Bible Commentaries
Acts 15

Verse 1

Act 15:1

DISPUTE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION SETTLED

Acts 15:1-35.

QUESTION RAISED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA

Acts 15:1

1 And certain men came down from Judaea—Paul and Barnabas had just reported “all things” that God had done for the Gentiles through them, and that he had “opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 14:27.) Now certain ones came down “from Judaea,” or Jerusalem, claiming to have been sent by the apostles at Jerusalem. (Verse 24.) They attempted to close the door that opened to the Gentiles. These brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch with Jewish prejudice and exclusive narrowness. They claimed that the Gentile Christians could not be saved without circumcision. Thus they made the Jewish rite of circumcision a condition of Gentile salvation; they claimed that the church at Jerusalem authorized them to so teach. The church at Antioch was composed of Jew and Gentile converts. (Acts 11:19-20.) This was the place where such a question would be raised; the Jews and Gentiles had not been accustomed to meeting together for worship, except as the Gentiles became proselytes to the Jewish religion. But now in the early church Gentiles who were not proselytes and Jews were brought together in the church. We do not know to what extent this question disturbed the church at Antioch, but from what follows it seems that it involved great issues. Now when these teachers came from Jerusalem and began to teach that the Gentile Christians must be “circumcised” according to “the custom of Moses” or they could not be saved, such teaching would arouse both the Jewish and Gentile portion of the church at Antioch. Hence, the teaching of those from Jerusalem would likely cause dissension.

Verses 1-35

Act 15:1-35

THE PROMISE IS FOR ALL:

LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS

Notes For Lesson Fourteen: Handling Controversy

(Acts 15:1-35)

The many Gentile conversions brought glory to God and joy to the church, but it also created a measure of disagreement and controversy. As the number of Gentile believers grew, so too did the feeling of some of the Jewish Christians that the new converts needed to follow more closely the law of Moses in order to be saved. It soon became necessary for a face-to-face discussion to head off a large-scale division in the church.

Meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-4)

Sometime after returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas ran into some teachers from Judea who had undertaken to visit Gentile churches with the goal of persuading them to adopt circumcision and other Mosaic laws as a necessary and inherent part of Christianity. Unable to persuade these teachers in direct discussions, the Antioch Christians initiated a discussion in Jerusalem. Besides the significance of the issues themselves, this example also illustrates some useful general principles in resolving difficulties.

The dispute in Antioch (Acts 15:1-2) arose because of a rather inevitable question brought on by the growing number of conversions amongst Gentiles. Following the Mosaic law, and especially the rite of circumcision, was ingrained in the minds of the Jews as the only way one could live in order to follow God. Nor should they be criticized for this perspective in its own right, as no one should ever abandon something instituted by God unless God himself says to do so. There is no indication that God opposed the Jewish Christians continuing many of these practices after following Jesus. The problem arose when the Jewish believers desired to extend such practices to the Gentile converts, who had never followed such practices and who had never been directed to do so by God. With two very different perspectives represented, it is no surprise that the direct discussions between Paul and Barnabas and the Judean Christians were not able to resolve the issue. The decision to travel to Jerusalem in order fully to discuss the issue was a good one, as the apostles quickly realized the importance of the issue.

On the way to Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-4), Paul and Barnabas take advantage of every opportunity to share the good news of God’s ministry among the Gentiles. While it is true that some Jewish believers took a good while to appreciate this development, many more of them rejoiced in knowing that the gospel was not for one small corner of the world only, but was being taken to the ends of the earth. Even in Jerusalem itself, and amongst the most tradition-oriented of Jewish Christians, there was rejoicing that the Gentiles were being saved. It was only over how these new believers should live that there was any question.

For Discussion or Study: What kinds of issues might arise among us that would be similar in nature to the circumcision question? Note that this is not as easy a question as it might seem, since we all have difficulty at times distinguishing our own practice from God’s commands. What kinds of difficulties do we often have in making such distinctions? How can this example help us better to make such distinctions?

Discussion in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5-21)

The discussion in Jerusalem about the circumcision issue is now recounted in its essentials. The actual issues involved are few, and are not really that complicated, but it was important for everyone involved in the discussion to consider everything that God was doing. The account of this discussion suggests that those who sought to impose circumcision and also those who felt it was unnecessary were both convinced that they were correct, but that they both were willing to accept God’s will. There is certainly an indication of a fundamental difference of perspective, but not of any threat to initiate a break in fellowship. But what was a real danger was that the teachings of the Judaizers could well have led to continued and widespread confusion and discouragement amongst both Jewish and Gentile believers. The events of Acts 15* took place in approximately AD 50, a year or two after the completion of the first missionary journey.

