Deeper Commentary
ACTS CHAPTER 15
15:1
But some men came down from Judea and taught the
brothers: Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses-
“Custom” is Gk. ethos. This is a major problem in missionary
work: the existing believers tend to expect that converts will not only
accept the Gospel but also the ethos and culture of their existing
community. And this is where this ancient argument about circumcision has
so much to teach modern missions.
You cannot be saved- The very same Greek phrase is used by
Paul when he calls out in urgency during the storm: “Except these abide in
the ship, you cannot be saved” (Acts 27:31). Surely Luke’s record
is making a connection; the legalists taught that it was time to quit the
rest of the community unless they got their way, for the sake of their
eternal future; and Paul responds by teaching that our salvation depends
upon us pulling together against the desperate situation we find ourselves
in. It’s as if the salvation of Christ’s body depends upon it staying
together. As time went on in the first century, the gap between the Jewish
and Gentile elements, the right and the left wing, the legalists and the
libertines, got ever wider. The tension got stronger. But nobody won. The
Jewish element returned to the Law, and forgot all about the saving grace
of Jesus. The Gentile element mixed even more with the world and its
philosophies, and forgot the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They
ended up formulating blasphemous doctrines like the trinity, which nobody
with any awareness of the Jewish foundation of the Father and Son could
possibly have entertained. And so the faith was lost, until it was revived
again in those groups who again interpreted Christianity in terms of “the
hope of Israel”.
15:2
And Paul and Barnabas argued and debated with
them; consequently Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed
to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders to resolve this
question- “Argued” is far too mild a translation. The word is
always used elsewhere about major riot, specifically of rioting caused by
the Jews. This is how deeply held is the belief that converts must conform
to the pre-existing ethos and culture of the existing Christian community.
From our perspective and distance, the argument seems so unnecessary, and
the Biblical evidence clear as daylight that circumcision is not required
for entry to the new covenant. Many of our fiercely debated divisive
issues are looked at in the same way by converts living far removed from
our place and culture; and believers of other ages would look at them
likewise.
15:3
Therefore, being sent on their way by the church,
they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion
of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the believers-
Given our notes on :1, this is a true sign of spiritual maturity: to
rejoice in the accession of others to our community of faith, when the
newcomers are of a radically different ethos and culture to our own.
"Great joy" is a phrase used four times by Luke; it was a characteristic
of the early church.
15:4 And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the
church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all things that
God had done through them- This is intentionally similar to the
report about their arrival at the Antioch ecclesia in 14:27: "And when
they had come and had gathered the church together, they reported all that
God had done through them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the
Gentiles". The careful repetition of event and report in Acts 10 and 11
gives the impression that Peter likewise carefully reported to the elders.
They were all under the deep sense that God was working through them; no
preacher is to be praised for themselves. We are all instruments and being
used by the Father. We are absolutely nothing of ourselves.
In Acts 15 the representatives of the ecclesias reported to the whole
church at Jerusalem, not just the elders. There seems to have been a
series of meetings: initially, the group from Antioch who raised the
problems being discussed met with the elders, who met together in a second
meeting to consider it all, involving “the whole assembly… the whole
church” (:6,12,22). Then there was perhaps a third meeting where “the
whole assembly” was also present. And this is why “the apostles and elders
with the whole church” (Acts 15:22) agreed a solution. It wasn’t
a top down decision imposed upon the congregation. They all participated.
This parallel between elders and the assembly is even found in the Old
Testament- e.g. “Let them exalt him also in the assembly of the people,
And praise him in the assembly of the elders” (Ps. 107:32). The
“assembly of the people” and that of the elders is paralleled.
15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees who believed, saying: It is needful to circumcise them, and to
charge them to keep the law of Moses- One of the major themes
of Acts is how right from the beginning, there was a struggle within the
body of believers. And Paul’s letters repeatedly address the problem. The
Jewish believers polarised around the Jerusalem ecclesia, and tended
towards a keeping of the Law of Moses. They couldn’t really accept that
Gentiles could be saved, and saw themselves as a sect of Judaism (“the
sect of the Nazarenes”). They were called “the circumcision party” (Acts
11:2), and “the sect of the Pharisees-who-believe-in-Jesus” (15:5). The
Lord had foretold that His true people would soon be thrown out of the
synagogues and persecuted by the Jews, just as they had persecuted Him.
But these brethren so accommodated themselves to Jewish thinking that this
didn’t happen. However we cannot but be impressed that some amongst the
Lord's sworn enemies, the Pharisees, came to believe in Him. His
hopefulness for them therefore paid off [we recall his hope that the cured
leper could make a witness to the priests, Lk. 5:14]; whereas we would
likely have given up with them as hopeless cases. There were very few
Pharisees, relatively speaking; 5000 at the most and maybe as few as 1000.
