December 7, 2014
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
By: Tom Lowe
Topic #IV. The Church Advancing to the End of the Earth (Acts 13-28)
Subtopic B: The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Lesson: IV.B.1: The Problem: Those from Syrian Antioch, Part 1 (15:1-5)
The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Part 1 The Criticism from the circumcision Party (15:1-5)
Part 2 The Debate in Jerusalem (15:6-21)
Part 3 The Decision in Jerusalem (15:22-29)
Part 4 The Decision Reported to Antioch (15:30-35)
Scripture (Acts 15:1-5; KJV) Part 1
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Introduction
The stage is now set for Paul’s mission to the heart of the Greco-Roman world as the missionary to the Gentiles. There remained only one final hurdle, and that was the agreement of the whole church on the Gentile mission. There were still those among the Jewish Christians who had serious reservations about the way the outreach to the Gentiles had been conducted. These reservations and the final solution to them worked out in a major conference in Jerusalem are the subject of 15:1-35. There the whole church agreed on the mission. The way was now open for the mission of Paul, and that will be the subject of the rest of Acts. Hereafter the Jerusalem church fades into the background. When it does reappear, as in chapter 21, it will be entirely in connection with Paul’s Gentile ministry. The focus is entirely on him.
The debate in Jerusalem revolved around the issue of how Gentiles were to be accepted into the Christian fellowship. The more conservative Jewish Christians felt that they should be received on the same basis Jews had always received Gentiles into the covenant community—through proselyte initiation. This involved circumcision of the males and all proselytes taking upon themselves the total provisions of the Mosaic Law. For all intents and purposes, a Gentile proselyte to Judaism became a Jew, not only in religious conviction, but in life-style as well. That was the question the conservative group of Jewish Christians raised: Should not Gentiles be required to become Jews in order to share in the Christian community? It was a natural question. The first Christians were all Jews. Jesus was a Jew and the Jewish Messiah. God had only one covenant people—the Jews. Christianity was a Messianic movement within Judaism. Jews had always demanded of all Gentile converts the requirements of circumcision and rituals of the Torah. Why should that change?
Evidently the requirements had changed. There was no indication that Peter had laid such requirements on Cornelius, or the Antioch church on the Gentiles who became a part of their fellowship, or Paul and Barnabas on the Gentiles converted in their mission. This was a cause for serious concern from the more conservative elements. Not only was it a departure from normal proselyte procedure; it also raised serious problems of fellowship. How could law-abiding Jewish Christians who seriously observed all the ritual laws have interaction with Gentile Christians who did not observe those laws? The Jewish Christians would run the risk of defilement from the Gentiles. These were the two issues that were faced and resolved in Jerusalem: (1) whether Gentile converts should submit to Jewish proselyte requirements, especially to circumcision and (2) how fellowship could be maintained between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Acts 15:1-35 falls into four natural parts. The first comprises an introduction and relates how the debate arose in Antioch and led to the conference in Jerusalem to attempt some resolution (vs. 1-5). The second part focuses on the debate in Jerusalem (vs. 6-21) and primarily centers on the witness of Peter (vs. 6-11) and of James (vs. 12-21). The third part deals with the final solution, which takes the form of an official letter sent to Antioch (vs. 22-29). The narrative concludes where it began—in Antioch—with the delivering of the letter by two delegates of the Jerusalem church (vs. 30-35).
Commentary
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
It all started when some legalistic Jewish teachers (“certain men,” Judaizers; false teachers who were self-appointed guardians of Judaism; probably the same as those referred to in Galatians 2:12), teaching a doctrine of salvation by works) came to Antioch posing as representatives of James and others of the Jerusalem church: “I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain” (Gal. 2:2). They taught that the Gentiles, in order to be saved, had to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses; but they were ignorant of the relationship between Law and grace. They were attempting to mix Law and grace and to pour new wine into the ancient brittle wineskin (Luke 5:36-39). What they wanted to do was to block the new and living way to God that Jesus had opened when He died on the cross (Heb. 10:19-25). They were putting the heavy Jewish yoke on Gentile shoulders: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). These men were associated with the Jerusalem congregation but not authorized by it (Acts 15:24). Identified with the Pharisees (v. 5), these teachers were false brethren who wanted to rob both Jewish and Gentile believers of their liberty in Christ (Gal. 2:1-10; 5:1). When any religious leader says, “Unless you belong to our group, you cannot be saved!” or, “Unless you participate in our ceremonies and keep our rules, you cannot be saved!” he is adding to the Gospel and denying the finished work of Jesus Christ. When you do that, you no longer have the Gospel but you have a religion. You no longer have the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
These “men which came down from Judea” taught a doctrine that was not only wrong, but was a frontal attack on the Gospel of the grace of God. The true Gospel of grace teaches that Christ finished the work necessary for salvation on the cross. All a sinner has to do is receive him by faith. The moment human merit or works are introduced then it is no longer of grace. Under grace, all depends on God and not on men. If conditions are attached, then it is no longer a gift but a debt. And salvation is a gift; it is not earned or merited.
There were many Gentiles in the church at Antioch; “Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:20-21). There is no indication that they had been circumcised when they joined the Christian fellowship. This was disturbing to some Jewish Christians who came from Judea and insisted that circumcision in strict obedience to the Jewish law was necessary for salvation. Evidently they shared the views and perhaps were even some of the same persons as the “circumcision party,” who were identified in the Western text[1] as belonging to the sect of the Pharisees and who challenged Peter for having table fellowship with Cornelius: “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." (11:2-3). The group evidently represented the strict Jewish viewpoint that there was no salvation apart from belonging to the covenant community, the people of Israel. To be a part of that community a Gentile must take on the physical sign of the covenant, the mark of circumcision, and live by the precepts of the Law of Moses, ritual as well as moral. In the sharp debate that this demand provoked, Paul and Barnabas were the main opponents to this Judaizing perspective (v. 2). They had laid no such requirements on the Gentiles converted on their recent mission. It is all together likely that the large number of such converts in their successful mission had attracted the attention of this Judaizing group in the first place.
