Acts 15

Acts 15:1

E. The Council at Jerusalem (15:1-35) 15:1 The dispute which arose over circumcision in the church at Antioch is also described in Gal_2:1-10. Taking the two accounts together, we get the following picture: Certain false brethren from the church in Jerusalem traveled to Antioch and began preaching in the assembly there. The substance of their message was that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved. It was not enough that they should believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; they must also put themselves under the Law of Moses. This, of course, 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 needs 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. 15:2, 3 Paul and Barnabas vigorously opposed these Judaizers, knowing that they had come to rob the Gentile believers of their liberty in Christ Jesus. Here in Acts 15 we learn that the brethren in Antioch decided to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others … to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders there. In Gal_2:2 Paul says that 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. En route to Jerusalem the group stopped at various points in Phoenicia and Samaria, giving an account of the conversion of the Gentiles, and causing great joy wherever the story was told. 15:4 When he first arrived in Jerusalem, Paul went to the apostles and the elders privately and gave them a full account of the gospel which he had been preaching to the Gentiles. They had to admit that it was the same gospel which they had been preaching to the Jews. 15:5 Apparently it was in an open meeting of the entire church that certain of the Pharisees who were believers rose up and contended that Gentiles must be circumcised and must keep the law of Moses in order to be disciples in the truest sense. 15:6 From verse 6 it might appear that only the apostles and elders were present when the final decision was made. However, verse 12 seems to indicate that the entire church was there as well. 15:7-10 As Peter rose to his feet, perhaps the opposition felt he would support their position. After all, Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. However, their hopes were doomed to disappointment. Peter reminded the audience that some years previously God had ordained that the Gentiles should first hear … the gospel from his lips. This took place in the house of Cornelius. When God saw that the hearts of those Gentiles were reaching out to Him in faith, He gave them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost.

At that time, God did not require these Gentiles to be circumcised. The fact that they were Gentiles made no difference; He cleansed their hearts by faith. Since God had accepted the Gentiles on the principle of faith and not of law-keeping, Peter asked the assembly why they should now think of putting the Gentiles under the yoke of the lawa yoke … which neither their fathers nor they had been able to bear. The law never saved anyone. Its ministry was condemnation, not justification. By the law is the knowledge of sin, not salvation from sin. 15:11 Peter’s final decision is worthy of special notice. He expressed the deep conviction that through the grace of the Lord Jesus (and not through law-keeping) we (the Jews) shall be saved in the same manner as they (the Gentiles). One would have expected Peter, as a Jew, to say that the Gentiles would be saved the same as the Jews. But grace is here seen triumphing over ethnic distinctions. 15:12 After Peter had finished, Barnabas and Paul gave an account of how God had visited the Gentiles, and had accompanied the preaching of the gospel with miracles and wonders.15:13, 14 Peter had told how the Lord had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles at the first through him. Paul and Barnabas added their testimony as to how the Lord had worked through them in evangelizing the Gentiles. James now stated authoritatively that God’s present purpose for this age is to call out of the Gentiles … a people for His name. This was, in substance, what Simon (Peter) had just related. 15:15-19 Then James quoted from Amo_9:11-12. Notice that he did not say that the calling out of the Gentiles was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos, but rather that it agreed with the words of the prophets. The assembly should not think it a strange thing that God should visit the Gentiles with salvation, because this had been clearly predicted in the OT. God had foretold that Gentiles would be blessed as such, and not as believing Jews. The quotation from Amos looks forward to the Millennium, when Christ will sit upon the throne of David and when the Gentiles will seek after the Lord. James did not intimate that this prophecy was being fulfilled at the time he spoke. Rather, he said that the salvation of Gentiles which was then taking place was in harmony or agreement with what Amos said would take place later. James’ argument was this: First God would visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. This is what was then happening (and is still happening). Converted Gentiles were included in the church with converted Jews. What was then happening on a small scale (the salvation of the Gentiles) would later happen on a larger scale. Christ would return, restore Israel nationally, and save all the Gentiles who would be called by His name. James looked on contemporary events as God’s first visitation of the Gentiles. He felt this first visitation was in perfect harmony with what Amos predictedthe future visitation of the Gentiles when Christ returns as King. The two events agree though they are not identical. Notice, then, the order of events:

