Acts 15

CHAPTER XV

THE APOSTOLIC CONVENTION AT JERUSALEM

Acts 15:1

1 Outstanding in the history of the apostolic church is this apostolic convention at Jerusalem and the spirit and the manner in which it settled the great question regarding what was necessary for salvation and thus for membership in the Christian Church. Underlying the entire situation and the way in which it was handled was the conviction that the church was one no matter how many and how widely scattered throughout the world its members were. Despite the gulf which had existed between Jews and Gentiles for so many ages the thought of two churches that were to be diverse in teaching and in practice, one of them Jewish with one way of salvation and one set of requirements for membership, and the other Gentile with another way and with different requirements, never entered the minds of the apostles or the people. The way of salvation was one, and the church was one and could not be two. The conflict that arose must be settled and was forthwith settled on this basis. Jews and Gentiles remained one church; a right and Christian modus vivendi was established.

It was not the one existing in the synagogue between Jews and proselytes of righteousness as full members and thus constituting the first class on the one hand, and on the other hand proselytes of the gate as nominal members who were regarded only as a decided second class. Jewish and Gentile Christians remained on the same level in every way, their living together in full unity was mediated by Christian love in the domain of liberty in the adiaphora or nonessentials. Luke’s account and the far-reaching effects of this apostolic convention are not understood until all this is clearly apprehended.

And certain ones, having come down from Judea, began teaching the brethren, Unless you shall be circumcised after the custom of Moses you cannot be saved.

Luke introduces this account with a simple καί and a comparison with v. 35, 36 shows that what is now recorded occurred at and not after the time which Luke says Paul and Barnabas were spending at Antioch, cf., 14:28. Zahn dates the council in the spring of 52; others place it earlier. All these dates are based on estimates as Luke mentions no exact dates. After Peter had baptized Cornelius and his house in Caesarea he was severely taken to task by “those of the circumcision” on his return to Jerusalem (11:1–3). The matter was settled at that time, yet not in such a way that the question in regard to receiving pagan converts did not again arise. It arose in Antioch when certain unnamed persons came up from Judea—Luke has before this mentioned the country when he had chiefly Jerusalem in mind—and began to spread their Judaizing views and gravely disturbed the simple faith of the Gentile disciples of whom Antioch had so many.

Their teaching is quoted in brief. Circumcision is necessary for salvation; negatively, without circumcision no salvation. But this teaching was not stated merely as doctrine, in a general form, but practically, personally, applying the doctrine: “You cannot be saved unless you shall be circumcised after the custom of Moses.” All the uncircumcised Gentile Christians in Antioch were thus pronounced unsaved. Faith in Jesus Christ was not enough to save, circumcision must be added. The issue was centered on circumcision alone with a kind of inconsistency, for if circumcision was essential as required by the usus of Moses, then what about all else that Moses had required? Consistency would soon have introduced the entire legal system.

In 11:3 the issue was centered on eating unclean food in Cornelius’ house; also in Gal. 2:11, etc. Now circumcision was necessary in the old covenant; it was a part of the covenant itself (Gen. 17:10, 11), so that by rejecting circumcision one was rejecting the saving covenant. Thus it came about that, when the new covenant which rested wholly on Jesus’ blood was established, circumcision together with the entire old covenant was at an end. Circumcision, the whole old Mosaic system, had lost its import and efficacy. It was hard for Jews who had grown up in this system to realize this truth; but it was a fact, even a most blessed fact, for the sole function of the old covenant was to lead to the new.

When the end of the old covenant came, circumcision ceased to be what it had been, a part of that covenant; it became nothing but a human rite. Now Christ is the one Savior who saves to the uttermost. To add anything to Christ as being necessary to salvation, say circumcision or any human work of any kind, is to deny that Christ is the complete Savior, is to put something human on a par with him, yea to make it the crowning point. That is fatal. A bridge to heaven that is built 99/100 of Christ and even only 1/100 of anything human breaks down at the joint and ceases to be a bridge. Even if Christ be thought of as carrying us 999 miles of the way, and something merely human be required for the last mile, this would leave us hanging in the air with heaven being still far away.

Acts 15:2

2 But no little strife and debate having occurred for Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem concerning this debate.

This is Paul’s first sharp clash with the Judaizers. and Barnabas is staunchly at his side. We take it that these two men were the most prominent of the teachers in Antioch and hence led the contention against the Judaizers. Again, they had been the missionaries who gathered a number of churches that were mainly Gentile in membership. The attack of the Judaizers was thus in a special way directed against them and this their great work. “No little” is a litotes for “great” strife and debate. The Judaizers made a great disturbance so that many of the members in Antioch who were uncircumcised were thus personally affected by the claims and demands of these men from Judea. They had no official standing, but that did not matter. The issue had to be decided in any case.

The proper way to reach a decision was taken. Antioch might have made the decision independently. That is the procedure followed by many today who are actuated by a sort of morbid individualism which leads one congregation to disregard all others and to act both without them and contrary to them, and the unity of the spirit is disrupted and inward rents and fissures are caused that only hurt the gospel and its work. Antioch even had the Apostle Paul and prophets who were led by the Spirit in its midst, and the first two chapters of Galatians make it clear that Paul was on a perfect par with the apostles of Jerusalem; and yet Antioch did not act independently.

The view that Jerusalem was the head of all the churches and exercised authority over them is not in accord with fact. Neither the apostles in Jerusalem nor the church here occupied a hierarchical position. The entire church was a unit, one spiritual body, in which all alike were brethren who were bound together most intimately. That reality was not a mere theory in the minds of the disciples, it was an actual and a vital bond, one that governed the hearts and the actions of all. Thus the moment a divisive question arose, that question was regarded as one that the entire church must decide.

The issue was, therefore, taken to Jerusalem, the center of the church at that time. The church at Antioch appointed a delegation to take it there. Paul, Barnabas, and others were sent as representatives; we may call them delegates. The subject of ἔταξαν is understood, “they” in the verb signifying the membership of Antioch. Only a grammatical stickler will derive the subject from πρὸςαὑτούς, the Judaizers. But we then rightly ask how they could arrange for and order that delegation sent from Antioch to Jerusalem and even makes the selection of the persons to be sent.

In the very next verse we are told that the delegation “was sent forward by the church.” This settles also the meaning of “some others of them.” These were other members of the church of Antioch and not a number of the Judaizers as some believe. Whether any of these went or not was a matter of indifference and was left to them.

The lengthy addition in the Codex Bezae is a late interpolation which makes the Judaizers the men who direct and arrange everything. Gal. 2:3 shows that Titus accompanied Paul but, it seems, only as Paul’s companion and not as one of the delegates. Titus is never mentioned in Acts; how this happens we do not know.

Jerusalem was the center of the church because the Eleven made it their headquarters by working from it as a center and then returning to it. One might think that the question would have been submitted to the apostles alone because they were the immediately called apostles of the Lord, and that thus Paul and the Eleven would have made the authoritative decision. No; just as Barnabas and others are sent along with Paul, so the delegation is sent “to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning this dispute.” The expression “apostles and elders” has but one article which makes it a unit. They are thus the delegates from Jerusalem. None of the other congregations were included; none of them had as yet been vexed with the question under consideration, and none of them was in a position to aid in its solution. Mere numbers do not increase wisdom, and Christian essentials are not decided by numbers and a majority vote.

Dr. M. Loy once told a convention that had passed a foolish resolution by a great majority that in the inscrutable providence of God it had been allowed to make an ass of itself.

On elders see 11:30.

Acts 15:3

3 They, therefore, having been sent forward by the church, were going through both Phoenicia and Samaria, recounting the conversion of the Gentiles; and they were causing great joy to the brethren.

On Luke’s μὲνοὗν see 1:6. The connective means, “everything being as just described, the delegation was sent forward by the church,” the participle implying that an escort accompanied them part of the way, escorts such as this being customary in the case of honored persons when they set out upon a journey. Luke is content with the factual story, but Paul later wrote that he went up to Jerusalem “by revelation” (Gal. 2:1, 2). Going by revelation and being sent as one of a delegation is not a contradiction.

The delegates chose the route overland and thus came through Phoenicia and then Samaria, Jerusalem lying just beyond the latter. The imperfect describes how they passed through these. Congregations had been organized. So they halted again and again and recounted “the conversion of the Gentiles” (their turning to God) in Antioch and on their first missionary journey. Instead of meeting Judaizing objections to the entrance of pagans into the church, the apostles caused only great joy to all the brethren, “all” being significantly added. Judaistic ideas were foreign to all these brethren. We should scarcely call their journey “a triumphal procession” or make the joy “a constant pæan of praise.” We think everything was more sober than that.