There was a large number of priests in the Jerusalem assembly (Acts 6:7), as well as people who still followed some of the Old Testament practices (see Acts 21:20-26). It was a time of transition, and such times are always difficult.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
“No small dissension” really means they had a real “battle royal!” It was a heated debate. Clashes always come when some newly experienced truth disturbs a privileged group. People generally get apprehensive when their traditional viewpoints are challenged, unless they are open to new understandings and competent to test new insight and courageous to cross new frontiers. The group soon realized that such a basic issue could not be settled in Antioch. It needed the attention of the whole church, since all Christians, Jew and Gentile, would be affected by its resolution. In Galatians 2:2 Paul says he went to Jerusalem by revelation. There is no contradiction of course. The Spirit of God revealed to Paul that he should go, and also revealed to the church in Antioch that the brethren should send him. God gave Paul a revelation instructing him to take the whole matter to the Jerusalem church leaders (Gal. 2:2), and to this the Antioch assembly agreed (v. 2). An “ecumenical conference” was arranged in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the “mother church.” The apostles were there. It was the suitable site to debate such an important issue. It is unclear who appointed Paul and Barnabas “and certain other of them” to represent Antioch in Jerusalem. The Western text1 has the Judaizing group summoning Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem “to be judged.” More likely the Antioch church appointed them as its official delegates to the meeting. Paul mentioned that Titus accompanied him and Barnabas to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), so he may have been one of the “others” mentioned in this verse. These “others” probably went along, as witnesses. These witnesses would probably protect Paul and Barnabas against being accused of distorting the facts.
We need to recognize here that it is really the Gospel that is under question at the council. The Epistle to the Galatians gives us a full explanation of the council.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
The distance between Antioch and Jerusalem was in excess of 250 miles, and the apostles may well have spent a month or so on their journey. They used the opportunity to visit congregations along the way. It could also be described as a “campaign trip,” since most of these congregations would likely be sympathetic with their viewpoint that Gentiles should not be burdened with circumcision and the Torah. This would be especially true of the Christians of “Phoenicia and Samaria” whose congregations were likely established by the same Hellenists who reached out to the gentiles in Antioch (11:19-20). The congregations along their route rejoiced at the news of Paul and Barnabas’s success among the Gentiles. Evidently they did not share the misgivings of the Judaizing Christians.
“And being brought on their way by the church” suggests that they were escorted to Jerusalem by some members of the Antioch church.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
When the Antioch delegation arrived in Jerusalem, they were well received by the “apostles and elders.” These would be the central groups in the deliberation. The gathering was not a “church council” in the denominational sense, but rather a meeting of the leaders who heard the various groups and then made their decision. Peter would be the spokesman for the apostles, and James would represent the elders. Just as Paul and Barnabas had reported the details of their mission to the sponsoring church at Antioch (14:27) and to the congregations on their way (15:3), so now they shared with the leaders in Jerusalem what God had done through them. They gave them a full account of the Gospel they had been preaching to the Gentiles, and the apostles and elders had to admit that it was the same Gospel they had been preaching to the Jews. The two missionaries told them, “We have preached the Gospel, and men and women, over in the Galatian country have trusted Christ. They know nothing about Mosaic Law. They trusted Christ and were saved.” No doubt they provided sufficient evidence to verify the genuineness of the Gentiles’ salvation (Acts 10:44-48; 11:17-18). The apostles’ mission of spreading the Gospel was the major reason the Holy Spirit empowered them. This small group of men, led by the Spirit, drastically altered world history, and the Gospel message eventually reached all parts of the earth (Matthew 28:19-20). Paul and Barnabas were among the first missionaries to the Gentiles who preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The emphasis on God’s blessing through Jesus was essential. That God’s leading was so evident in accepting the Gentiles apart from the Law would determine the final outcome of the conference.
“And when they were come to Jerusalem” it marked Paul’s third visit after his conversion, and what occurred on this occasion is related in Galatians 2:1-10.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
The reception was somewhat cooler from a group of believers who belonged to the “sect of the Pharisees.” It was perhaps some of their group who had first stirred up the controversy in Antioch. They at least shared the same viewpoint: Gentiles who become Christians must undergo Jewish proselyte procedure. They must be circumcised. They must live by the entire Jewish Law. It was not the moral aspects of the law that presented the problem but its ritual provisions. The moral law, such as embodied in the Ten Commandments, was never in question. Paul, for instance, constantly reminded his churches of God’s moral standards in his letters. The ritual aspects of the Law presented a problem. These were the provisions that marked Jews off from other people—circumcision, the food laws, scrupulous ritual purity. They were what made the Jews Jews and seemed strange and arbitrary to most Gentiles. To have required these of Gentiles would in essence have made them into Jews and cut them off from the rest of the Gentiles. It would have severely restricted, perhaps even killed, any effective Gentile mission. The stakes were high in the Jerusalem Conference.
There was nothing to prevent a Pharisee from accepting Jesus as Messiah while retaining the distinctive Pharisaic tenants, but they tended to be legally minded Christians. (Paul, of course, was the great exception to this tendency.) Therefore it should come as no surprise that some of the Pharisees had become Christians. Pharisees believed in resurrection, life after death, and the coming Messiah. They shared the basic convictions of the Christians. Because of this they are sometimes in Acts found defending the Christians against the Sadducees[2], who had much less in common with Christian views: “Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail” (Acts 5:17-18). A major barrier between Christians and Pharisees was the extensive use of oral tradition[3] by the Pharisees, which Jesus and Paul both rejected as human tradition. It is not surprising that some Pharisees came to embrace Christ as the Messiah in whom they had hoped. For all their emphasis on Law, it is also not surprising that they would be reticent to receive anyone into the fellowship in a manner not in accordance with tradition. That tradition was well-established for proselytes—circumcision and the whole yoke of the Law. Pharisees were generally members of the “circumcision party.” They feared that the Gentile Christians were always in danger of reverting to their former sinful manner of life and that the whole Christian community might be dragged down to the level of Gentile immorality.
The only approach that you can make to Jesus Christ is by faith. We must all come to Him by faith. He won’t let us come any other way. Jesus said, “. . . I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). God is saying, “My Son died for you. What will you do with Him?” The answer to that question will determine your eternal destiny. This is the issue being discussed in the council at Jerusalem. This is really exciting.
[1] Western text—the main characteristic of the Western text is a love of paraphrase: "Words and even clauses are changed, omitted, and inserted with surprising freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness." One possible source of glossing (commenting) is the desire to harmonize and to complete; more peculiar to the Western text is the readiness to adopt alterations or additions from sources extraneous to the Scriptures.
[2] The Sadducees were a sect or group of Jews that were active in Judea during the Second Temple period, starting from the second century BC through the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The sect was identified by Josephus with the upper social and economic echelon of Judean society. As a whole, the sect fulfilled various political, social, and religious roles, including maintaining the Temple. The Sadducees are often compared to other contemporaneous sects, including the Pharisees and the Essenes. Their sect is believed to have become extinct sometime after the destruction of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Sadducees rejected the Oral Law as proposed by the Pharisees. Rather, they saw the Torah as the sole source of divine authority. [10] The written law, in its depiction of the priesthood, corroborated the power and enforced the supremacy of the Sadducees in Judean society.