Notes: (i) While this chapter is popularly known as "The Council of (or at) Jerusalem", the Scriptures do not use the actual word ’council’ to describe it. This is more than just a technical point, because this meeting is never represented as a human decision-making body, but rather as a group of sincere Christians hoping that through honest debate and discussion God’s will might become clear to them all. It is therefore not a proper model to justify a council of human leaders who decide church policy by human will or authority. (ii) Many commentators consider this meeting to be the one that Paul mentions in Galatians 2, but many others point out that the details seem to differ. It is not possible to give a definitive answer to this question, but it does not really matter to the interpretation of the book of Acts, and is only of minor importance in the interpretation of Galatians.

After listening to Paul and Barnabas describe the Gentile churches that had been started, the group who felt that circumcision was a necessary part of Christianity made their claim to that effect (Acts 15:5). Acts tells us that the impetus for this came from the Pharisees, which is not unexpected, given their role at the time as protectors of the Jewish way of life. But it is important to note that these were Christian Pharisees, not those who had rejected the Messiah. Although now part of a church that was not meant to have such party distinctions, they found it hard to get past the many strong habits and preconceptions that they had acquired over the years. But their perspective should not be criticized without qualification, for they were certainly taking the less popular position, and thus were probably quite sincere in their concerns.

Peter’s address is the first detailed part of the discussion that Luke records (Acts 15:6-11). Luke does say that this came after much previous discussion, as the apostles and elders of the church met to consider everything involved in the circumcision issue and related matters. This is important to note, since it means that the Pharisees and other tradition-oriented believers had the opportunity to explain their position. When it is Peter’s turn, he stresses the lesson that he had learned first and had then explained to the church in Acts 11 : that God no longer made any distinction between Jew and Gentile. The purpose of the law was to keep the Jews separate, to make them a distinct people kept clean and holy for God. But, as events at Cornelius’s house dramatically implied, it was now the Spirit who cleansed those whom God called. No longer does a person who wants to follow God need to observe the old Mosaic laws to be clean, because the Spirit comes into each believer’s heart and cleanses him or her. Further, Peter reminds them that law is essentially a yoke too heavy for anyone to bear. Justification by works is at best only temporary, and - as Peter know by practical experience as well as by the lessons God had taught him - even the best of intentions still do not make it possible for anyone to be justified through perfect obedience to God’s commands.

Paul and Barnabas, who seem to have said little for much of the discussion, now speak up simply to support what Peter had said, by reporting the miracles of God that had accompanied their missions amongst the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). Hearing all this, the widely respected James* indicates what he has concluded (Acts 15:13-21). Quoting from the prophet Amos, James realizes that God had always stated that, when the time came to rebuild the ruins of Israel, the Gentiles would be joined to those who bore God’s name. This sudden outreach to the Gentiles should not have been unexpected or unwelcome to anyone who understood the (Old Testament) Scriptures. Since this was clearly from God, James suggests that it makes no sense to make it difficult for the Gentiles who wish to become Christians. He thus makes the very reasonable suggestion that they be asked to follow only a few essential teachings of the law (the specifics of which are discussed in the next section of these notes), and that otherwise they should be welcomed without further constraints.

The early church universally understood this to be the James who was the physical brother of Jesus. Most current commentators also accept this conclusion.

For Discussion or Study: Outline the reasons why some of the Christians would have thought that circumcision was a necessary part of becoming a Christian, and then outline the reasons that Peter and others give against this being a necessity. What common assumptions do both groups share? How did this help in reaching a satisfactory result?

The Circulating Letter (Acts 15:22-35)

It was important not only to reach a good decision in accordance with God’s will, but also to make sure that this conclusion was shared with those who had been exposed to the conflicting teachings about circumcision. Accordingly, the apostles and elders draft a circulating letter, to be distributed by carefully chosen Christians, in order to head off any further controversy or confusion.

In order to communicate the Spirit’s decision (Acts 15:22-23), the apostles and elders chose messengers who would inspire confidence in all of the Christians, regardless of their own perspectives. Two of them were Paul and Barnabas, and they were joined by two Jerusalem Christians, Silas and Judas (or Barsabbas). The letter that they carried was specifically addressed to the Gentile believers, and it addressed them openly as brothers.

The contents of the letter reflect much of what had been discussed in Jerusalem (Acts 15:24-29). The leaders shared their desire to calm the disturbance caused by the Judaizing teachers, and assured the Gentiles that any such teachings were mere personal opinions, not representative of the church as a whole. The letter also indicates that the perspectives it will share represent the unanimous* feelings of the apostles and elders who had met - that is, they are not the result of a mere majority vote or of a particular faction that dominated the discussion, but rather are the truths that the Spirit revealed to everyone involved in the discussion. The decision was reached not because one side out-argued the other, but because their honesty and sincerity made it possible for the Spirit to make clear to all of them what he wanted them to realize.

The NIV simply uses the word "all", which is inadequate in conveying the sense of unanimity. The Greek word means "of one mind", and most other versions translate this rather better than does the NIV.