Acts 15:4

4 And having come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders and reported what great things God did in company with them. But there rose up some of the sect of the Pharisees, having believed, declaring, It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses. The apostles and the presbyters, however, were gathered together to see concerning this subject.

In recording the reception given the delegation from Antioch in Jerusalem the order “by the church,” etc., which places the church first, is significant compared with v. 6 where “the church” is omitted so that we might be in doubt regarding its presence if it were not for v. 12, where we see that it was present at this second meeting. At the first reception “the church” is in the foreground. The members as such gave the delegation, and that refers especially to Paul and Barnabas, a most enthusiastic welcome. Luke wants his reader to know that fact. The Judaistic faction was small in numbers; although it was composed of former Jews, the church in Jerusalem was sound in the faith and not fanatic regarding circumcision and the Mosaic regulations. After thus putting “the church” first, in the two remaining groups, which are marked as such by articles, “the apostles” are naturally placed before “the elders.”

This must have been a grand gathering. Of the elders who were present we know only James (v. 18). In Gal. 2:9, Paul mentions only two apostles, Peter and John, as being present, the rest, apparently, being at work elsewhere at this time. It is significant that at this great gathering of welcome Paul and Barnabas simply make a report on “what great things God did in company with them,” Luke using the identical clause he used in 13:27, which see. Together they tell the great story of their missionary journey which was undertaken at the instance of the Spirit (13:2) and carried out with such success (including great miracles) in pagan cities. Jerusalem learned the great facts that spoke so forcefully for themselves.

At this meeting Paul and Barnabas say nothing about the Judaizers that had appeared in Antioch and had caused a disturbance there regarding circumcision for Gentile believers. They leave this to the Judaizers themselves. That was a wise procedure. They do not mar the effect of their great narrative by thrusting into it this dispute that had arisen much later, after their missionary work had been completed. By proceeding as they did, Paul and Barnabas really ask on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the church at Antioch which was so deeply involved in their work whether there was anything wrong with “the great things God did in company with them.”

Acts 15:5

5 Some then arose who declared that there was something wrong, something decidedly wrong. Luke does not indicate that these objectors were the same men who had caused the disturbance in Antioch. The view that the Judaizers who had come to Antioch had either themselves ordered some of their number to go up to Jerusalem to present their cause (so the Codex Bezae and those who think it presents the facts) or had induced the congregation at Antioch to send some of their number, fails here where such delegates should appear and speak. Judging from Luke’s account, those Judaizers in Antioch had not sent up anyone to present their contention. It was not necessary that any of them should appear in Jerusalem; in Jerusalem itself men who strongly shared their views would stand up and oppose the delegation of the congregation at Antioch. And such men did stand up and demand not only circumcision for pagan converts (v. 1) but, with complete consistency, the keeping of the Mosaic law in general. In other words, they made the door into the Christian Church not merely faith (see 14:27) but faith plus Judaistic legalism.

In v. 1 Luke writes only “some from Judea” when he describes those who appeared in Antioch; now he characterizes those in Jerusalem as “some of the sect of the Pharisees, having believed,” i. e., former Pharisees who had been converted, had been and still were believers, and were thus members of the congregation in Jerusalem. Here we have Luke’s definition of the Judaizers, of these disturbers who afterward broke into the Galatian congregations and caused Paul so much trouble, which necessitated his strong Epistle to the Galatians. Some have a wrong conception of them, as though they rejected the entire gospel, the entire Christ, and preached only salvation by the law. But they were believers in Christ and the gospel, members of the church at Jerusalem, but they erred in a most dangerous point, namely in wanting to append to the gospel and Christ the requirement of circumcision (that most especially) and of the other Mosaic regulations. They thought the gospel incomplete without this addition.

Judaizers later charged Paul with emasculating the gospel in order to gain the applause of the Gentiles and win easy victories. Without warrant they claimed Peter as the head of their party. We here learn that they were originally Pharisees, members of that Jewish sect which was most strict in adhering to all the laws of Moses and to the traditions with their 613 additional commandments (Matt. 15:9). From αἵρεσις we have our word “heresy,” the original meaning being a set of persons who profess peculiar principles or tenets.

Acts 15:6

6 The Judaizers feared that Gentile Christianity was like “the boar out of the wood” (Ps. 80:13) who would ravage God’s vineyard by breaking down the hedge of the law. From opposing Peter (11:2) and then Paul they went on to become the sect of the Ebionites. It was at a second meeting, one that seems to have been especially called (judging from the passive συνήχθησαν), that the contention of these Judaizers was examined. Luke now properly puts “the apostles and the elders” forward. We see from v. 12 that the congregation, too, was present. In matters of doctrine and practice—this was one of both—all were concerned, but the apostles and the elders naturally took the lead because of their office and their special qualifications.

It is necessarily so to this day in spite of the movements that try to put laymen forward unduly and beyond their depth. Some shepherds, too, expect their sheep to lead them; the sheep may enjoy the novelty but are only sheep after all. A fine distinction was made in Jerusalem. That first meeting was called for the purpose of welcoming only, and the Judaizers were not allowed to turn it into anything else; this second meeting had its special purpose, “to see concerning this subject” or λόγος. There was due deliberation.

We may place Gal. 2:1–6, the private conference with the apostles at Jerusalem, before this second meeting. In this letter Paul characterizes the Judaizers as ψευδάδελφοι, pseudo-brethren, not real brethren, who were brought in unawares, without anyone knowing their real convictions, who had no right to membership. This was due to the fact that they falsified the gospel. When R., W. P., says that it is a bit curious that today some scholars claim that for the sake of peace Paul yielded to them and had Titus, his companion, circumcised, he states it rather mildly; in Galatians, Paul claims the exact opposite of what these scholars believe: “to whom I yielded, no not for an hour.” Paul was the last man in the world to effect an evil compromise. It seems that he purposely took uncircumcised Titus along as a sample of a Gentile convert and as a direct challenge to the Judaizers, and no apostle even suggested that Paul should have him circumcised if only to placate the Judaizers.

Acts 15:7

7Now much debate having occurred, Peter, having arisen, said to them, etc. We now see why Luke says nothing about the church in v. 6; the laity did not participate in the debate, the speakers were those immediately concerned, the apostles and the elders officially. We may take it that the Judaizers had their full say, and that their contentions were also answered. All that, however, was only preliminary, and Luke passes it by with a brief genitive absolute.

The decisive address was made by Peter, and hence Luke recounts that with great credit to Peter. Paul and Barnabas had already spoken at length at the first meeting and had recounted their experience which was the very same as Peter’s had been. They and Peter were in fullest harmony as direct witnesses of what God had done among the Gentiles. Moreover, Peter had already received full approbation from the congregation in Jerusalem over against the Judaizing legalists (11:18). Thus we see the influence his address now had. Peter did not preside at the meeting; it was James, the chief elder of the congregation in Jerusalem.

Peter spoke as no longer being a resident of Jerusalem, which agrees with his leaving as recounted in 12:17. The congregation in Jerusalem was organized like all others and had elders; the apostles did their work in new territory outside of the city.

Men and brethren (see 1:16), you yourselves know that in olden days God made choice for himself for the Gentiles to hear through my mouth the Word of the gospel and to believe. And God, the heart-knower, bore them witness by giving them the Holy Spirit even as also to us. And in no respect did he discriminate between both us and them, by the faith cleansing their hearts. Now, therefore, why are you tempting God to place a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were strong enough to bear? But through the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe to be saved after what manner they too.

Peter addresses the entire assembly in the usual fraternal manner but in v. 10 turns to the Judaizers themselves. He appeals to what they on their part know and what happened so long ago. The Greek idiom uses ἀπό (or ἐκ) when reaching back into the past by counting from “the olden days” forward. It was more than ten years ago since the Gentile Cornelius and his house had been brought into the church by faith in the gospel alone.

God did that. The work of Paul and of Barnabas was not an innovation and did not present a new question. Far back in those days God “made choice for himself,” elected of his own accord (middle voice), “for the Gentiles to hear (effectively, aorist) through my mouth the Word of the gospel and to believe (effectively, aorist).” At that time God made Peter the medium as he had now made Paul and Barnabas his media. We must review chapter ten in order to see that God was the great agent in bringing Peter to Cornelius by using a vision and an angel. For the first time we meet “the Word of the gospel” whereas hitherto we have had “the Word” or “the Word of God (or of the Lord).”

