Acts 15

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 15 DISPUTE ABOUT SETTLEDAct_15:1-35.

RAISED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIAAct_15:1 1 And certain men came down from Judaea—Paul and Barnabas had just reported “ all things” that God had done for the Gentiles through them, and that he had “ opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 14:27.) Now certain ones came down “ from Judaea,” or Jerusalem, claiming to have been sent by the apostles at Jerusalem. (Verse 24.) They attempted to close the door that opened to the Gentiles. These brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch with Jewish prejudice and exclusive narrowness. They claimed that the Gentile Christians could not be saved with¬out circumcision. Thus they made the Jewish rite of circumcision a condition of Gentile salvation; they claimed that the church at Jerusalem authorized them to so teach. The church at Antioch was composed of Jew and Gentile converts. (Acts 11:19-20.) This was the place where such a question would be raised; the Jews and Gentiles had not been accustomed to meeting together for worship, except as the Gentiles became proselytes to the Jewish religion. But now in the early church Gentiles who were not proselytes and Jews were brought together in the church.

We do not know to what extent this question disturbed the church at Antioch, but from what follows it seems that it involved great issues. Now when these teachers came from Jerusalem and began to teach that the Gentile Christians must be “ circumcised” according to “ the custom of Moses” or they could not be saved, such teaching would arouse both the Jewish and Gentile portion of the church at Antioch. Hence, the teaching of those from Jerusalem would likely cause dissension.

PAUL AND SENT TO Acts 15:2-5 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension—Paul and Barnabas “ tarried no little time” with the church at An¬tioch; during this time these brethren came down from Jerusalem and insisted that the Gentile Christians be circumcised; Paul and Barnabas opposed them and “ had no small dissension and questioning with them.” There seems to have been a very heated argu¬ment. “ Dissension” comes from the Greek “ staseos,” which literally means “ strife,” a standing against it; it means an established order or opinion; a strife, one party holding to the established custom, and the other opposing them. “ Questioning” comes from “ zeteseos,” and means “ a seeking” or “ examining together, a muual questioning and discussion.” Finally the church appointed “ Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them” to go to Jerusalem “ unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Paul gives an account of this in Galatians 2:1-10. It seems that Paul suggested their going to Jerusalem. (Galatians 2:1.) It seems that these teachers from Jerusalem had reported that they were contending for circumcision of the Gentiles because the church at Jerusalem had so instructed them. Paul knew that it was best then to go to Jerusa¬lem and to settle the matter, not for himself, but for those who did not know any better. We are told in Galatians 2:1 that Paul took Titus with him. It is usually reckoned that this journey of Paul’ s to Jerusalem was his third visit to that city since his conversion, and that it occurred about A.D. 50. 3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church,—The church at Antioch not only, at Paul’ s suggestion, requested these brethren to go to Jerusalem, but it assisted them in making the journey by helping to defray expenses and by their prayers and encouragement; they were thus “ brought on their way by the church.” They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria by land. It was a journey of about three hundred miles southward along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, through Tyre and Sidon, cities of Phoenicia, and on through Samaria, probably where Philip had preached the gospel, and on to Jerusalem. As they went along the way, and as they had opportunity, they declared “ the conversion of the Gentiles,” which “ caused great joy unto all the brethren.” The great joy caused to the brethren of Phoenicia and Samaria by the recital of the conversion of the Gentiles shows the general sympathy with Paul and Barnabas. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem,—They left Antioch for Jerusalem to take the matter to “ the apostles and the elders,” so when they came to Jerusalem “ they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders.” The entire church was interested in the question. We know not how many of the apostles were present, neither do we know how many elders were in the church at Jerusalem. It should be noticed that though the apostles were there with all their apostolic authority, yet they recognized the “ elders” of the church there, and took them into consultation with them. It seems that when they arrived they received a hearty welcome and that they lost no time in rehearsing “ all things that God had done with them.” Paul and Barnabas implied in their rehearsal that what they had done, it was God doing it through them; therefore, God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision, and that the Jewish brethren ought to accept them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees—These Pharisees believed; they were Christians, but had been con¬verted from the “ sect of the Pharisees” to Christianity. The teach¬ers at Antioch who had come down from Jerusalem are not described as Pharisees. Here for the first time we learn that some of the Pharisees had become Christians, and it is fair to imply that those who went out from Jerusalem to Antioch were from among these converted Pharisees. They were bold in their declaration and clear in the statement of the issue. They said: “ It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” This brings the issue to the fore; it is whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised.

AND ELDERS IN COUNCILAct_15:6-29 6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together—Luke does not mention the “ church” as he did in verse 4, but “ the apostles and the elders” are mentioned; we know that the church is included here as we learn from verses 12 and 22. The “ whole church” was called together to consider this matter with “ the apostles and the elders.” The apostles, with their authority, no doubt, took the lead, and thus the church with its elders was trained under the guidance of the apostles. The importance of the matter was recognized and was given due consideration. 7 And when there had been much questioning,—It seems that a very full and free discussion was had; both sides were heard without partiality; this is the only fair way to discuss any matter over which there is a diversity of sentiment. “ Questioning” is from the Greek “ zeteseos,” and is the same word as used in verse 47. Here it means “ debating,” as that is what was had. Some contended for the affirmative, the Gentile Christians should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas with others took the negative of this proposition. After much discussion “ Peter rose up” and expressed himself. He referred to the case of Cornelius; he was a Gentile and was converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel by Peter.

God had accepted the entire household of Cornelius as Christians; even the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11) had also accepted the Gentiles as Christians without requiring them to be circumcised. Peter reminds the church of this and refreshes their memory, for he says it had been “ a good while ago.” According to the best chronology, it had been at least ten years since the conversion of Cornelius, and it had been about twenty years since Pentecost, so the church at this time was about twenty years old. It was fitting for Peter to speak at this time; he had waited until both sides had been heard and now it is his time as an apostle, and with the experience that he had had at the house of Cornelius and the church at Jerusalem, to speak as he did. 8-9 And God, who knoweth the heart,—God had given the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45); this shows that God, who knoweth all things, had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; Peter had related the incident to the church at Jerusalem and the church had accepted the Gentiles as Christians without circumcision (Acts 11:18.) God had made no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, and man should make no distinction. Peter seemed to be somewhat surprised that there should be no difference, but God had made none, and he had to accept that fact. Peter gives an additional thought that both Jews and Gentile were accepted by God on the basis of their faith in Christ; neither Jew nor Gentile was to be accepted as Christians by keeping the law of Moses. Their hearts were purified by faith; anyone who believed in idolatry had an impure heart, and those who believed in Christ, in the sense of accepting Christ, had a pure heart. Both Jew and Gentile had to hear the same gospel, believe the same gospel, repent of their sins, and be buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in a new life, in order to become Christians ; no distinction so far as the terms of remission of sins are concerned; no distinction so far as acceptance to God. 10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God,—Peter puts the matter in an interrogative form and asks, “ Why make ye trial of God?” as though God had made a mistake when he gave the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius and accepted them without circumcision. They were refusing to accept that which God had accepted, or they were rejecting those whom God had accepted. They were laying down conditions that God had not imposed on the Gentiles, and placing a yoke upon the Gentiles that even the Jews were not able to bear. No Jew ever kept the law of Moses perfectly ; even those who were now insisting on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians had not kept faithfully the law, yet they wanted to place that yoke upon the Gentile Christians. Peter shows here that they not only opposed God, but they were incon¬sistent with themselves. The figure of “ a yoke” is used here, and is the same that Paul used in Galatians 5:1.

Peter had been slow to see this point, as it took a miracle to convince him of the truth of it at Joppa and Caesarea. Peter has made four points that stand out distinctly: (1) he was directed by God to receive the Gentiles, as in the case of Cornelius; (2) God endorsed the reception of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit; (3) faith produced precisely the same effect in both Jew and Gentile; (4) the Jews have no right to put on the Gentiles a yoke which God had not put on them. 11 But we believe that we shall be saved—The salvation which both Jew and Gentile could enjoy came through the grace of God. “ Grace” means the unmerited favor of God; the free grace of God was expressed by his sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. The conditions of remission are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commands. Salvation was not to come through the law of Moses, but through Christ. We have in this verse the last recorded words of Peter in the Acts. 12 And all the multitude kept silence;—The church had assembled with its elders and the apostles; now “ the multitude kept silence” ; the multitude became silent after Peter’ s speech; he had profoundly impressed the multitude and had presented such clear and forcible arguments that there was nothing that could be said with profit. Again, the church had learned to respect the apostles when they spoke. Paul and Barnabas now spoke. Here again Barnabas is mentioned before Paul, because he was better known at Jerusalem than Paul. Paul and Barnabas rehearsed “ what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Again, Paul and Barnabas give God the praise and honor for all that had been done among the Gentiles. Three times (Acts 14:27 Acts 15:4 Acts 15:12) Paul is described as telling the facts about the work that was done among the Gentiles; the rehearsal of the facts was more powerful than mere argument.

God had done wonderful things among the Gentiles, and had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision. The Jewish Christians put themselves in opposition to God when they insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas merely testified to the facts and left the Jewish Christians to make application of them and to draw their own conclusions; there was only one conclusion to draw, and it was in favor of Paul and Barnabas. 13-14 And after they had held their peace,—There had been a general discussion in which all who wished took part; then Peter made a speech and presented invincible arguments; then Paul and Barnabas briefly rehearsed what God had done for the Gentiles through them, with the clear conclusion that God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; now James makes the final speech. This James has been called “ James the Just,” and he was considered a representative of the Jewish Christians. The Judaizing teachers possibly counted on him as a champion of their views, for they later made the wrong use of his name against Peter at An-tioch. (Galatians 2:12.) This is the James who was the author of the epistle of James; he was not one of the twelve apostles, but after the death of James (Acts 12:2), the brother of John, he became a leader in the church at Jerusalem. James reviewed the argument made by Peter as to how “ God visited the Gentiles” to preach the gospel to them, and “ take out of them a people for his name.” James here has reference to Cornelius and his household; they had been called out from among the heathen to be God’ s chosen just as Israel was. James clearly sees the hand of God in Peter’ s course at Caesarea, and in what Paul and Barnabas had done among the Gentiles. 15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets;—It was startling to the Jewish Christians that God would extend the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles; however, they should have known that the Messiah was to be a universal Savior. The prophets of Israel had foretold of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The prophet Amos is quoted here (Amos 9:11-12) by James, but the quotation is not a literal quotation from the Old Testament; some of the words are changed, but James, by the Holy Spirit, is giving the meaning of the prophecies. While James quotes only one prophet, Amos, yet he uses “ prophets” in the plural. Other prophets had foretold the acceptance of the Gentiles. (Isaiah 2:2-4 Isaiah 49:6; Micah 4:1-4.) The interpretation of the quotation given by James is that “ the tabernacle of David” had been wrecked, but that it would be rebuilt and that the Gentiles would be admitted into it. The prophecy from Amos speaks first of the fall of the Jewish race, next the promise that God would build a new church on the ruins of the old and gather the Gentiles into it, and finally those who were saved would enjoy salvation only through the Messiah.