That a significant number became Christians therefore shows the power of
the Lord's example, and reflects quite some humility amongst these men. So
let's not think that their legalism about circumcision reflects total
unspirituality amongst them.
Ironically, the Greek word for ‘heresy’ is the very word used to
describe those divisions / ‘sects’ which should not be amongst us
(see its usage in Acts 15:5; 24:5). To divide the Lord’s body is itself a
heresy; and yet it is so often done in order to protect His body,
supposedly, from heresy. Yet the difference between the heresy and the
heretic is often fudged. The person gets attacked rather than their
beliefs. So often we’ve seen this happened. A brother may, e.g., have
views of the interpretation of prophecy which are found obnoxious by some.
Yet the criticism of him will tend to get personal; his character is
besmirched, because it’s felt that this is justified because he
[supposedly] has ‘heretical’ views.
Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes (John the Baptist’s followers) were
all converted into Christianity (Acts 6:7; 15:5; 19:1-5). There is no
specific statement that they dropped all their previous understandings;
indeed Acts 15:5 shows that there were Christians who still called
themselves “Pharisees”. The uniting and defining feature was their common
acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, baptism into Him and commitment to Him.
The “one faith” referred to the believers’ faith in one and the same
person- the one Lord, Jesus (Eph. 4:4-6), rather than only one set of
doctrinal propositions about Jesus being “the faith” and all else being
apostate. Given the breadth of doctrinal belief within the synagogue
system, it’s highly significant that the Lord assumed His followers would
remain within that system until they were cast out. He established no
principle of leaving a community because one disagrees with some of their
theological tenets. He in fact taught the opposite; that there is no guilt
by association by such things, and His emphasis was on the heart and human
behaviour being transformed. It seems to me a romanticizing of the New
Testament evidence to suggest that the early church was totally
doctrinally united, but was soon fractured by doctrinal declension from a
specific set of doctrines and interpretations which were set in stone by
the apostles. Rather the amazing unity of the church was and is remarkable
in that it was achieved despite and in the face of those
differences. What split the church was fleshly behaviour, which in turn
utilized doctrinal differences to justify the various divisions.
15:6 And the apostles and the elders gathered together to consider
this matter- There is a distinction made between "the whole church"
and "the apostles and the elders" (:22). The issues were of such a nature
that they required mature discussion and decision making, but the outcome
of the deliberations was shared with and agreed by "the whole church".
There are some spiritual issues which it is not appropriate to as it were
put to the decision of mass democracy. The resulting letter was signed by
"the apostles and elders and brethren" (:23). The idea of a private
meeting of the apostles and elders may fit Paul's account of the meeting
in Gal. 2:2, where he says he put the matters "privately to them that were
of reputation", and not publicly.
15:7 And when there had been much debate- Peter impetuously
would have wanted to state his highly significant personal experience in
this matter; but he wisely and humbly curbed himself. Although Peter had
clearly been the leader of the very early church, he seems now to be
eclipsed by James; and although he was "chosen" by God out of all the
other apostles to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles, yet those same
'senior brethren' are described as 'choosing' [the same Greek word]
brethren other than Peter to be involved in this work of incorporating the
Gentiles (:22,25). A lesser man than Peter would not have taken well to
losing the leadership; he spent the rest of his life as a humble pastor,
perhaps of a very small group, and according to the Lord's own prediction,
died a violent death.
Peter rose up and said to them: Brothers, you know
that a good while ago- But it was not so long ago. Perhaps he
was trying to give the impression that the Gentile circumcision question
had been settled far back in time and there was no need to be raising it.
But that is a typical political tactic- and it's not the only example
here. This is why the Council of Jerusalem ultimately failed, with Paul
later writing advice quite contrary to the agreements reached. There
simply wasn't total honesty about the positions held, and whilst on one
hand the factions were united by a common acceptance of Jesus as Messiah,
the issues added to that by the legalists were such that true unity was
never going to be possible. And the same scenario has been worked out
multiple times, even if the exact issues and contexts differ.
God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the
Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe- Again,
the "by" reflects how Peter saw himself as merely an agent, an instrument
in God's hands.
15:8- see on Acts 26:22.
And God, who knows the heart- The only other time these words
occur is on the Lord's lips in Lk. 16:15, warning the Pharisees that God
knows their hearts. And Peter is saying these words to Pharisees who now
had believed in Jesus (15:5). He's reminding them, perhaps, of who they
had been, of what corrupt hearts they had once had. The Lord had known all
about that, but worked to accept them and draw them in to His fellowship.
