One of the many lessons, which are suggested in these 5 verses, is the independence of God’s churches. This letter was sent “unto the churches of Galatia.” There is no hint of the oft-suggested “Universal Church.” Paul did not send this letter to the denominational headquarters of the “Baptist Church of Galatia.” This was apparently meant to be a circular letter, perhaps delivered first to the church in Lystra, after which was to be forwarded to the church in Derbe, then Iconium and perhaps a few others. By definition and description a “church” is an assembly – a congregation – a literal gathering of people. Each church is an individual congregation, separate from every other and autonomous in its decisions. No big church can tell another church who and who not to receive as members. No pastor, or bishop of one church, can dictate who can be pastor of another church. No church can tell another church how its members ought to behave. The only recourse between churches is either to have fellowship or not to have fellowship. This is one of the foundational planks of Baptist doctrine. This is one of the doctrines of our church. This is a part of our very name.
Calvary Independent Baptist Church is perhaps unique in Post Falls – in Kootenai and Spokane Counties. We are not associated with any outside Baptist denomination, association or fellowship. We are not an independent Baptist church which is a member or part of the Baptist Bible Fellowship or the American Baptist Association, the General Association of Regular Baptists, the Philadelphia Baptist Association, or any other group. We are not listed in their directories; we do not support their missionaries; and their magazines are not sent to our members. There may be other non-associated, independent Baptist churches near us, but I am not aware of any.
For many of us, this doctrine has been drilled into our hearts and minds from the time of our salvation. I am sure that was the case with the members of the churches of Galatia. They had never heard of any sort of denomination or union of churches. And they certainly knew nothing about any universal, unassemblying assembly or “church.” For some of us – those who were saved through the ministry of denominational Baptists, or perhaps even through other denominations, this is a doctrine which we had to learn. Such was my case as a graduate of the denominational school sponsored by the Baptist Bible Fellowship. But now, after many years, most of us have a clear understanding of the Biblical truth about the church, and most of us can see the dangers inherent in any form of extra-scriptural denominationalism.
So why is there such high praise for the first of all American Baptist Associations?
In 1707, the pastors of 5 churches in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware met together and formed the Philadelphia Baptist Association. That association slowly grew from 5 to pastors and churches to 37 churches 50 years later. In the year of their centenary, there were 64 churches, but nearly a hundred pastors and thousands of members. And during those hundred years nearly a dozen other Baptist associations arose, taking churches out of the Philadelphia.
Why is this Philadelphia Association so highly praised? William Cathcart, in his 1880 “Baptist Encyclopedia” wrote – “The influence of the Philadelphia Association has been greater in shaping Baptist modes of thinking and working, than any other body in existence. Its ‘Confession of Faith’ and ‘Treatise of Discipline’ have wielded an immense power in favor of orthodoxy and piety among our rising churches.” Although there are differences between our doctrinal statement and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, in most major points we believe the same things which those Baptist three centuries ago believed. Should anyone be surprised? No, because our doctrine, as did theirs, comes from the Bible. In Jones’ preface to his “Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, from 1707 to 1807” he wrote – “In every period of its existence the Association has firmly maintained the soundest form of Scripture doctrine; nor could any church have been admitted, at any period, which denied or concealed any of the doctrines of grace. The New Testament has always been its only rule of faith and practice, as with all Baptists. To let the world know how we understand the teachings of the Holy Ghost in these inspired books, the Association published in 1743 its confession of faith and discipline. This is in substance the same as that of the ancient Baptists in Poland and Bohemia, and of the Mennonites (Anabaptists) in Holland, and the early English and Welsh churches.”
The Philadelphia churches refused the sprinkling of babies and the so-called “baptism” of the Protestants. They taught that only born again believers should be baptized – and that meant by immersion. They were decided “anabaptists.” But at the same time, they acknowledged that there were believers among those Protestants. They believed in total depravity and acknowledged the thoroughly dead condition of the human spirit. They were sovereign grace, particular redemptionists – “Five Pointers.” They held to the idea of eternal security – the perseverance and preservation of the saints. They rejected the churches, the preachers and the members of those few General Baptists who taught that the sacrifice of Christ was to save all mankind. As a result their members helped to reconstitute those churches when they came to believe the truth. Among many other areas of agreement with our church, they believed in the independency and autonomy of each church.