The picture here is the wrecked tent or tabernacle which was erected was boughs of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, and which was rebuilt annually. “ Tabernacle of David” is from the Greek “ skenen Daueid,” and is a poetical figure of the throne of David. (2 Samuel 7:12.) In the rebuilding of the spiritual house of David, believers are to come from all nations of the earth. By the figure of a place falling to ruins, the devastated state of the kingdom is represented; the prosperity to be bestowed was to come in the days of the Messiah, and would consist of spiritual blessings, and a kingdom of righteousness would be established by the Messiah and the Gentiles would seek the Lord and become his people. 19-20 Wherefore my judgment is,—James now, speaking by the Holy Spirit, gives his judgment in the matter. It seems that James was acting as chairman of the meeting, and that it was left to him to sum up and conclude the whole matter. He is now ready to do this. The conclusion that James expresses is “ that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God.” This decision coincided with the decision that Paul and Barnabas had already reached and had preached. It was against the Judaizing teachers. James’ decision, as expressed, was somewhat in the form of a motion; the question had been discussed and now James moved that the entire church coincide with Paul and Barnabas, and that they write.

James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. A further admonition of James is that “ we write unto them” and give them such help and encouragement as they may need. In this letter James suggests that they “ abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.” Four things are here mentioned: (1) pollution of idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; (4) abstain from blood. The words which James uses here denote formal decision sent by special messengers to the Gen¬tile Christians. “ Pollutions of idols” means the worship of idols, and especially eating the meats offered unto idols; one who in any form worships an idol is said to be unclean; hence, they should refrain from the pollution of idols. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were common sins among the heathen; these Gentile Christians had left all of these things when they became Christians, and are now exhorted not to return to them. The law of Moses enjoined certain restrictions about the eating of blood and respecting the life of animals; the Gentile Christians are not to be controlled by the law of Moses; they are to observe the general principles of righteousness and holiness. 21 For Moses from generations of old—The law of Moses was read in every synagogue on the Sabbath; there was usually a teacher that interpreted or gave the meaning of the law. Hence, to “ preach” Moses was to preach and interpret the law of Moses; so to “ preach” Christ is to preach the gospel, or to preach the law of Christ. Wherever there was a synagogue Moses was preached on the Sabbath. There have been different views as to why James made this statement. Some think that James here answers an ob-jection that the Jewish Christians might advance; that is, if such freedom were granted to the Gentiles, the law of Moses would decline in authority; others think that it was not necessary to write these things to Jewish Christians, for they had the law of Moses; a third view regards these words as spoken in the interest of peace and harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It seems that James had reference in a general way to the general practice of the Jews, and it was not necessary to place the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. The Jews had for a long time been taught to respect the law of Moses; they did not have to lose any respect for Moses or for the law, but they were to see that salvation came through Christ, and not through the keeping of the law. 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders,—A unanimous decision was reached, since “ the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” decided to select some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and there give the deci¬sion reached by the church at Jerusalem. We are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and the elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion. This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas and for the truth. However, James was practical, and did not stop with just the speeches and the decision; it must be conveyed to the church at Antioch. While they trusted Paul and Barnabas, yet they followed the wise course in selecting some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and bear the decision as a message to the church at Antioch.

So they selected “ Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.” Some have thought “ Judas called Barsabbas” was a brother of Barnabas, but there is no evidence to this effect. Silas is probably the abbreviated form of Silvanus, who later became one of Paul’ s companions in traveling. (1 Peter 5:12.) Judas and Silas were “ chief men among the brethren.” Such men would carry weight with the church at Antioch. 23 and they wrote thus by them,—The letter written was brief, yet it was clear and emphatic. The form of the letter shows that “ the apostles and the elders” and brethren include “ the whole church” ; hence, it is a letter from the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The importance of this letter is enhanced in value by the fact that the Jerusalem church was the center of Christianity among the Jews, and the church at Antioch was the center among the Gentiles; this will help to bring together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians in “ Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” The decision reached affected all Gentile Christians in every country, but only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned. This geographical notice of the Gentile Christians gives some idea as to the effect of the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; the harvest had been great. This also shows the activity of the church at Antioch in preaching the gospel to the regions round about. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us—Recognition is given here of those Judaizing teachers who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch, claiming to have been sent out by the church at Jerusalem; condemnation or denial is made of their being sent by the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they had no apostolic authority for insisting that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised; neither did the church at Jerusalem en¬dorse them. The church at Jerusalem felt in some measure to be responsible for the trouble these teachers had caused the church at Antioch, but now they are repudiated and a correction of their teachings is made. Hence, these teachers went of their own accord and on their own responsibility, and did not represent the church at Jerusalem. Their teaching had subverted the souls of the Gentile Christians. “ Subverting” comes from the Greek “ anaskeuzo,” and means “ to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage” ; this is a vivid picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch. 25-26 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord,—So there was a unanimous decision reached. The apostles, elders, and the “ whole church” had come to “ one accord” about this matter. “ Having come to one accord” is from the Greek “ geno- menois homothumadon,” and clearly means that the final unity was the result of the private and public talks or discussion which was had on the subject. We are not told whether the Christians from “ the sect of the Pharisees” (verse 5), who at first contended that “ it is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keepear that all were convinced. Here again we have the order: “ Barnabas and Paul,” instead of “ Paul and Barnabas.” This is the order that was used before Paul’ s first missionary journey, when he became the more prominent of the two. (Acts 11:30 Acts 13:2.) Barnabas in this official letter stands before Paul, because Paul had spent but little time in Jersalem, while Barnabas among the Christians there had for some time been a well-known character and honored leader. The church at Jerusalem recognized the great danger that Paul and Barnabas had suffered, as they are described in this letter as “ men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They recognized the courage and heroism of Paul and Barnabas; this fact also proved the sincerity of Paul and Barnabas. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,—Judas and Silas would confirm by word of mouth that which was written in the letter. Here we see another reason for sending Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said in the entire ac¬count of Luke of the presence of Titus who went along with Paul and Barnabas. (Galatians 2:1-3.) Judas and Silas could not only confirm what was written, but they could represent the church at Jerusalem. They would testify to the genuineness of the letter and would strengthen the decision that had been reached; their presence and testimony would have a good effect also on the Gentile Christians. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,—Here the authority of the Holy Spirit accompanies the decision written in the letter. This showed that the decision reached was the will of God, and that those who so expressed themselves were expressing the will of God. The decision was not merely man’ s decision or opinion, but was the inspired will of God. No burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians other than what the Holy Spirit placed upon them. Only such “ necessary things” were required by the Holy Spirit. The restrictions named did constitute some burden, but it was necessary for their salvation. Some think that these “ necessary things” were only “ necessary” for the times in which they lived, but are not necessary for Christians today; how¬ever, it seems that these things are as necessary today as they were at that time. 29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,—James had mentioned these things in his speech. (Verse 20.) They now write them in the letter which is to be sent. In his speech James stated that they should “ abstain from the pollutions of idols,” but now it is written that they should “ abstain from things sacrificed to idols.” Some discussion has been had as to the meaning of abstaining “ from blood.” Some think that it means to abstain from murder; others, to abstain from the eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. It seems clear here that “ the blood” is the blood of animals and that it should not be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10-15.) The heathen caught the blood of the animal in a vessel when the animal was slain and ate it as food; this was not allowed to the Jew for the reasons assigned in Leviticus 17:13-14 and Deuteronomy 12:16 Deuteronomy 12:23. God had forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood. (Genesis 9:4.) Then it was incorporated in the law of Moses, and seems to be forbidden of Christians today. “ Things strangled” means that they were to refrain from eating the flesh of animals that had been strangled. “ Strangled” comes from the Greek “ pniktou,” and means “ life taken without shedding the blood” ; hence, animals strangled had the blood left in the body, and in eat¬ing the flesh one would eat the blood. They were to keep them¬selves from fornication, or live chaste lives. The letter concludes that if the Gentile Christians would observe these things it would be well with them, and then concludes with “ fare ye well.” This comes from the Greek “ valete,” and means “ be ye strong.” This was a common way of closing a letter.

AT ANTIOCHAct_15:30-35 30 So they, when they were dismissed,—It seems that there was some formal dismissal or sending of Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, away from Jerusalem. We are not told how they journeyed from Jerusalem to Antioch, but they probably went through Phoenicia and Samaria and comforted the disciples on the way by telling them of the decision at Jerusalem. This would encourage other Christians to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and it would encourage the Gentiles to accept the gospel. When they arrived at Antioch, they “ gathered the multitude together,” or the church was assembled, and “ they delivered the epistle.” It should be noted that the message is not called “ a judgment,” “ a sentence,” “ an order,” or “ a decree” ; it is simply called “ the epistle.” This was the first or beginning of the New Testament scripture, the first of the epistles; it was addressed to Christians in Antioch, in Syria, and Cilicia; later other epistles were written. Since this one has been incorporated in the book of Acts, emphasis has not been given to it that probably would have been given had it been separate and independent from the history in Acts. 31 And when they had read it,—There was a formal sending away from the church at Jerusalem and a formal reception of these brethren at Antioch. It seems that there was no delay in gathering the church together at Antioch and reading the epistle. It gave great consolation to the church at Antioch. “ Consolation” comes from the Greek “ paraklesei,” which means “ encouragement” ; consolation and exhortation are very close akin. There was great rejoicing at Antioch, and especially among the Gentile Christians there. 32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets,—The first mention of Judas and Silas (verse 22) classes them as “ chief men among the brethren” ; now they are spoken of as “ prophets.” “ Prophetai” is the same word used for Paul and Barnabas and Agabus (Acts 11:27-30) ; it means “ for speakers for Christ.” These brethren were useful while at Antioch, for they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them in the faith. It was a happy time with the church at Antioch to have this question set¬tled, for it had given much trouble. 33 And after they had spent some time there,—We do not know how long Judas and Silas remained at Antioch, but long enough to encourage the church there. It seems that they were dismissed in a formal way as they were received in a formal way. “ Dismissed in peace” was a formal dismissal. (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50 Luke 8:48; Acts 16:36.) Probably Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem to give an account to the church there, but Silas soon returned to Antioch and he and Paul became fellow workers. 34 But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.—This verse has been omitted by the revisers because it is not found in the older manuscripts and in many of the chief versions. It was evidently a marginal insertion to explain how Silas was conveniently at hand (verse 40) for Paul to choose him as a companion in travel. 35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch,—Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch. As they tarried in Antioch they taught and preached “ the word of the Lord.” During the sojourn of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch the dispute took place between Paul and Peter as related in Galatians 2:11-16. Luke omits this episode, but relates the dispute between Paul and Barnabas. (Verse 39.) “ Teaching” means to instruct; hence, they instructed the church. While “ preaching” means the proclamation of the gospel, it is sometimes applied to evangelists who proclaim the gospel to aliens. “ Teaching” is expounding the word of the Lord, while “ preaching” is evangelizing or proclaiming the gospel. There were many other teachers and preachers in Antioch.