Acts 15:8

8And now Peter brings out the pertinent point in that act of God’s. As “the heart-knower” he made no mistake (the same term occurs in 1:24) when “he bore testimony to them” (to those Gentiles in Caesarea) that they were truly his children by faith alone. He bore this testimony “by giving them the Holy Spirit even as also to us,” so that those Gentiles spoke with tongues exactly as the 120 had at the time of Pentecost (see 10:46). The point to be noted is that God gave these Gentiles the same attestation that he had given to the apostles themselves and to the first believers.

Acts 15:9

9Peter intensifies this most decisive point: “in no respect did he discriminate (differentiate, judge one way and then another) between both us and them.” The Greek always names the first person first, the others last. God made no difference whatever between Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, Levitically clean and unclean. As to this last, the matter of cleanness in God’s eyes, “he cleansed their hearts—where alone all true spiritual cleansing occurs—by the faith.” Τῇπίστει with the article is “the faith” in the sense of the Word of the gospel received by faith; and “heart” is to be taken in the Biblical sense, the center of the personality. These unclean Gentiles God cleansed in this true fashion. That is what made Jew and Gentile alike in his sight. Peter’s hearers knew the whole story and hence needed to have only its significance for the question in hand pointed out to them.

Acts 15:10

10With οὗν and the logical νὗν he makes his deduction and turns to these Judaizers themselves. Apostrophe ad Pharisaios et severus elenchus. Bengel. The question is convicting: “Why are you tempting God?” They are not dealing with these Gentiles but with God himself and with his will as he has made it so clearly known. They are tempting or trying God to see whether he will keep still to their contradiction of his will or will resent it and punish them. The infinitive is epexegetical (R., W. P.), Ergaenzung (B.-D. 392, 1 a), not result (R. 1089): “to place a yoke upon the neck of the disciples,” one that is so heavy that neither our fathers in the old covenant nor we former Jews had strength to bear it (Gal. 5:1).

Metaphors are often the strongest arguments, for they are really condensed syllogisms. Βαστάσαι, “to bear up with hands or shoulders,” fits the figure. The thought is that expressed by Paul in 13:39. No man who lived in the old covenant ever fulfilled the law of Moses and in that sense really bore its yoke. That is why the old covenant had its Day of Atonement and its many arrangements with offerings and sacrifices to remove sins, all these gaining their efficacy through the sacrifice of Christ which they typified and with which they connected the sinner. For that intolerable yoke of the law Christ had substituted his gospel yoke (Matt. 11:29), a wonderful yoke which itself bears every believer. Do these former Pharisees intend again to burden men with the old yoke?

Christ’s removal of the yoke of the law made circumcision and kosher eating, etc., no longer obligatory in any sense apart even from the matter of gaining salvation; yet neither were these Jewish practices and modes of living forbidden by Christ. They became adiaphora, matters of liberty and choice, that should not be forced upon others or become a cause of pride and marks of special holiness as compared with Gentile Christians. Peter could continue kosher eating, for instance, but not as though that elevated him above those who did not eat kosher and made him stand higher in God’s sight.

Acts 15:11

11Over against the Judaistic imposition of a legal yoke ἀλλά, the strong negative “on the contrary,” places the declaration: “Through the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe to be saved after what manner they too” (believe to be saved). The phrase with διά is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. The one divine means of salvation is “the grace of the Lord Jesus” and not our observance of the law. Even in the old covenant the saving means was the Old Testament gospel and promise of the Messiah and not the law. “Grace” is the favor of the Lord Jesus and the redemption it wrought for the sinner and now applies to him. “Grace” connotes sin, guilt, liability to damnation; “grace” brings remission of sin, guilt, and damnation, and thus salvation. The aorist “to be saved” is effective, “actually and effectively to be saved,” rescued spiritually and placed in the condition of safety. In καθʼ ὃντρόπον the antecedent is drawn into the relative clause: “according to that manner according to which” they, too, believe to be saved. There is one and one manner only, the one stated by διά, namely grace.

That address of Peter’s was masterly in every way. To appreciate it fully we must visualize the audience and the occasion. It was a perfect answer to any and every Judaistic and legalistic contention. The fact that later Peter himself did not live up to his own words in Antioch and had to be rebuked in public by Paul (Gal. 2:11–21) changes nothing as to the truth and the import of Peter’s address here in Jerusalem; it only points a warning for us lesser men.

Acts 15:12

12And all the multitude kept silence and went on hearing Barnabas and Paul recounting what great signs and wonders God did among the Gentiles through them.

The debate had come to an end. Not a voice from “all the multitude” spoke in contradiction to what Peter had said, and that implies that none of the former Pharisees (v. 5) and no one in the congregation raised the least objection. That silence was eloquent.

Then Barnabas and Paul again spoke, and the imperfect describes how attentively all listened to them. Barnabas spoke first because he was the older man and was better known than Paul in the congregation in Jerusalem. Perhaps he alone spoke for both as we have repeatedly seen Paul speaking for both. They had already made a full report in regard to their success among the Gentiles (v. 4); now they recount “the signs and wonders” (see 2:19; 14:3) God wrought among the Gentiles through them. They thereby clinch the decisive point of Peter’s address, namely that God bestowed the same miraculous manifestations on Cornelius and on his house that he had bestowed on the 120 Jewish believers at the time of Pentecost. God did those signs and wonders among the Gentiles, for no apostle ever worked a miracle by his own volition.

The apostles were only his instruments as the significant διά once more states. Peter’s experience was already sufficient, but that experience was multiplied in the case of Barnabas and of Paul. God had thus set his seal of approval on the work of receiving Gentiles into the church by faith alone without circumcision and other Levitical observances.

Acts 15:13

13And after they were silent, James answered, saying, etc. R., W. P., regards ἐσίγησε in v. 12 and σιγῆσαι in v. 13 as ingressive aorists: “became silent.” But no one had been speaking, all had been listening silently. These are mere historical aorists that state only the fact that there was silence. James now speaks. He does so as chairman of the meeting, for he lays a proposition before the assembly which embodies what the results of the discussion ought to be; and that proposition was adopted by all.

In our assemblies we require a motion and a second from members on which a vote of yea or nay is taken. Yet even today a good chairman may suggest what the motion should be which someone then formally makes and another seconds. It seems to have been the Jewish custom (see 6:3 for another instance) that the chairman formulated and offered the resolution and himself simply presented it to the assembly for adoption or otherwise. On James see 12:17.

Acts 15:14

14Men and brethren, hear me! Symeon did recount how God first looked to it to take out of Gentiles a people for his name. And with this agree the words of the prophets even as it has been written:

After these things I will return again

And will build again the Tabernacle of David, the one that has fallen,

And the ruined parts of it I will build up again

And I will upright them again

In order that those remaining of men may seek out the Lord,

And all the Gentiles upon whom has been called my name—

Says the Lord who does these things.

Known from the eon his work to God!

James belonged to the Hebrews and not to the Hellenists (on the distinction see 6:1). He, no doubt, lived in the Jewish fashion, for in Gal. 2:12 some who came to Antioch from him influenced even Peter to eat only with them and in a marked way to turn from the tables of the Gentiles. This fact made his address the more effective. He first called for attention, probably in order to hush the subdued conversation being carried on in the great assembly. He begins by restating the substance of Peter’s address and uses Peter’s old Jewish name “Symeon” in its Hebrew form. James, too, stresses the agency of God and refers to Peter’s account because that dealt with God’s receiving Gentiles into the church. He uses the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew expression ἐπεσκέψατο (see this verb in Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16), which is often employed with reference to gracious visitation, “to look upon someone,” “to visit a person.” Here the verb has no personal object, and hence we translate, “first looked to it.” God gave his personal attention to taking “out of the Gentiles a people for his name.”

Bengel notes the egregium paradoxon between ἐθνῶν and λαόν which is made the more marked by putting the words in juxtaposition: “pagans” and “sacred people,” λαός being constantly used as a designation for Israel. God wanted a laos also from the pagan world in addition to the Jews and was now taking it out of that world. The ὄνομα is again God’s revelation (see 2:21, 38). For the great saving revelation of himself in Christ Jesus, God took “a people” from the Gentile world. That is what he did for the first time in Caesarea; there he made the beginning.

Acts 15:15

15To Peter’s report and to all that Barnabas and Paul had added James now appends the Scripture corroboration, the one thing still needed. All the statements (λόγοι) of the prophets “sound together with” (our word symphony) this act of God’s, his taking “a people for his name out of the Gentiles.” James employs the usual formula for quotation and quotes Amos 9:11, 12. He uses the LXX although it deviates markedly from the Hebrew in one line. The view that James quoted the LXX because he found the main point of the quotation in just this line, is untenable; the Hebrew would be just as fitting. It may well be possible that the whole address of James, in fact, the entire discussion was conducted in Greek and that James used the LXX for this reason. Zahn shows that Greek was regularly spoken in Jerusalem in his Introduction to the New Testament I, 43, etc. The supposition that in recording the address of James Luke merely copied his LXX is untenable, for the quotation is not a verbatim reproduction of the LXX and differs from it already in the very first phrase.