According to Josephus, the Sadducees believed that:
There is no fate
God does not commit evil
Man has free will; “man has the free choice of good or evil”
The soul is not immortal; there is no afterlife, and
There are no rewards or penalties after death
The Sadducees rejected the belief in resurrection of the dead, which was a central tenet believed by Pharisees and by Early Christians. The Sadducees supposedly believed in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol (hell) for those who had died.
[3] Oral tradition and oral lore is cultural material and tradition transmitted orally from one generation to another. The messages or testimony are verbally transmitted in speech or song and may take the form, for example, of folktales, sayings, ballads, songs, or chants. In this way, it is possible for a society to transmit oral history, oral literature, oral law and other knowledges across generations without a writing system.
December 14, 2014
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
By: Tom Lowe
Topic #IV. The Church Advancing to the End of the Earth (Acts 13-28)
Subtopic B: The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Lesson: IV.B.2: The Problem: Those from Syrian Antioch, Part 2 (15:6-21)
The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Part 1 The Criticism from the circumcision Party (15:1-5)
Part 2 The Debate in Jerusalem (15:6-21)
Part 3 The Decision in Jerusalem (15:22-29)
Part 4 The Decision Reported to Antioch (15:30-35)
***********************************************************************************************************
Scripture (Acts 15:6-21; KJV) Part 2
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Introduction
This section of Acts 15:1-35 relates to the debate in Jerusalem over the circumcision issue. There were two major witnesses, both in defense of the view that the Gentiles should not be burdened by circumcision and the law. Peter spoke first (vs. 7-11), followed by James (vs. 13-21). Both speeches are preceded by brief summary notices that set the larger context of the conference (vs. 6, 12).
Commentary
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Verse six relates the gathering for the conference. Since it mentions only the apostles and elders, many interpreters see this as a reference to the private conference Paul mentioned in Galatians 2:2 with “those who seemed to be the leaders.” If Luke mentioned Paul’s private conference at all, it would more likely be the initial meeting with the apostles and elders in verse 4. On the other hand, verses 6-29 are a continuous narrative, and one would assume the whole group was gathered together for the discussion—the apostles and elders, other members of the Jerusalem church (including the Pharisaic Christians), Paul and Barnabas, and the other members of the Antioch delegation. The apostles and elders were singled out as the leaders of the assembly. They initiated the formal inquiry.
There can be no doubt that it was a fateful day for the future of Christianity. Failure to reach the right decision would forever split the church or else reduce it to the status of a Jewish cult. Although all of them at the same time were likely to be intimidated by the considerable and vocal segment of legalists in the church, the opinion of James would ultimately be crucial to the entire debate–and James was inclined to be a legalist.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
The meeting began with a lively discussion. Peter rose to speak. No one in Jerusalem could speak with more authority. He was acknowledged as the apostle to the circumcision (Galatians 2:7-8), so when Peter rose to his feet the legalist’s hopes were raised. No doubt Peter would speak for the Jewish side of the question. But Peter had learned his lesson. Paul had already “withstood him to the face” (Galatians 2:11). Peter did not speak at once. He wisely waited for both sides to air their views. We can well imagine that a great deal of feeling would be exhibited. It would be no quiet debate. Hot passions would be aroused on both sides of the issue. After the various viewpoints had been aired, he began by reminding the assembly of his own experience in the household of Cornelius (v. 7b). Even though it was “some time ago, possibly as much as 10 years before, the experience had made an indelible impression on Peter. God had chosen him to witness to the Gentiles (see 10:5, 20, 32). Peter could expect the Jerusalem Christians, including the circumcisers, to remember this because he had given them a full report following the incident (11:1-18). What he had learned on that occasion was that God looks on the heart, not on external matters. God is no respecter of persons (10: 34).
“God enlisted me for a very great task,” Peter began. “God could have chosen anyone. He chose me, the apostle of the circumcision. But He sent me to the Gentiles so that by me they might have the Gospel preached to them.”
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
God did not make the slightest difference between Jews and Gentiles in the giving of the Holy Ghost. That was Peter’s point. The undeniable sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles as fully and as freely as it had been given to the Jews. The Holy Spirit had thus baptized the Gentiles into the mystical body of Christ in the same way He had baptized Jews into our body. Surely if circumcision were that important, the Holy Spirit would have said so. If God did not demand circumcision and Mosaic Law as appendages to Gentile’s salvation, then how dare anyone add them now?
God had proved his acceptance of Cornelius and the Hellenists at his home by granting them the gift of the Holy Spirit. God only grants His spirit to those He has accepted (Numbers 10:44, 47; 11:17).
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
The fact that they had received the Spirit just as Peter and the Jewish Christians had was proof that God had accepted Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles on an equal footing. He “purified their hearts” by faith. Peter undoubtedly was thinking of his vision: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (10:15). For the Jew, circumcision was a mark of sanctity and purity, of belonging to God’s people and being accepted by Him but in Cornelius, God had shown Peter that true purity comes not by an external mark but by faith. In the account of Cornelius in chapter 10, his faith is never explicitly mention but it is certainly evidenced in his following without question every direction God gave him. Here Peter made explicit what was implicit there: Cornelius had been accepted by God on the basis of his faith.
It was faith, not works, that saved, said Peter, speaking out clearly and unmistakably on Paul’s side. The Holy Spirit was in control of the meeting. He was the one who was prompting Peter to speak as he did.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
In verse 10 Peter gave his conclusion drawn from the experience with Cornelius. It was an emphatic no to the question of Gentile circumcision and the “yoke” of the law. God had accepted the gentiles at Cornelius’s house without either of these. How can Jewish Christians demand anything more than the faith already shown? To add conditions to God’s plan of salvation that God himself had not added was a serious matter. To demand more would be to put God to the test, to act against God’s declared will, to see if God really meant what He had already shown in accepting the Gentiles apart from the law. Peter’s statement in verse 10 is strong but should not be misconstrued by speaking of the “yoke” of the law, he did not mean that the law was an intolerable burden that Jewish Christians should abandon. Peter was using the common Jewish metaphor for the law that had the same positive meaning Jesus had given it in Matthew 11:29[1]. Peter did not urge Jewish Christians to abandon the law, nor did they cease to live by it. Peter’s meaning was that the law was something the Jews had not been able to fulfill. It had proven an inadequate basis of salvation for them. Neither they nor their fathers had been able to fully keep the law and so win acceptance with God (Romans 2:17-24). For the Jewish Christians the law would remain a mark of God’s covenant with them, a cherished heritage. It could not save them. Only one thing could—faith, believing in the saving grace of the Lord Jesus (v. 11).
