sacrifice

to our deceased ancestors

and they would have

food set up

in the huge table

with all the food set up

and every relative

would take turns

coming to the table

and prostrating themselves

in front of it.

And my parents,

after their conversion

to Christianity,

refused to do it.

And because of that,

they were criticized

and scolded

by their family members.

I think it's fair

to apply this command

to other contexts

of pagan worship

as well.

Don't participate

in the worship

of other gods.

Even if you are

fully convinced

that Allah

or Brahma

or Buddha

are no gods at all,

you must remember

that demons

are involved

in their worship

and in their sacrifice.

Second,

Gentile converts

are to abstain

from blood.

And third,

from what has been strangled.

These two prohibitions

are related

because an animal

that has been strangled

has not had its blood

let out.

And it's the presence

of blood that makes

the consumption

of strangled animals

forbidden.

Pliny,

who was a first century

Roman natural historian

and a contemporary

of the apostles,

notes that consuming

the blood of animals

and humans,

in fact,

was considered medicinal

around this time.

He recounts that

epileptic patients

would rush

into the stadium

to consume

the blood

of freshly slain

gladiators.

However,

early Christians

roundly condemned

such practices.

Early Christians

were at times,

this is kind of funny

in some ways

to think about,

not funny for them,

but early Christians

were at times

falsely accused

of ritual cannibalism.

You could kind of imagine

why they would be accused

of such a thing

because we participate

in the Lord's Supper

and we talk about

eating the body

of Christ

and drinking

his blood,

right?

So, I mean,

that's,

it's kind of

maybe understandable

that such

misunderstanding

would come about.

But second century

Christian apologist

Tertullian

refutes that

false accusation

and then he points out

in turn

the hypocrisy

of their accusers.

He denounces

the pagan worship

of Bellona,

a Roman goddess

of war

whose rights

involved drinking blood.

He also condemns

the practice

of some Gentiles

who would rush

into the Colosseum

to consume

the gurgling blood

of the gladiators

like Pliny mentioned.

And he contrasts

their practices

with the Christians here.

He says this,

Blush for your vile ways

before the Christians

who have not even

the blood of animals

at their meals

of simple and natural food

who abstain

from things strangled

and that die

a natural death

for no other reason

than that they may not

contract pollution

so much as from blood

secreted in the viscera.

To clench the matter

with a single example,

you tempt Christians

with sausages

of blood

just because

you are perfectly aware

that the thing

by which you thus

try to get them

to transgress

they hold unlawful.

And how unreasonable

it is to believe

that those of whom

you are convinced

that they regard

with horror

the idea of tasting

the blood of oxen

are eager after

blood of men.

So his argument is

you're accusing Christians

of eating people

and drinking human blood

when these guys

won't even eat

the blood sausage

that you give them

because you know

that they don't eat it

and you're tempting

them intentionally.

So these are examples

of how early Christians

were behaving at the time.

Third century church

historian Eusebius

notes that when

a Christian woman

named Biblius

was being tortured

for her faith

and her torturers

slandered Christians

by saying,

well you Christians

cannibalize children

she refuted their slander

by saying this

how would such men

eat children

when they are not

allowed to eat

the blood

even of rational animals.

There was also

an ecumenical council

of churches

in Trullo

in the 7th century

692 AD

which was attended

by 215 Christian bishops

from the Eastern Roman Empire

and that council

confirmed

the Acts 15

Jerusalem Council decree

saying this

I think I have the quote

for you guys

the divine scripture

commands us

to abstain from blood

from things strangled

and from fornication.

Those therefore

who on account

of a dainty stomach

prepare by any art

for food

the blood of any animal

and so eat it

we punish suitably.

If anyone henceforth

be punished to eat

in any way

the blood of an animal

if he be a clergyman

let him be deposed

if a layman

let him be cut off.

This was an ecumenical council

of all the churches

in the area

coming together

to say this

maybe the punishment

was a little bit severe

but it shows that

this was the widespread

practice of Christians

to not consume blood

strangled animals

and other things.

This was the consistent

view of the church fathers.

Nowadays

most Christians

are totally

concerned about

consuming blood

and I have to admit

until

two weeks ago

and I started

studying this passage

in depth

for preparation

for this sermon

I too thought

that it was

permissible

for Christians

to eat blood.

The reason why

many people think

that is

because of

Mark 7

18-23

where Jesus says this

Do you not see

that whatever goes

into a person

from outside

cannot defile him

since it enters

not his heart

but his stomach

and is expelled?

Thus he declared

all foods clean

and he said

what comes out

of a person

is what defiles him

for from within

out of the heart

of man come

evil thoughts

sexual immorality

theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

All these evil things come from within

and they defile a person.

So from this

most Christians

assume

that everything

that is served as food

is fair game.