And the same Lord knew the hearts of sincere Gentiles, and was seeking to
save them too.
Did bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did to us- This is
legal language. It's as if God is being called as a witness, and the
exhibit provided is the fact that He gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentile
converts as a sign of their acceptance- before they were even baptized,
and without requiring their circumcision. But who, then, was the judge?
The brethren there present at that meeting. And the whole question was
therefore wisely presented by Peter as effectively judging God. And in
fact that is what any of us are doing by questioning which believers in
Christ are acceptable with God. We are relegating Him to a witness, and
placing ourselves in His place as judges. This idea is continued in :10:
"Why do you now put God to the test?", the Greek meaning to examine or
scrutinize. This would then continue the legal metaphor- with the
suggestion that it is quite inappropriate to examine the exhibit of God's
acceptance of Gentiles in this way.
15:9 And he made no
distinction between us and them- The same word was used when
Peter was told to go with the Gentile visitors "without doubting" (10:20;
11:12), i.e. making no distinction between Jew and Gentile.
Cleansing their hearts by faith- This may be a comment upon
their receipt of the Holy Spirit (:8). Whilst their speaking in languages
was an outward sign of the Spirit's operation, the essence of the gift of
the Holy Spirit refers to internal cleansing (see on 2:38). Their hearts
were cleansed by the gift of the Spirit- on the basis of their faith,
not their circumcision. Peter had been told that he was not to make any
difference between clean and unclean as defined by Moses, because God had
now cleansed the unclean (s.w. 10:15; 11:9). Clearly the unclean animals
he had seen represented the Gentiles.
15:10
Therefore, why do you now put God to the test-
There is the possible suggestion in Acts 15:10 that God was
‘tempted’ to re-enstate the law of Moses, or parts of it, in the first
century, seeing that this was what so many of the early Christians desired
to keep. That God is so eager to work with us should in itself be a great
encouragement. Or the Greek can mean that they were testing or
scrutinizing God inappropriately. See on :8 Bare them witness.
Putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?- The Lord
Jesus came to place a light yoke upon His followers. Not only were the
Judaist brethren acting in the place of the Lord Jesus by putting a yoke
on others, rather than bearing it themselves; but the yoke they were
placing was heavy and unbearable. A yoke makes the burden lighter by
sharing it with others who are under the yoke. The fellowship requirement
[in this case, circumcision] was therefore a yoke. The Lord's yoke was
light in that His fellowship is and was open, and not based upon meeting
legalistic requirements.
15:11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the
Lord Jesus, in the same way as them- Note that Peter cried out “Lord,
save me!” when most men in that situation would have simply cried out
“Save me!”. But his grasp of the Lordship of the One he followed inspired
faith. If He was truly Lord, He was capable of all things. “Lord, save
me!” was a call uttered in a moment of weakness. His “sinking” (Mt. 14:30)
is described with the same word used about condemnation at the last day
(Mt. 18:6), and yet Peter in his preaching persuades condemned men to do
just the same: to call on the Lord in order to be saved (Acts
2:21,40,47; 4:12; 11:14). He invited all men to enter into the weakness
and desperation which he had known on the water of Galilee, and receive a
like unmerited salvation. And when he tells his sheep that the righteous
are “scarcely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18) he surely writes with memories of that
same gracious deliverance. And so now here in discussing ecclesial
problems he points out that all of us have had a similar salvation, and
should act with an appropriate inclusiveness of our brethren.
Grace, charis, basically means a gift. The gift of the Holy
Spirit to the Gentiles was the means of their salvation. The reference is
not therefore to the visual manifestations of that gift in miraculous
terms; for those died out. But the gift / grace of the Lord was the basis
of salvation. It is therefore not only available today, but deeply
necessary for salvation; for without the spirit of Christ "we are none of
His".
15:12 And all the crowd kept silent as they listened to Barnabas and
Paul relating what signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles
through them- This could mean that the crowd were not so silent when
listening to Peter. The miracles performed by the Lord through Barnabas
and Paul were also "signs"- of His acceptance of the Gentiles. It is a
common theme in Acts that the Spirit worked miracles in order to
demonstrate the acceptance of the Gentiles.