The idea that James quotes Amos in preference to Isaiah or some other prophet because Amos speaks of the tent of David, and James was of Davidic descent as “the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19),” is another of those combinations in which Zahn delights and which he therefore elaborates at great length. This is untenable. The reference to David’s Tabernacle is made for far weightier reasons.

Acts 15:16

16Amos writes “in that day,” i. e., when Israel’s punishment will have been inflicted, in the day when the Messianic kingdom will be founded, in the day of the Christian Church. When James spoke, that day had come and hence he quotes interpretatively when he substitutes the phrase “after these things,” namely the inflictions of which Amos had spoken. James quoted in order to be understood and not in order to give a mere mechanical reproduction of the prophet’s words. Even if he spoke in Aramaic he had to make the Hebrew intelligible. Note that the four main verbs which state what the Lord (Κύριος, v. 18, no article: Yahweh) will do are compounds of ἀνά, “again”: “I will return again—I will build again—I will upright again”; the LXX, too, has four “again” verbs, but two of them are “raise up again” and two “build up again” to bring about this blessed restoration, for he wants to emphasize the truth that God himself is doing this work that had been begun by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas.

ἩσκηνὴΔαβίδ, “the Tabernacle of David,” cannot be “the house of David,” David’s descendants, either in general or as a royal line. Σκηνή is never employed in that sense. In Jesus, risen and glorified, the throne and the kingdom or rule of David were raised up and established forever. That had been done years ago and was not being done now. “Tabernacle” refers to the Tabernacle of David’s time before Solomon was permitted to build the Temple. In that Tabernacle David worshipped with Israel. It thus stood for the church. And it was the church that had fallen because many of its parts were ruined (literally; “the parts that have been turned down”). The church of Israel was, indeed, in a sad state, had been so for years and years. God would restore it.

Acts 15:17

17That glorious promise was now being fulfilled. But not in Israel alone, and not by building the church out of Jews only. Amos, like the other prophets, was permitted to see that the great restored Tabernacle of David would include also the Gentiles. The ἄν is rarely used with ὅπως in the New Testament (R. 986); but it does not add “an additional note of uncertainty,” for the entire note is one of expectancy, the connective denoting divine purpose, and God’s purposes are always realized. The Hebrew reads: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen,” etc.; the LXX translate: “That those remaining of men may seek out [the Lord], and all the Gentiles,” etc. It seems as though the translation of the LXX was made from a text that had the Hebrew reading adam (men) instead of ʾedom (Edom) and the verb yidroshu (seek) instead of yiroshu (possess).

The question is one that concerns the Hebrew text. James was content with the rendering of the LXX. As far as possessing Edom is concerned, Amos certainly did not have in mind a political possession, for he adds “all the heathen” (goyim), and no prophet spoke of a political domination of all the heathen or Gentiles on the part of Israel. This possession would be entirely spiritual. Perhaps that is the reason that James left the LXX as it was.

He was concerned mainly with this word about “all the Gentiles.” God’s great purpose in restoring David’s Tabernacle reached out to “all the Gentiles,” including, of course, also Edom, as we have already seen that it included also the Samaritans (8:5, etc.). However the textual question regarding the Hebrew and the LXX is answered, the point of the quotation is not affected as far as the use made of it by James is concerned. The great Messianic restoration was intended most particularly for the Gentiles, their coming into it made David’s Tabernacle greater than ever. The limiting relative clause, “upon whom has been called my name,” states that this divine purpose will be fulfilled only in the case of the believing Gentiles. The addition ἐπʼ αὑτούς is a case of incorporating a redundant antecedent into the relative clause: “upon whom my name has been called, upon them,” R. 723. The masculine relative after τὰἔθνη is used because persons are referred to.

To call the Lord’s name upon the Gentiles is to bring them the revelation of the Lord (see ὄνομα in 2:21, 28; 3:6); note the same expression in James 2:7 (Greek). To have that name called upon one again and again (perfect tense) is to be present where that name and revelation constantly resounds, namely in the worship of God’s people. The relative clause thus designates these Gentiles as believing worshippers. “All” considers them as being many. In the A. V. note the marginal note with 9:12, which renders the Hebrew exactly.

The close of the quotation is: “saith the Lord who does these things,” λέγειΚύριοςὁποιῶνταῦτα. This statement sets the prophet’s seal on his utterance as being the Lord’s own word, the word of him who carries out what he says. We cannot omit the article before the participle as a few texts do, because this would result in the impossible sense: “Saith the Lord by doing these things,” this is contrary also to the Hebrew.

Acts 15:18

18A few texts read: λέγειὁΚύριοςὁποιῶνταῦταγνωστὰἀπʼ αἰῶνος, which is adopted by the R. V. and translated in one way in the text and in another way in the margin. But it is difficult to think that James would have made such an addition to the words of Amos. Far more preferable is the translation of the A. V., which is also well supported textually. The only questions are whether to read the plural “works” or the variant singular “work,” to leave the copula ἐστί or to omit it, to read “God” or “Lord.” We take the text to be: “Known from the eon his work to God (or to the Lord)!” a separate exclamatory statement by James himself.

After concluding the quotation from Amos, James quite pertinently declares that an eon before the time that God would do a work he already knew what that work would be and thus could foretell it. Of such a kind was this work of having his name called upon the Gentiles. God is doing that work now but knew it an eon ago and foretold it through Amos. An αἰών is an eon or era that is marked in some way, here by the knowledge on the part of God of what would transpire at its end. James adds this statement with which all his hearers must agree in order to bring to their minds the fact that God is now doing a work which he ages ago knew he would do. If it seems strange to some when they now see him doing this work, as he undoubtedly is doing it, let these persons know that God had it in contemplation all along and said so through the statements of his prophets (v. 15), Amos being among them.

Acts 15:19

19From the reports of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas and the ancient prophecies concerning their work James draws the conclusion, for the question at issue. Wherefore I for my part judge that we do not annoy those turning from the Gentiles to God but that we write to them to abstain from pollutions of the idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from olden generations has city by city those preaching him by being read in the synagogues Sabbath by Sabbath.

The formulation ἐγὼκρίνω, ego censeo, “I for my part judge,” intends to present to the assembly the question as to whether they on their part judge the same. According to our way of speaking, James is offering a resolution to the assembly for adoption; so in v. 22 we see that adoption promptly followed. The negative part of the resolution was, not to annoy the incoming Gentile believers. They are fitly called “those turning from the Gentiles to God,” who thus cease to be Gentiles who are far from God, living in superstition and in idolatry, and become Christians, worshippers of the true God. This turning is conversion.

The negative infinitive is an indirect command: “Do not annoy.” It is in indirect discourse after κρίνω (R., W. P.). The point lies in the meaning of the infinitive: παρά + ἐν + ὄχλος = to crowd in on someone unnecessarily, here by demanding circumcision and the Levitical requirements. James regards the Judaistic demands made on the Gentile Christians as crowding these Christians in an uncalled for manner, annoying them without warrant (this is the force of παρά, bringing something in on the side). Thus in a distinct though mild way James passes an adverse verdict on all Judaistic legalism and asks the assent of the assembly to this verdict. It is important to note this negative point in the resolution he offers lest we misconceive the sense of the positive part of his resolution. He does not intend to compromise with the Judaizers, to accept at least some of their demands for Gentile Christians and thus in a manner at least to satisfy them.

Acts 15:20

20What James proposes that the apostles and the church at Jerusalem shall write to the Gentile Christians is something entirely different. We may translate ἐπιστεῖλαι, “write” or “send a letter or message,” ἐπιστολή. The four points thus to be communicated to the Gentile congregations constitute the fraternal advice deemed necessary for them in view of their Gentile origin and their position in Gentile and pagan surroundings and as being brethren of Jewish Christians in almost all cities. The idea of James is by no means that of an apostolic decree handed down by apostolic authority which demands legal obedience. In v. 22 the entire assembly acts. The apostles are not a body which substitutes for Moses and decrees laws similar to those which Moses gave to Israel at God’s command.

The resolution that James offers is not to be a papal bull. The four points to be sent out are in no sense “a moral catechism,” an abbreviation of the decalog or a selection from the decalog. Neither are they a substitute for the so-called Noachian commandments which are reduced from seven to four. Those seven were directed against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, incest, robbery, disobedience to government, eating bloody meat (Gen. 9:4), and were imposed on the proselytes of the gate. There was not the faintest idea of dealing with Gentile Christians as the Jews dealt with proselytes of the gate and of regarding them as second-rate and not as real Christians.