Jesus had described the Pharisees traditions as “heavy burdens and grievous to be borne” (Matthew 23:4). He had swept aside all rabbinical additions to the scriptures as worthless, but still they multiplied. Even the 613 commandments of the law itself were more of a load than a man could carry. The ritual law, with these hundreds of symbolic regulations, would have driven the Gentiles to distraction.
The Lord Jesus offered something better: “come unto me,” he said, “and I will give you rest.” Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). Why would the church want to fasten on anyone’s shoulders the yoke of the law when Jesus had set them free from it, once and for all?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Peter began his speech by pointing out how God had accepted the Gentiles “just like he accepted us” (v. 8). Now the issue was on the other foot. The Gentiles had become the example for the Jews—“we are saved, just as they are” (v. 11). God’s acceptance of the Gentiles had drawn a basic a lesson for the Jews as well. There is only one way of salvation—-“through the grace of our Lord Jesus.” Peter’s ultimate point was that God is free to save whoever and however He pleases.
That was it! Salvation was of grace, not of law. Grace is unmerited favor; grace is getting something we don’t deserve. Law said, “Do this and thou shalt live”; grace said, “Live! And do this.” Law put the load on man; grace put the load on Christ. Jesus had kept the law fully, in all its details and ramifications, in the spirit and to the letter. In salvation, His life became our life; grace made it available to the believer. Law and grace, as systems of salvation, were mutually incompatible. We are either saved by law, which depends on our accumulating our own merits; or we are saved by grace, which depends upon our accepting His merits
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
At the end of Peter’s speech the entire assembly sat in silence. Paul and Barnabas had already shared their missionary experience with the leaders (v. 4). Now they gave their testimony before the entire congregation. Their emphasis was again on God’s initiative in their mission, His work through them, the signs and wonders that had attested to His presence and affirmation of their ministry. Barnabas told the story of the mission to Cyprus and Galatia, with Paul confirming the story and adding details. The main arguments were offered by Peter and James, the leaders of the apostles and elders. Paul and Barnabas evidently offered no defense of their position on the Gentile question other than the implicit argument that God had endorsed it.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
When Paul and Barnabas had completed their testimony, there was another silence, and then James rose to speak. It was James the brother of Jesus. Paul also mentioned James’s role at the Jerusalem conference (Galatians 2:9; 1:19) and called him one of the “pillars” of the church, along with Peter and John. James was a legalist with a reputation for strictness. It was his name the false teachers had used at Antioch to lend authority to their Judaistic teachings. James had evidently become the leading elder of the Jerusalem congregation, and he was known for his scrupulous attention to all the requirements of Judaism. His leadership of the church has already been indicated in Acts 12:17. Upon Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem he appears to have been the sole leader of the congregation, and the apostles no longer seem to have been present in the city (21:18-25). Here James continued the defense of Peter’s position that the Gentiles should not be required to be circumcised or embrace the Jewish law. Peter’s argument had been based primarily on his personal experience, which had shown that God had accepted the Gentiles by sending His Spirit on them solely on the basis of their faith. James furthered Peter’s position by giving it scriptural grounding (vs. 14-18).
14 Simeon[2] hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
The tact of James became evident in his very first word—“Simeon,” Peter’s old Hebrew name. He drew everyone’s attention back to the charismatic figure who loomed so large in Jerusalem, the man God had used to found the Jerusalem church. That was tactful of him.
James began by referring to Peter’s just-completed witness to God’s acceptance of the Gentiles at Cornelius’s home and described it as God’s “taking from the Gentiles “a people for His name” (a people for Himself) (v. 14). James now showed how the coming of the Gentiles into the people of God was grounded in the Old Testament prophets. Basically he quoted from the Septuagint text of Amos 9:11–12, with possible allusions from Jeremiah 12:15 and Isaiah 45:21. In the Hebrew text of Amos 9:11-12, the prophet spoke of the coming restoration of Israel, which God would bring about. The house of David would be rebuilt and the kingdom restored to its former Glory. Edom and all the nations over which David ruled would once again be gathered into Israel. The Greek text differs significantly and speaks of the remnant of humankind and all the nations seeking the Lord. In both traditions there is the concept of “the nation’s which are called by my name,” which links directly with “a people for His name” (v. 14). That is the very essence of the church. It is a called-out assembly of believers. That calling-out process began at Pentecost with the Jews. It was extended by Peter, in the house of Cornelius, to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had just put before the church the record of how great and vast a work that calling-out promised to be among the Gentiles. There is no more appropriate description of the church in the New Testament—it is essentially a company of called-out ones gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such it is distinct from both Israel and the nations. This is the main concept James wished to develop. In the Gentiles, God was choosing a people for himself, a new restored people of God, Jew and Gentile in Christ, the true Israel. What they were now beginning to see, and what James saw foretold in Amos, was that these promises included the Gentiles.
God’s present purpose in the world is to call out from among all nations the church. After that God will turn his attention to the falling fortunes of “the tabernacle of David.” Certainly God was now going to work more and more among the Gentiles. Sure, he was now at work building the church. But that did not mean He has forgotten His promises to the nation of Israel, and to David in particular. God is going to restore the ruined tabernacle of David; He is yet going to reestablish Davidic rule over the nations. But everything in its own order. Davidic rule will indeed be reestablished over Israel, but in God’s time. David’s rejected son is at God’s right hand, still bitterly rejected by the nation of Israel.
“The residue of men” refers to the Hebrew remnant still alive at the end of the Great Tribulation, those who will recognize in the returning Christ their long-awaited, long-rejected Messiah. At the second coming of Christ the Jewish believing remnant will go into the millennial kingdom along with a residue of believing Gentiles.
God was not taken by surprise by Jewish unbelief. Although he could have responded to their faith by immediately restoring the kingdom, He foreknew their rejection of Christ and he used it to bring in the church. The church age has superseded the kingdom age. Kingdom prophecies will yet have a literal fulfillment. But in the meantime, prophecies regarding the Gentiles coming into salvation blessing are now having an initial him partial fulfillment in the church. “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.”
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Having established from Scripture the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God, James drew his conclusion to the question of requirements for Gentile membership. Gentiles should not be given undue difficulties; no unnecessary obstacles should be placed in their way. Though somewhat more restrained in expression, his conclusion was basically that of Peter (v. 10): Gentiles should not be burdened with the law and circumcision. The leading apostle and the leading elder were in agreement. The issue was all but settled. Resolving it, however, raised another problem. If Gentiles were not being required to observe the Jewish ritual laws, how would Jewish Christians who maintain strict Torah observance be able to fellowship with them without running the risk of being ritually defiled themselves? James saw the question coming and addressed it in his next remark (v. 20). Gentiles should be directed to abstain from four things: from food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood.