15:13
And after they finished speaking- God
seems to have recognized with pleasure the degree to which Paul modelled
his life on John, in that Paul's experiences of life were over-ruled to
have connections with those of John. These connections simply could not
have been engineered by Paul; e.g. the way in which they both died in
prison at the behest of a crazy, woman-influenced despot. The Spirit also
seems to make connections between John and Paul in the manner in which it
describes them (e.g. Lk. 1:14 = Acts 15:13; 13:52; Lk. 1:15 = Acts 9:17;
13:9; Lk. 3:18 = Acts 13:15-19; Jn. 1:7,8,15 = Acts 23:11; 26:22; Jn. 3:27
= 1 Cor. 2:8-16). And the Spirit in Acts 19:18 seems to portray Paul in
the language of John: "they came (to Paul) and confessed, and shewed their
deeds"- just as men had to John.
James replied, saying- A good case can be made that James was
written as a follow up to the Council of Jerusalem- there are some marked
similarities [James 2:5 = Acts 15:13; James 2:7 = Acts 15:17; James 1:27 =
Acts 15:29]. See on 15:23 Greeting.
Brothers, listen to me- The AV and some manuscripts add "Men
and brethren". This could refer to the addressing of both the entire
church ("men"), and the elders ("brethren"). Throughout Acts 15 we are
reminded that the decisions reached were taken by the church congregation
and the elders- rather than elders imposing a position upon the
congregation.
15:14
Simeon has related how
first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name-
The conversion of Cornelius was certainly understood as the sign that the
Gentiles were to be accepted. This would imply that Cornelius was the
first public Gentile conversion by the apostles, which would mean that the
Ethiopian eunuch was either a Jew or a proselyte effectively counted as a
Jew. After all, he was reading Isaiah in Hebrew, having visited Jerusalem
on pilgrimage, when Philip preached Christ to him. It is Luke who three
times records that the ministry of the Lord Jesus had been God visiting
His people Israel (Lk. 1:68,78; 7:16 cp. Acts 7:23- God visited Israel to
redeem them through Moses). No other evangelist records this. Now he is
making the point that God was visiting the Gentiles. This did not remain
with Paul as some mere theological nicety. The same word is used of how
straight away, he decided to go and visit the Gentile converts (15:36).
God's visitation of man in Christ quite simply means that we literally go
visit others, in pastoral and preaching work. We have mentioned how the
letter of James appears to be on one hand an extended commentary upon the
Acts 15 decisions, which James had a major part in. His comment on
'visiting' is that we should "visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction, and to keep unspotted from the world" (James 1:27). The
"unspotted from the world" would then be his form of the agreement made
that Gentiles could be accepted but they must keep "unspotted from the
world" by avoiding the fornication and idolatry of the world. James would
therefore specifically have in mind 'visiting' Gentile widows;
and we recall that the issue of discriminating against Greek speaking
widows was one of the issues his church had faced in Acts 6:1. Again,
God's visitation of men, seeking to take out a people for His Name, must
be reflected in our reaching out to others in practice, both materially
and spiritually.
15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets- There was a
'symphony' [Gk.] between Biblical revelation and the position they were
being led to adopt; and there is nothing more comforting and beautiful
than to know that a position is solidly underpinned in Bible teaching and
Biblical precedent.
As it is written- In Am. 9:11 LXX.
15:16 After this things I
will return- This is hard to interpret; the idea seems to be that
after the crucifixion, God 'departed' for a time but now was returning to
men in calling the Gentiles.
And I will build again the tabernacle of David
which is fallen- Not the temple of Solomon, although the
language of rebuilding is relevant to a temple rather than to a tent. "In
that day (of the future Kingdom- v.14) will I raise up the tabernacle of
David that is fallen" (Amos 9:11)- a clear future Kingdom prophecy, but
quoted about the building up of the first century church in Acts 15:14-16.
And I will build again the ruins of it- He is surely saying
that because the house of David has been rebuilt, therefore it is now O.K.
to help the Gentiles “seek after the Lord”. James perceived that firstly
the Gospel must go to the house of David, the Jews, and once they had
responded, then it would go to the Gentiles. Perhaps the Lord had the same
principle in mind when He bad His preachers to not [then] preach to
Gentiles but instead [at that stage] concentrate on preaching to the house
of Israel (Mt. 10:5). Yet the primary fulfilment of Amos 9 is clearly in
the last days- then, after Israel have been sifted in the sieve of
persecution amongst the Gentiles in the latter day holocaust, the
tabernacle of David will again be ‘rebuilt’, the Gentiles will turn to the
Lord, and then “the ploughman shall overtake the reaper… the mountains
shall drop sweet wine… and I will bring again the captivity of my people
Israel… and I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be
plucked up out of their land” (Am. 9:13-15). Surely what we are being told
is that there must be a repeat of what happened in the first century. What
happened then, in the repentance of a minority in Israel, the spread of
the Gospel to the world and then the Lord’s ‘coming’ in AD70… this must
all be repeated on a far greater scale. Thus some in Israel must repent in
the last days, after the pattern of the 1st century. This will bring about
the great latter day gathering in of the Gentiles at the establishment of
the Kingdom, when the whole Gentile world will seek to come up to Zion
(Is. 2:3; 19:23; 11:10; 51:4,5; 60:3,11; 66:20; Zech. 8:21).