The actual conclusions are the ones first proposed by James, namely, that the Gentiles would be asked to accept and follow only four particular teachings of the Mosaic law. These did not include circumcision or many other practices that the ancient Jews considered to be integral parts of their law. Further, these conditions were not presented as conditions of salvation, or even as tests of fellowship. Rather, the Gentile Christians were told that they "will do well to avoid these things". In fact, only one of the four directives, the prohibition on sexual intercourse, involves actual sin. In a sense, it may seem unnecessary to have included this one in the letter, since immorality was regularly prohibited in the apostles’ teachings and writings. But because the tolerance of all forms of immorality was so deeply ingrained in the Gentile cultures of the era, it bore mentioning prominently. Not only was immorality a sin in its own right, it also stood in the way of the Jewish and Gentile believers drawing closer to each other. The remaining three directives are primarily for the purpose of eliminating barriers, and all had to do with food. If the Gentiles would abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals, from eating blood, and from eating meat that had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, this would then eliminate the greatest social barriers between Jew and Gentile. Jewish Christians would then be able to eat and visit freely with Gentile believers, without either burdening their own consciences or placing unreasonable burdens on the Gentile Christians.

The message was received in Antioch with joy (Acts 15:30-35). The brothers delivered the encouraging message, and all of them stayed for a time in Antioch to enjoy the fellowship amongst believers. While some of the questions regarding these issues would arise later from time-to-time, the main issues had now been resolved, and the way in which it occurred both does credit to the believers and their humility, and also reflects glory to God for his wisdom.

For Discussion or Study: What was gained by having Silas and Judas join Paul and Barnabas in delivering the letter? Describe in your own words the purpose of the conditions contained in the letter, and the reasons why these were accepted joyfully. What overall lessons do we learn from the way that this difficulty over the law was resolved?

- Mark W. Garner, June 2002

Verses 2-5

Act 15:2-5

PAUL AND BARNABAS SENT TO JERUSALEM

Acts 15:2-5

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension—Paul and Barnabas “tarried no little time” with the church at Antioch; during this time these brethren came down from Jerusalem and insisted that the Gentile Christians be circumcised; Paul and Barnabas opposed them and “had no small dissension and questioning with them.” There seems to have been a very heated argument. “Dissension” comes from the Greek “staseos,” which literally means “strife,” a standing against it; it means an established order or opinion; a strife, one party holding to the established custom, and the other opposing them. “Questioning” comes from “zeteseos,” and means “a seeking” or “examining together, a muual questioning and discussion.” Finally the church appointed “Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them” to go to Jerusalem “unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Paul gives an account of this in Galatians 2:1-10. It seems that Paul suggested their going to Jerusalem. (Galatians 2:1.) It seems that these teachers from Jerusalem had reported that they were contending for circumcision of the Gentiles because the church at Jerusalem had so instructed them. Paul knew that it was best then to go to Jerusalem and to settle the matter, not for himself, but for those who did not know any better. We are told in Galatians 2:1 that Paul took Titus with him. It is usually reckoned that this journey of Paul’s to Jerusalem was his third visit to that city since his conversion, and that it occurred about A.D. 50.

3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church,—The church at Antioch not only, at Paul’s suggestion, requested these brethren to go to Jerusalem, but it assisted them in making the journey by helping to defray expenses and by their prayers and encouragement; they were thus “brought on their way by the church.” They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria by land. It was a journey of about three hundred miles southward along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, through Tyre and Sidon, cities of Phoenicia, and on through Samaria, probably where Philip had preached the gospel, and on to Jerusalem. As they went along the way, and as they had opportunity, they declared “the conversion of the Gentiles,” which “caused great joy unto all the brethren.” The great joy caused to the brethren of Phoenicia and Samaria by the recital of the conversion of the Gentiles shows the general sympathy with Paul and Barnabas.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem,—They left Antioch for Jerusalem to take the matter to “the apostles and the elders,” so when they came to Jerusalem “they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders.” The entire church was interested in the question. We know not how many of the apostles were present, neither do we know how many elders were in the church at Jerusalem. It should be noticed that though the apostles were there with all their apostolic authority, yet they recognized the “elders” of the church there, and took them into consultation with them. It seems that when they arrived they received a hearty welcome and that they lost no time in rehearsing “all things that God had done with them.” Paul and Barnabas implied in their rehearsal that what they had done, it was God doing it through them; therefore, God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision, and that the Jewish brethren ought to accept them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees—These Pharisees believed; they were Christians, but had been converted from the “sect of the Pharisees” to Christianity. The teachers at Antioch who had come down from Jerusalem are not described as Pharisees. Here for the first time we learn that some of the Pharisees had become Christians, and it is fair to imply that those who went out from Jerusalem to Antioch were from among these converted Pharisees. They were bold in their declaration and clear in the statement of the issue. They said: “It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” This brings the issue to the fore; it is whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised.