So that was that. Paul had won, and the Gentiles were free. The Holy Spirit had worked His will. Man had fought and prayed and struggled and differed, and the Holy Spirit had overruled it all to bring about His own sovereign, perfect will. Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ. The way of salvation was the same for all—faith in Christ.
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
When looked at closely, all four of these belong to the ritual sphere. Meat offered to idols was an abomination to Jews, who avoided any and everything associated with idolatry. Pollution would be caused by eating unclean food. Much of the meat for sale in Gentile markets had been ritually offered to idols. Eating such meat, in Jewish eyes, would be the same as participating in idolatry. Second, there was “Strangled meat” which was a prohibition against eating animals that had been slaughtered in a manner that left the blood in it. Third, there was the “blood” itself. It was considered sacred to the Jews, and all meat was to be drained of blood before consuming it. Meat in which blood remained was forbidden on the ground that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” and the blood belonged on God’s altar (see Leviticus 17:10-13. Again, this prohibition was warranted in order to make fellowship easier between Jews and Gentiles. These three requirements were thus all ritual, dealing with matters of clean and unclean foods. The fourth category seems somewhat less ritual and more moral: sexual immorality. It is possible that this category was also originally intended in a mainly ritual sense, referring to those “defiling” sexual relationships the Old Testament condemns, such as incest, marriage outside the covenant community, marriage with a close relative, bestiality, homosexuality, and the like. And the Gentile sexual mores were lax compared to Jewish standards, and it was one of the areas where Jews saw themselves most radically different from Gentiles. A Jew would find it difficult indeed to consort with a Gentile who did not live by his own standards of sexual morality.
The four requirements suggested by James were often referred to as “the apostolic decrees,” they belong to a period in the life of the church when there was close contact between Jewish and Gentile Christians, when table fellowship especially was common between them. In a later day, by the end of the first century, Jewish Christianity became isolated into small sects and separated from Gentile Christianity. There no longer existed any real fellowship between them. There are thus four moral prohibitions: no idolatry, no sexual immorality, no murder (“blood” now viewed as the shedding—not consuming—of blood), and “do not do to another what you wouldn’t wish done to yourself.”
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
The moral rules, such as the Ten Commandments, we’re already assumed. All Christians, Jew and Gentile, lived by them. The Gentiles needed no reminder of such basic marks of Christian behavior. Morality was not the issue at the Jerusalem conference. Fellowship was, and the decrees were a sort of minimum requirement placed on the Gentile Christians in deference to the scruples of their Jewish Brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, all four of the apostolic decrees are found in Leviticus 17 and 18 as requirements expected of resident aliens: abstinence from pagan sacrifices (17:8), blood (17:10-14), strangled meet (17:13), and illicit sexual relationships (18:6-23). Perhaps this is what James meant in his rather obscure concluding remark: the Law of Moses is read in every synagogue everywhere; so these requirements should come as no shock to the Gentiles. They are in the Old Testament and had been required of Gentiles associating with Jews from the earliest times. This last statement was probably intended to calm down the Pharisees in the Jerusalem church.
The Torah was especially important in their eyes. It was important to them that Moses, whom they revered, should be preached to all those who were inquiring after God. Any attempt to diminish the authority of Moses would be suspect in their eyes. Throughout the Gospels we see them opposing Christ with Moses. James’s remark could also be taken in another sense, which would fit the context well: there are Jews in every city who cherish the Torah. Gentile Christians should be sensitive to their scruples and not give them offense in these ritual matters, for they too may be reached with the Gospel.
With the conclusion of this speech by James, all outward opposition collapsed. It only remained to put the decision of the counsel into operation.
[1] The rabbis saw the Torah not as an instrument of enslavement but as a yoke that bound them to God’s will. It was a gift of his mercy.
[2] James referred to Peter as “Simeon,” an Aramaizing word used for Peter in only one other place in the New Testament. Clearly James is referring to David’s speech.
************************************************************************************************************
December 20, 2014
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
By: Tom Lowe
Topic #IV. The Church Advancing to the End of the Earth (Acts 13-28)
Subtopic B: The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Lesson: IV.B.2: The Problem: Those from Syrian Antioch, Part 3 (15:22-29)
The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Part 1 The Criticism from the circumcision Party (15:1-5)
Part 2 The Debate in Jerusalem (15:6-21)
Part 3 The Decision in Jerusalem (15:22-29)
Part 4 The Decision Reported to Antioch (15:30-35)
Scripture (Acts 15:22-29; KJV) Part 3
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Introduction
James advised the church to write to the Gentile believers and share the decisions of the conference. This letter asked for obedience to two commands and a willingness to agree to two personal concessions. The two commands were that the believers avoid idolatry and immorality, sins that were especially prevalent among the Gentiles (see 1 Corinthians 8-10). The two concessions were that they willingly abstain from eating blood and meat from animals that had died by strangulation. The two commands do not create any special problems, for idolatry and immorality have always been wrong in God’s sight, both for Jews and Gentiles. But what about the two concessions concerning food?
Keep in mind that the early church did a great deal of eating together and practicing hospitality. Most churches met in homes, and some assemblies held a “love fest” in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17–34). It was probably not much different from our own potluck dinners. If the Gentile believers ate food that the Jewish believers considered “unclean,” this would cause division in the church. Paul dealt clearly with this whole problem in Romans 14-15.
The prohibition against eating blood was actually given by God before the time of the Law (Genesis 9:4), and it was repeated by Moses (Leviticus 17:11-14; Deuteronomy 12:23). If an animal is killed by strangulation, some of the blood will remain in the body and make the meat unfit for Jews to eat. Hence, the admonition against strangulation. “Kosher” meat his meat that comes from clean animals that have been properly killed, so that the blood has been totally drained from the body
It is beautiful to see that this letter expressed the loving unity of people who had once been debating with each other and defending opposing views. The legalistic Jews willingly gave up insisting that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, and the Gentiles willingly accepted a change in their eating habits. It was a loving compromise that did not in any way affect the truth of the Gospel. As every married person and parent knows, there are times in a home when compromise is wrong, but there are also times when compromise is right.
Commentary
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23a And they wrote letters by them after this manner;
James had provided a suitable solution that jeopardized neither the Gentile mission nor the fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. As it often happens, the decision was a compromise. It represented the point of view of those who were in the middle of the road. No one was better suited to express that point of view than James. He was a conservative by nature, but he had a fair and open mind. All parties seem to have been satisfied and to have agreed to James’s suggestion. It was thus definitely decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. However, there remained a significant number of Jewish Christians who wished to take a much harder line with the Gentiles. They continued to disturb the Pauline churches for some years to come. Nevertheless, the council did represent a broad consensus of the church and was an expression of the real unity that was still felt by all Christians (Acts 4:32). They decided to draft a letter presenting the solution and to send two delegates from the Jerusalem church to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas.
