Skip to main content

The Yoke’s On You: Acts 15

Back in the dark ages, I was a Boy Scout. I spent a few summers at beautiful, spacious, illustrious Camp Nile Montgomery, and did my fair share of hiking through the woods and hills of Arkansas carrying everything I needed for the trip in my backpack. It was heavy.

What was worse, though, were the weekends that some of us went out to backpack, which involved carrying everything we needed, while others were just there to camp. One group of us would be dropped off at a trailhead with our packs and the rest? They’d stay in the truck and drive on in. If you’re wondering, we did for practice, as there were some trips that you had to have a certain number of backpacking miles/nights to take part in.

When we had those weekends, there were always a few guys who should have been prepping alongside us but were not. They were part of the same program but had whatever reason for not participating in the full activities.

And they would heckle those of us who came hiking in some three hours after they had ridden in the rest of the trip. There would be the digs about how slow we had been. There would be the shots taken about why weren’t ready to do something else or the being sent out right then to gather firewood. There was the ever-present needling about how we should have packed our packs differently, what we should have done differently, how much better they would have done it.

Except for this one issue: it was all coming from people who refused to attempt it themselves. Sure, they had read the book. Of course, we had all read the book about how it was done. It’s just that some of us were actually doing it, while a few others were, well, not.

And the ones who were not? They were the most critical

Now, let us take that scenario and turn to Acts 15 (link). The whole chapter is of great value: here even the early church recognizes several important facts that have to be reinforced throughout the remainder of the New Testament. Not least of these facts is that one need not become fully Jewish to become fully Christian, but there are others as well. Here we see that there are moral imperatives for believers, even though we live “under grace.”

I want to focus on two points. One is properly in context, and the other mostly takes the verse, rips it from its context, and broadly interprets it.

One: in context, the Acts 15:10 points out the foolishness of expecting new converts to follow the Law to become Christians. After all, there was general agreement that the Law had been impossible to fully, properly follow in the first place. Why, then, would you look at the Gentiles coming to the church and say “You have to do what we never could”? Seems foolish and illogical.

Two: out of context, Acts 15:10 puts another important point out there for believers: those who never do have little business adding to the burden of those who actually do. That’s not to say that a nursery worker cannot instruct a pastor of the burden his hour-long sermons have become. Both are “doing” though they do different things. However, there is a tremendous gap between that scenario and the one that we often face: people completely disengaged but trying to dictate what ought to happen.

You know the person: always has an excuse why they cannot participate. They can’t do the food pantry; can’t help with the kids; can’t fit this in—but then tell church people that “church folks don’t do anything to help people.” Except that church folks do, that person doesn’t. Then there’s the pious one, who is even more frustrating. This one cannot dirty his hands with such things as garbage duty because “he’s praying” or, even worse, “he’s getting ready to preach.” Guess what, pastor? The bag’s got to go out, and you know that the slightly shorter ladies in the kitchen can’t lift it. Go get it, Th.D. boy. It needs done.

We must never put a burden on someone that we cannot bear ourselves. Especially if it is a burden we have been offered and we have declined.

Now, do not go over the edge here: the Word of God puts burdens on us all as believers and they are not optional. That’s the balancing portion of this passage: sure, we can’t put out the burden that we could not bear, but the Word of God burdens us to control our lusts, worship with purity, and live with grace. That’s not us, though, that’s the Word.

Today’s Nerd Notes:

1. We see a “James” as the spokesman of the Jerusalem Council here. It’s likely that this is James the brother of Jesus and also the author of the book of James. That’s uncertain, but likely. This is likely part of the development of the church as Peter and Paul and the other Apostles were apparently engaged in extending the reach of the Church. Some go, some strengthen. All serve.

2. Greek note: Along the way, the habit was to translate the Greek “Iacwbus” as “James” even though it is pronounced close to “Jacob(us).” The Jacob of the Old Testament is named the same way in the Septuagint. So, be careful looking for “James” in eternity. He may be going by Jacob like he did all his life.

3. The idea of addressing questions via committee has lasted to this day in the church. Many of the basic concepts of Christianity were fleshed out in the first major Councils of the church as the leaders gathered to examine what Scripture said and to argue about what Scripture meant. These choices were then reconsidered within local bodies of believers, called churches, and we see the long-range testimony of their effects. Many of the “bad decisions” that are associated with Christianity in general come from times where one person made a decision or issued a plea for action and no one put a check on his ego or power. Insulate the reputation of the body of Christ from anyone born with a sinful nature. It’s a necessity and what bodies of elders or democratic church processes do.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: The Heart Mender by @andyandrews (Andy Andrews)

The Heart Mender: A Story of Second ChancesEver read a book that you just kind of wish is true?  That's my take on The Heart Mender by Andy Andrews.  It's a charming story of love and forgiveness, and it's woven into the historical setting of World War II America.  For the narrative alone, the book is worth the read, but the message it contains is well worth absorbing as well.However, let's drop back a minute.  This book was originally published under the title Island of Saints.  I read Island of Saints and enjoyed it greatly.  Now, Andrews has released it under a new title, with a few minor changes.  All of this is explained in the Author's Note at the beginning, but should be noted for purchaser's sake.  If you read Island of Saints, you're rereading when you read The Heart Mender.  Now, go ahead and reread it.  It will not hurt you one bit.Overall, the story is well-paced.  There are points where I'd like more detail, both in the history and the geog…

Abraham Lincoln Quoted by Jesus! Mark 3

Mark records a curious event in his third chapter (link). If you look at Mark 3:25, you'll see that Jesus quotes the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. After all, one of the highlights of the Lincoln years is his famous speech regarding slavery in the United States where he used the phrase that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." This speech was given in 1858 when he accepted the nomination to run against Stephen A. Douglas for Senate, but is still remembered as the defining speech regarding slaveholding in the United States. I recall being taught in school how brilliant and groundbreaking the speech was, how Lincoln had used such wise words to convey his thought. Yet the idea was not original to Lincoln. Rather, it was embedded in Lincoln from his time reading the Bible. Now, I have read varying reports about Lincoln's personal religious beliefs: some place him as a nearly completely committed Christian while others have him somewh…

Independence Day 2017

I don’t know if Thomas Paine will be aggrieved that I paste his thoughts from Common Sense here, from the electronic edition. It’s a Public Domain work at this point, so hopefully none will be bothered that I am not paying for it...I think there is value in seeing the underlying reasons of Independence. I find a couple of things noteworthy in his introduction:First, he speaks of those who disagree and, while calling those out, holds the strength of his affirmative argument will be enough to straighten them out. We could do well to think more like that.Second, his final sentence should be a required view: the influence of reason and principle. Not self-interest masquerading as principle. Not party propaganda disguised as reason.That being said, not everything Paine said is right. If he and I lived at the same time, we’d argue religion over a great deal. However, the idea of “natural rights of man” follows from the idea of humanity as a special creation—that all are created equal and en…