Verses 6-29

Act 15:6-29

APOSTLES AND ELDERS IN COUNCIL

Acts 15:6-29

6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together—Luke does not mention the “church” as he did in verse 4, but “the apostles and the elders” are mentioned; we know that the church is included here as we learn from verses 12 and 22. The “whole church” was called together to consider this matter with “the apostles and the elders.” The apostles, with their authority, no doubt, took the lead, and thus the church with its elders was trained under the guidance of the apostles. The importance of the matter was recognized and was given due consideration.

7 And when there had been much questioning,—It seems that a very full and free discussion was had; both sides were heard without partiality; this is the only fair way to discuss any matter over which there is a diversity of sentiment. “Questioning” is from the Greek “zeteseos,” and is the same word as used in verse 47. Here it means “debating,” as that is what was had. Some contended for the affirmative, the Gentile Christians should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas with others took the negative of this proposition. After much discussion “Peter rose up” and expressed himself. He referred to the case of Cornelius; he was a Gentile and was converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel by Peter. God had accepted the entire household of Cornelius as Christians; even the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11) had also accepted the Gentiles as Christians without requiring them to be circumcised. Peter reminds the church of this and refreshes their memory, for he says it had been “a good while ago.” According to the best chronology, it had been at least ten years since the conversion of Cornelius, and it had been about twenty years since Pentecost, so the church at this time was about twenty years old. It was fitting for Peter to speak at this time; he had waited until both sides had been heard and now it is his time as an apostle, and with the experience that he had had at the house of Cornelius and the church at Jerusalem, to speak as he did.

8-9 And God, who knoweth the heart,—God had given the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45); this shows that God, who knoweth all things, had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; Peter had related the incident to the church at Jerusalem and the church had accepted the Gentiles as Christians without circumcision (Acts 11:18.) God had made no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, and man should make no distinction. Peter seemed to be somewhat surprised that there should be no difference, but God had made none, and he had to accept that fact. Peter gives an additional thought that both Jews and Gentile were accepted by God on the basis of their faith in Christ; neither Jew nor Gentile was to be accepted as Christians by keeping the law of Moses. Their hearts were purified by faith; anyone who believed in idolatry had an impure heart, and those who believed in Christ, in the sense of accepting Christ, had a pure heart. Both Jew and Gentile had to hear the same gospel, believe the same gospel, repent of their sins, and be buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in a new life, in order to become Christians ; no distinction so far as the terms of remission of sins are concerned; no distinction so far as acceptance to God.

10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God,—Peter puts the matter in an interrogative form and asks, “Why make ye trial of God?” as though God had made a mistake when he gave the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius and accepted them without circumcision. They were refusing to accept that which God had accepted, or they were rejecting those whom God had accepted. They were laying down conditions that God had not imposed on the Gentiles, and placing a yoke upon the Gentiles that even the Jews were not able to bear. No Jew ever kept the law of Moses perfectly ; even those who were now insisting on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians had not kept faithfully the law, yet they wanted to place that yoke upon the Gentile Christians. Peter shows here that they not only opposed God, but they were inconsistent with themselves. The figure of “a yoke” is used here, and is the same that Paul used in Galatians 5:1. Peter had been slow to see this point, as it took a miracle to convince him of the truth of it at Joppa and Caesarea. Peter has made four points that stand out distinctly: (1) he was directed by God to receive the Gentiles, as in the case of Cornelius; (2) God endorsed the reception of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit; (3) faith produced precisely the same effect in both Jew and Gentile; (4) the Jews have no right to put on the Gentiles a yoke which God had not put on them.

11 But we believe that we shall be saved—The salvation which both Jew and Gentile could enjoy came through the grace of God. “Grace” means the unmerited favor of God; the free grace of God was expressed by his sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. The conditions of remission are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commands. Salvation was not to come through the law of Moses, but through Christ. We have in this verse the last recorded words of Peter in the Acts.

12 And all the multitude kept silence;—The church had assembled with its elders and the apostles; now “the multitude kept silence”; the multitude became silent after Peter’s speech; he had profoundly impressed the multitude and had presented such clear and forcible arguments that there was nothing that could be said with profit. Again, the church had learned to respect the apostles when they spoke. Paul and Barnabas now spoke. Here again Barnabas is mentioned before Paul, because he was better known at Jerusalem than Paul. Paul and Barnabas rehearsed “what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Again, Paul and Barnabas give God the praise and honor for all that had been done among the Gentiles. Three times (Acts 14:27 Acts 15:4 Acts 15:12) Paul is described as telling the facts about the work that was done among the Gentiles; the rehearsal of the facts was more powerful than mere argument. God had done wonderful things among the Gentiles, and had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision. The Jewish Christians put themselves in opposition to God when they insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas merely testified to the facts and left the Jewish Christians to make application of them and to draw their own conclusions; there was only one conclusion to draw, and it was in favor of Paul and Barnabas.