PAUL’ S SECOND JOURNEYAct_15:36 to Acts 18:22 PAUL SELECTS SILAS Acts 15:36-41 36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas,—Paul takes the initiative as the leader; he had publicly rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) and is anxious to go back to the fields where he has planted churches. He desired to return and “ visit the brethren in every city” where he and Barnabas had preached “ the word of the Lord.” He was anxious to see how the young churches were getting along, and to give them any further instructions that they might need. We must know that the “ some days” and the “ some time” that expired while the church was busy in the development of leaders and teachers kept up the zeal of the church. A com¬monly accepted chronology of Acts makes the interval between the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and the beginning of Paul’ s second missionary journey somewhat more than a year. 37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John—Barnabas wished and willed to take along with them John Mark, his cousin. Mark had started with them on the first tour, but had turned around at Perga (Acts 13:13) and returned to Jerusalem. It was to the house of Mary the mother of Mark that Peter went after his release from prison (Acts 12:12). 38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him—Barnabas had resolved to take Mark with him, and may have spoken to him and arranged with him to go, but Paul thought it was not best to take Mark since he “ withdrew from them from Pamphy¬lia,” and did not continue with them on their first journey. Here was a difference in judgment; we are not to understand that the Holy Spirit guided either one of these good men, as it was a mere difference in human judgment as to what was expedient in the matter. Since Mark had turned back on the first journey, Paul was not willing to risk taking with them as a helper one who had left them in the midst of the work on their first journey. 39 And there arose a sharp contention,—“ Contention” here comes from the Greek “ paroxusmos,” and is our word for “ paroxysm” in English; it means to sharpen as of a blade, and of the spirit. It seems that the “ Son of consolation,” Barnabas, lost his temper in a dispute over his cousin, and Paul uses sharp words toward his benefactor and friend. It is frequently the case that little irritations of life give occasion for violent explosions. Some think that the incident between Paul and Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) was known to Mark, and that Mark took sides with Peter; hence, Paul was not so kindly disposed to take Mark with them; he would have been a hindrance to the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles had he gone with them and held to the view that the Gentiles should be circumcised. However, we do not know any more than is recorded here. The result of the contention determined Paul and Barnabas to separate and each follow his own independent course.

We know that Paul held no malice toward Barnabas and Mark. Barnabas is not mentioned again in Acts, but both Barnabas and Mark are mentioned by Paul in a way that showed confidence had been restored, for Paul speaks of them in warm commendation in his letters to Corinth, Colosse, and Timothy. (1 Corinthians 9:6; Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11.) “ Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus.” Cyprus was the home of Barnabas; this was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on their first tour. Paul’ s mention of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows that Barnabas was busy in the work of the ministry, and the later mentions of Mark show that Paul had confidence in him and commended him very highly. 40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,—Silas had returned to Jerusalem with Judas after his visit to Antioch, but now we find him back in Antioch. Paul was commended by the brethren to the grace of God which shows that his selection of Silas was approved by the church at Antioch. It seems that the sympathy of the church at Antioch was with Paul rather than with Barnabas in the contention between Paul and Barnabas. Silas was a suitable com¬panion for Paul; he had influence in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22) and was apparently a Roman citizen also. (Acts 16:37.) Silas, or Silvanus, is mentioned in the epistles by Paul and Peter. (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Peter 5:12.) It is remarkable that Peter mentions both Mark and Silas as with him at the same time. (1 Peter 5:12-13.) 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia,—Paul and Silas went forth on Paul’ s second missionary tour to confirm the churches and to establish other churches. They are to further the cause of Christ especially among the Gentiles. It is interesting to know that Barnabas went to his native Cyprus, and Paul went to his native Cilicia, each to regions familiar from childhood. Paul and Silas would have to go through a part of Syria in order to reach Cilicia if they traveled by land. The letter from the church at Jerusalem to the Gentile Christians would be of special interest to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, as it was addressed to the Christians in these provinces. (Acts 15:23.) The reading of this letter would confirm the churches in these sections, but the presence of Paul and Silas would have great influence on the churches.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 15Acts 15:1. At this point in the narrative our historian makes a sudden transition from the conflicts of the disciples with the unbelieving world to one almost as serious among themselves. There never was a national antipathy more intense than that felt by the Jews to the whole Gentile world. It was the more intense, from the fact that it was imbedded in their deepest religious sentiments, and was cultivated in all the devotions. In the hearts of the disciples this feeling had, by this time, been so far overcome, that they had admitted the propriety of receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church.

But they found it more difficult to convince themselves that Gentiles were to be admitted into social and domestic intimacy. Hence, when Peter returned from the house of Cornelius to Jerusalem, the chief objection urged against him was, not that he had immersed Gentiles, but “ Thou didst go into the house of men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” This was the full extent to which the judaizing party in the Church were prepared, at that time, to push their objections. But when men take an unreasonable and obstinate stand against any cause, they frequently assume more extravagant ground as the cause they are opposing advances. While but a few Gentiles had come into the Church, the pharisaic party objected only to domestic association with them; but now that Paul and Barnabas had succeeded in opening a door of faith to the whole Gentile world, and it was likely that the Jews, who had hitherto constituted almost the whole body of the Church, were soon to become only a small element in its constituency, their fears were excited, and their demands became more exorbitant. Paul and Barnabas were still in Antioch. (1) “And certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you can not be saved.” As we learn from a subsequent part of this chapter, they were not content with merely enjoining circumcision, but also exacted the observance of all the law of Moses, to which circumcision was only preliminary. The success of this party would have perpetuated Judaism, and forever have neutralized those philanthropic principles of the gospel which the experience of the world and the wisdom of God alike had shown to be necessary to the moral renovation of the human race. Acts 15:2. If Paul and Barnabas had ever been, since their conversion, blinded by these narrow views, their labors among the Gentiles would have wrought a change in their feelings, and prepared them to see the subject in a better light. They opposed the new propositions with all their powers; and though they did not succeed in silencing their opponents, they brought the discussion to a fortunate conclusion. (2) “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.”If the brethren in Antioch had estimated at its proper value the authority of an inspired apostle, they would have yielded implicitly to Paul’s decision without this mission to Jerusalem. But they were as yet too little accustomed to reflection upon the profound mystery of apostolic infallibility to properly accredit it; and their deep prejudices on the subject under discussion was a serious obstacle in the way of clear thought. It is probable that apostolic authority is more highly appreciated now than it was then; yet the prejudices of sect and party are so intense, that even now the dictum of a living apostle would prove insufficient, in millions of cases, to convince men of their errors. Like the disciples in Antioch, who had the testimony of Paul, men now are not easily satisfied with a single inspired statement upon a point in dispute, or with the statements of a single apostle, but demand an accumulation of even divine testimonies. It is probable that Paul would have objected to making this appeal to the other apostles, on the ground of its apparent inconsistency with his own claims to inspired authority, had not the proposition been sustained by an express revelation of the divine will. In the second chapter of Galatians, where Mr. Howson very clearly proves that Paul has reference to this journey, he says: “ I went up by revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” It was the divine purpose to settle the question, not for the Church in Antioch alone, but for all the world and for all time. Acts 15:3. Their journey to Jerusalem, which was accomplished by land, lay through two sections of country which had already been evangelized to a considerable extent. (3) “Being sent forward by the Church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy to all the brethren.” The Churches in Samaria did not, of course, sympathize with the Jewish prejudices, and although in Phenicia there were doubtless many Jews, yet the Gentile element sufficiently predominated to enable the brethren there, like the Samaritans, to rejoice that the gospel was spreading into the heathen world. Acts 15:4. After a pleasant journey among rejoicing Churches, they reached Jerusalem. (4) “And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.” They proceeded, in Jerusalem, as they had upon their return to Antioch, to give a history of their missionary tour. This was done in the presence of the Church, the apostles also being present. Acts 15:5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully their own position. (5) “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” This party is here identified as converts from the old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of any large accessions to the Church from this party; but this incidental remark shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the truth had yielded, and were now occupying positions of influence in the congregation. Paul now once more meets some of his companions in the persecution of the disciples, not to harmonize with them, nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the claims of Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same disposition to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight against the gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which must have been well-founded, or he would not have given the public utterance to it which he did at a subsequent period. He styles them, in the Epistle to the Galatians, “ False brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.” Having witnessed a rapid increase of the congregations under the pressure of the persecutions and disputations to which they had formerly resorted, these wily enemies of the truth determined at length to corrupt and destroy, under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress they could not impede by open enmity.

They well knew, what some of the brethren had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered powerless if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even to this day the mass of religious teachers have failed to learn this lesson, though the experience of ages has demonstrated its truth.

The essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees had reference to the perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of Christ, and the same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that day to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten circumcision on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant immersion, and finally, infant sprinkling as a substitute. What the early Pharisees failed to accomplish in the face of apostolic opposition, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a thin disguise. The unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to “ spy out the liberty which the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into bondage” under the law, has been successfully accomplished by these, in teaching men that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham’s family, and that the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one identical Church. The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous ritual and daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter Canaanites in the form of modern heretics; professed Christians go to war under the old battle-cry of “ The sword of the Lord and of Gideon;” the Latter-day Saints emulate the Turks in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions authority is found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent reader of the New Testament knows scarcely which of these errors is most repugnant to the truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and ceaseless vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men. Acts 15:6. After the Pharisees had stated their position, distinctly affirming that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law, it seems that the assembly adjourned to meet up again at another hour. The next meeting is then announced in these words: (6) “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Neither this nor the former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from verse fifth, that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from the twenty-second verse below, that at this second meeting the whole Church were present. There had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of coming to some distinct understanding of the subject before it was laid before the multitude. This we learn from Paul himself, who says: “ I communicated to them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.” This language implies that his course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who were, doubtless, the apostles and other inspired men. Their approval of his course shows that the objections afterward urged were preferred by another class of men.

The public discussion was not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they really did not differ after the facts were stated by Paul and Barnabas. But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles, to bring the other brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had already united. Acts 15:7-11. Luke does not report all that was said, but only those speeches that were decisive, and that brought the controversy to a close. Merely alluding, therefore, to the first part of the discussion, he says: (7) “And when there had been much discussion, Peter arose and said to them, Brethren, you know that, a good while ago, God made choice among us that the Gentiles through my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness for them, giving to them the Holy Spirit even as he did to us. (9) He made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now, then, why do you put God to the proof, by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as they.” The position of the Pharisees not only condemned the course of Paul and Barnabas, but also involved a censure of Peter, who was the first of all the apostles, as he here asserts, to preach the Word to Gentiles. When arraigned once before for his conduct in the case of Cornelius, he had vindicated his procedure by relating the miraculous evidences of God’s will which had been his guide; and now, to accomplish the same end with these brethren, he adduces the most decisive of those miracles, the gift of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. Having given to them the same gift as to the apostles on Pentecost, and having imposed upon them none of the purifying rites of the law, but simply purifying their hearts by faith, he assumes that God had made no difference between them and the Jewish brethren. Now, to attempt to impose the law upon them, in the face of these evidences of God’s will to the contrary, would be putting God to the proof of his determination to maintain his own authority.

