READ ACTS 15:1-35
What issue was debated between believers in this chapter?
What was the background of the believers who were insistent on Gentile circumcision (v. 5)?
Each of the following people participated in the Jerusalem Council. Please not each of their contribution/arguments in the debate:
Peter:
Barnabas and Paul:
James, Jesus’ brother:
The Jerusalem Council drafted a letter to the church in Antioch and appointed two leaders, Judas and Silas, to accompany Paul and Barnabas in their return. What four things did the council ask believers to avoid?
In your own words explain what said in vv. 11-12.
What are some lessons to be learned from the Jerusalem Council?
READ ACTS 15:36-41
ACTS 15:36 tells us Paul wanted to return to the towns where he and Barnabas had preached, to see the new believers. What do you think Paul might have wanted to know about the new converts?
Based on what you know about the character Barnabas, why do you think he insisted on taking John Mark on the journey? What other reason does Colossians 4:10 give for Barnabas support?
In your opinion, was Paul being too hard on John Mark and why?
What negative repercussion resulted from the disagreement? Any positive repercussions?
What are some lessons to be learned from this disagreement? *
What are some lessons to be learned from the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas? *
Here are some observations about strong disagreements drawn from this passage:
1. There was one issue but more than one point of view.
In this particular argument there was an issue at stake. It was objective and clearly stated. Firm principles surrounded the issue. The viewpoints, on the other hand, were more subjective because they involve personalities. Think about a disagreement you might have had with your wife (or husband). Usually the difference is found not in the issue itself but the differing perspectives. Charles Swindoll defines a disagreement as “a conflict that involves an issue seen from opposing points of view.”
2. Both sides had validity
Just because an issue has two sides, doesn’t mean that one side is right and the other is wrong. Disagreements are more often gray than black and white. Both sides have strengths. Sure, every argument has its weakness, but both sides have strengths. Both Paul and Barnabas dug their heals because they believed so strongly in the validity of their point of view.
3. When the disagreement got heated, someone got hurt.
The more intense the heat, the deeper the wounds. Regardless of the level of maturity you have reached in your walk with Christ, you are not immune to hurt. How does that old school rhyme go? “Sticks and stones…” Names hurt, and personal character attacks often raise their ugly head in heated debate. The result is the inflicting of a wound that’s slow to heal; sometimes, regrettably, it never heals.
I throw out those three observations, not because they’re original or insightful, but because I believe they are worth remembering.
1. There was one issue but more than one point of view.
In this particular argument there was an issue at stake. It was objective and clearly stated. Firm principles surrounded the issue. The viewpoints, on the other hand, were more subjective because they involve personalities. Think about a disagreement you might have had with your wife (or husband). Usually the difference is found not in the issue itself but the differing perspectives. Charles Swindoll defines a disagreement as “a conflict that involves an issue seen from opposing points of view.”
2. Both sides had validity
Just because an issue has two sides, doesn’t mean that one side is right and the other is wrong. Disagreements are more often gray than black and white. Both sides have strengths. Sure, every argument has its weakness, but both sides have strengths. Both Paul and Barnabas dug their heals because they believed so strongly in the validity of their point of view.
3. When the disagreement got heated, someone got hurt.
The more intense the heat, the deeper the wounds. Regardless of the level of maturity you have reached in your walk with Christ, you are not immune to hurt. How does that old school rhyme go? “Sticks and stones…” Names hurt, and personal character attacks often raise their ugly head in heated debate. The result is the inflicting of a wound that’s slow to heal; sometimes, regrettably, it never heals.
I throw out those three observations, not because they’re original or insightful, but because I believe they are worth remembering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)