13-14 And after they had held their peace,—There had been a general discussion in which all who wished took part; then Peter made a speech and presented invincible arguments; then Paul and Barnabas briefly rehearsed what God had done for the Gentiles through them, with the clear conclusion that God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; now James makes the final speech. This James has been called “James the Just,” and he was considered a representative of the Jewish Christians. The Judaizing teachers possibly counted on him as a champion of their views, for they later made the wrong use of his name against Peter at An-tioch. (Galatians 2:12.) This is the James who was the author of the epistle of James; he was not one of the twelve apostles, but after the death of James (Acts 12:2), the brother of John, he became a leader in the church at Jerusalem. James reviewed the argument made by Peter as to how “God visited the Gentiles” to preach the gospel to them, and “take out of them a people for his name.” James here has reference to Cornelius and his household; they had been called out from among the heathen to be God’s chosen just as Israel was. James clearly sees the hand of God in Peter’s course at Caesarea, and in what Paul and Barnabas had done among the Gentiles.

15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets;—It was startling to the Jewish Christians that God would extend the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles; however, they should have known that the Messiah was to be a universal Savior. The prophets of Israel had foretold of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The prophet Amos is quoted here (Amos 9:11-12) by James, but the quotation is not a literal quotation from the Old Testament; some of the words are changed, but James, by the Holy Spirit, is giving the meaning of the prophecies. While James quotes only one prophet, Amos, yet he uses “prophets” in the plural. Other prophets had foretold the acceptance of the Gentiles. (Isaiah 2:2-4 Isaiah 49:6; Micah 4:1-4.) The interpretation of the quotation given by James is that “the tabernacle of David” had been wrecked, but that it would be rebuilt and that the Gentiles would be admitted into it. The prophecy from Amos speaks first of the fall of the Jewish race, next the promise that God would build a new church on the ruins of the old and gather the Gentiles into it, and finally those who were saved would enjoy salvation only through the Messiah. The picture here is the wrecked tent or tabernacle which was erected was boughs of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, and which was rebuilt annually. “Tabernacle of David” is from the Greek “skenen Daueid,” and is a poetical figure of the throne of David. (2 Samuel 7:12.) In the rebuilding of the spiritual house of David, believers are to come from all nations of the earth. By the figure of a place falling to ruins, the devastated state of the kingdom is represented; the prosperity to be bestowed was to come in the days of the Messiah, and would consist of spiritual blessings, and a kingdom of righteousness would be established by the Messiah and the Gentiles would seek the Lord and become his people.

19-20 Wherefore my judgment is,—James now, speaking by the Holy Spirit, gives his judgment in the matter. It seems that James was acting as chairman of the meeting, and that it was left to him to sum up and conclude the whole matter. He is now ready to do this. The conclusion that James expresses is “that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God.” This decision coincided with the decision that Paul and Barnabas had already reached and had preached. It was against the Judaizing teachers. James’ decision, as expressed, was somewhat in the form of a motion; the question had been discussed and now James moved that the entire church coincide with Paul and Barnabas, and that they write. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. A further admonition of James is that “we write unto them” and give them such help and encouragement as they may need. In this letter James suggests that they “abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.” Four things are here mentioned: (1) pollution of idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; (4) abstain from blood. The words which James uses here denote formal decision sent by special messengers to the Gentile Christians. “Pollutions of idols” means the worship of idols, and especially eating the meats offered unto idols; one who in any form worships an idol is said to be unclean; hence, they should refrain from the pollution of idols. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were common sins among the heathen; these Gentile Christians had left all of these things when they became Christians, and are now exhorted not to return to them. The law of Moses enjoined certain restrictions about the eating of blood and respecting the life of animals; the Gentile Christians are not to be controlled by the law of Moses; they are to observe the general principles of righteousness and holiness.

21 For Moses from generations of old—The law of Moses was read in every synagogue on the Sabbath; there was usually a teacher that interpreted or gave the meaning of the law. Hence, to “preach” Moses was to preach and interpret the law of Moses; so to “preach” Christ is to preach the gospel, or to preach the law of Christ. Wherever there was a synagogue Moses was preached on the Sabbath. There have been different views as to why James made this statement. Some think that James here answers an ob-jection that the Jewish Christians might advance; that is, if such freedom were granted to the Gentiles, the law of Moses would decline in authority; others think that it was not necessary to write these things to Jewish Christians, for they had the law of Moses; a third view regards these words as spoken in the interest of peace and harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It seems that James had reference in a general way to the general practice of the Jews, and it was not necessary to place the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. The Jews had for a long time been taught to respect the law of Moses; they did not have to lose any respect for Moses or for the law, but they were to see that salvation came through Christ, and not through the keeping of the law.

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders,—A unanimous decision was reached, since “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” decided to select some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and there give the decision reached by the church at Jerusalem. We are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and the elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion. This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas and for the truth. However, James was practical, and did not stop with just the speeches and the decision; it must be conveyed to the church at Antioch. While they trusted Paul and Barnabas, yet they followed the wise course in selecting some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and bear the decision as a message to the church at Antioch. So they selected “Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.” Some have thought “Judas called Barsabbas” was a brother of Barnabas, but there is no evidence to this effect. Silas is probably the abbreviated form of Silvanus, who later became one of Paul’s companions in traveling. (1 Peter 5:12.) Judas and Silas were “chief men among the brethren.” Such men would carry weight with the church at Antioch.