We regard the infinitive with τοῦ exactly as we did the infinitive in v. 19: it is in indirect discourse and replaces an imperative: “Hold yourselves away from.” Although ἀλισγήματον (from ἀλισγέω) is found only here, its meaning is assured, “pollution.” “Pollutions of idols” is defined in v. 29: pollutions incurred by eating things sacrificed to idols. James is not speaking of idolatry, for no one could be an idolater and a Christian at the same time, and all Gentile Christians had given up idolatry. Yet there was danger for Gentile Christians of pollutions with idols through eating things sacrificed to idols. All manner of idol feasts were celebrated, at which parts of the animals sacrificed to the idol were served as meat to all the guests. Gentile converts would be asked by relatives and friends at least to go along and to enjoy the rich dinner. What harm could there be in that?

We know what a grave question this became in Corinth; read 1 Cor. 8 as the best commentary on this point of the proposal of James. Considered by itself and abstractly, it was not a sin to eat such meat; but it was dangerous to do so for any who had a weak conscience and dangerous for others who had weak consciences to see a Christian at such a feast. Only one safe course remained, namely to stay away. To say this to Gentile Christians was not making a law for them; it was the best and the truest advice to them. Jewish Christians, of course, had neither invitations nor desire to go to such an idol feast.

We need not make the next three genitives depend on “pollutions”; they are connected directly with the infinitive. “From fornication” has caused much discussion since this is forbidden by the Decalog and no limitation is introduced in v. 29. Here again we find our best commentary in 1 Cor. 6:13b–20, and recall that Paul’s letters so frequently warn the Gentile believers against fornication. The point is always that in the Gentile world, even among its noblest men, this sin was not considered a sin but something that was entirely innocent and natural. It was a part of their idol worship. The wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians argued that fornication was merely an external matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the converts from paganism in some form or other.

Hence this warning appears as the second in the list of James. Missionaries still have trouble with their converts on this score. Even in Christian lands moral laxity is justified in peculiar ways as not being immoral at all but only unmoral, merely something natural, “living one’s life,” etc. The early Gentile converts were in constant danger of being drawn into fornication in one form or the other by their relatives and their friends. Hence Paul’s, “Flee fornication!” 1 Cor. 6:18.

This word of James’ is not metaphorical or figurative, nor should it be restricted to incest, forbidden degrees of consanguinity, marriage with a pagan spouse, etc. No restriction is needed because the form of the sin made no difference.

“From a thing strangled and from blood” may be considered together since both alike involve blood. An animal that was not butchered but snared and killed by strangling still had blood in it. To eat such an animal or to eat anything that was prepared with blood, although it was forbidden by Lev. 18:13; Deut. 12:16, 23, was no longer forbidden to Christians since all these Levitical regulations had been abrogated. Why, then, introduce these items? Certainly not in order again to enforce these points of the Levitical law. That would have been Judaistic legalism, and if any part of it was to be imposed, it should not have been one minor point regarding food but circumcision, the sine qua non of Judaism.

James mentions these two points because the Jewish Christians were especially sensitive regarding them. They, too, knew that these points of the law were abrogated but they still felt a horror of eating blood or any meat that had retained the blood. The Gentile Christians were asked to respect this feeling and thus from motives of brotherly love, and from these alone, to refrain from eating blood and meat that still had its blood.

The principle that underlies these two items is the one Paul so constantly stressed: to use the adiaphora in love, always so as not to offend the brethren, especially the weak. Against presumptuous demands he stood firm as a rock, but otherwise his prime consideration was love. See him voice this principle in 1 Cor. 8:13, and again in 9:19–23. Many who today deem themselves strong are impotent in this application of love. They scorn the idea that they should consider their brethren, they hurt and stagger the weak without a qualm, and they offend where they are themselves often wrong in fact and where the offense is gratuitous and wholly uncalled for. Go to school to James and take a full course with Paul. One thing that made them so great was this considerate love for the brethren.

The idea that all four points must deal with adiaphora or with universal moral principles, has led to much confusion. As such we regard Harnack’s deletion of “the thing strangled” from the text so that he might obtain three commandments of the Decalog, one against idolatry in general, one against all sexual sins, and one against murder (“blood”). Reference is made to the Codex Bezae which omits “the thing strangled” and adds the Golden Rule at the end. Here as elsewhere this lone text and its Latin translation present only what someone thought Luke should have written. “From blood” is often referred to the shedding of human blood, as though Gentile Christians were inclined toward murder! This list is diverse throughout, and no effort will succeed in reducing the four points to the same level.

James was not governed by logical or theoretical considerations but only by the different needs of the Gentile Christians in their peculiar situation at that time. On the one hand they were surrounded by their pagan connections, and on the other they found themselves in the same Christian congregations with Jewish members. Here were idol feasts, where they might both contaminate themselves and greatly hurt others; here was fornication which was nothing to pagans and liable still to seem to be nothing to pagan converts; here was the matter of blood in meat or otherwise which was nothing to them, nothing in fact, and yet still horrible to their Jewish brethren. The one safe course to follow was to avoid these things.

Acts 15:21

21“For” adduces a consideration which concerns especially the Jewish Christians and to some degree also former Jewish proselytes of the gate who are now Christians. Ever since synagogues were established in the diaspora, which goes back to the time after the Exile, Moses, meaning his Pentateuch, was preached “city by city” (distributive κατά) by being read “Sabbath by Sabbath” (the same κατά) in the synagogues. The hatred of idolatry, the wickedness of fornication, and the prejudice against any food that has blood in it had been most deeply ingrained in Jewish minds and to some extent in the minds of proselytes. Now, indeed, as far as Levitical regulations are concerned, these are abrogated, and James is certainly not trying to revive at least a few of them. They have disappeared forever. But love demands of the Gentile Christians that, apart from any danger to themselves in idol feasts and in fornication, they ought to be considerate of their fellow Christians who had been reared as Jews and who, although they were now freed from the old Jewish legalism, still shrank from the things that were once so strongly forbidden them by the Levitical laws of Moses.

Considering this, all Gentile Christians would and should refrain from what might offend. This is not law and legislation but fraternal appeal to Christian love. James stands forth as the full brother of Paul as the latter is revealed in his epistles.

Yet some still think that James offered a compromise, namely that the Gentile Christians should be satisfied to keep at least these few regulations of the Mosaic and the Levitical system. But Christianity never compromises, Christian liberty is to be exercised only in love and in consideration for others, and James moves on this high plane and on it alone. The idea that converted Jews would still attend their synagogues and thus still be bound by the old Mosaic legalism, is contrary to the facts. In Pisidian Antioch and in Iconium the synagogue raged against Christianity. And James speaks of what has been “from olden generations” and not of what Jewish converts may still do.

Acts 15:22

22Then it was resolved by the apostles and the elders together with the entire church that, having elected for themselves men from themselves, they send them to Antioch together with Paul and Barnabas, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brethren, having written by their hand: The apostles and the elders as brethren to the brethren of the Gentiles throughout Antioch and Syria and Cilicia greeting! Since we heard that some who went out from us agitated you with declarations, unsettling your souls, to whom we did not give command, it was resolved by us, after coming to one accord, having elected for ourselves men, to send them to you together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have delivered up their lives in behalf of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have accordingly commissioned Judas and Silas, they themselves also by word (of mouth) reporting the same things. For it was resolved by the Holy Spirit and us that no further burden be placed upon you; only abstain from these necessary things: from those sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; from which carefully continuing to guard yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare well.

In connections such as this (see also v. 25 and 28) δοκέω with the dative means that the assembly passed a formal resolution (B.-P. 315). This was probably done by a show of hands as in 14:23. In this way “it seemed good” (our versions). The entire church participated in the vote together with the apostles and the elders. The vote was unanimous as v. 25 indicates, ὁμοθυμαδόν. R., W.

P., is hard on the Judaizers by declaring that they probably did not vote but still held to their opinions. The vote included everything: assent to the resolution offered by James, sending a commission to Antioch with a letter that embodied that resolution, and the election of Judas and Silas as that commission. Several votes were probably taken although Luke merely states that “it was resolved.” The sending of a committee to Antioch was a courteous response to the committee that had been sent from Antioch and at the same time shows the importance of the entire matter. The committee from Jerusalem is to accompany the committee from Antioch, the two are really a joint committee. Even in matters such as this the apostles strongly fostered the unity of the church.