And I will raise it up- An apparent reference to the
resurrection of Jesus. He had spoken of His resurrection as a rebuilding
of the temple (Jn. 2:19,20).
A note is perhaps necessary about how the NT writers quoted from
the LXX. Because often it appears they don’t quote exactly from the LXX
text. The classic example would be the way Amos 9:11,2 is quoted in Acts
15:16-18. The argument of James actually hinges on the LXX reading as
opposed to the Hebrew [Masoretic] text reading. ‘All the nations’ were to
have God’s Name called upon them, whereas Is. 63:19 describes the Gentiles
as people upon whom God’s Name had not [then] been called. Yet this
‘quotation’ is actually a merger of the Amos passage with several others
(Is. 45:21; Jer. 12:15; Hos. 3:5). That’s why James introduces the
quotation with the comment that he is quoting “the prophets” (plural). The
quotation is more like an interpretation of the text- which was how the
Jews were used to interpreting the OT texts. Their principle of
exposition, called gezera shawa, linked together Bible texts
which used the same language. One of the texts which James incorporates
into his ‘quotation’ is Jer. 12:16 LXX, which speaks of how converted
Gentiles will be “in the midst of my people”. Yet this very phrase occurs
several times in Lev. 17 and 18, where we have the commands for how the
Gentiles who lived amongst Israel should behave (Lev. 17:8,10,12,13;
18:26). They were told that there were four areas where their lifestyle
had to conform to Jewish practice. And these are the very four areas, in
the same order, which James asks the Gentile Christians to obey! Clearly,
then, the decree of Acts 15, commanding the Gentile Christians to e.g. not
eat blood, had as its context how Gentile Christians should live ‘in the
midst of’ a Jewish Christian ecclesia. This is the limitation of the
context. From this little exercise in exposition we learn how carefully
and intricately the early brethren expounded the OT. Yes, they used the
LXX, but they used it in such a way as to bring out practical points,
searching always for Bible precedents for the situations they found
themselves in. They set us quite some example, especially considering that
James, the Lord’s brother, would have been a manual worker and artisan as
the Lord was; perhaps he was scarcely literate. And yet he reached such
heights of exposition and wisdom purely from a simple love of God’s word
and attention to its detail. See on Jn. 13:18.
15:17 So that the residue of
mankind may seek after the Lord- The remnant of men, a reference
to the remnant of Israel who would accept Jesus. This group are
distinguished from "And all the Gentiles".
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name- Those who called
upon themselves His Name by baptism into it. The tense is chosen to maybe
reflect how God already knows His people and had already called the
Gentile converts by His Name. This was encouragement to the preachers to
go out and fulfil His work with the Gentiles which He had already
potentially enabled. This sense is confirmed by the comment in :18 that
"[God] makes these things known from of old". He is now making them known
["makes"], but they had already been long planned. This encourages us to
preach to the Gentiles “upon whom my name is [Amos says ‘has already
been’] called”. The Name is called upon us by baptism; yet in prospect, in
potential, the Name has already been called upon the whole world. But it
is for us to go and convert them. This explains why Paul is spoken of as
having been a convert before he actually was. Paul was as an ox bound to a
yoke, kicking against the goads. But it was as if he was already bound
into Christ’s light yoke. He wrote that he bore in his body the marks of
the Lord Jesus. He seems to be alluding to the practice of branding
runaway slaves who had been caught with the letter F in their forehead,
for fugitivus. His whole thinking was dominated by this awareness
that like Jonah he had sought to run, and yet had by grace been received
into his Master’s service. But the figure implies that he already was a
slave of Jesus at the time of his ‘capture’ in conversion.
15:18 Said the Lord, who
makes these things known from of old- See on :17. "Of old" is
literally "From the beginning of the age". The idea was that God's plan
for the Gentiles was evident, reading between the lines, right from the
beginning of His "age" of work with Israel.
15:19 Therefore my judgment is that- The legal language of a
judge arising to give a verdict. This is in line with Peter's earlier
warning not to have God as the provider of witness and to judge Him
wrongly; see on :8.