These two leaders, may have represented two groups in the Jerusalem church–Judas, for the Hebrew section; and Silas, a roman citizen (16:37), for the Hellenists. The two delegates would be able to give their personal interpretation of the letter’s contents and of the conference in Jerusalem. They would “confirm by word of mouth” what was written (V. 27). No one could claim there were poor communications about this delicate issue. The letter was not an agreement binding on the whole church forever, but a communication from the persons named to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It constituted a strong recommendation, but must not be considered an obstacle to future normal revelations through the apostles, and it included special reference to the authority of Paul as apostle to the Gentiles.
The two delegates are described as “chief men” (leaders) in the church of Jerusalem, a term that is not further defined. In verse 32 they are called “prophets.” “Of Judas Barsabbas” (Sabbath-born) we know nothing more, but he probably represented the Judaistic section of the conference. He may have been related to the Joseph Barsabbas of 1:23, who failed to be elected to the office of Judas Iscariot, but even that is uncertain. “Silas,” who was a major New Testament character, is another story. He accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey and is mentioned often in that connection. Silas is a shortened form of the Greek name Silvanus, and his Greek name has led some to suggest that he may have been a Hellenist. That would certainly be likely if he is the same Silvanus who served as Peter’s amanuensis[1] (1 Peter 5:12). He definitely seems to be the Silvanus whom Paul mentioned as a coworker in several of his epistles (2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1).
The churches of Corinth and Thessalonica were established on Paul’s second missionary journey when Silas accompanied him. It was thus natural for him to include Silas/Silvanus when writing to them. Like Paul, Sylvanus may have been a Roman citizen. Acts 16:37 seems to indicate so. It is interesting to note that Paul’s mission companions came from those who represented the Jerusalem church (Barnabas, 11:22). This is another way in which the close bond between Paul’s missionary activity and the Jerusalem church is revealed. Not only did the Jerusalem Christians approve Paul’s law-free Gentile mission in principle at the conference, but they ultimately furnished his personnel as well.
23b The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
The letter was written in the name of the Jerusalem leaders, “the apostles and elders”; the substance of the letter is given in verses 23-29. The recipients were referred to as “the Gentiles (believers) in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (The churches in Cilicia were probably founded by Paul when he went there after fleeing Jerusalem; 9:30). Actually, this could be considered almost as a single address. Syria-Cilicia was administratively a single Roman province, and Antioch was a city within it. It was at Antioch that the debate had begun (15:1), and so it was to Antioch that the Jerusalem leaders sent their response. So the letter was sent, not as from the council, but from the church in Jerusalem (“the apostles and the elders,” v. 23), which still regarded itself as having the authoritative voice in the affairs of all the people of God. Nothing is mentioned about the churches of Galatia where Paul and Barnabas had recently performed a ministry to the Gentiles. If someone should asked why the letter is addressed only to Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, and did not include Galatia, where the controversy had been raging, the reply is that the debate had arisen on a report from Antioch “about this question” (v. 2). Luke does say that Paul delivered the letter to the churches of Galatia on his second missionary tour—“And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
There is some uncertainty as to how the word “brethren” relates to the rest of the phrase in “verse 23”, but the NIV is probably right to take it as standing in opposition to “the apostles and elders,” so that whatever their authority was, they wrote to the church in Antioch as brother to brothers, even though the church was predominantly Gentile.
“Verse 24” provides some additional clarification concerning the Judaizers of 15:1. They may have come from Jerusalem, but they were in no sense official representatives of the church. In fact, the language of the letter expresses some dismay with this group. They are described as “troubling” (literally “plundering” or “tearing down”) the minds of the people in Antioch. The Jerusalem leadership was obviously not happy with the wholly unauthorized Judaizers and with them upsetting the Gentiles of Antioch. Likewise, we can say that anyone who tries to put a believer under the Law today is not doing it on the authority of the Word of God.
The church leaders had several objectives in writing this letter: First, they acknowledged that although those who had disturbed (“shaken”) and troubled the church in Antioch had come “from us,” they had not represented the church in Jerusalem, but had acted on their own authority. Second, they vindicated Paul and Barnabas, who had withstood the troublemakers, and honored them for risking “their lives” (literally, “handing over their lives”) “for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 26, but they had also been “handed over” to the care of God’s grace, 14:26; 2 Timothy 1:12). The sufferings of the two missionaries in the course of their recent journey were evidently well known. Notice the warmth of the expression “our beloved Barnabas and Paul” (v. 25). Third, they authorized Judas and Silas, as representatives of the church in Jerusalem, to speak in support of what the letter contained. And fourth, they listed those things that the council had agreed they should ask of the Gentiles. But no conditions were to be imposed on the Gentile Christians for salvation or admission to full Christian fellowship, except that condition which God Himself had accepted as sufficient, faith in Christ.
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Verses 25-26 basically recapitulate the content of verse 22 with the additional commendation of Barnabas and Paul as those who had “risked their lives” for the name of Jesus. On the first missionary journey, they faced persecution (13:50) and Paul was nearly killed (14:19, 20). It is in their whole-hearted devotion to Christ that the two missionaries had incurred so many dangers. The Jerusalem leaders showed their admiration for the two missionaries by referring to them as “beloved Barnabas and Paul,” and acknowledging that they had “hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” One is reminded of Paul’s account of the conference (Galatians 2:9), where he spoke of the Jerusalem leaders’ giving them the “right hand of fellowship.”
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Verse 27 continues to delineate the circumstances of the letter, noting the role of Judas and Silas. You can see that if they had sent only Barnabas and Paul the people might have said, “Well, of course, these two men would bring back that kind of a report.” So they sent along Judas and Silas in order to confirm the fact that this was the decision of the council.
Only at verse 28 does the “meat” of the letter begin. The assembly had decided not to burden the Gentiles—no circumcision, no Law, only these “necessary things.” The idea was really that there was to be no burden placed upon the Gentiles. Instead of a burden, the Gentiles were to be asked to follow the four prescribed areas of the “apostolic decrees”—not as a law, but as a basis for fellowship. The addition of the “Holy Ghost” in verse 28 is significant, because it revealed the moment by moment reliance of the disciples on the Holy Spirit. Just as the Spirit had been instrumental in the inclusion of the Gentiles (15:8, 12), so now in the conference the Spirit had led the Jerusalem leaders in considering the conditions for their inclusion. The clause “to the Holy Ghost, and to us” means that the decisions have been inspired by the Spirit—“And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him” (Acts 5:32).