The construction of ἐκλεξαμένους is perfectly regular, it is the accusative subject of πέμψαι and not loose (R., W. P.); the participle is a true middle. Concerning Judas we know only what is said here, that he belonged to the leading men in Jerusalem. Because of his added name Barsabbas he is generally regarded to have been a brother of the Joseph Barsabbas mentioned in 1:23. Silas, however, soon became one of the assistants of Paul, whose Hebrew name “Silas” received a companion name of similar sound, the Roman “Silvanus,” which Paul used to designate him. Adding or substituting a Greek or a Latin name of a sound similar to the original Hebrew or Aramaic name was a quite common practice.

Silvanus was prominent in Jerusalem. He now came into close association with Paul and was thus chosen as the latter’s companion on the second missionary journey (v. 40). He must have been a Hellenist and was a Roman citizen (16:37).

Acts 15:23

23The nominative participle γράψαντες, having no nominative on which to depend, is a mild anacoluthon and is construed ad sensum; apostles, elders, and the whole church wrote “by the hand” of Judas and Silas. Διὰχειρός means no more than “through”; it is an Aramaic expression. These two received the order to put the adopted resolution into proper written form so that it might be approved by the apostles and the elders.

The resolution was drawn up in the form of a letter; and both its beginning and its ending are worded in the standard style of the day. First was the heading, which was always composed of three elements; the sender’s own name (we put the signature at the end), the name of the person to whom the letter is addressed (we put that at the head), then the greeting. Additions may be made to any one of the three elements or to all of them; we have samples in the Epistles. No additions were made in the present letter. “The apostles and the elders” write for themselves and for the entire church but as “brethren.” Some texts have “and the brethren,” referring to the congregation, but this reading lacks attestation. The apposition “brethren” is highly significant in this communication. The apostles and the elders of Jerusalem speak to the Gentile Christians only as brethren and not as superiors.

They call these Christians “the brethren of the Gentiles” and thus acknowledge them as brethren in Christ in the full sense of the word. Fratres Fratibus Salutem. Brethren salute brethren. The communication is fraternal and asks to be accepted as such and as such alone.

The letter is, however, sent not only to Antioch but also to all the Gentile brethren “throughout Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” It is a circular letter that is intended to reach all the churches that have been disturbed by the Judaizers. All these brethren were immediately involved. The letter was later carried still farther (16:4) and was used to fortify Gentile Christians everywhere against the appearance of Judaizers. We need not wonder that there were congregations in Syria and in Cilicia; the first dispersion had carried the gospel as far as Antioch, and that means also to other places, and since that time Christians had spread out from these new centers. That Titus had organized them or any of them is a hypothesis. The missionary spirit actuated every believer.

The greeting is only the common secular χαίρειν, an absolute infinitive (R. 944, 1093) with imperative force; the ellipsis of λέγουσιν is not needed to explain the infinitive (B.-D. 389, 480, 5) nor “send” in the A. V. Only in James 1:1 do we have a Christian letter that has this common brief salutation; the other Epistles use a distinctive Christian formula which is generally expanded. This infinitive is idiomatic and cannot be imitated in translation. The letter was certainly written in Greek. Many copies of it must have been made and spread abroad, one of which Luke certainly obtained.

Acts 15:24

24The preamble is elaborate (v. 24–27) and states fully the reason that prompted the letter. First, the Judaizers are completely disowned. The writers say that they had heard about them, that they “went out from us,” from the congregation at Jerusalem, and what damage they then did, “agitated you with declarations (λόγοις), unsettling your souls.” Since these Judaizers came out from Jerusalem and misrepresented the mother church so badly, it was proper, aside from the request from Antioch, that the mother church should set herself right in the eyes of these Gentile Christians and put an end to the false teaching that had disturbed the daughter-congregations.

While the clause, “to whom we did not give command,” is only relative, it is decisive and a complete disavowal. What these Judaizers had done they had done of their own accord. They had no authorization from home. No apostle or elder had given them the least permission to make demands such as they had made. One of the marks of sectarists and fanatics is the fact that they act without a call from either God or man. The devil rides them to spread their divisive and hurtful doctrines.

A morbidity to infect others possesses them. Judging from this statement in the letter, we must conclude that the Judaizers who had come to Antioch had carefully refrained from sending a representation to the convention at Jerusalem. The apostles and the elders found out about them and their damaging work only from the delegation that the congregation in Antioch itself had sent. “We heard” is thus the literal fact.

Acts 15:25

25And so they passed their resolution (ἔδοξενἡμῖν, exactly as in v. 22) to send a special committee of their own to accompany that of Antioch; and this resolution was taken “after coming to one accord,” i. e., with full unanimity as to the entire question and as to the mode of procedure. Thus they elected their committee. The Gentile Christians are thus given to understand that a plenary meeting was held, that this meeting acted unanimously, and that it chose this committee. This letter accredited the committee. Its bearers had official standing. This was orderly action and proper authority which was something different from the Judaizers who came unsent, unauthorized, and yet acted as though they spoke the mind of the mother church.

Moreover, this committee is being sent “with our beloved Barnabas and Paul” who are properly mentioned in this order because Barnabas had been a member of the congregation in Jerusalem from early days. This acknowledges the committee from Antioch by naming its two illustrious members. By adding “our beloved” (plural) the letter states in what high esteem these two men were held in Jerusalem, in what accord the mother church was with them, and how fine a thing it was that Antioch had entrusted them with an important mission. All these fine fraternal touches must be appreciated.

Not a word is said about the Judaizers who attempted to voice a contrary opinion. The conclusion is not fair that they were merely brushed aside as defeated disturbers who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority. The opposite is true. After speaking as they did (v. 5) and after hearing Peter, Paul, and Barnabas these men dropped their objections, voted for the proposition, and were satisfied. The mother congregation was unanimous in passing its resolution just as the letter states.

We must not be misled by the rise of Judaistic opinions at a later date. What happened in 11:18, after Peter had been assailed, happened also at this time. The letter would not have been honest in the statement “having come to one accord” if the Judaizers still persisted in their views. The letter would have had to deal with that fact. More than that, the congregation in Jerusalem could not have tolerated in its membership men who persisted in claims which would agitate and unsettle the souls of all Gentile brethren, claims that were subversive of the full powers of the gospel to save. Such members would have to be dealt with and could not be allowed to go on as long as their opinions remained unchanged.

No mere majority of the mother church was sending this letter. The unity of the mother church remained intact. That was one great achievement of the meeting which Luke describes. Let our congregations note it and not be satisfied with bare majorities in matters of doctrine and of practice. True unity is too precious and too vital to be sacrificed so easily.

Acts 15:26

26The apposition which describes Barnabas and Paul as “men (ἀνθρώποις, Menschen) who have delivered up their lives in behalf of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” is a refined intimation to the effect that the mother church was fully informed in regard to the work Barnabas and Paul had done on their great missionary tour and in regard to the mortal dangers these two had incurred. That made them all the dearer to the mother church. The perfect participle “have delivered up their lives” conveys the idea that this past act is still valid in the present. Ὄνομα is here, too, “the revelation” of Jesus, namely his gospel (see 2:21, 38; 3:6). For the first time in Acts we have the full personal, official, and soteriological designation “our Lord Jesus Christ,” which became standard in the church. Κύριος is the saving Lord, who makes us “his own to live under him in his kingdom and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as he is risen from the dead, lives, and reigns to all eternity,” a part of Luther’s imperishable definition of “our Lord.” On “Jesus Christ” see 2:38.

This was not flattery of Barnabas and Paul and not extravagant language to describe what they had done. The words are brief but strike the main point. It was fitting that they themselves were not sent with the letter. Even in such matters it is difficult to excel the apostles and the early church. The church has had much flattery, much insincere praise. That is the sin of hypocrisy.

Its praise has often been bestowed where it did not belong and withheld where it did truly belong. To praise in the wrong place and in the wrong way only exposes those who extend and those who accept such praise. When certain persons withhold praise where it is due or perhaps pronounce blame instead of praise, this is one of the unconscious yet most valuable forms of praise which ought to cheer those to whom it is rightfully extended. When Paul was almost stoned to death, the crown was being placed upon his work and upon his head. 1 Pet. 4:12–14. But when we are buffeted for our faults, let us take it like the malefactor and not be hypocritical martyrs.

Acts 15:27

27The letter names the two commissioners to Antioch. What kind of men they are the congregation at Antioch will see for itself, and hence no words of commendation are added. They are commissioned, that is enough to show the confidence the mother church has in them; it was indeed a high honor. In addition to conveying the letter, Judas and Silas are authorized “themselves also by word of mouth, διὰλόγου, by statement of their own, to repeat the same things.” The letter is necessarily brief; Antioch and all the other congregations will desire to know more. Barnabas and Paul could make an added report in Antioch, but Judas and Silas will be needed for this purpose in the other places, since it cannot be assumed that Barnabas and Paul will have the time for this in Syria and in Cilicia, and even in Antioch it will be most proper that the added information and the answers to questions come from them, at least from them in the first place.