It would, moreover, be imposing a yoke which the Jews themselves had never been able to bear successfully. This yoke is not circumcision, for there is no difficulty in submitting to that; but it was the law, under whose provisions no man could live without incurring its condemnation.

His concluding statement, that “We believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they,” involves two important conclusions: First, That it is not through the merit of obedience to the law that we are to be saved, but through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This favor is extended in the pardon of sins. Second, That the Gentiles are saved in the same manner as the Jews. By using the plural we believe, instead of I believe, he doubtless intended to express not only the conviction of his own mind, but that of the party with whom he acted, including the other apostles. It was a decision of the inspired teachers against the Pharisees. Acts 15:12. This brief statement of facts had so good an effect upon the multitude, that Barnabas and Paul determined to follow it by a rehearsal of similar facts in the history of their own labors among the Gentiles. (12) “Then all the multitude kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Their remarks on this occasion were not a repetition of what they had said in the former meeting, when they had set forth “ all that God had done with them,” but were confined to the “ signs and wonders” by which God had indicated his approbation of their ministry. The reversal of the order in which Luke now habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas, whose name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing argument on those events. Acts 15:13-21. So far as recent indications of God’s will were concerned, the argument was now complete and unanswerable; but the Jewish mind was prone to an underestimate of passing events, while they looked back with superior reverence to the law and the prophets. The Apostle James, knowing that they would reject all possible cotemporaneous evidences, if they appeared to conflict with the written word, determined to close up this avenue of escape from the argument already presented by sustaining it with the authority of the prophets. (13) “And, after they were silent, James answered, saying, Brethren, hear me. (14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, (15) and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, (16) After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and set it upright, (17) that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. (18) Known to God from eternity are all his works. (19) Therefore, my judgment is, not to trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God; (20) but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols. and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” In this speech James shows that God, who knows from eternity what his own works would be, had foretold, through the prophet, the work which he was then performing through the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul. He had said that he would rebuild the tabernacle of David, in order that the residue of men, who had not known the Lord before, “ even all the Gentiles, upon whom his name is called,” should seek after the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from among the Gentiles “ a people for his name.” The prophesy clearly covered all the ground claimed for it, and made the argument complete. There was room for no other conclusion than the one which James deduced, that they should impose on the Gentiles, so far as the class of restrictions under consideration were concerned, only those necessary things which were necessary independent of the Mosaic law. Idolatry, with all the pollutions connected with it, was known to be sinful before the law of Moses was given; and so was fornication. The eating of blood, and, by implication, of strangled animals, whose blood was still in them, was forbidden to the whole world in the family of Noah. In the restrictions here proposed by James, therefore, there is not the slightest extension of the law of Moses, but a mere enforcement upon the Gentiles of rules of conduct which had ever been binding, and were to be perpetual. They are as binding to-day as they were then. To deny this would be to despise the combined authority of all the apostles, when enjoining upon the Gentile world, of which we form a part, restrictions which they pronounce necessary. One would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gentiles, who had turned to the Lord, the sinfulness of fornication, did we not know that among heathen nations of antiquity it was deemed innocent, and even sometimes virtuous. The controversy now pending, in reference to the identity of the Jewish Church with the Church of Christ, renders it necessary that we should here pay some special attention to one remark made by James in this speech. He applies the prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the “ tabernacle of David” to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, and it is hence argued that this prophesy contemplated a reconstruction and extension of the dilapidated Jewish Church, and not the construction of a new one. The whole argument turns upon the meaning of the expression “ tabernacle of David.” If the metaphorical word tabernacle here means the Jewish Church, the argument would have force. But the Mosaic institution never sustained such a relation to David that it could, with propriety, be styled the “tabernacle of David.” If such had been the reference, the expression would undoubtedly have been, the tabernacle of Moses, which would have been unambiguous. But David was a king, and had a promise from God, that his “throne should be established forever;” that there should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel. This promise God confirmed with an oath, saying, “ I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” According to the apparent meaning of this promise, it had long since failed; for it had been many generations since a descendant of David had occupied his throne.

It was during this period, in which the royal house of David was in ruins, that Amos uttered the prophesy, “ I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; I will build again the ruins thereof, and set it upright.” The term tabernacle, therefore, must be put for the family who dwell in the tabernacle, and the reconstruction of it the re-establishment of the royal dignity which the family had lost. Hence, when the birth of Jesus was announced to Mary, the angel said: “ The Lord shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Thus, the promise, when properly understood, is seen to refer neither to a continuous line of Jewish kings, descended from David, nor to a reconstruction of the Jewish Church, but to the perpetual reign of Jesus, the “ seed of David according to the flesh.” When, therefore, Jesus sat down upon his throne in heaven, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and now, by the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, the remainder of the prophesy of Amos was being fulfilled, by the extension of his kingdom among the Gentiles. The closing paragraph of this speech appears, at first glance, to have no immediate connection with the preceding argument. But it was, doubtless, designed to anticipate an objection. The Pharisees might object, If you thus ignore the statue of Moses, his writings will fall into contempt, or be neglected by the people. No danger of this, says the speaker, for Moses is preached in every city, and read in the synagogues every Sabbath, and has been for generations past. Acts 15:22-29. The speech of James brought the discussion to a close. The will of God upon the subject was now so clearly exhibited that the opposition was totally silenced, and it remained only to determine the best method of practically carrying out the proposition submitted by James. (22) “Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (23) writing by their hand these words: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the brethren from the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting: (24) Since we have heard that certain persons who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, telling you to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment, (25) it seemed good to us, being of one mind, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who also will tell you the same things orally. (28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, (29) that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which, if you keep yourselves, you will do well. Farewell.” By the construction of the Greek, we learn that it was Paul and Barnabas, and not Judas and Silas, who are commended in this letter as “ men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 15:30-31. The object of sending Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas was doubtless that they, having been entirely unconnected with the conversion of Gentiles, and above suspicion of undue partiality toward them, might use their personal influence with the Jewish brethren to induce them to accept the teaching of the epistle. Their journey, and the effect of the epistle, are thus stated: (30) “So, then, being sent away, they went to Antioch, and having assembled the multitude, they gave them the epistle. (31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.” The brethren residing in Antioch had not become partisans in the controversy, but had been distressed by the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the Pharisees from Jerusalem, and desired only a satisfactory settlement of the question. The epistle, therefore, afforded them “ consolation,” and they cheerfully yielded to its requirements. The triumph of Paul and Barnabas over their pharisaic opponents was most signal and complete. And it appeared all the more signal to the brethren in Antioch, from a fact not recorded by Luke. We learn from Paul’s own account of the visit to Jerusalem, that Titus, who was a Gentile, went with him, and that strenuous efforts were there made to have him circumcised; but Paul returned to Antioch, with Titus still uncircumcised, and with his whole course indorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church. This ought to have settled the controversy forever. Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of it by the advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy generally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first “general council,” and have styled it “ The Council of Jerusalem.” The Presbyterians find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in general terms, as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of doctrine and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to them in its essential features. But its essential features are: First, That it was occasioned by an appeal from one congregation to certain parties in one other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which the first felt unable to decide. Second, That the parties to whom the appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their decision, when made, “ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us;” i. e., to the Holy Spirit as the divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his authority. It was the inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility of the party appealed to, that suggested and that justified the appeal.

In both these peculiarities all the councils and synods of Catholic and Protestant history are essentially deficient, for, instead of being called together at the request of some congregations, to decide some question presented, they consist of representatives from a number of congregations, or districts of country, assembled for the purpose of discussing and deciding whatever questions may come up among them; and instead of being infallible, their decisions are nothing but the fallible opinions of uninspired men, in reference to which it would be the height of profanity to say, “ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us.” Not till we have an assembly under the guidance of inspired men can we allow them to authoritatively decide religious questions after the precedent of this assembly in Jerusalem. All the duties, responsibilities, and privileges of disciples have already been authoritatively propounded by inspired men; and for men now to meet together for the authoritative decision of such questions, is to assume a prerogative that belongs exclusively to inspired apostles and prophets, and, at the same time, is to assume that there are deficiencies in their infallible teachings to be supplied by uninspired men. In arguing thus upon the merits of all judicial and legislative assemblies among the Churches, we must not be understood as condemning the co-operation of different congregations, or of individuals from them, in performing duties which are imposed by divine authority. The essential difference between assemblies for these two purposes is, that in the latter we are simply uniting our energies to perform duties appointed by the word of God; while, in the former, we undertake to decide what truth and duty are— a work which none but inspired men can perform. Acts 15:32-34. We have said above, that the purpose for which Judas and Silas were sent to Antioch was to enforce, by their personal influence, the authority of the epistle. We find this statement confirmed by the further account of their labors. (32) “And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (33) And when the had remained some time, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren to the apostles. (34) But it pleased Silas to remain there.” The manner in which Luke connects the fact that these brethren were prophets, with the statement that they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them, shows that the chief work of the New Testament prophets was not to foretell the future, but to exhort and confirm the brethren. He says, “ being also themselves prophets, they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them;” which form of expression makes the fact of being prophets account for their exhortations. They differed from the Old Testament prophets only in that the latter gave their chief attention to foretelling future events. Still, even the predictions of the old prophets were made to answer the purpose of exhortations to their cotemporaries; so that the difference between the two is very slight. Acts 15:35. The city of Antioch still continued to be a profitable field for apostolic labor, and the scene of interesting events. (35) “Paul and Barnabas also continued in Antioch, with many others, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord.” It is during this period that the most judicious commentators locate the visit of Peter to Antioch, and the rebuke administered to him by Paul, as recorded in the second chapter of Galatians; “ When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before the coming of certain persons from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.” It has been erroneously supposed that Peter, in this affair, acted in direct conflict with the epistle which he had just united in addressing to the Gentile brethren. The harshness of this supposition has led some writers to hastily conclude that his improper conduct must have occurred at a period antecedent to the issuing of that epistle. It is also urged in favor of an earlier date of the incident, that, if it had occurred subsequent to the publication of that epistle, Paul would naturally have appealed to it in the controversy with Peter, which he seems not to have done. Both of these suppositions spring from a mistake as to the exact fault of which Peter was guilty. He did not insist that the Gentiles should be circumcised, or that they should keep the law; which were the points discussed in the apostolic epistle. But, still admitting the right of the uncircumcised to membership and its privileges, his fault was in refusing to eat with them in their private circles, although he had himself been the first to do so in the family of Cornelius, and had done so, for a time, even since he came to Antioch.