1. The taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name (v. 14) during this present Age of Grace.
2. The restoration of the believing portion of the nation of Israel at Christ’s second advent (v. 16).
3. The salvation of Gentile nations following the restoration of Israel (v. 17). These Gentiles are referred to as all the Gentiles who are called by My name. James’ quotation of Amo_9:11-12 is quite different from the rendering in the OT. Part of this difference is explained by the fact that James apparently quoted in Greek. However, the quotation is quite different even from the Septuagint. One explanation is that the same Holy Spirit who originally inspired the words now permitted them to be changed in order to meet the problem at hand. Another is that the Hebrew manuscripts have several readings in Amos 9. Alford believes James must have quoted from a translation close to a received Hebrew text, otherwise the Pharisees would never have accepted the quotation as proof. After this I will return (v. 16). James had already stated that God’s program for this present age was to open the door of faith to the Gentiles. Not all of them would be saved, but He would take out of them a people for His name. Now James added that after this, that is, after the church has been called out from the nations, God would return and rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen and in ruins. The tabernacle of David is a figurative expression describing his house or family. Its restoration is a type of the future restoration of the royal family and the re-establishment of the throne of David with Christ sitting upon it as King.

Israel will then become the channel of blessing to the world. The rest of mankind will seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by His name. The quotation from Amos closes with the statement that these are the words of the Lord who does all these things. Therefore, because God’s present purpose is to call out from the Gentiles a people for Himself, James cautioned against troubling the Gentiles by putting them under the Law of Moses. As far as salvation is concerned, all that was needed was faith. 15:20 However, he suggested that in writing to the church at Antioch the saints there be advised to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. It might seem at first that James was here reversing himself. Was this not a form of legalism? Was he not now putting them back under the law? The answer is that this advice did not have to do with the subject of salvation at all. That issue had already been settled. But this advice had to do with fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. While obedience to these instructions was not a condition of salvation, it was certainly of great importance in avoiding sharp cleavages in the early church. The things prohibited were:

1. Things polluted by idols. In verse 29 this is explained as foods offered to idols. If Gentile believers went on eating these foods, then their Jewish brethren might seriously wonder whether they had given up idolatry. Although Gentile Christians might have liberty to eat such foods, it might prove a stumbling block to weak Jewish brethren, and would therefore be wrong.
2. Sexual immorality. This was the cardinal sin of the Gentiles. It was therefore especially important for James to include this with the other subjects mentioned. Nowhere in the Bible is the command to abstain from sexual immorality ever revoked. It is of standing application for all ages.
3. Things strangled. This prohibition goes back to the covenant which God made with Noah after the flood (Gen_9:4). Thus it is a standing order for the human race and not just for the nation of Israel.
4. Blood. This too goes back to Gen_9:4 and thus precedes the Law of Moses. Since the Covenant with Noah was never abrogated, we take it that these regulations are still in effect today. 15:21 This explains why the advice of verse 20 was given. There were Jews in every city who had always been taught that it was wrong to do these things that James warned against. It was wrong not only to commit immorality but also to eat food offered to idols, meat from strangled animals, and blood. Why then should the Gentiles offend God by committing immorality, or offend man by doing the other things? 15:22 It was thus definitely decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. The next step was to send official notice of this in writing to the church at Antioch. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem, with the whole church, designated Judas, called Barsabas, and Silas, both leading men among the brethren, to go back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. This Silas is the one who later became a traveling companion of Paul, and who is referred to as Silvanus in the Epistles. 15:23-29 The substance of the letter is given here. Notice that the false brethren who went from Jerusalem to Antioch originally had never received the authorization or approval of the church in Jerusalem (v. 24). The moment by moment reliance of the disciples on the Holy Spirit is suggested in verse 28: For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us … . Someone has spoken of this as the senior partnership of the Holy Spirit.15:30, 31 When the letter from Jerusalem was read in the church at Antioch, it proved to be a great encouragement. The disciples there now knew that God saved them as Gentiles, and not by their becoming Jews. 15:32, 33 Judas and Silas remained for some ministry meetings, in which they exhorted and built up the brethren in the faith. After a prolonged time of happy fellowship and service in Antioch, they went back to Jerusalem. 15:34 Verse 34 in the King James tradition does not appear in either the oldest or majority of manuscripts (see NKJV footnote). Apparently some copyists thought it would be helpful to supply this information in order to explain the apparent contradiction between verses 33 and 40. In verse 33 Silas is pictured as returning to Jerusalem. But then in verse 40 he is seen accompanying Paul on his Second Missionary Journey. The obvious solution is that Silas did return to Jerusalem, but was then contacted by Paul with an invitation to accompany him on his travels. 15:35 Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch at this time, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord. There were many other servants of the Lord who ministered to the assembly. The events described in Gal_2:11-14 probably occurred at this time.