Acts 15:28

28And now the resolution adopted at Jerusalem in regard to the question at issue is reported in due form. The resolution is certainly well formulated. But it comes as a surprise to read, “It was resolved by the Holy Spirit and us,” since the Holy Spirit has thus far not been mentioned in the entire account. Yet the apostles had the specific promises of Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, John 16:13. Besides, in regard to this particular question God had made his will too plain for anyone to be in doubt as to what that will was regarding Gentile believers. In the case of Cornelius, Peter had moved only according to the most divine revelations.

So it was not presumption but true assurance to write “by the Holy Spirit and us.” The principal and the ministerial cause are mentioned side by side (Calov). We are today led by the Spirit in our decisions when we are in accord with his Word; deviation from the Word is forsaking the Spirit and following our own wisdom. The subjective certainty that the Spirit is directing us must always be supported by the objective fact that we are clinging to the Word and not to something we think is the Word.

The good news which the letter communicates is this: “That no further burden be placed upon you,” present infinitive, “placed upon you at any time,” no further burden beyond the one that necessarily rests on all believers whether they be former Jews or former Gentiles. The idea to be conveyed is that at no time is a peculiar burden to be placed on Gentile believers because they are of Gentile origin. This is exactly what Peter said in v. 10, even the same verb is employed: “to place a yoke upon the neck of the (Gentile) disciples.” The letter uses the literal “burden” instead of the figurative “yoke.” Yoke and burden are defined by Peter in v. 10 as that which neither the fathers nor the Jewish disciples when they were still Jews could bear: the Mosaic law (see this passage) from which “the grace of the Lord Jesus” made the believers wholly free. Those who assume the easy burden and the light yoke of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 11:29, 30) have no further burden to bear.

At this point we disagree with the translations and with some of the commentators. It is linguistically impossible to construe πλέον … πλήν, as is, for instance, done in our versions: “greater than”; πλέον is never so construed. Πλήν never completes a comparison, for it is either a conjunction or a preposition. We, too, never say, “greater except.” What has contributed to the grammatical misconstruction is the idea that a compromise was being arranged for the Gentile Christians, namely that they were not to bear the whole law but only a small part of it, not the whole legalistic system of Moses but only certain parts of it. This misconception is augmented when the part which the Gentile Christians were supposed to bear is summed up in three commandments of the Decalog, abstinence from idolatry, from murder, and from fornication. But what about the rest of the Decalog? See the discussion of v. 20.

The entire moral law (the ten commandments of the Decalog) were binding upon all Christians; but the whole Levitical and ceremonial law, every last part of it, was abrogated for all Christians. In this apostolic letter not the part of the latter law is imposed on the Gentile Christians. As far as this Levitical law is concerned, it would have been meaningless to impose this or that point and to pass by the chief point, namely circumcision. So we cannot construe πλέον with πλήν. Place a semicolon after βάρος.

Zahn has the right idea but has difficulty with the infinitive ἀπέχεσθαι because in the ten instances in which the conjunction πλήν occurs it is followed by the imperative; and so he changes the reading to the imperative ἀπέχεσθε: “only … abstain,” etc. But read R. 943 in regard to the infinitive used as an imperative. A new statement begins with πλήν: “only (or nevertheless) from these necessary things abstain,” and then they are named. The infinitive is the more in place since another infinitive precedes so that we may even keep the same construction for both: “It was resolved that no further burden be placed upon you; only (nevertheless) that you abstain from these necessary things,” etc. That clears up the grammar; v. 29 should begin With πλήν.

Acts 15:29

29But when it is now stated that Gentile Christians should abstain from certain “necessary” things, it would be misleading to reintroduce legal or Levitical, Mosaic necessity. No burden of that kind remains, not even for Jewish Christians. If, for instance, they choose still to eat kosher they may do so as a matter of liberty; the moment they would do it as a matter of law they would be destroying the gospel. We have explained the necessity of the things here mentioned in connection with v. 20; it was a necessity that was due in part to danger for Gentile Christians themselves (idol feasts, fornication) and in part to love for their Jewish fellow Christians (offending them by eating blood or bloody meat). This type of necessity is something that is vastly different from all ancient or modern legalism. It will always rest upon us: the necessity to keep away (ἀπέχεσθαι, hold oneself away from) from everything that might pollute, from anything idolatrous, fornicatious, or otherwise contaminating; the necessity of considering our brethren, their natural feelings and also their weakness so as never to harm them.

This is sound apostolic advice that is good for us Gentile Christians to this day. The order of the four items is changed from that found in v. 20, but this seems immaterial.

Because of its preposition and its tense, διατηροῦντες means, “carefully continuing to guard” and defines what is meant by abstaining. If you follow the apostolic advice, “it shall be well with you”; for εὗπράξετε has the specific meaning of being and not of doing well, and was often used in this sense at the close of a letter. Here, however, ἔρρωσθε, “fare well,” is added. It is the Latin valete. The form is the perfect passive imperative of ῥώννυμι and literally means: “Be made strong!” or “keep well!”

Acts 15:30

30They, therefore (see v. 6), having been dismissed, went down to Antioch and, having gathered the multitude together, delivered the letter. And having read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement.

Luke is brief. We may take it that the committees were accompanied for a short distance by a goodly number of the members of the congregation in Jerusalem in accord with the custom that was so common at that time. After they arrivevd at Antioch, the πλῆθος was gathered together. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 232, offers illustrations from inscriptions of the use of this word for official, political, and religious gatherings; ὄχλος would certainly not be the proper word. Thus in public, at a great gathering of the entire church in Antioch, the letter from Jerusalem was duly delivered.

Acts 15:31

31Luke says “they read it” and means that one did the reading for all. The result was joy over the παράκλησις, a word that is not easily translated. It can scarcely mean, “the exhortation,” for it applies to the entire letter and not merely to the one hortatory sentence. “The consolation” is little better. Perhaps “the encouragement” is the best we can do in English, for in the next verse Judas and Silas παρεκάκλεσαν (the verb instead of the noun), “encouraged” the brethren. The root idea of the word is “calling one to one’s side” for some kind of help and support. We note “the Paraclete,” the Holy Spirit as the One called to our side. The effect of the letter was the same in all the other Gentile congregations in which it was read.

Acts 15:32

32Both Judas and Silas themselves also, being prophets, encouraged the brethren by means of many a word and made them firm.

Our versions punctuate incorrectly. We cannot translate, “being themselves also prophets,” because there are no other prophets with whom Judas and Silas are compared. But as the letter brought encouragement, so Judas and Silas themselves also encouraged the brethren. They, no doubt, told the entire story at length; but “being prophets,” they did much more. On “prophets” compare 11:27; here the word signifies men who are thoroughly versed in the Word and able authoritatively to set forth the Lord’s will from that Word. So they must have done what James began to do when he cited Amos 9 (v. 16–18) and showed “by means of many a word” just what was intended concerning Gentile converts to Christendom; note διὰλόγου in v. 27. The second verb adds the thought that they thereby confirmed, fixed and settled them in their faith and their conviction regarding what God really willed.

Acts 15:33

33Now, having spent some time, they were dismissed with peace from the brethren to those who commissioned them.

The two messengers did not return hurriedly, they took their time. “They were dismissed” does not mean that it was finally intimated to them to leave; they certainly would have been welcomed to stay even permanently. “They were dismissed with peace” means that, when they were ready to leave, the congregation itself bade them farewell to depart in peace. As they had been formally received on their arrival, so they did not merely steal away when leaving but were tendered a formal farewell. “From the brethren to those who (had) commissioned them” includes greetings to the apostles, elders, and the congregation in Jerusalem. Why should these two prominent phrases be used if that were not the sense? The brethren in Antioch were no less courteous than those in Jerusalem had been.

Acts 15:34

34The Codex Bezae adds: “Silas, however, resolved to remain there (or with them),” and: “And Judas alone went on.” Because v. 40 shows that Silas was in Antioch, the writer of this codex imagined that he had never left the place. The idea is in conflict with v. 33, where both Judas and Silas leave. Here, as in so many changes and additions, this codex is unreliable. It is the work of a late scribe who altered the original according to his own ideas. Correct the A. V. by cancelling v. 34.

Acts 15:35

35Paul, however, and Barnabas were tarrying in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming as good news the Word of the Lord in company also with many others.