We do not trouble- But the Judaizer brethren did 'trouble' the
Gentile believers (:24). Later references in the NT to the converts being
"troubled" may well refer to the activities of these Judaizers (Acts 17:8;
2 Cor. 4:8; 7:5; Gal. 1:7; 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7; 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:14).
Those from among the Gentiles that turn to God-
Seeing there were few atheists in the first century, we wonder why he
doesn't say 'turn to Christ'. He was speaking to Jews, and was using
Judaism's language of a Gentile becoming a proselyte and 'turning to
[Israel's] God'. But he is saying that becoming a proselyte now meant
baptism into Christ, rather than attempting to keep Mosaic laws and
visiting the temple in Jerusalem.
15:20 But
that we write to them, that they abstain- The word is elsewhere
used, probably in allusion to this agreement, about abstaining from
idolatry, fleshly lusts and immorality (1 Thess. 4:3; 5:22; 1 Pet. 2:11).
I suggest therefore that all the prohibitions were of a moral nature. To
eat non-kosher food is not an issue of immorality; so my sense is that
this must be understood as part of a prohibition here against involvement
in idol worship. It's not right for a young unmarried couple to sleep with
each other before marriage, but I don't think "fornication" as used here
has that in view. Rather are all these things part of idol rituals-
fornication would specifically referred to the use of temple prostitutes
as part of the worship rituals. Fornication and the blood laws were
therefore elaborations upon "the pollutions of idols". So we could read it
as meaning: "Abstain from the pollutions of idols: [i.e.] from
fornication, from what is strangled and from blood".
From the pollutions of idols- Only used in the LXX in Dan. 1:8
and Mal. 1:7 about ritually unclean food.
From fornication, from what is strangled and from
blood- The Mosaic law required that animals be killed by their
blood being poured out.
15:21 For Moses from generations of old has in every city those
that preach him, he being read in the
synagogues every Sabbath- At first blush this may seem rather a
disconnected reason for the previous arrangements. The key is in the
phrase "in every city". The Gentile converts were foreseen as coming from
"every city". James foresaw that there would be Jews living in every place
where Gentiles were baptized; and he sought not to give them any reason
for stumbling. Note that the synagogue system is described as preaching
Moses. They were creating a cult following around a man, rather than
acting as a conduit to bring people to God and His Son.
15:22
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the
elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company and send
them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas and Silas,
leading men among the brothers- The Bible doesn't teach the
total equality of role amongst all believers. There are leaders- but they
are still among their brethren.
15:23
With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and the elders, brothers, to the brothers- Although
writing from a position of authority, they emphasized that they were
brothers writing to brothers.
Who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia- The
scope of the agreement was local to these areas. Judea is not mentioned,
neither is there any general clause governing Gentile converts everywhere.
This is maybe why Paul advised the Corinthians differently about issues
relating to blood. It's also a reason why we should not seek to obey the
letter of the legislation here about blood. This agreement was for a
limited time and geographical scope.
Greeting- See on :13 James.
15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from us
have disturbed you with words, subverting you, to whom we gave no
commandment- The phrase "who went out from us" is exactly that used
by John concerning the Judaists in his context, and he uses the term to
imply that by going out from the body of Christ they had left Christ (1
Jn. 2:19); and the allusion is to Judas going out from the disciples into
the darkness and off to the Jewish leaders to betray the Lord. They
"disturbed" the believers, and Paul uses the same word about "some that
trouble you [s.w.] and would pervert the Gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7;
5:10). This is all strong language. This is the severe danger of legalism.
It seems that these brethren had falsely claimed the authority of the
Jerusalem church, and their aim was to 'subvert you', to carry them away-
back to the Jerusalem temple cult.
15:25 It seemed good to us, having come to one accord- The
idea is that they were unanimous. It seems unlikely that they were, and
subsequent NT history shows that the Judaizer group continued their work
of 'troubling' the Gentiles with their demands. So this would seem another
example of where the Council of Jerusalem is recorded very positively,
differences were papered over, an impression of unanimity was given, and
therefore the Council ultimately failed to solve the underlying issues.
To select men and send them to you with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul- Luke always mentions Paul first. But
here Luke is recording the letter sent by the Jerusalem brethren, who
would have known and respected Barnabas longer than Paul; and so I see
here an incidental evidence that the Divinely inspired Luke is indeed
accurately recording real events and written words.
15:26 Men that have risked
their lives- The Greek can equally mean that they had handed over
their lives.
For the name of our Lord Jesus Christ- Bearing the name of
Christ is in itself an imperative to witness it. Thus “the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ” is used as a metonymy for ‘the preaching of Christ’
(Acts 15:26; 3 Jn. 7; Mt. 24:9 cp. 14). We are baptized into that Name and
thereby it is axiomatic that we become witnesses to it.