23 and they wrote thus by them,—The letter written was brief, yet it was clear and emphatic. The form of the letter shows that “the apostles and the elders” and brethren include “the whole church”; hence, it is a letter from the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The importance of this letter is enhanced in value by the fact that the Jerusalem church was the center of Christianity among the Jews, and the church at Antioch was the center among the Gentiles; this will help to bring together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians in “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” The decision reached affected all Gentile Christians in every country, but only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned. This geographical notice of the Gentile Christians gives some idea as to the effect of the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; the harvest had been great. This also shows the activity of the church at Antioch in preaching the gospel to the regions round about.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us—Recognition is given here of those Judaizing teachers who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch, claiming to have been sent out by the church at Jerusalem; condemnation or denial is made of their being sent by the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they had no apostolic authority for insisting that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised; neither did the church at Jerusalem endorse them. The church at Jerusalem felt in some measure to be responsible for the trouble these teachers had caused the church at Antioch, but now they are repudiated and a correction of their teachings is made. Hence, these teachers went of their own accord and on their own responsibility, and did not represent the church at Jerusalem. Their teaching had subverted the souls of the Gentile Christians. “Subverting” comes from the Greek “anaskeuzo,” and means “to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage”; this is a vivid picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch.

25-26 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord,—So there was a unanimous decision reached. The apostles, elders, and the “whole church” had come to “one accord” about this matter. “Having come to one accord” is from the Greek “geno- menois homothumadon,” and clearly means that the final unity was the result of the private and public talks or discussion which was had on the subject. We are not told whether the Christians from “the sect of the Pharisees” (verse 5), who at first contended that “it is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keepear that all were convinced. Here again we have the order: “Barnabas and Paul,” instead of “Paul and Barnabas.” This is the order that was used before Paul’s first missionary journey, when he became the more prominent of the two. (Acts 11:30 Acts 13:2.) Barnabas in this official letter stands before Paul, because Paul had spent but little time in Jersalem, while Barnabas among the Christians there had for some time been a well-known character and honored leader. The church at Jerusalem recognized the great danger that Paul and Barnabas had suffered, as they are described in this letter as “men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They recognized the courage and heroism of Paul and Barnabas; this fact also proved the sincerity of Paul and Barnabas.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,—Judas and Silas would confirm by word of mouth that which was written in the letter. Here we see another reason for sending Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said in the entire account of Luke of the presence of Titus who went along with Paul and Barnabas. (Galatians 2:1-3.) Judas and Silas could not only confirm what was written, but they could represent the church at Jerusalem. They would testify to the genuineness of the letter and would strengthen the decision that had been reached; their presence and testimony would have a good effect also on the Gentile Christians.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,—Here the authority of the Holy Spirit accompanies the decision written in the letter. This showed that the decision reached was the will of God, and that those who so expressed themselves were expressing the will of God. The decision was not merely man’s decision or opinion, but was the inspired will of God. No burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians other than what the Holy Spirit placed upon them. Only such “necessary things” were required by the Holy Spirit. The restrictions named did constitute some burden, but it was necessary for their salvation. Some think that these “necessary things” were only “necessary” for the times in which they lived, but are not necessary for Christians today; however, it seems that these things are as necessary today as they were at that time.

29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,—James had mentioned these things in his speech. (Verse 20.) They now write them in the letter which is to be sent. In his speech James stated that they should “abstain from the pollutions of idols,” but now it is written that they should “abstain from things sacrificed to idols.” Some discussion has been had as to the meaning of abstaining “from blood.” Some think that it means to abstain from murder; others, to abstain from the eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. It seems clear here that “the blood” is the blood of animals and that it should not be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10-15.) The heathen caught the blood of the animal in a vessel when the animal was slain and ate it as food; this was not allowed to the Jew for the reasons assigned in Leviticus 17:13-14 and Deuteronomy 12:16 Deuteronomy 12:23. God had forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood. (Genesis 9:4.) Then it was incorporated in the law of Moses, and seems to be forbidden of Christians today. “Things strangled” means that they were to refrain from eating the flesh of animals that had been strangled. “Strangled” comes from the Greek “pniktou,” and means “life taken without shedding the blood”; hence, animals strangled had the blood left in the body, and in eating the flesh one would eat the blood. They were to keep themselves from fornication, or live chaste lives. The letter concludes that if the Gentile Christians would observe these things it would be well with them, and then concludes with “fare ye well.” This comes from the Greek “valete,” and means “be ye strong.” This was a common way of closing a letter.

