Lectionary Calendar
Wednesday, April 17th, 2024
the Third Week after Easter
the Third Week after Easter
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
Concordant Commentary of the New Testament Concordant NT Commentary
Copyright Statement
Concordant Commentary of the New Testament reproduced by permission of Concordant Publishing Concern, Almont, Michigan, USA. All other rights reserved.
Concordant Commentary of the New Testament reproduced by permission of Concordant Publishing Concern, Almont, Michigan, USA. All other rights reserved.
Bibliographical Information
"Commentary on Acts 15". Concordant Commentary of the New Testament. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/aek/acts-15.html. 1968.
"Commentary on Acts 15". Concordant Commentary of the New Testament. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (54)New Testament (19)Gospels Only (1)Individual Books (9)
Verses 1-41
1 No sooner was the door of faith opened to the nations than the emissaries of Jerusalem tried to slam it shut. Paul had been reporting that salvation had been brought directly to the gentiles without the necessity of their becoming proselytes. Now the Judaisers come and insist that it is not sufficient to be a "proselyte of the gate," but they must become a "prosselyte of righteousness" and take upon themselves all the obligations of Judaism. The conflict was between faith and law, grace and works. The circumcisionists were perversely using in the interests of self-righteousness that which God had given for its cure. From Paul's account, given in his epistle to the Galatians, we find that these "false brethren" crept into the ecclesia at Antioch unawares, spying out their freedom in Christ Jesus, and determined to bring them into the bondage of the law of Moses. Besides being sent by the brethren at Antioch, Paul had a revelation which directed him: to go to Jerusalem and communicate his evangel, which differed materially from that of the twelve and the Judaisers, to those in authority in Jerusalem. He also took Titus along as a test case, because he was not circumcised (Galatians 2:1-5) .
6 Before this convention Paul took up the question privately with the more influential members of the Jerusalem ecclesia, especialiy with James, the brother of the Lord, and with the apostles Peter and John. Having convinced them that he had a special revelation for the
Uncircumcision they were able to influence the assembly, and thus he was able to check the growing opposition to his ministry in Jerusalem. In Judea the ecclesia of Christ was rapidly degenerating into a Jewish sect. It was called "the sect of the Nazarenes" by its enemies. They clung to the Mosaic law and ritual as fiercely as ever, and could not bear to consider anything which seemed derogatory to their ancient religion. Besides, they gave the traditions concerning social intercourse with the alien nations all the force of a divine command. Peter's course with Cornelius was not a direct violation of the law, though it may have involved the eating of that which was forbidden by Moses.
7 Peter here refers to Cornelius, and his words must be taken, not in the light of Paul's subsequent course, but as the Jews present would understand them. Peter's preaching to the nations was confined to proselytes in the land. Without that experience Paul would never have been able to convince Peter that God could deal with the nations in a way different from His dealings with the Circumcision. The case of Cornelius was specially designed to bridge the gap between the two ministries of Peter and Paul.
11 These are bold and noble words to be spoken by the chief apostle of the Circumcision in such an assemblage of Judaisers. These are Peter's last words in the book of Acts. Instead of conceding that the gentiles must be saved by means of the law and the ritual, through Judaism, Peter insists on the very opposite. The aliens are not to be saved like the Jews, but the Circumcision themselves are not saved by the law and circumcision, but by grace, even as the nations. We can hardly realize how astounding such a declaration would be in this assembly. It was not understood or heeded. Peter himself denied it by his acts soon afterward (Galatians 2:11-21). James, the brother of our Lord, though not an apostle, had by far the most influence in Jerusalem, especially with the Judaisers. Peter, who should have had the leadership, was afraid of him. If his wise and weighty words had been heeded all would have been well. But the legalists were too strong, and listened to James, their leader, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, rather than to one who was not only one of His brethren in spirit, but had been trained and commissioned to lead His people. Peter's decision was in accord with the spirit and should have been obeyed. James' compromise was a concession to the flesh. Later, when the full truth for the present was revealed these decrees were abolished (Ephesians 2:15).
18 James does not refer to the report of Barnabas and Paul, when he quotes Amos 9:11-12, but to Peter's address. The prophet, speaking of the time when the kingdom will be set up, refers to those among the nations, who, like Cornelius, invoked the name of the Lord, and are blessed with His people Israel. It has no reference to the present economy of God's grace.
19 Notice the emphatic I. This was James' own solution. The object of the decrees seems to have been to make it possible for the Jews to have social intercourse with the believers among the nations without offending Jewish prejudices. A Jew, even if a believer, could not eat at the same table with a gentile if he should serve an idol sacrifice, or strangled meat, or blood. Had Peter's advice been followed, they would have cast off the yoke of the law, which they never were able to bear, and so could have had free and joyful fellowship with the Uncircumcision. James' plan keeps the Jews under the divine law and puts the nations under a human law. Instead of loosing all from bondage, he binds both.
24 The great object of the conference was definitely settled, and never again do we hear that circumcision and law keeping are essential to salvation. The Judaisers now change to the teaching that, though these may not be necessary for salvation, they are essential to progress and perfection. Paul refutes this in Galatians.
29 Strictly speaking, these decrees were binding only on the believers in Syria and Cilicia, though they must have influenced all the saints among the nations. Paul practically repeals them when he makes the eating of meats offered to idols a matter of individual conscience
(1 Corinthians8) The revelation of the new humanity (Ephesians 2:15) in which all physical distinctions disappear, so that there is no Jew or Greek, nullifies this "law of precepts in decrees." They were based on a distinction which no longer exists for those who are in Christ Jesus. Speaking of this to the Colossians, the apostle boldly cancels them by "erasing the handwriting of the decrees against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it away out of the midst. . ." How far has Jerusalem fallen! Instead of bringing blessing to the nations, they use this opportunity of burdening them with a law of their own devising; No wonder, when Paul comes again, he finds James in full charge, and all the tens of thousands of believing Jews zealous of the law and hostile to him and his ministry.
35 It was during this period that Peter came to Antioch and lived at first in unrestrained intercourse with the gentiles, eating with them in consistency with his speech at the conference and with the decrees, also with his own conduct in the case of Cornelius. In the presence of "certain from James" Peter began to vacillate and complied with their prejudices. If Peter, through consideration for the weak conscience, had been yielding a non-essential point, Paul would approve. But his motive was the fear of man. His example not only sanctioned the heresies of the Judaizers but also carried away such believers as Barnabas, and well merited Paul's rebuke.
37 Barnabas had already provoked Paul's indignation by weakly yielding to the influence of Peter and the Judaizers. Possibly he was still smarting under Paul's public rebuke. Paul, on the other hand, always revolted against anything that looked like compromise and weakness.
Though it was impossible for them to longer work together, they evidently make amicable arrangement to divide between them the territory of their former journey.
40 Silas was almost necessary as a companion for Paul. The decrees provided that they should be delivered by both Barnabas and Paul, while Judas and Silas were to confirm them by word of mouth. Now that Barnabas is gone, Paul could hardly deliver the decrees without a second witness, and Silas was the very one for the purpose, for he had the recommendation of
Jerusalem.
40 Paul seems to have had the sympathy of the brethren in Antioch. Nothing is said of their interest in Barnabas and Mark. But when Paul and Silas go, the brethren commend them to God's grace.