In opposing such conduct, it would not have answered Paul’s purpose to appeal to the epistle from Jerusalem; for it merely asserted the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, without prescribing the intercourse that should exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised brethren. The course of argument which he did pursue was the only one available. He convicted Peter of inconsistency, saying, “ If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you require the Gentiles to live like Jews?” He had lived like a Gentile while eating with them; but now, by withdrawing from them, he was virtually saying to them, You must live like the Jews. This was inconsistent, and made it appear that either he was now a transgressor, while building up the Jewish prejudices, or had formerly been, while seeking to break them down. “ For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” But the proof of inconsistency in an opponent never settles a question of truth or duty. After you have proved your opponent inconsistent, you have still to prove that his present course differs from what truth requires, as well as from his former course. Moral inconsistency convicts a man as a transgressor, but whether a transgressor now, or formerly, is still an open question. Paul, therefore, proceeded to prove Peter’s present conduct improper, by stating as an undisputed fact, “ I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live to God;” that is, by the limitation which the law prescribes to itself, it has ceased to bind me, and I have ceased to live under it. This fact was decisive, because all the distinction assumed to exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised was based upon the supposition that the former, at least, were still under the law. This is the last passage in Acts connected with the Apostle Peter. Before leaving it, we must notice one fact in connection with this unhappy incident in his life which far outweighs the dissimulation rebuked by Paul. It is the manner in which he received this rebuke. There is not the least evidence of any resentment on his part, either for the rebuke itself, or for the subsequent publication of it to the Churches in Galatia. Most men become offended when thus rebuked by their equals, and would regard it as an unpardonable offense to give unnecessary publicity to a fault of this kind. But Paul knew so well the goodness of Peter’s heart, that he did not hesitate to speak of it to the world and to future generations.

That he did not overestimate the meekness of Peter, is evident from the fact that the latter subsequently spoke most affectionately of Paul, with direct allusion to his epistles, and with a publicity equal to that which his own sin had received. This excellence of Peter’s character was known to other brethren besides Paul, as is evident from the freedom with which all the four evangelists speak of his denial of the Lord. They might have omitted this incident from their narratives, if they had been influenced by that pride and sensitiveness which prompt men to hide the faults of their leaders, or if they had thought that the publication of it would give serious offense to Peter. But they knew Peter, and, we must presume, they knew that he was willing for any fault of his, however discreditable, to be published to the world, if it would do any good. This is the spirit of self-sacrifice with which every servant of God should offer himself to the cause of Christ. Acts 15:36-41. We have lingered long upon the interval spent by Paul and Barnabas in Antioch. We are now to follow the former upon his second missionary tour. (36) “But after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return and visit our brethren in every city in which we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. (37) And Barnabas determined to take with them John surnamed Mark. (38) But Paul thought proper not to take with them him who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and did not go with them to the work. (39) Then there was a contention, so that they separated one from the other: and Barnabas took Mark and sailed into Cyprus. (40) But Paul chose Silas, and departed, having been commended to the favor of God by the brethren; (41) and went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches.” This journey, it should be observed, was undertaken for the prime purpose of revisiting the Churches where these brethren had previously labored, and not, primarily, to preach to the heathen. This shows that the solicitude with which the apostles watched for the welfare of the congregations was not less ardent than their zeal in spreading a knowledge of the gospel. The desire of Barnabas to take John with them was, doubtless, prompted, in part, by partiality, arising from the relationship which existed between them. John, of course, desired to go, and Barnabas wished to give him an opportunity to atone for his former dereliction. Paul’s reason for refusing to let him go was based upon a want of confidence in one who would, either through fear or love of ease, desert him in a trying hour. Each considered the reason for his own preference a good one; and as neither was willing to yield for the sake of remaining with the other, they ought to have parted in perfect peace. But some unpleasant feeling was aroused by the controversy, which Luke expresses by the term paroxusmos, of which contention is rather a tame rendering, though paroxysm which we have derived from it, would express too high a degree of passion. This incident shows that the best of men may differ about matters of expediency, and that, in contending for their respective conclusions, they may be aroused to improper feelings.

But the good man, under such circumstances, will always be distinguished by the readiness with which such feelings will be repressed, and by the absence of all subsequent malice. We know that Paul afterward felt very differently toward John; for, during his first imprisonment at Rome, he mentions him to Philemon as a fellow-laborer there present; and to the Colossians as one who had been a comfort to him; and, during his second imprisonment, he writes to Timothy: “ Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” The slight heat engendered between Barnabas and Paul also subsided in a short time; for Paul afterward speaks of him in most friendly terms, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. By returning with Mark to his native land, Barnabas revisited a portion of the brethren to whom he and Paul had preached, while Paul visited another portion of them by a different route. Thus, notwithstanding their disagreement and separation, they did not allow the good cause to suffer, but accomplished separately the whole of the proposed work. The separation of Barnabas and Paul is our separation from Barnabas. His name is not mentioned again by Luke. But as we bid him farewell, the sails are spread which are to bear him over the sea, that he may make the islands glad with a knowledge of salvation. The further incidents of his life will yet be known to all who shall sit down with him in the everlasting kingdom. We turn with Luke to follow the history of him who was in labors more abundant and in prisons more frequent than all the apostles, and to form a better acquaintance with his new companion. The statement that Paul and Silas were “ commended to the favor of God by the brethren,” does not imply, as many writers have supposed, that they refused thus to commend Barnabas and Mark, or that the brethren sided with Paul against Barnabas in their contention. It is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the attention of the writer is fixed upon the detail of Paul’s history rather than that of Barnabas. No doubt the prayers of the brethren followed them both to their distant and dangerous fields of labor. By a northern route through Syria, and then a westerly course through Cilicia, Paul approached the extremity of his recent tour in the interior of Asia Minor. He was not altogether a stranger along the journey, for he had spent some time in Syria and Cilicia before his first visit to Antioch; and it is most probable that he now revisited, in these districts, Churches which he had planted by his own labors.

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Fifteen IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To see how the early church dealt with the issue of circumcision and the Law of Moses

2. To note that Paul, Peter, and James were in complete accord, and that Judaizing teachers acted without any apostolic authority

3. To notice the rift between Paul and Barnabas, how it did not keep them from serving the Lord

SUMMARY This chapter records a pivotal event in the early church, confirming that what Jesus accomplished on the cross was the creation of one new body, in which both Jews and Gentiles were to have the same access to God through faith in Jesus Christ and not the Law of Moses (cf. Ephesians 2:11-18).

Men from Judea came to Antioch teaching the necessity of circumcision and keeping the Law. Paul and Barnabas disputed this, and the decision was made to send them to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles and elders. Along the way, Paul and Barnabas described the conversion of the Gentiles which caused great joy (Acts 15:1-3).

At Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas first reported to the whole church. When Pharisees who were believers said that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses were necessary, the apostles and elders met to discuss the issue further. After much dispute, Peter spoke of how God chose him to be the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, how God acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, and how God made no distinction, purifying their hearts through faith. Peter thus questioned why they should put a yoke on the Gentiles that even they themselves were unable to bear. Rather, by the grace of the Lord both Jews and Gentiles could be saved in the same manner. Barnabas and Paul again reported the miracles and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles (Acts 15:4-12).

Finally James, the Lord’s brother, offered Amos’ prophecy in support of what Peter said. He then recommended they not trouble the Gentiles, but that a letter be written asking them to abstain from things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality. The apostles and elders, with the whole church, agreed to send the letter, and to have Judas and Silas accompany Paul and Barnabas to confirm its authenticity. The letter, its counsel approved by the Holy Spirit, was delivered and joyously received by the brethren in Antioch. Judas and Silas offered their exhortation and strengthened the brethren before Judas returned to Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-34).

After some time teaching and preaching in Antioch, Paul wanted to visit the brethren in the cities they had traveled to on his first missionary journey. Barnabas was willing, but determined to take John Mark. Paul insisted they should not take John because he left them on the first trip. Unable to reconcile, Barnabas took John and sailed to Cyprus, while Paul took Silas, and with commendation from the brethren in Antioch went through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches (Acts 15:35-41).

OUTLINE I. OVER (Acts 15:1-3) A. FROM JUDEA (Acts 15:1-2)1. Individuals from Judea teach the brethren in Antioch they must be circumcised 2. Paul and Barnabas dissent and dispute with them

B. SENT TO (Acts 15:2-3)1. Paul, Barnabas, and others sent to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders 2. On their way, they tell of the conversion of Gentiles, causing great joy

II. AT (Acts 15:4-29) A. THE MEETING WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH (Acts 15:4-5)1. Paul and Barnabas report what God had done with them 2. Pharisees who believed demand circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses

B. THE MEETING WITH THE AND ELDERS (Acts 15:6-21)1. After much dispute, Peter speaks a. He reminds them how God:

1. Chose him to preach the gospel to Gentiles
2. Acknowledged Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit
3. Made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, purifying their hearts by faith b. He offers his conclusion:
4. Why test God by demanding that Gentiles do what Jews could not?
5. Through the grace of the Lord Jesus both will be saved in the same way

2. Paul and Barnabas then speak a. The multitude remain silent and listen b. As they recount the many miracles and wonders God did among the Gentiles
3. James then speaks a. Providing OT prophecy (cf. Amos 9:11-12) to support what Peter had done b. Offering his judgment that Gentiles who turn to God not be troubled c. Suggesting that a letter be written

1. Telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, what has been strangled, and blood
2. Seeing that Moses has been read every Sabbath in the synagogues for generations

C. THE OF THE MATTER (Acts 15:22-29)1. The apostles and the elders, with the whole church, agree to send: a. Judas and Silas to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas b. A letter to Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia 2. The letter from the apostles and the elders states: a. That the troublemakers had not been sent by them b. That Barnabas and Paul are beloved c. That Judas and Silas will offer confirmation by word of mouth d. That they and the Holy Spirit place no greater burden on them than to abstain from:

1. What has been sacrificed to idols
2. Blood
3. What has been strangled
4. Sexual immorality e. The Gentile brethren will do well if they keep themselves from these things

III. IN ANTIOCH (Acts 15:30-35) A. THE LETTER IS (Acts 15:30-31)1. Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch, the multitude gather together 2. The letter is read, the people rejoice over its encouragement

B. THE CHURCH IS (32-35)1. As prophets, Judas and Silas exhort and strengthen the brethren with many words 2. After a while, Judas is sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles 3. It seems good for Silas to remain in Antioch 4. Paul and Barnabas remain also, teaching and preaching with many others

IV. BETWEEN PAUL AND (Acts 15:36-41) A. THE (Acts 15:36-39)1. After teaching and preaching in Antioch for some days, Paul wants to visit the brethren where they preached during the first missionary journey 2. Barnabas is determined to take with them John Mark 3. Paul is insistent that John should not go since he left them in Pamphylia 4. The contention became so sharp they parted from one another