Verses 30-35

Act 15:30-35

DECISION RECEIVED AT ANTIOCH

Acts 15:30-35

30 So they, when they were dismissed,—It seems that there was some formal dismissal or sending of Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, away from Jerusalem. We are not told how they journeyed from Jerusalem to Antioch, but they probably went through Phoenicia and Samaria and comforted the disciples on the way by telling them of the decision at Jerusalem. This would encourage other Christians to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and it would encourage the Gentiles to accept the gospel. When they arrived at Antioch, they “gathered the multitude together,” or the church was assembled, and “they delivered the epistle.” It should be noted that the message is not called “a judgment,” “a sentence,” “an order,” or “a decree”; it is simply called “the epistle.” This was the first or beginning of the New Testament scripture, the first of the epistles; it was addressed to Christians in Antioch, in Syria, and Cilicia; later other epistles were written. Since this one has been incorporated in the book of Acts, emphasis has not been given to it that probably would have been given had it been separate and independent from the history in Acts.

31 And when they had read it,—There was a formal sending away from the church at Jerusalem and a formal reception of these brethren at Antioch. It seems that there was no delay in gathering the church together at Antioch and reading the epistle. It gave great consolation to the church at Antioch. “Consolation” comes from the Greek “paraklesei,” which means “encouragement” ; consolation and exhortation are very close akin. There was great rejoicing at Antioch, and especially among the Gentile Christians there.

32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets,—The first mention of Judas and Silas (verse 22) classes them as “chief men among the brethren”; now they are spoken of as “prophets.” “Prophetai” is the same word used for Paul and Barnabas and Agabus (Acts 11:27-30) ; it means “for speakers for Christ.” These brethren were useful while at Antioch, for they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them in the faith. It was a happy time with the church at Antioch to have this question settled, for it had given much trouble.

33 And after they had spent some time there,—We do not know how long Judas and Silas remained at Antioch, but long enough to encourage the church there. It seems that they were dismissed in a formal way as they were received in a formal way. “Dismissed in peace” was a formal dismissal. (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50 Luke 8:48; Acts 16:36.) Probably Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem to give an account to the church there, but Silas soon returned to Antioch and he and Paul became fellow workers.

34 But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.—This verse has been omitted by the revisers because it is not found in the older manuscripts and in many of the chief versions. It was evidently a marginal insertion to explain how Silas was conveniently at hand (verse 40) for Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.

35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch,—Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch. As they tarried in Antioch they taught and preached “the word of the Lord.” During the sojourn of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch the dispute took place between Paul and Peter as related in Galatians 2:11-16. Luke omits this episode, but relates the dispute between Paul and Barnabas. (Verse 39.) “Teaching” means to instruct; hence, they instructed the church. While “preaching” means the proclamation of the gospel, it is sometimes applied to evangelists who proclaim the gospel to aliens. “Teaching” is expounding the word of the Lord, while “preaching” is evangelizing or proclaiming the gospel. There were many other teachers and preachers in Antioch.

Verses 36-41

Act 15:36-41

PAUL’S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY

Acts 15:36 to Acts 18:22

PAUL SELECTS SILAS

Acts 15:36-41

36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas,—Paul takes the initiative as the leader; he had publicly rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) and is anxious to go back to the fields where he has planted churches. He desired to return and “visit the brethren in every city” where he and Barnabas had preached “the word of the Lord.” He was anxious to see how the young churches were getting along, and to give them any further instructions that they might need. We must know that the “some days” and the “some time” that expired while the church was busy in the development of leaders and teachers kept up the zeal of the church. A commonly accepted chronology of Acts makes the interval between the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey somewhat more than a year.

37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John—Barnabas wished and willed to take along with them John Mark, his cousin. Mark had started with them on the first tour, but had turned around at Perga (Acts 13:13) and returned to Jerusalem. It was to the house of Mary the mother of Mark that Peter went after his release from prison (Acts 12:12).

38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him—Barnabas had resolved to take Mark with him, and may have spoken to him and arranged with him to go, but Paul thought it was not best to take Mark since he “withdrew from them from Pamphylia,” and did not continue with them on their first journey. Here was a difference in judgment; we are not to understand that the Holy Spirit guided either one of these good men, as it was a mere difference in human judgment as to what was expedient in the matter. Since Mark had turned back on the first journey, Paul was not willing to risk taking with them as a helper one who had left them in the midst of the work on their first journey.