However

what I fail to note

in my former view

is that the command

not to eat blood

in the Old Testament

is never

given in the context

of instructions

regarding clean

and unclean foods.

Instead

it is always

given

in the context

of instructions

regarding offerings

and sacrifices

made to God.

The command

not to eat blood

has its origin

in Genesis 9-4

where God

first permits

humankind

to eat animals

for food

and he says

but you shall not

eat flesh

with its life

that is

its blood.

It's reiterated

in Leviticus 17

10-12

where the rationale

given is this

if anyone

of the house

of Israel

or of the

sojourner

or the strangers

who sojourn

among them

eat any blood

I will set my face

against that person

who eats blood

and will cut him off

from among his people

for the life

of the flesh

is in the blood

and I have given it

for you on the altar

to make atonement

for your souls

for it is the blood

that makes atonement

by the life.

Deuteronomy 12

23-24

also says this

only be sure

that you do not

eat the blood

for the blood

is the life

and you shall not

eat the life

with the flesh

you shall not

eat it

you shall pour it

out on the earth

like water.

The command

not to eat blood

was never based

on the need

to distinguish

between holy Jews

and common Gentiles

between clean

and unclean foods

it was always based

on the sacredness

of blood itself

because God

had given blood

not for food

but for making

atonement

and for our souls.

This principle

doesn't change

in the New Testament.

Hebrews 9-22

says this

indeed

under the law

almost everything

is purified

with blood

and without

the shedding

of blood

there is no

forgiveness

of sins.

Blood

signifies

life.

It is out of

respect for life

and more importantly

out of respect

for the giver

of life

we abstain

from consuming blood.

not because

blood is

a ceremoniously

defiling food

but because

God has appointed

blood to be

the means of

atonement

not food.

Jesus didn't

permit

the eating of blood

when he declared

all foods clean

because blood

was never

considered food

in the first place

in scripture.

Now I say this

with

I sound very confident

as I'm saying this

but I want you to know

that I'm teaching this

with some tentativeness

because the view

that these stipulations

are binding

on Christians today

is a minority view

and most faithful

and wise pastors

nowadays that I know

especially from

our own tradition

the reformed tradition

disagree with me.

So I want you guys

to know that.

So I want you

want to invite you

to test

what I'm saying

test my teaching

to make sure

that it really is

what the scripture says.

my preaching

is authoritative

only in so far

as it is consistent

with scripture.

It's God's word

that's infallible

my interpretation

of the word

is not

it's never infallible.

But I do want you

to know

that I'm not some

you know

rogue pastor

that relishes

having contrarian views.

It makes me

deeply uncomfortable

and insecure

when I find myself

in disagreement

with a majority

of pastors

in modern times.

I wrestled

with these issues

long time

spent

countless scores

of hours

mulling it over

and lost sleep

over it

and I wouldn't

have the confidence

even to share

with you

these views

that I have

of it

apart from

the universal

agreement

of church fathers

for about

the first

1500 years

of church history.

The Orthodox Church

for example

still teaches

that eating blood

is forbidden

and that they've

been doing this

since the earliest

days of the church.

Even among

Reformed theologians

I found

a kinder spirit

in John Bunyan

the author

of Pilgrim's Progress

and he writes this

and though this law

was abolished

by the coming

of Christ

yet we find

the apostles

in their council

at Jerusalem

forbid the eating

of things strangled

and commanded

the Christians

to abstain from blood

and though we are

not now obliged

to keep the law

of Moses

yet I cannot

find upon

what grounds

many Christians

take liberty

to act contrary

to the obedience

of the apostles

of Christ

in eating blood

and things strangled.

In other words

these four requirements

are not merely

part of the Mosaic law

they were commands

given by the Holy Spirit

and by the apostles

after Jesus'

resurrection

and ascension

after Pentecost

to New Covenant

believers.

So if my interpretation

of this passage

is correct

that means

we too

must abstain

from eating blood

blood sausage

blood pudding

blood pudding

I think it's called

pig's blood cake

blood tofu

blood soup

blood pancake

and so on.

Now some of you

might be panicking

because of your fondness

for rare steak

but steak

connoisseurs

assure me

that the red liquid

that comes out

when you cook steak

is not actually blood

but a protein

called myoglobin

do you guys know that?

You guys laughing

because you knew that already?

So it gives the red hue

to the water

that's coming out

of the steak

it's apparently

not blood

I felt so much better

after I learned that

because I've eaten

a lot of

medium rare steak

but we have to admit

even if the red sauce

the juice coming out

of the steak

is blood

it should not be hard

for us to give up

mere food

for the sake

of obeying God

in refraining

from eating blood

we communicate

to those around us

our regard

for the life

that only God

can create

and only God

can take away

in refraining

from eating blood