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Verse 29 lists the four provisions of the apostolic decree just as originally proposed by James (v. 20). There is one slight variation. Whereas James had spoken in terms of “food polluted by idols,” the letter defined this with the more precise term “meats offered to idols.” Evidently these regulations continued to be taken seriously in large segments of the church.
It has often been argued that Paul either didn’t know of the decree’s or flatly rejected them, since he never referred to them in his letters. Some have observed further that in his own account of the Jerusalem conference, Paul stated that “nothing” was added to his message (Galatians 2:6). This does not necessarily conflict with the existence of the decrees. The conference did approve Paul’s basic message of a law-free gospel for the gentiles—no circumcision, no Torah, no “burden.” “The decrees were a strategy for Jewish-Gentile fellowship, and that was something different. The assumption that Paul showed no knowledge of the decrees in his letters is also questionable. In 1 Corinthians 5-10 Paul seems to have dealt with two of its provisions: sexual immorality in chapters 5-7 and food sacrificed to idols in chapters 8-10. The latter, where Paul advised the “strong” not to eat meat in the presence of the “weak” is particularly instructive, for it reflects the decree’s basic principle of “accommodation”—to enable fellowship between Christians. True, Paul did not accept the decree’s as “law”; but he did seem to embrace their spirit.
The “decrees” are the same as in verse 20, except for a slight change in order. The letter emphasized that the council had kept its demands to a minimum (v. 28) and that what was asked of them was necessary only in the interests of harmony, not of salvation. The final comment, “from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (V. 29), that is, the things prohibited, cannot be interpreted to mean “you will be saved.” It does, however, reflect the conviction that the council’s decision had been reached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (10:19; 13:2). This belief is made explicit in verse 28, where the form of expression does not mean that they put themselves on a par with the Spirit, but only that they were willing to submit to His guidance. Copies of the letter were probably kept in Antioch and Jerusalem, to which Luke would have had access.
What did this decision accomplish in a practical way? At least three things:
1. It strengthened the unity of the church and kept it from splitting into two extreme “Law” and “grace” groups.
2. This decision made it possible for the church to present a united witness to the lost Jews (Acts 15:21). For the most part, the church was still identified with the Jewish synagogue; and it is likely that in some cities, entire synagogue congregations believed on Jesus Christ—Jews, Gentile proselytes, and Gentile “God-fearers” together. If the Gentile believers abused their freedom in Christ and ate meat containing blood, this would offend both the saved Jews and their unsaved friends whom they were trying to win to Christ. It was simply a matter of not being a stumbling block to the weak or to the lost (Romans 14:13-21).
3. This decision brought blessing as the letter was shared with the various Gentile congregations.
That is the report. That is all they have to say to them. Gentile believers are not required to meet any of the demands of the Mosaic system, but they are to exercise courtesy to those who do—especially in the area of meats offered to idols, and of course they are not to commit fornication.
[1] one who writes from dictation or copies manuscripts
********************************************************************************************************************
December 29, 2014
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles
By: Tom Lowe
Topic #IV. The Church Advancing to the End of the Earth (Acts 13-28)
Subtopic B: The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Lesson: IV.b.2: The Problem: Those from Syrian Antioch, Part 4 (15:30-35)
The Jerusalem Council (15:1-35)
Part 1 the Criticism from the circumcision Party (15:1-5)
Part 2 The Debate in Jerusalem (15:6-21)
Part 3 The Decision in Jerusalem (15:22-29)
Part 4 The Decision Reported to Antioch (15:30-35)
Scripture (Acts 15:30-35; KJV) Part 4
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Introduction
The letter brought from Jerusalem by the delegation caused quite a stir at Antioch. When Barnabas and Silas read the letter and confirmed it personally a great cloud was lifted from the minds and hearts of the believers in Antioch, and this really opened the way for renewed labors in which many gifted brethren taught and preached the word (35). The risen Lord was conferring abundant and varied gifts on His church (Ephesians 4:7-13).
Commentary
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Paul and Barnabas and the other delegates (the delegation which in verse 2 had been appointed to go to Jerusalem.), strengthened by the addition to their number of Judas and Silas as delegates from Jerusalem sent expressly to confirm the report of Paul and Barnabas (v 32), returned to the church of Antioch.
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Upon their arrival, the church was assembled and the letter read in the presence of all. Every one found its message “encouraging[1],” undoubtedly because it confirmed their practice of accepting the Gentiles without demanding circumcision and the obligations of the Torah, which would have been burdensome for gentiles to carry. Thus Barnabas lived up to his name (Son of Consolation, or Exhortation). We can well imagine what an anxious time it was for the Gentiles in the Antioch church. There is nothing harder than waiting, especially when a critical decision is expected. The hours and days seem to drag, and always the nagging thought persists: “What if the news is bad?” Hope and despair battle for the victory. The letter then was read amid great rejoicing, since it reassured them of their status. Its demands were apparently accepted without any objections, (they may already have been doing these things under instruction from their own leaders). We do not know what had happened to the Judaizers. Perhaps they had already left, knowing full well their phony credentials would soon be exposed. Or maybe they were still there, hoping that Judaistic sentiment in the Jerusalem church, which they knew to be strong, would prevail. In any case, the letter exposed and discredited them. Not that they changed their minds or gave up their goals. Such men rarely do. But for the time being at least they were effectively suppressed.
On his second missionary journey, Paul shared the letter with the churches he had founded on his first missionary journey. The result was a strengthening of the church’s faith and an increase of their number—“So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers” (Acts 16:5).
Comfort and Consolation. There is “consolation” and comfort in the gospel; there is nothing but condemnation in the Law. The Law condemns. The Law is a mirror. When I look into it, I say “O, Tom, you are ugly! You have fallen short of the Glory of God.” But the gospel says, “Come on to God. He wants to receive you. He will save you by His grace.” It is a comfort, you see.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
The Greek word which is rendered here as “exhorted” is contrary to the imposition the Judaizers attempted to practice on them. The expression “many words” means that Judas and Silas had a lot to say in support of the communication from the Jerusalem church. For one thing, they “confirmed them”—opening up, no doubt, the great principle involved in the controversy which has now been settled of gratuitous salvation, or the purification of the heart by faith alone (as expressed by Peter; verses 9, 11).
As prophets, Judas and Silas were able to go beyond their role of interpreters of the Jerusalem Conference and to further strengthen and encourage their brothers and sisters at Antioch. In the New Testament prophesy is primarily the gift of inspiration whereby one delivers a word from God that addresses the present needs in the life of the church.