The Philadelphia Association was extremely important under the special circumstances of its day. In 1700 there were growing numbers of churches scattered all over the middle colonies, which did not have regular pastors. There were Baptist believers coming together for prayer, Bible study, and the evangelism of their children and neighbors who had little access to trained and ordained ministers. One purpose of the Association was to enable those Baptists to have Biblical instruction and help. Member churches and their pastors, began regular circuits of preaching visits, forming missions and baptizing new believers. Very early in its history, the association began writing and distributing a circular letter, helping churches to understand Biblical doctrine –those letters were used as was Paul’s epistle to the Galatian churches. And a major part of each associational meeting was to hear and answer questions from the churches.
Keep in mind that no such association had ever existed in America before. You and I have 300 years of history and observation, enabling us to see the problems of associating. But those people, initially just five churches, did not have the hindsight which we possess. Their original intentions were good and in basic accord with the Word of God. History proves that the Philadelphia Baptist Association was one of God’s major tools for establishing His churches and sound doctrine in this country.
Moment ago, I said that they believed in the independency and autonomy of the individual church. Doesn’t that contradict what they did in the formation of their association? Didn’t their association dictate doctrine and Baptist practice upon its churches? No they didn’t. The Philadelphia Association made no demands upon its churches, once they agreed to its confession of faith when they became a part of the association. Every circular letter, and every answered query, were only recommendations to the churches. Those churches were free to implement the recommendations or not. Never did the association make decisions on behalf of its churches, usurping their authority or autonomy
And they claimed Biblical authority for their Association by pointing to Acts 15.
Paul’s evangelistic ministry in the region of Galatia was sponsored and authorized by his church in Syria. The church in Antioch was sovereign and independent from the church which was in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church had an older history, more direct relationship to Christ, and some of the Apostles. But the church in Antioch was just as much a church of Christ as the one in Jerusalem.
We don’t know all the details, but somehow some of the converted Pharisees of Judea, had heard about Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles. Some of them were stalking Paul and Barnabas, later teaching the new converts that they had to be circumcised and keep Moses’ law in order to be truly converted to Christ. In other words, they demanded that in addition to faith in Christ, they had to proselytize to Judaism. It seems that they claimed to have been sent by Jerusalem; they claimed to have Apostolic authority. But Paul thoroughly disagreed. And as their first journey concluded, Paul and Barnabas returned to their home church in Acts 14.
Acts 15 tells us those false teachers had the audacity to follow Paul right up into the church at Antioch, saying “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot, be saved.” But of course, under the leadership of the Spirit, the church refused to believe what they considered to be false doctrine. But still, if these Judean brethren were from the Jerusalem Church, then perhaps this needed further investigation. The church in Antioch “determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” As many American churches did through the years, they sent their query to the brethren for clarification. The trip to Jerusalem was not to form a committee in order to determine what is true doctrine. The difference between truth and error is not determined by the vote of a committee. Antioch simply wanted to find out what her sister church believed about this business of circumcision. And clinging to what they believed was the truth, it might have boiled down to whether or not they could continue in fellowship with the church in Jerusalem.
Verse 4 – “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.” Paul and Barnabas were received as honored guests by the Jerusalem church. Neither James, nor Peter nor Paul had authority over anyone else. Paul and Barnabas and their Syrian friends were only guests before the Jerusalem church.
Verses 5-6 – “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Galatians 2 tells us that Paul first met with James and the leadership of the church. If verse 6 was made to stand alone, it might appear that everything was done behind closed doors. But as we see in verse 22 eventually a meeting of the entire church was called for the purpose of examining this important issue. The false teachers had not come from the apostles or other church leaders, so the entire church needed to be told about what was transpiring. We are told that Peter arose and reminded everyone how the Lord had given him authority to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. He said that the Holy Ghost blessed them as He did the Jews. “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.” Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s blessing in their Gentile ministry. Finally James quoted a few Old Testament scriptures about the Gentiles before summarizing things. Who is this James? I don’t know if the question is important, but it is interesting. There were two men named James among Jesus’ Apostles – James the brother of John and James the less. John’s brother was killed by Herod, so this is not he, but is this the other Apostle? Galatians 1:19 says that Paul talked to James the brother of Christ on this occasion. Matthew 13:55 tells us that Jesus had a half-brother whose name was James. Many scholars believe that this man was not one of the Apostles, but the brother of Jesus.