15:27
Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who
themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth-
Appropriate because many were illiterate and there may have been concerns
as to whether what was being read from a scroll was in fact accurate.
15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things- There is such a thing as compromise in
spiritual life. The compromise of Acts 15 about the demands placed upon
the Gentile believers was an example. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to
write that the Mosaic food laws had no binding at all upon Christian
converts; and yet "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit" to endorse the
compromise reached in Acts 15:28. The laws agreed there as binding upon
the Gentile converts in Acts 15:29 are in fact the so-called Noachic or
Primeval Laws, considered by some orthodox Jews to be binding upon all the
sons of Noah. That interpretation of what God said to Noah is itself
stretched and hardly on a solid Biblical foundation- but God was willing
to go along with it in order to make concessions required so that there
would at least be some human chance of unity in the early church.
“It
seemed good to the Holy Spirit” suggests that their
conclusions were somehow confirmed by the Spirit. How exactly this
happened isn't stated. But we note that in :32, Judas and Silas used the
Spirit gift of prophecy to tell the Gentile converts the same message. It
could be of course that as with Nathan initially assuming that his message
to David about the temple was inspired from God when it wasn't, so these
brethren may have assumed their conclusions were supported by the Holy
Spirit. The way that Paul later contradicts the ruling about food offered
to idols might suggest that in fact, they were simply assuming [as too
many folk do today] that their own process of reasoning was correct and
was therefore confirmed by the Holy Spirit. At best we can observe that no
mechanism for that confirmation is recorded here.
15:29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols- Out of
the four forbidden things, this is the one which differs from what was
originally agreed. In :20 they had agreed to write forbidding the Gentile
converts "pollution of idols". But this changed to "thing sacrificed to
idols" (although the word is only used in the LXX in Dan. 1:8 and Mal. 1:7
about ritually unclean food). What they agreed to write was not written-
an interpretation of it was written. And it is exactly at this point that
Paul's advice to the Corinthians differs appears to differ from that of
the Jerusalem Council as here recorded. For he writes that there is
nothing wrong of itself with eating things sacrificed to idols. Perhaps he
considered that the decree of Jerusalem only affected limited geographical
areas and wasn't binding on his mission [see on :23]; or that he
considered the whole agreement to have failed to such an extent that it
was null and void; or he perhaps considered that it was all dirty church
politics and he was giving inspired advice which contradicted it.
From blood, from things strangled and from
fornication. From which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you.
Farewell- Note that the Western Text [Codex Bezae]
of Acts omits "things strangled", leaving us with three basic laws about
idolatry, fornication and bloodshed. In this case we would see an allusion
to an uninspired passage in the Mishnah (Aboth 5) which taught
that the captivity in Babylon came about "on account of idolatry,
fornication and bloodshed". In this case we would see God willing to
compromise and accept the terms which were familiar to the orthodox Jewish
minds, rather than merely telling them that their Mishnah was uninspired
and so often hopelessly incorrect.
15:30 So they, when they were sent off- This alludes to the
custom of accompanying a person on the first stage of their journey as a
sign of solidarity and acceptance of them. The delegation had the full
support of the Jerusalem church.
Went to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together,
they delivered the letter- There is a need for transparency in these
things; and so the letter was delivered and read in front of everyone.
Remember that many would have been illiterate. They did not "deliver the
letter" until the congregation had been gathered together, in order to
stop any chance of gossip after some had read the letter and others
hadn't. These are the kinds of basic wisdom that are needed in pastoral
and mission work.
15:31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the
encouragement- The Judaist visitors had obviously worried the
believers with the possibility that their salvation could be in question
and actually impossible. Hence their joy when they learned that they were
acceptable with God.
15:32
And Judas and Silas, being themselves also
prophets- See on :28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit.
Encouraged and strengthened the believers with
many words- The idea is of confirmation. The context is
confirming them that as Gentiles they really were OK with the Lord without
circumcision. When we read of Paul and Silas going throughout Syria and
Cilicia "strengthening the churches" (:41), the same word is used; and
presumably the confirmation provided was again about this issue of Gentile
acceptability. We note that Syria and Cilicia are the two specific regions
to whom the letter from Jerusalem was addressed (:23).
15:33 And after they had spent some time there, they were sent off
in peace by the brothers back to those that had sent them- The
'sending off' was a custom demonstrating acceptance and blessing of the
mission; see on :30.