33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
Judas and Silas were well received in Antioch and remained there some time, ministering to the church through their gift of interpretation. Judas and Silas did more than confirm the contents of the letter. They remained on in that dynamic church to minister the Word to the Lord’s people, being gifted in the Word themselves. They had a strengthening ministry, one much needed after the weakening and divisive false teaching of the Judaizers. When they departed, they were sent off with the ancient blessing of shalom[2], asking that the peace of God would abide with them. The word “peace” expressed a desire for well-being in all areas of their lives.
For Judas and Silas, their experiences in this new, largely Gentile, young, and growing church must have been somewhat different and exciting after the sedate and stuffy atmosphere in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, evangelistic fervor had given place to exclusivism and concern over non-essentials. For these men to be around a large group of Christians still excited about their salvation, still enthusiastic about winning souls and world missions, and still woefully ignorant, comparatively, of all the majesty and meaning of the Scriptures must have been revolutionary.
34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
It is evident that Paul and Silas got along well together. Silas must have liked Paul and enjoyed working with him. So he stayed there at the church in Antioch. He must have been excited about working with these gentile believers. At any rate, he stayed.
Verse 34 is one of the Western readings that found its way into the Textus Receptus[3] and from there into many of the 16th and 17th century translations. It is the consensus of textual criticism that it was not in the original text of Acts and is thus omitted in modern translations. It reads: “But Silas decided to remain with them. Only Judas departed.” Undoubtedly the scribe responsible for this addition wanted to solve the problem of Silas being present in Antioch again in verse 40. When he did so a much more serious conflict was created with verse 33, which clearly states that they (plural) both returned to Jerusalem. There really is no problem with verse 40 anyway, because it takes place sometime later (v. 36), allowing plenty of room for Silas to return to Antioch from Jerusalem.
Though some of the texts question the validity of verse 34, it would not be surprising if Silas decided to stay on at Antioch.
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Verse 35 concludes the narrative of the Jerusalem Conference in summary fashion. Paul (again taking the lead now that he was away from the deadening influence of Jerusalem) and Barnabas again through themselves into the work of evangelism and Bible teaching. “Many others” caught fire, too. It seems as though, set free from the deadening doctrine of the legalists, the Antioch church had a new lease on life. Now that the Gentile question had been settled, the church prospered under the teaching and preaching of Paul and Barnabas (They were actually the pastors of the church there.) and “many others.” The “many others” are significant. The preaching of Paul, Barnabas, and “many others” was directed, perhaps, to winning outsiders, the teaching was focused on establishing them in the Lord. This verse is the final glimpse into the life of the Antioch church. Paul and Barnabas would soon be leaving for mission fields elsewhere. The church was left in good hands; there were “many others” who were competent to carry on its witness. The events described in Galatians 2: 11-14 probably occurred at this time.
By the way Luke presents the decision of the Jerusalem council, one may suppose that the whole matter of the division between Jewish and Gentile Christians was settled. From Paul’s epistles we learn that the council did not effect a complete reconciliation because the apostle was constantly faced with a group of Judaizers after this important event.
1. We today can learn a great deal from this difficult experience of the early church. To begin with, problems and differences are opportunities for growth just as much as temptations for dissension and division. Churches need to work together and take time to listen, love, and learn. There are several things we can do to avoid dissension and division within our churches:
2. Most divisions are caused by “followers” and “leaders.” A powerful leader gets a following, refuses to give in on even the smallest matter, and before long there is a split. Most church problems are not caused by doctrinal differences but by different viewpoints on practical matters. What color shall we paint the kitchen? Can we change the order of the service? What color should the carpet be?
3. Christians need to learn the art of loving compromise. They need to have their priorities in order so they know when to fight for what is really important in the church. It is sinful to follow some impressive member of the church who is fighting to get his or her way on some minor issue that is not worth fighting about.
4. As we deal with our differences, we must ask, “How will our decisions affect the united witness of the church to the lost?” Jesus prayed that His people might be united so that the world might believe on Him (John 17:20–21). Unity is not uniformity, for unity is based on love and not law.
5. God has opened a wonderful door of opportunity for us to take the gospel of God’s grace to a condemned world. But there are forces in the church even today that want to close that door. There are people who are preaching “another gospel” that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. Help keep that door open—reach as many as you can! Be daring!
Summary. The agreement reached at the Jerusalem Conference was a most remarkable result and established a major precedent for dealing with controversy within the Christian fellowship. One should realize the sharp difference that existed between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Jewish Christians were faithful to all the traditions of their heritage. They observed the provisions of the Torah, circumcised their male children, and kept all the Jewish holy days. They did not cease to be Jews when they became Christians. James was himself a perfect example. In their accounts of his later martyrdom, both Josephus and Eusebius noted the tremendous respect the nonbelieving Jews gave him because of his deep piety and scrupulous observance of the law. Not requiring Gentiles to be circumcised upon entry into the covenant community was a radical departure from the Jewish tradition. That James and his fellow Jewish Christians were willing to bend on such a basic principle is testimony to two things about them. First, they were all open to the leading of God. Throughout the account God’s leading is stressed—in His sending the Spirit on Cornelius (v. 8), in the “signs and wonders” that God worked through Paul and Barnabas (v. 12). It was this evidence of God’s acceptance of the Gentiles that determined the decision of the council to accept Gentiles with no further burden. And the Spirit of God was present with them in the conference, leading them in their decision (v. 28). This is a consistent picture in Acts; wherever Christians are open to God’s Spirit, there is unity.
Second, the Jewish and Christian leadership showed a concern for the world mission of the church that overshadowed their own special interests. They took a step that was absolutely essential if the Gentile mission was to be a success. To have required circumcision and the Torah would have severely limited the appeal to Gentiles, perhaps even killed it. Yet the Jewish Christians only stood to lose by not requiring Jewish proselyte procedure of the Gentile converts. It was bound to create problems with nonbelieving Jews. That it indeed did so is indicated in a later passage in Acts (21:20-22). If the Jerusalem leadership had only been concerned about the effectiveness of their own witness among the Jews they would never have taken such a step. That it did so is testimony of their concern for the total mission of the church. Their vision stretched beyond their own bailiwick—indeed, to the ends of the earth.
[1] The Greek word which has been translated “encouraging” can mean either comfort or exhortation. Either nuance fits this particular context. The letter both comforted them and encouraged them by the conciliatory spirit of its exhortations.
[2] Shalom means “go in peace.” Paul’s customary greeting was “grace and peace” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3).
[3] Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus' edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text, and included some missing parts back translated from the Latin Vulgate.