B. THE RESULT (Acts 15:39-41)1. Barnabas takes Mark and sails to Cyprus 2. Paul chooses Silas, commended by the brethren to the grace of God, and passes through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- Conflict over circumcision (Acts 15:1-3)

• Conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4-29)
• Consolation in Antioch (Acts 15:30-35)
• Contention between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41)

2. What were some people from Jerusalem teaching the brethren in Antioch? (1)- That circumcision as proscribed by Moses was necessary to be saved

3. Who disagreed with them? What actions were taken? (Acts 15:2)- Paul and Barnabas

• To send Paul and Barnabas along with others to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem

4. On the way to Jerusalem, what did Paul and Barnabas do? (Acts 15:3)- Described the conversion of the Gentiles to the brethren in Phoenicia and Samaria

5. When they arrived at Jerusalem, with whom did they first meet? What did they tell them? (Acts 15:4)- The church, along with the apostles and elders

• All the things that God had done with them

6. Who then stood up, and what did they say? (Acts 15:5)- Some of the Pharisees who believed in Jesus

• That it was necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses

7. Who then came together to discuss the matter? (Acts 15:6)- The apostles and elders

8. Who spoke first? What did he say? (Acts 15:7-11)- Peter

• God chose him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles
• God acknowledged the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit
• God made no distinction, purifying their hearts by faith
• Why test God by putting on Gentiles a yoke even Jews could not bear?
• Through the grace of the Lord, Jews and Gentiles will be saved the same way

9. Who spoke second? What did they say? (Acts 15:12)- Barnabas and Paul

• God worked many miracles through them among the Gentiles

10. Who spoke last? What did he say? (Acts 15:13-21)- James (the Lord’s brother)

• The prophet Amos agreed with what Peter said
• They should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God
• That a letter be written, asking them to abstain from polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled, and blood
• Since for generations Moses had been read in many synagogues every Sabbath

11. What was the reaction to James’ suggestions? (Acts 15:22-23)- It pleased the apostles and elders, along with the whole church

• They determined to send Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas, to Antioch
• To write a letter to Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia

12. What are key points in that letter? (Acts 15:24-29)- Those who had troubled them regarding circumcision and the Law did so without any authority

• The apostles and elders agreed to send Judas and Silas along with beloved Barnabas and Paul to confirm the report of what happened in Jerusalem
• The Holy Spirit, along with the apostles and elders, saw fit to lay no burdens upon them, save to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and sexual immorality

13. How did the brethren in Antioch react to the letter? (Acts 15:30-31)- They rejoiced over its encouragement

14. What did Judas and Silas do? (Acts 15:32-34)- As prophets they exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words

• Judas was later sent back to Jerusalem with greetings to the apostles
• Silas remained in Antioch

15. What did Paul and Barnabas do for a while in Antioch? (Acts 15:35)- Teach and preach the word of the Lord

16. After some time, what did Paul recommend to Barnabas? (Acts 15:36)- To go back and visit the brethren in the cities where they preached, to see how they were doing

17. What was Barnabas determined to do? (Acts 15:37)- Take John Mark with them

18. What did Paul insist? Why? (Acts 15:38)- They should not take John Mark

• He had left them in Pamphylia (cf. Acts 13:13) and not gone on with them

19. When the contention became strong between Barnabas and Paul, what did they do? (Acts 15:39-41)- Barnabas took John Mark and sailed to Cyprus

• Paul took Silas, commended by the brethren to the grace of God, and went through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches

Acts 15 The first thirty-five verses of this chapter (Acts 15:1-35) relate the event which has been called The Jerusalem Council, where, it has been alleged, the mother church convened a formal session to pass on the preaching of the apostle Paul, especially with regard to the relationship between the law of Moses and the Christian gospel. However, this so-called council can never be understood without reference to another report of it in Galatians 2:1 ff, delivered in that epistle by the apostle Paul himself. The widespread disagreement among scholars, many of them denying that the two reports are of one event, is due to false assumptions regarding the nature of this event in Jerusalem. It is rather a complicated question; but the strong feeling expressed here is that there is but one event, Paul’s Galatian letter being therefore supplementary information to what Luke gives in this chapter. First of all, the purpose of the meeting in Jerusalem was that of correcting the religious position of the majority in that church, including, it may be presumed, most if not all of the apostles, as well as James the Lord’s brother. The notion that Paul needed their approval in any manner is wrong, except in the limited sense of his hoping to retain the unity of the Christian movement. Paul did not need the “council”; they needed him. THE COUNCILThis event in Acts 15 is the same as that in Galatians 2 for the following reasons: (1) Paul was converted in 37 A.D. (see under Acts 9:2); and, if Luke’s placement of this event is assumed to be chronological, then the date of it must be in the vicinity of 50 A.D. This corresponds exactly with the “fourteen years” following Paul’s conversion (Galatians 2:1), especially if the inclusive reckoning followed by New Testament writers is taken into account, giving a net thirteen years after the year 37. (2) The variations in the accounts, which are somewhat startling, derive from Paul’s reporting in Galatians some conversations which took place in Jerusalem between himself and James, Cephas and John, evidently before the formal meeting was convened. As far as Paul was concerned, the issue had already been decided before they had the “council”! It should also be noted that Paul’s withstanding Peter to the face was an event that took place “in Antioch” (Galatians 2:11), and does not belong to the narrative of what took place in Jerusalem. (3) The objection that Paul did not report the finding of the council to the Galatians or any other of the churches addressed in his epistles is due to a misunderstanding of what happened in that council. The sectarian idea that this was a General Council of the Church, convened to settle true Christian doctrine, misses the point altogether. The council was in error, not the apostle Paul. Although the brethren appointed Paul to go up to Jerusalem, it was God who sent him there (Galatians 2:2), not to permit the council to pass on Paul’s preaching, but in order to correct the shameful failure of the apostles and elders in that city to admit the Gentiles, without any restrictions, into the Christian fellowship. In Galatians, Paul flatly affirmed that: They … imparted nothing to me; but contrariwise … when they perceived the grace that was given unto me … gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship (Galatians 2:6-9). Paul had fully as much authority as anyone in the Jerusalem church; and it would have been shameful for the great apostle who for years had already been preaching God’s will regarding circumcision and the law of Moses, both of which had been nailed to the cross of Christ and totally abrogated, - it would have been a shame for him to have submitted the issue to the Jewish party in Jerusalem, bolstered as it was by James and the apostles. No! Paul never did any such thing; but through God’s revelation, he went up there to correct them and to bring conciliation, and to bring them into line with the will of God, not the other way around. The idea of the Jerusalem church having jurisdiction over what Paul delivered, as gospel, to the elders at Lystra and Derbe is foreign to the New Testament. The Roman Church makes the event in this chapter the first Ecumenical Council of the Church; but there is absolutely nothing of this notion in the New Testament. All the objections, therefore, about Paul’s not reporting the decision of the “mother church” to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians fail to get Paul’s point, namely, that “The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother”! (Galatians 4:26). Paul was the instrument by which the Holy Spirit guided the apostles (the Twelve) into all truth, as Jesus had promised, especially on the question of the relationship between Judaism and the church of Christ. (4) The book of Galatians was Paul’s first epistle, written almost immediately after the meeting in Jerusalem, hence his saying to them, “I marvel that ye are so soon (quickly) removed from him (Christ)” (Galatians 1:6). This would give the epistle a date of 50 A.D. That Galatians was addressed to Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe as “Galatian churches” is supported by the mention of Barnabas (Galatians 2:1), his mention of “marks of Jesus in his body” (a reference to his stoning at Lystra), and the impetuous, almost indignant tone of the letter. The churches mentioned in Acts 13-14 are the only churches Barnabas helped Paul to establish (as, far as New Testament information reaches). (5) The objection that Paul assumes for himself the sole credit for converting the Galatians, “elbowing Barnabas” out of his share of their conversion, overlooks the fact that Paul was “the spokesman,” and as such could truthfully say he had converted them without denying credit to anyone. It was Paul who appointed the elders; it was Paul who was stoned; it was Paul alone, of the entire apostolic world at that time, who was preaching the true gospel (on the Gentile question); and, besides all this, Barnabas had been carried off into dissimulation with Peter and others of that conviction, this alone being sufficient grounds for not injecting Barnabas’ name as one who had “converted” them. Paul’s Galatian letter carried the sad news of Barnabas’ dissimulation, which, at that time, had not yet been corrected, the same being another strong argument for the early date of Galatians. Of course, the date of Galatians is a question that properly belongs in another volume; but the bearing of this chapter on the question almost compels notice of it here. (6) The alleged reference of Paul in Galatians (Galatians 1:9 Galatians 5:3 Galatians 4:13 f) to more than one missionary trip is uncertain. In fact, Macknight said: “There is nothing said in the epistle to the Galatians, of Paul’s having been in Galatia more than once."[1] A reading of those passages cited above supports Macknight’s view of this. ENDNOTE: [1] James Macknight, On the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Vol. III, p. 84. And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1) Certain men came down … These were the same persons mentioned by Paul in Galatians 2:12 who came “from James.” As Bruce said, “The Epistle to the Galatians enables us to fill out the brief summary here provided by Luke."[2]Ye cannot be saved … It appears at this point that the greatest doctrinal threat in its whole history here confronted the young faith. James was the equivalent of the “leading elder” in Jerusalem, especially influential as the brother of the Lord; and, presumably, he was supported, or at least not opposed, by the apostles. Bruce thought that these men from James exceeded their commission by thus making observance of the Mosaic law mandatory for all Christians; and James declared that “no such commandment” was given them (Acts 15:24). He seems, however, to have tolerated their views until this crisis. In any case, if God had not corrected the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the entire Christian religion would have been frustrated and perverted. At best, it could thenceforth have been nothing but a Jewish sect, preaching the resurrection of Christ, of course, but nevertheless relying on the law of Moses for salvation. A large company of Pharisees who had become Christians would soon have dominated and destroyed it. ENDNOTE: [2] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 303. Verse 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.No small dissension … Paul would never have yielded to the Judaizing teachers, even if the whole Jerusalem church had backed them up, this being true because Paul had received a direct revelation from Jesus Christ covering the whole question. Thus, what is in view here is a very sharp clash between Paul’s true position and the false position of the men who had come from Jerusalem. The brethren appointed that Paul, etc. … should go up … Although it is here said that the brethren appointed Paul and company to this task, Galatians 2:2 plainly says that Paul went up “by revelation.” It is no doubt true that the church did appoint them; but that is not the reason Paul went; the Lord commanded him to go. And certain other men … One of these was Titus (Galatians 2:1), who might have been a brother of Luke; and this would account for Titus’ being nowhere mentioned in Luke’s writings. This group almost certainly included the apostle Peter also; for, as Bruce said, “Peter was in residence at Antioch when the Judean emissaries arrived."[3] It was prior to their arrival however that Paul and Peter clashed over the issue so gravely threatening to disrupt Christian unity. Should go up … about this question … It should be noted that Luke carefully refrained from saying that they were to go to Jerusalem to settle the question, leaving in view the fact that, through Paul’s revelation, they were going up to settle the Jerusalem church on the right side of the question. The stubborn insistence of the Judean emissaries made it clear that some in the Jerusalem church intended to control the churches everywhere, compelling them to conform to their own Judaistic bias. Thus, in order to root out the heresy, that surely being what it was, it was necessary that strong action be taken against the source of it in Jerusalem. ENDNOTE: [3] Ibid. Verse 3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.These places were on their way from Antioch to Jerusalem, and the Gentile converts rejoiced in the strong action of the Antiochene church in pressing the evangelism of the Gentiles. It should be noted here that “the church” paid the expenses and furnished the supplies for this trip. Verse 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.The Pharisees who believed … Here is identified the seat of the mischief. In Acts 6:7, Luke related how a great company of the priests believed, many of whom no doubt were Pharisees. Their love of the forms and ceremonies of Judaism had been brought with them into the church; and it may be assumed that for some considerable time they had been working to graft their own system into Christianity. Not only had they corrupted practically the whole of the church in Judea, but the recently established churches in Galatia had been visited and corrupted sufficiently to call forth Paul’s vehement letter to the Galatians.