We are kept in touch with Paul and with Barnabas, and the imperfect tense intimates that more in regard to them is to follow. While they continued in Antioch they were busy “teaching” the brethren and “proclaiming as good news the Word of the Lord” to pagans in order to bring them to faith. In this they had the company (μετά) of “many others,” so rich in teachers and in missionaries was this great congregation. Active, ever active is the word that characterizes Paul—vacations had not yet been invented. Into this time of a few weeks or months, those prior to March in the year 50, the trying incident with regard to Peter must be placed (Gal. 2:11–21). Paul was compelled to correct him publicly, and Barnabas, too, had yielded to Peter’s influence. Luke passes the matter by because it did not influence the course of events; if it had not been for the later attacks of Judaizers on Paul, even he would have left no record of Peter’s mistake, but his opponents who were working in Galatia compelled him to write about it in self-defense.

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY: PAUL AND SILAS REACH TROAS

Acts 15:36

36The second missionary journey starts with a painful incident: Paul and Barnabas part company with each other. Now after some days Paul said to Barnabas, Having returned now, let us visit the brethren city by city, in which we proclaimed the Word of the Lord, how they fare.

This occurred “some days” after Judas and Silas had left for Jerusalem; but the number of days were not only a few, for they extend over a number weeks or perhaps months. The proposition is made by Paul. He, too, sees that Antioch is well supplied with teachers and missionary workers, and he had reason to be solicitous about the young congregations that he and Barnabas had founded in heathen territory. So Paul proposes a visit to them, taking them city by city in order to see how they are getting along. Δή = “now,” “then.” It is a particle that gives precision or emphasis to the words to which it is attached and has no real English equivalent. Πῶςἔχουσι is an indirect question, literally, “how they have it,” “wie sie sich befinden,” “how they are getting along.” It seems that no news regarding them had come to Antioch.

Acts 15:37

37But Barnabas was wanting to take along with them also John, the one called Mark. Paul, however, was considering it best not to take along with them this one, him who withdrew from them from Pamphilia and did not go with them to the work. And there occurred a clash so that they separated from each other, and that Barnabas, taking Mark along, sailed off to Cyprus; but Paul, having chosen for himself Silas, went out after having been given over to the grace of the Lord by the brethren.

The last we heard of Mark was in 13:13, where he left Paul and Barnabas at Pamphilia and returned to Jerusalem. Had he come to Antioch? The same question may be asked with reference to Silas; had he, too, come back to Antioch from Jerusalem? It is generally assumed that both Mark and Silas were again in Antioch. In regard to Silas see the spurious v. 34. It is possible, of course, that both Mark and Silas were in Jerusalem at the time when Paul proposed the journey to Barnabas and that they were summoned from there.

We can understand why Barnabas wanted to take his cousin Mark along just as he had been taken along as an attendant (ὑπηρέτης) in 13:5. Note the imperfect tense to express the desire of Barnabas and in the next verse to indicate the consideration of Paul. R., W. P., interprets these imperfects as durative and as thus marking the tenacity with which each man clung to his idea. But Luke regularly uses imperfect tenses to express the preliminary actions when the final outcome is still in abeyance. Then follows the aorist or several aorists which state what the result was. So here ἐγένετο is followed by ὥστε in v. 39.

Acts 15:38

38Paul did not consider it wise to take Mark along, and his reasons are indicated briefly by the two participles. Mark had withdrawn from Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary tour when they reached Pamphilia and had not gone with them to the work. The implication is that the call of the work, the great work to be done, had failed to hold Mark; he let other considerations weigh so heavily that he left Paul and Barnabas at Pamphilia even before the main work was done and went back to his home in Jerusalem. We have treated the question of this withdrawal in 13:13, which see. Paul faulted Mark for that withdrawal to such an extent that he would not risk a recurrence by again taking Mark along. A man who failed once at a crucial time might well fail again.

If we were right in 13:13, in supposing that Mark was afraid to go on because Paul was sick at Perga, Paul was right in refusing to take Mark along. What if Paul again had to battle with sickness? We must endeavor to picture in our minds not only the hardships but also the dangers of these missionary journeys. They certainly required a degree of heroism, and not every man was equal to the task. It would be an injustice to Barnabas to think that he, too, had not blamed Mark for leaving them at Perga. Barnabas had loyally clung to Paul although Mark was his cousin.

But now the confidence of Barnabas in Mark was fully restored; it was otherwise in the case of Paul.

Acts 15:39

39This is the situation painted by the imperfect tenses which hold the reader in suspense. Now the outcome: neither man yielded to the other. “A clash occurred,” παροξυσμός (our word “paroxysm”). We need not overdraw the picture and speak of passionate and bitter words, of hot tempers and anger. Paul and Barnabas were not men of that common, cheap type. This clash was one between incompatible convictions, Barnabas being sure that Mark would prove fit for the task, Paul equally convinced that he would not prove fit. Neither insulted the other nor did anything regrettable.

But because they had such opposite convictions in regard to Mark, the two men separated and divided the field, Barnabas going to Cyprus and taking Mark along with him, Paul taking the rest of the field on the mainland. Barnabas and Paul evidently agreed on this division. If they were not to go to the work together, this was a most proper thing to do. They also agreed that Barnabas was to go to Cyprus. Paul and Barnabas had begun their work at Cyprus because the latter was a Cyprian and knew a good deal about the island. So Cyprus is now allotted to him.

We have no reason to assume that the division thus made was not an amicable one. To assume that it was made in heat or passion is quite unwarranted.

Barnabas now passes from sight; the Acts do not mention him again. Paul refers to him in 1 Cor. 9:6. The great current of gospel history follows Paul, and Luke limits himself to that. However much Barnabas accomplished, his work was like that of most of the Twelve (now Eleven) and of others, it was not a part of the main stream that flowed with such power through Asia Minor and southern Europe and left its mighty mark for the next centuries while the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jews as a nation.

Mark made good with Barnabas in Cyprus. Eventually be became one of Paul’s helpers, Col. 4:10; and how dear he became to Paul we see when Paul was facing his end in the Roman prison, 2 Tim. 4:11. We also see him with Peter, 1 Pet. 5:13, who calls him his son. He wrote the second Gospel and did it as the mouthpiece of the Apostle Peter. Mark was a man who might be regarded as belonging to the second-class workers in the church but proved to be of great value in supporting two, and that two of the greatest apostles. His early mistake was soon wiped completely from the slate.

Acts 15:40

40So Paul took Silas but not in place of Mark but in place of Barnabas. On Silas see v. 22. Due to the acquaintance Paul had had with him in Jerusalem, on the journey to Antioch, and while he had remained in Antioch, Paul found him the man to be put in the place of Barnabas. Silas was even a Roman citizen (16:37), which was an asset not to be despised in an undertaking such as this missionary journey. We meet him with Peter and Mark (in 1 Pet. 5:12, 13) as Peter’s messenger. It is an interesting pursuit to gather the scattered notices of the New Testament and to reconstruct parts of the biography of these lesser men such as Mark, Silas, Luke, and others. It does not seem, from all accounts, that Silas fully filled the place of Barnabas; Barnabas was the greater man.

Only in regard to Paul does Luke say that on departing for his journey “he was given over to the grace of the Lord by the brethren.” This recalls 15:26, and indicates that the brethren in Antioch sided with Paul as far as Mark was concerned and not with Barnabas. This does not imply that they did not wish Barnabas and Mark well and did not commend them to the grace of the Lord. Luke is speaking of a public service at which Paul and Silas were sent on their journey. It seems that Barnabas and Mark had already left Antioch.

Acts 15:41

41And he was going through Syria and Cilicia, making the churches firm. The singulars used here and in the following narrative indicate the complete leadership of Paul. Barnabas had been more of an equal to Paul, while Mark was no more than an attendant. Silas thus appears as the able assistant of Paul who was less than Barnabas but much more than Mark. This time the searoute was not taken but the route overland. The two travelers circled around the upper part of Syria and then went through the narrow part of Cilicia into the province of Galatia.

They thus circled the Gulf of Issus and when doing so passed through the “Syrian Gates,” the narrow road that led between steep rocks on the one side and the Gulf on the other. They very likely passed through Tarsus, Paul’s old home, and then through the Cilician Gates, the narrow pass over the Taurus range. This route afforded an opportunity to present the apostolic letter to the congregations in this part of Syria and Cilicia as had been contemplated in the address of the letter itself (v. 23). We have no means of knowing how these congregations were founded. Some think they were Paul’s work during the eight years he spent in Tarsus, but this is unlikely. Let us assume that they came into existence as Antioch itself had done, through the disciples that were scattered abroad after Stephen’s martyrdom.

Details about them and even locations are entirely lacking.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.