39 And there arose a sharp contention,—“Contention” here comes from the Greek “paroxusmos,” and is our word for “paroxysm” in English; it means to sharpen as of a blade, and of the spirit. It seems that the “Son of consolation,” Barnabas, lost his temper in a dispute over his cousin, and Paul uses sharp words toward his benefactor and friend. It is frequently the case that little irritations of life give occasion for violent explosions. Some think that the incident between Paul and Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) was known to Mark, and that Mark took sides with Peter; hence, Paul was not so kindly disposed to take Mark with them; he would have been a hindrance to the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles had he gone with them and held to the view that the Gentiles should be circumcised. However, we do not know any more than is recorded here. The result of the contention determined Paul and Barnabas to separate and each follow his own independent course. We know that Paul held no malice toward Barnabas and Mark. Barnabas is not mentioned again in Acts, but both Barnabas and Mark are mentioned by Paul in a way that showed confidence had been restored, for Paul speaks of them in warm commendation in his letters to Corinth, Colosse, and Timothy. (1 Corinthians 9:6; Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11.) “Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus.” Cyprus was the home of Barnabas; this was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on their first tour. Paul’s mention of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows that Barnabas was busy in the work of the ministry, and the later mentions of Mark show that Paul had confidence in him and commended him very highly.

40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,—Silas had returned to Jerusalem with Judas after his visit to Antioch, but now we find him back in Antioch. Paul was commended by the brethren to the grace of God which shows that his selection of Silas was approved by the church at Antioch. It seems that the sympathy of the church at Antioch was with Paul rather than with Barnabas in the contention between Paul and Barnabas. Silas was a suitable companion for Paul; he had influence in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22) and was apparently a Roman citizen also. (Acts 16:37.) Silas, or Silvanus, is mentioned in the epistles by Paul and Peter. (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Peter 5:12.) It is remarkable that Peter mentions both Mark and Silas as with him at the same time. (1 Peter 5:12-13.)

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia,—Paul and Silas went forth on Paul’s second missionary tour to confirm the churches and to establish other churches. They are to further the cause of Christ especially among the Gentiles. It is interesting to know that Barnabas went to his native Cyprus, and Paul went to his native Cilicia, each to regions familiar from childhood. Paul and Silas would have to go through a part of Syria in order to reach Cilicia if they traveled by land. The letter from the church at Jerusalem to the Gentile Christians would be of special interest to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, as it was addressed to the Christians in these provinces. (Acts 15:23.) The reading of this letter would confirm the churches in these sections, but the presence of Paul and Silas would have great influence on the churches.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 15

• · From where did certain men come?

• · What Jewish ordinance did they advocate?

• · W this on the basis of national requirement?

• · What did they say this ordinance was necessary for?

• · Who disputed with them?

• · Why was it right for them to have a dispute?

• · Who are "they" in 2nd verse?

• · Tell what was determined upon.

• · Why go up to these men?

• · By what society were they sent on this mission?

• · On the way what did they do among the people?

• · What caused the joy of the Samaritans?

• · Who received them at Jerusalem?

• · What sect first raised protest?

• · State the present profession of these people.

• · To this what did they demand should be added?

• · Who had charge of this meeting?

• · What congregation was in authority?

• · Was this a Council of churches?

• · Who was the chief speaker?

• · Where is the history of that appointment?

• · What testimony did God give the Gentiles?

• · How much difference shown between them and Jews ?

• · By what were the hearts purified?

• · In what part of Moses’ law is this found?

• · How might they here tempt God?

• · Through what must all classes be saved?

• · Who were the next speakers?

• · State the subject of their remarks.

• · Name the next speaker.

• · To whom does he refer as Simeon?

• · What words does James say agree with Simeon?

• · How does all this affect the present controversy?

• · Whom does he advise not to trouble?

• · What would he have the Gentiles instructed to do?

• · Would this result in neglect to law of Moses?

• · How was all this advice received by the hearers?

• · What did they arrange to do?

• · State what was to be sent to Antioch.

• · Tell what teaching they disavowed.

• · How public was their decision?

• · What did they say of Barnabas and Paul?

• · For what purpose were the other men sent?

• · What restrictions were laid upon the Gentiles?

• · Have those re3trictions been released?

• · Was the letter delivered to private persons?

• · How did the epistle impress the church?

• · What did Judas and Silas do to endorse the move?

• · Who also preached the word here at this time?

• · State the proposal Paul made to Barnabas.

• · What third party was considered?

• · Who was for and who against?

• · How did it finally come out?

• · Did Paul and Barnabas teach different doctrines?

Acts Chapter Fifteen

Ralph Starling

Certain ones from Judea came to say

Without circumcision Gentiles can’t be saved.

After much discussion they all agreed.

Go to Jerusalem for the apostles and elder’s decree.

After the apostles and elders had considered,

Peter stood up and a powerful speech he delivered.

He reminded them about his visit with Cornelius.

That God is no repecter of persons among us.

Quietly they listened to the work of Barnabas and Saul.

James stood up and had them to recall.

The prophets had spoken for them to observe

And had written that all this would occur.

With this evidence their decision was,

Trouble them not for it is a good cause,

But we do ask and strongly maintain,

From idols and such they should refrain.

Returning to Antioch the multitude gathered,

And the epistle from Jerusalem was delivered.

When they heard they rejoiced for the consolation,

For this should solved this difficult situation.

Not that a solution was found about the matter,

Paul and Barnabas said it was time to travel.

Barnabas wanted John but Paul disagreed,

So Paul took Silas and all left pleased.