The representatives they sent down to Antioch probably expected a quick victory there also; but instead of a victory they suddenly confronted the dauntless Paul who challenged them, defeated them, and proceeded to Jerusalem where he reversed the victory they had already won there. Aside from Christ himself, Christianity owes more to Paul than to any other. Verse 6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.To consider … This is different from “to decide,” there being no evidence whatever that this so-called council “decided” anything except that they would “trouble not” the Gentiles who had turned to God (Acts 15:19). Verse 7 And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.Peter here has reference to the events related in Acts 10, where is recorded the conversion of Cornelius. Peter at that time had acted in good faith, baptizing Cornelius and his household without any thought of circumcision and law-keeping; but it is evident that the cunning Pharisees, in efforts to bring them all to their viewpoint, began by stressing the social issue of eating with the uncircumcised, but moving quickly afterward to the hard position of demanding full obligations to Moses’ law as a condition of salvation. True, Peter had eaten with Cornelius; but, through social pressure, the Pharisee-Christians were able to compromise him by causing his dissimulation. When all were gathered together in Jerusalem, and after many discussions, Peter’s basic understanding of God’s will, fortified by his rugged character, enabled him to rise up, as he did here, and pull the rug out from under the whole Pharisaical conspiracy. Verse 8 And God who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.Faith … here means “the Christian faith” as distinguished from the law of Moses and does not mean “faith” as distinguished from repentance and baptism. This is a frequent New Testament usage of the word. No distinction between us and them … This is one of the cornerstone doctrines of Christianity. God has only one plan, one system of human salvation, there being no partiality, no special favors, no special devices favoring any man, race or nation. Jews and Gentiles alike confront the same message in Christ. The whole book of Romans was written to develop the theme of God’s intrinsic righteousness in treating all men and nations alike. “There is no distinction!” (Romans 3:22). The words Peter spoke here obviously made a deep impression upon the great apostle to the Gentiles. Verse 10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.What a profound difference between Peter’s teaching here and the hesitancy and dissimulation so shortly before this in Antioch! The circumstances of such a dramatic change most surely included Paul’s withering denunciation of Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11 ff). Peter “the Rock” was certainly out of character as this great issue boiled to a climax in Antioch; but in this scene he “came to himself.” Paul’s key part in bringing Peter to his senses was, in context, an act of God himself. A rooster did it the night Jesus was betrayed; but it took Paul to do it here. Why make ye trial … put a yoke … The antecedent of the pronoun “ye” in this passage is “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6), indicating the near-unanimous victory the Pharisee-Christians had accomplished in Jerusalem. However, by the time they came down to the formal part of the council, the victory had already been won. Peter had already been won over to a complete endorsement of Paul’s preaching in its totality. That approval and endorsement he courageously announced to all, declaring strongly that their refusal of Paul’s viewpoint would “tempt God.” Next came a strong presentation by Paul and Barnabas. Verse 12 And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.Kept silence … This thunderbolt just delivered by Peter completely silenced the Pharisaical Christian party, leaving the vast body of the Jerusalem church, assembled for the occasion, silent and ready to give full attention to the report of Barnabas and Paul. In this Jerusalem situation, Luke returned to the old order of these names. That report included all that Luke recorded in the last two chapters preceding this, and possibly a great deal more, proving beyond every question of doubt that the hand of the Lord was with Paul and Barnabas on that journey, and, by implication, proving the Pauline teaching to be God’s truth. Verse 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will built again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.JAMES’ SUMMARYJames … This was James the Lord’s brother who at that time had come to occupy a very influential place among the Christians in Jerusalem. After they had held their peace … suggests that the report of Paul and Barnabas had received an overwhelming ovation, this referring to the end of the applause. It may also have the meaning that all arguments had been answered and that the Pharisee-Christians were speechless. Simeon … James here reverted to Peter’s original name. It might have been a little embarrassing to the apostle, under the circumstances, to have called him The Rock (Peter)! James, Cephas and John had probably met with Paul earlier, before the formal assembly, and formed a solid agreement on the course of the meeting. Dummelow suggested that: Before the conference a complete settlement was reached. The Twelve acknowledged Paul’s teaching as orthodox, recognized him as the apostle to the Gentiles, conceded his demand that the Gentiles should be free from the observance of the Law, and gave him the right hand of fellowship. After this the result of the Council was a foregone conclusion.[4]It is evident that Dummelow is correct in this, which means that the decisive part of the confrontation in Jerusalem took place before the formal gathering, that it was dominated and controlled, not by the Pharisee party in Jerusalem, but by the apostle Paul. James’ great message here appealed to Scripture as an effective means of achieving the unity of all. To take out of them a people for his name …This was the usual Old Testament word designating Israel as the true people of God. The Gentiles were now included in this people. The “rebuilding of the tabernacle of David” must therefore refer to the salvation of the Jewish remnant, “the Israel within Israel” (Romans 9:8 Romans 11:1-5).[5]All of the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and the church. Christians are the “seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7 Galatians 3:29). He is a Jew who is one inwardly (Romans 2:28-29), etc. Gentiles upon whom my name is called … The Scripture to which James appealed in this is a free rendition of Amo 9:11, his purpose being to show that the Gentiles were prophetically included in the people of God. Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old … All of the stirring events of that great day were known from of old by the Father and revealed unto men in the holy prophets. This is only one of a great many such prophecies that James might have quoted, but this alone was sufficient. [4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 838. [5] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 435. Verse 19 Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.My judgment … James here did not announce the findings of the council but his own judgment, also refraining from issuing any such thing as a command or an order regarding the proposed restrictions, the latter resting upon the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), not upon any legislative authority of the council. That James’ judgment was inspired is proved by Acts 15:28. Despite the fact of the Greek language having many verbs of commanding, F. J. A. Hort pointed out that none of them is used here: The independence of the Ecclesia of Antioch had to be respected, and yet in such a way as not to encourage disregard either of the Mother Ecclesia, or of the Lord’s own apostles, or of the unity of the whole Christian body.[6]The four prohibitions here are that the Christians should refrain from: (1) pollutions of idols, (2) fornication, (3) things strangled, and (4) blood. The binding nature of these restrictions was pointed out by Root, thus: Not only the apostles and elders and brethren, but also the Holy Spirit concurred in the message (Acts 15:28), making this an inspired message, not merely a ruling of the church or its leaders.[7]These prohibitions do not imply that other sins of dishonesty and immorality were permitted, probably referring to sins “which were so common among the Gentiles that they were not even recognized as wrong until Christian teaching denounced them."[8]The principal barrier to social and religious unity among the Jewish and Gentile Christians was the low standard of behavior so common among the latter. Idol feasts were shameful debaucheries, marked by the most vulgar and immoral behavior, the prohibitions against pollution of idols and fornication being almost, in fact, one prohibition. In fact, it is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship. There is a wider concept, however, in which they have been honored by the historical church (see below). Clement said: The things which pollute both the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcass which is strangled.[9]Although from the Pseudo-Clementine writings, the above quotation states rather clearly that the eating of blood and things strangled was also connected with idolatrous feasts. In addition to that possible connection, however, the prohibition of eating blood (including things strangled) was announced by God in the covenant with Noah, thus: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Genesis 9:4). This makes it clear that the denial of blood as food to man antedates the Mosaic law. Thus, they are wrong who see these restrictions as a symbolical binding of the Law on Christians. The authority they have for Christians of all ages derives neither from Moses’ law nor from the commandment of Noah, but from the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). These very things were the principal barrier to fellowship in the primitive church; and this reason alone was more than sufficient for the prohibitions. [6] F. J. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London, 1914), p. 82. [7] Orin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 117. [8] Ibid. [9] Clement, Recognitions of (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1951), Vol. VIII, p. 143. Verse 21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every sabbath.Many Jewish Christians were still attending the synagogues every sabbath, hearing the law and the prophets being read; and, as they would continue to observe such restrictions, those given here were the minimal prohibitions consistent with any true fellowship between such diverse elements as the Jews and Gentiles contained within the fold of the pristine church. It is a marvel of wisdom, forbearance and understanding that such a formidable threat to unity could have been so gloriously resolved as was done here. Verse 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.The wise precaution observed here was that of providing a dual witness with representatives of both sides, in order to forestall any recurrence of disunity. Silas, the same as Silvanus, may have been met here for the first time by Paul, marking the beginning of a relationship that was to continue on the mission field. Silas would prove an invaluable ally for Paul; because, coming from Jerusalem, he would be able to verify the recognition of Paul’s apostleship by the whole church. Verse 23 And they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting.The churches of south Galatia were included under Antioch, as having been established from that church. Verse 24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.The words chosen for this communication were warm, sincere and complimentary, recognizing the marvelous, unselfish devotion of the missionaries who had preached to the Gentiles. Verse 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.It is of interest that the Greek New Testament omits the preposition before the middle two of these four prohibitions, thus: Abstain from idol sacrifices and blood and things strangled and from fornication.[10]Again, this points to a possible identification of the first three of these as elements of a single prohibition. ENDNOTE: [10] The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 535. Verse 30 So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.It was indeed an occasion worthy of great rejoicing and celebration. The Holy Spirit had prevailed over one of the most serious threats ever encountered by the apostolic church. Verse 32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.For comments on the meaning of “confirmed,” see under Acts 14:22. This gives additional information regarding Judas and Silas, namely, that they were also prophets. Verse 33 And after they had spent some time there, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth. But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.Acts 15:34, omitted by the English Revised Version (1885), reads thus: “But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.” Verse 36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us now return and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare.A NEW PARTNER FOR PAULPaul was very diligent to keep on teaching the taught in order to prevent discouragement and defection. It would appear that he had every intention of making the excursion with Barnabas until Barnabas insisted on taking his nephew, John Mark. Verse 37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark.It will be remembered that this was the young man who had defected from the first journey at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Verse 38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus.For extended comment on John Mark, see in my Commentary on Mark, pp. 1-2. A sharp contention … Strong men with minds strongly made up often find disagreement between them; and the one redeeming note in this otherwise unhappy and regrettable episode is that neither party to the dispute permitted it to hinder the work of God. Rather there was a beneficial result in that there were then two teams of missionaries on the field in the place of only one. Unto Cyprus … It was but natural that Barnabas would prefer the journey to his native Cyprus. However, in the providence of God, no record has come down to us, the evangelist Luke following, not the labors of Barnabas, but those of Paul. However, it must be presumed that much good was also done by Barnabas and Mark. Verse 40 But Paul chose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren and the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.THE SECOND TOURBoth Syria and Cilicia lay between Antioch (which was in Syria) and the south Galatian churches toward which Paul headed; but he worked diligently confirming churches in those provinces also. The existence of those churches in Syria and Cilicia is proved by reference to them in Acts 15:23; and the fact of Paul’s having been their founder, intimated in the proposal in Acts 15:36, is confirmed by Paul’s own words in Galatians 1:21-23. For reasons that will appear in the next chapter, Luke gave the most attention to events in the south Galatian district