Acts 15:36

F. Paul’s Second Missionary Journey: Asia Minor and Greece (15:36-18:22) 15:36-41 The time had come to begin the Second Missionary Journey. Paul broached the subject to Barnabas, suggesting that they revisit the cities where they had previously preached the word. When Barnabas insisted that his nephew, Mark , accompany them, Paul strongly opposed the plan. He remembered vividly how Mark had departed from them in Pamphylia, and doubtless feared he would do it again. The contention between Barnabas and Paul became so sharp that these two honored servants of the Lord parted from one another. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, the place of his birth, and also the first stop on the First Missionary Journey. Paul chose Silas and went through SYRIA and CILICIA, strengthening the churches. Verses 36 and 41 give us additional insight into the true pastoral spirit of Paul. His loving care for the people of God was once mirrored by an eminent teacher who said he would rather perfect one saint to the work of ministering than call hundreds of people to the beginnings of Christian life. At this point the question inevitably arises, Who was right, Paul or Barnabas? There was probably fault on both sides. Perhaps Barnabas allowed his judgment to be swayed by his natural affection for Mark. Verse 39 indicates that there was sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas. By pride comes nothing but strife (Pro_13:10). Therefore they were both guilty of pride in the matter. Those who think Paul was right point out that Barnabas disappears from the story at this point. Also, Paul and Silas were commended by the brethren to the grace of God, but this is not said in the case of Barnabas and John Mark. In any event, it is heartening to remember that Mark finally did win his colors, and was completely restored to the confidence of Paul (2Ti_4:11).

EXCURSUS ON THE AUTONOMY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH The council at Jerusalem might appear at first sight to be a sort of denominational supreme court. But the facts are otherwise. Every local assembly in the early days of Christianity was autonomous that is, self-governing. There was no federation of churches with a centralized authority over them. There were no denominations and therefore no denominational headquarters. Each local church was directly responsible to the Lord. This is pictured in Rev_1:13 where the Lord is seen standing in the middle of the seven golden lampstands. These represent the seven churches of Asia. The point is that there was no governing agency between the individual churches and the great Head of the church Himself. Each one was governed directly by Him. Why is this so important? First, it hinders the spread of error. When churches are linked together under a common control, the forces of liberalism, rationalism, and apostasy can capture the entire ground simply by seizing the central headquarters and denominational schools. Where churches are independent, the struggle must be waged by the enemy against a host of separate units. Second, the autonomy of the local church is an important protection when a hostile government is in power. When churches are federated, a totalitarian government can control them all by controlling the few leaders at headquarters. When churches refuse to recognize any centralized authority, they can more readily go underground in times of oppression. Many governments today, whether democratic or dictatorial, try to bring about the union of small, independent churches. They say they do not want to deal with a large number of local units but with a central committee representing them all. Free governments try to bring about this union by the offer of certain favors and benefits. Other governments try to force the union by edict, as Hitler did during the Third Reich. In either case, the churches which yield to the pressure lose their scriptural character as well as their ability to resist modernism and to carry on secretly in time of persecution. Some may object that the churches in Acts did have a central authority, namely, the council in Jerusalem which we have just considered. However, a careful study of the passage will show that this was not an official body with regulatory powers. It was simply a gathering of apostles and elders acting in an advisory capacity. The council did not summon the men to come from Antioch; the latter decided to consult the men in Jerusalem. The decision of the council was not binding on the churches; it was simply offered as the combined judgment of the group. The history of the church speaks for itself. Wherever there has been federation of churches under a central organization, there has been an acceleration of decline. The purest testimony for God has been maintained by churches which are free from outside human domination.