In verse 19, James says, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.” Keeping in mind that no church has authority to make demands or dictate doctrine to another church, James voices his opinion – his “sentence.” It was James’ recommendation “that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Strong defines the word “sentence” – “to be of opinion, deem, think, to determine, resolve, decree; to judge; to pronounce an opinion.” John Gill on this verse says that James said, “My opinion or judgment in this case, or what he reckoned most advisable to be done; for he did not impose his sense upon the whole body, but proposed it to them.”
Verse 22 – “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters…” As I understand this scripture, James made his recommendation and the church, including the apostles who were present agreed with that recommendation. Paul and Barnabas were not included in the opinion or the decision to send the letter. What we have here is an important single church voting to encourage other Christians around the world about how they think it would be best to serve the Lord.
And that letter is summarized in verse 28-29 – “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Isn’t this reference to the Holy Spirit worded rather strangely? “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost”? I think that despite the vocabulary, some things are obvious: For example, the Holy Spirit does not reason, think and decide upon things in the way that humans do. The Holy Spirit didn’t listen to the arguments of the Judaisers, then Paul, then Peter and then get out a concordance to compare their comments with the Old Testament scriptures. The Holy Spirit didn’t meditate on this question and then decide that it seemed best to lay no great burden on the Gentiles. James was only saying that upon careful reflection, it seemed that the Holy Spirit didn’t want to lay a burden on the Gentiles which was too heavy for them to bear. What this reference to the Spirit indicates is that he and the church spent some time in prayer about this matter after hearing all the arguments. They felt that their decision and recommendation was under the guidance and leadership of the Spirit. After all, it was the Spirit who inspired Isaiah, Amos, David and the other Old Testament prophets to prophesy the salvation of the Gentiles. It was the Holy Spirit who lead Peter to Caesarea. And it was the Holy Spirit who empowered Paul and Barnabas. And it was the Spirit who regenerated those Gentiles. Now the Spirit was leading the church in Jerusalem to encourage those new saints in the best way to maintain fellowship with their Jewish brothers.
What were the four things recommended by James to the Gentile believers? And what about the word “necessary”? Necessary for what? This is the way that Gill explains it – “Not that they were necessary to salvation, but necessary to secure the peace of the churches.” Don’t eat meat offered to idols, don’t eat animals which have been strangled rather than slaughtered, don’t eat blood and don’t commit fornication. If you don’t want to offend your Jewish Christian brother, don’t have anything to do with idolatry, even to the point of eating meat related to idolatry. And certainly abstain from fornication. What is this? Gill explains it this way – “not spiritual fornication or idolatry, but fornication taken in a literal sense, for the carnal copulation of one single person with another, and which is commonly called simple fornication: the reason why this is put among, things indifferent is, not that it was so in itself, but because it was not thought to be criminal by the Gentiles, and was commonly used by them, and which must be offensive to the believing Jews, who were better acquainted with the will of God.” Faussett explains it this way – Fornication was the “characteristic sin of heathendom, unblushingly practiced by all ranks and classes, and the indulgence of which on the part of the Gentile converts would to Jews, whose Scriptures branded it as an abomination of the heathen, proclaim them to be yet joined to their old idols.”
Now look at verse 30-31 – “So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.” When Judas and Silas read the letter that their church had sent, the saints in Antioch were filled with joy. What they believed to be the truth was corroborated by the brethren in Jerusalem. Those who were being saved under their ministries were not going to be asked to proselytize to Judaism.
And “they rejoiced for the consolation.” In English the word “consolation” refers to allaying a person’s grief or sorrow, and that was exactly what this letter did. But it is interesting to notice that the Greek word is “paraklesis” (par-ak’-lay-sis). Fourteen times this word is translated “consolation” and six times it is rendered “comfort.” But then eight times it is translated “exhortation.” Notice verse 32 – “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” The word translated “exhorted” in verse 32 is “parakaleo” ( par-ak-al-eh’-o ). It was comforting to hear the exhortation “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves.” It was comforting to know that the Jews of Judea were not expecting them to become Jews. It was comforting to know that they would enjoy continued fellowship with them as they simply tried to live godly lives in Christ Jesus. As long as they avoided any contact with idolatry, the two churches could fellowship.
The council in Jerusalem was not anything like the Roman Catholic councils of church history. Nor was it anything like the denominational meetings of the Southern Baptists and others. A particularly prickly question was handled by the church in Jerusalem in the same way that questions were handled by the Philadelphia Association. Scriptures were used to clarify and explain the problem, and then recommendations were made. It was simply one church which had been offended by the members of another church asking for clarification regarding the offending doctrine.