15:34 It seemed good to Silas to stay there- Again we see the
human element in the preaching decisions of the early brethren. Despite
Holy Spirit guidance, they made decisions which "seemed good" to them. The
same word is used in :22,25 and :28. This is a fair emphasis all within
the same chapter. There could be the hint that the decisions of the
Council were simply what seemed right to them at the time, although they
claimed some unspecified Holy Spirit confirmation of their thinking. This
would again explain why Paul's inspired guidance to the Corinthians about
meat offered to idols seems to contradict the position of the Jerusalem
elders.
15:35 And Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and
preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also- "Teaching" may
refer to teaching the converts; and "preaching" to evangelism. "The Lord"
in Luke-Acts usually refers to the Lord Jesus; the Gospel records would
not have been widely distributed, and many people were illiterate. So the
teaching and preaching of the Lord's word as recorded in the Gospels would
have been vital.
15:36
And after some days Paul said to Barnabas: Let us
return now- The Greek word used here is that usually translated
'to convert'. It could be that Paul was suggesting that they go and
'convert' their converts, understanding that there are levels of
conversion, as the Lord had taught and exemplified in Peter (Lk. 22:32).
And visit the believers in every city wherein we
proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare- See on
:14.
15:37
And Barnabas wanted to take with them John also,
who was called Mark- The Greek really means 'to advise'. And
Paul got mad and had a division about even the suggestion! This is not
Paul at his best, but the incident is so typical of many divisions in the
church.
15:38 - see on Acts 6:1.
But Paul thought best not to take with them one
who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia- The Greek word and
position in the clause suggests 'that one', reflecting Paul's
contemptuous attitude. The Greek idea is of apostasy. But Paul speaks of
apostasy from him, rather than from the Lord. This is not Paul at
his best. Like many of his brethren to this day, he considered a personal
departure from him as being apostasy. Likewise he laments how all in Asia
had turned away from him; whereas the Lord Jesus wrote letters to
those in Asia, clearly acceptant of them as His beloved brethren. Personal
differences don't thereby declare a divided-from brother to be therefore
and thereby no longer a brother of the Lord. It could be, however, that
John Mark had separated from them for spiritual reasons, perhaps falling
under the influence of the Judaizers.
And had not gone with them to the work- Paul's dislike of Mark
was for deeper reasons than just surface irritation. This is quoting the
Septuagint of 1 Sam. 30:22, where "all the wicked men and men of Belial,
of those that went with David, said, Because they went not with us,
we will not give them ought of the spoil". Why does the Spirit
make this connection? Is it not suggesting that Paul, zealous soldier of
David / Jesus as he was, was in those early days in some sense a man of
Belial, bent on achieving his own glory in preaching, and unwilling to
share it with anyone who wasn't spiritually or physically strong enough to
do it as he was (cp. the weaker followers of David)? If this is the case,
then this is a far, far cry from the Paul who wrote his letters some years
later, begging Timothy to come to encourage him, and letters in which the
care of all the churches weighs down his soul daily, coming upon him as he
woke up each morning (2 Cor. 11:28); the Paul who repeatedly encourages
the weak, treating weak and strong as all the same in many ways, until he
eventually attains a level of selfless devotion to his weak brethren that
is only surpassed by the Lord Himself.
15:39- see on Acts 13:12,13.
They had such a sharp disagreement that they
parted company. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus-
The "contention" between Paul and Barnabas is described in a word
which occurs only thrice elsewhere. In Heb. 10:24, a more mature Paul
speaks of how we should consider one another to "provoke unto
love and good works". Surely he wrote this with a sideways glance back at
his earlier example of provoking unto bitterness and division. Likewise he
told the Corinthians that he personally had stopped using the miraculous
Spirit gifts so much, but instead concentrated on developing a character
dominated by love, which was not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13:5).
The Spirit seems to have recognized Paul's change, when Acts 17:16
records how Paul's spirit was "stirred" at the spiritual need of the
masses, and thereby he was provoked to preach to them; rather, by
implication, than being provoked by the irritations of weaker brethren.
15:40 But Paul chose Silas and
departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord-
The commendation of Paul's mission by the Antioch brethren could suggest
that they took Paul's side in the dispute. But despite being seen as
having done the right thing by conservative brethren, Paul's later
allusions to the incident suggest he later realized that he had done
wrong, and the approbation of his brethren didn't make it right before
God.
15:41
And he went through Syria and Cilicia,
strengthening the churches- See on :32 strengthened the
believers. The Greek for "strengthening" is from the root for
'establishing'; the word is used both of the Lord establishing His people,
and of the preachers and pastors establishing them. Any work we do to
build up others has the Lord working through and with us.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
