Acts 15:22-33 describes the solution to the problem. Actually, this solution was a compromise, but it was better than nothing.
Verses 23 through 29 give an account of the letter that was written by those in Jerusalem and sent with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. In verse 26 we are told that Barnabas and Saul were “men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Literally, the Greek word rendered “lives” means “souls.” This word refers not only to their lives, but also to their very being, which they had given up for the name of the Lord.
Verses 30 and 31 say, “So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude together, they handed them the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the consolation.” On the one hand, the believers in Antioch rejoiced because it was not necessary for them to be circumcised. On the other hand, they still had to observe certain requirements of the law. The “fox” of the law had been buried, but the “tail” was still visible. The solution, therefore, was actually a compromise.
According to chapter eighteen of Acts, not even Paul was fully free from the Judaic influence. Verse 18 says, “Paul, having remained there yet a considerable number of days, took leave of the brothers and sailed away to Syria and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow.” This was a private vow that could be performed in any place by the Jews for thanksgiving with the shearing of the hair. It differed from the Nazarite vow, which had to be carried out in Jerusalem with the shaving of the head. Paul was a Jew and he kept the vow, but he did not impose it on the Gentiles. According to the principle of his teaching concerning God’s New Testament economy, Paul should have given up all the Jewish practices which belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. However, he still had such a private vow. I find it hard to believe that Paul, the writer of Romans and Galatians, could still keep this vow. In principle, Paul was wrong in this matter. Of course, he was not nearly as wrong as James was in Acts 21. As we shall see, the Lord did not tolerate Paul’s joining those who had made a Nazarite vow.
The point we are emphasizing here is that the solution to the problem in Acts 15 was a compromise. The problem was solved, and the turmoil was calmed. However, the root of the poison was not cut. Because the root was allowed to remain, it appears again in chapter twenty-one. The mixture we see in Acts 21 was already present in Acts 15. This is a religious mixture, a mixture of God’s New Testament economy with the Judaic religion of the old dispensation. This mixture was the result of compromise. Because of this compromise, the problem in Acts 15 was not fully solved. Nevertheless, this partial solution was better than nothing.
In principle, the situation today is the same as that in the book of Acts. There is still a great deal of compromise. Therefore, we are studying the Bible not merely to learn doctrine, but also to be warned and to be trained to face the present situation.
In 1964 I wrote some hymns on Christ being the Spirit. One day a friend of mine, who was a co-worker, said to me, “Yes, the New Testament does say that Christ is the Spirit. But if we teach this, Christians will not accept it. It is better for us not to teach that Christ is the Spirit.” I said to this brother, “Justification by faith was recovered through Martin Luther. The Catholic Church was opposed to this. If Luther had decided not to teach justification by faith because the Catholic Church was not willing to accept it, how could there ever have been the recovery?”
Some who were once among us in the Lord’s recovery have compromised Brother Nee’s teachings. They know what he taught, but because they are afraid of traditional Christianity, they do not dare to teach the same thing. Instead, they compromise. In translating certain of Brother Nee’s books, the translator has even changed some of his words in order not to be condemned.
In 1964 I was invited to speak, for the fourth or fifth time, to a particular Christian group in Dallas. My host warned me saying, “Brother Lee, please do not talk about the church. The people here will not accept your teaching concerning the church. However, we welcome you to minister on Christ as life. We like this, and we are helped by it.” Without saying either yes or no to this brother’s request, I replied, “Brother, as long as I minister Christ as life, the issue will be the church. How can you ask me to minister Christ and expect that this will not issue in the church?” I went on to tell him that my ministry is a ministry of Christ, and the issue of this ministry will always be the church.
I spent a week ministering to that Christian group in Dallas. I did not speak on the church until the last night of the conference. My speaking spirit could no longer bear for me to be silent regarding the church. I did not care whether I would be invited back again. I knew I had to say a word about the church. When I asked those attending the meeting to turn to Romans 12, my host knew that I intended to speak concerning the Body of Christ, the church. Those who invited me were disappointed. Nevertheless, I went on to give a strong word concerning the church, and through that message someone was gained for the Lord’s recovery.
All these cases teach us to beware of compromise. May we all learn from our study of Acts how to face today’s compromising situation.