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 151. From where did certain men come? 2. What Jewish ordinance did they advocate ? 3. Was this on the basis of national requirement ? 4. What did they say this ordinance was necessary for? 5. Who disputed with them? 6. Why was it right for them to have a dispute? 7. Who are “they” in 2nd verse? 8. Tell what was determined upon. 9. Why go up to these men ? 10. By what society were they sent on this mission? 11. On the way what did they do among the people? 12. What caused the joy of the Samaritans? 13. Who received them at Jerusalem? 14. What sect first raised protest? 15. State the present profession of these people. 16. To this what did they demand should be added? 17. Who had charge of this meeting? 18. What congregation was in authority? 19. Was this a Council of churches? 20. Who was the chief speaker? 21. Where is the history of that appointment? 23. What testimony did God give the Gentiles? 24. How much difference shown between them and Jews 25. By what were the hearts purified? 26. In what part of Moses* law is this found ? 27. How might they here tempt God? 28. Through what must all classes be saved? 29. Who were the next speakers? 30. State the subject of their remarks. 31. Name the next speaker. 32. To whom does he refer as Simeon ? 33. What words does James say agree with Simeon? 34. How does all this affect the present controversy? 35. Whom does he advise not to trouble? 36. What would he have the Gentiles instructed to do ? 37. Would this result in neglect to law of Moses ? 38. How was all this advice received by the hearers? 39. What did they arrange to do ? 40. State what was to be sent to Antioch. 41. Tell what teaching they disavowed. 42. How public was their decision? 43. What did they say of Barnabas and Paul? 44. For what purpose were the other men sent ? 45. What restrictions were laid upon the Gentiles ? 46. Have those restrictions been released? 47. Was the letter delivered to private persons? 48. How did the epistle impress the church ? 49. What did Judas and Silas do to endorse the move ? 50. Who also preached the word here at this time? 51. State the proposal Paul made to Barnabas. 52. What third party was considered? 53. Who was for and who against? 54. How did it finally come out? 55. Did Paul and Barnabas teach different doctrines?

Acts 15:1-41

Acts 15:4. The church and its elders with the apostles, gave Paul and Bar-nabas a favorable reception, and listened to their report of good work done for God.

Acts 15:2

2Act 15:2. Paul and Barnabas understood the subject but could not satisfy the brethren. It was decided that they should go to Jerusalem about the matter, that being the first church, and the place where the other apostles were making their headquarters. Certain brethren from Antioch were to go with Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 15:3

3Act 15:3. Being brought on their way was done by an escort of honor, similar to the circumstance in chapter 21:5. Phenice and Samaria lay between Antioch and Jerusalem, and in passing through those regions Paul and Barnabas informed the brethren of the Gentile conversions, which was good news and caused much rejoicing.

Acts 15:5

5Acts 15:5. Which believed is said to denote that these Pharisees had accepted the Gospel. These were the kind of brethren who had caused the disturbance at Antioch, and they were agitating the same heresy before the group from that city.

Acts 15:6

6Acts 15:6. The authority of the twelve apostles was universal (Matthew 19:28 Matthew 28:19-20), but they were then working especially with the Jerusalem church; at the same time they respected the elders of the congregation and worked with them. It should be noted that this whole matter was in the hands of the church at Jerusalem, and it was thus not a “church council” as Rome uses that term.

Acts 15:7

7Acts 15:7. After the discussion had gone on for some time, Peter “took the floor” to make a fundamental report touching the issue involved, referring to his own personal experience. The choice that God made is recorded in chapter 10:5, 6, which made it fitting that Peter should “speak up” at the turn of the discussion.

Acts 15:8

8Acts 15:8. Knoweth the hearts. God would not have chosen the household of Cornelius for this initial work of offering the Gospel to the Gentiles, had He not seen in them a heart that was worthy of the great epoch.

Acts 15:9

9Acts 15:9. He put no difference in that both Jew and Gentile could become pure in heart by accepting the faith of the Gospel and not by the law of Moses.

Acts 15:10

0Acts 15:10. Nor we were able to bear. The last word is defined in the lexicon by “endure,” and the term able does not refer to physical strength, but that it was more than they felt prepared to endure. God never intended the ritualistic yoke of the law to be perpetual, but these Judaizers would have made it permanent.

Acts 15:11

1Act 15:11. Instead of that formal, severe yoke of the law, Peter declared that he and the Gentiles could be saved by the grace of God through Christ.

Acts 15:12

2Act 15:12. The disturbers of verse 5 were quieted by the speech of Peter, which gave Paul and Barnabas an uninterrupted opportunity to report their work among the Gentiles. They proved the righteousness of their work by detailing the miracles God enabled them to perform among the people.

Acts 15:13

3Act 15:13. This James was not one of the twelve apostles, but he was a very outstanding man in the church at Jerusalem. (See the notes and references on the subject at chapter 12:17.) He was the next spokesman and his advice will be respected.

Acts 15:14

4Acts 15:14. Simeon means Simon Peter, and James is referring to what he declared in verse 7. A people for his name means that the Gentiles were to become a part of God’s people and wear His name.

Acts 15:15

5Verses 15-17. James not only endorsed the statement of Peter, but quoted the prophecy that foretold it. (See the prediction in Amos 9:11-12).

Acts 15:18

8Acts 15:18. All of this was according to what God always knew he was going to do. With Him all dates are the same as “now” (Isaiah 46:10).

Acts 15:19

9Acts 15:19. Sentence is from KRINO, and Thayer’s definition at this place is, “To be of opinion, deem, think.” But we must bear in mind that this opinion was inspired by the Holy Ghost. (See verse 28.) That opinion was that the Gentiles converted to Christ were not to be troubled with the Jewish ordinances.

Acts 15:20

0Acts 15:20. The law against eating blood is older than the law of Moses, having been given in Genesis 9:4. And that against fornication is still older, being implied by the statement in Genesis 2:24. For if this union makes them one flesh, then no other person can have relations with one of this pair without committing fornication. Hence these two laws are permanent regardless of what Dispensation is in force. But the subject of eating meat that had been offered to idols is a later one, and the law against it is based on special conditions that are more or less local.

The Gentiles had practiced it so much that the Jews had an abhorrence for it. For that reason these Gentile Christians were told to abstain from it because of the Jews who were already somewhat prejudiced against the Gentiles; otherwise there would not have been any wrong in itself for them to eat it. That is the reason Paul taught as he did in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 on this subject. Things strangled were forbidden because the blood would not have been all removed from the beast.

Acts 15:21

1Act 15:21. Because this law of Moses was known wherever there was a synagogue of the Jews, it was not expedient to offend them unnecessarily by eating this meat.

Acts 15:22

2Act 15:22. The judgment of James was accepted by the entire group, the apostles, elders and the whole church. Paul and Barnabas were not left to return to Antioch and expect the church there to rely solely on their word for the decision of the Jerusalem church. They selected two chief men among the brethren to go with them, carrying a written document backed up by the apostles and elders.

Acts 15:23

3Act 15:23. This document began as a greeting to the Gentile brethren, not only those in Antioch, but also those in the whole provinces of Syria and Cilicia.

Acts 15:24

4Acts 15:24. We have heard . . . went out from us. This shows that the disturbers were acting without the knowledge and consent of the church in. Jerusalem. The original word for subverting is defined by Thayer, “to unsettle.” The agitation of these Juda-izers confused the minds of the Gentile Christians.

Acts 15:25

5Acts 15:25. The chosen men were Judas and Silas (verse 22).

Acts 15:26

6Acts 15:26. Hazarded their lives means they had risked their lives for the sake of the Gospel. One notable case was that of Paul at Lystra, chapter 14:19.

Acts 15:27

7Acts 15:27. The main purpose of sending Judas and Silas was to confirm the letter by their oral testimony. That would prove the document was genuine as from the church.

Acts 15:28

8Acts 15:28. This denotes that the letter was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Acts 15:29

9Acts 15:29. This is the same as verse 20, with a friendly closing additional.

Acts 15:30

0Acts 15:30. When Paul and his group reached Antioch, they assembled the multitude to which the epistle was delivered, since all were interested.

Acts 15:31

1Act 15:31. Consolation is properly translated, for a part of Thayer’s definition of the original word is “encouragement.” It was reassuring to these Gentile brethren to know they did not have to take up the burdensome ordinances of the Jewish system. They also looked favorably upon the exhortation to abstain from the evils named in the letter.

Acts 15:32

2Act 15:32. Judas and Silas being prophets. Those were the days of spiritual gifts and these brethren possessed that of prophecy. That was doubtless the reason they were named as chief men and sent along with Paul and Barnabas to confirm the letter.

Acts 15:33-34

4Acts 15:33-34. They were let go. Silas and Judas were given friendly release so that they could return to Jerusalem, but Silas preferred to remain at Antioch longer.

Acts 15:35

5Acts 15:35. Paul and Barnabas remained at Antioch for the time, since that was their regular headquarters. They employed their time teaching and preaching the word. The italicized words are used interchangeably all through the New Testament because the distinction is slight. The second has special reference to the first announcement of the Gospel, and the first meaning to give further instruction concerning the things preached.

Acts 15:36

6Acts 15:36. The term “missionary” is commonly used to mean a worker in new fields, but the present verse says they were to revisit the places where they had been. Hence the “second missionary journey” of Paul does not start until chapter 16, verse 10.

Acts 15:37

7Acts 15:37. Mark was a cousin to Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). I do not know whether that influenced him in this contention or not.

Acts 15:38

8Acts 15:38. Paul mistrusted Mark’s stability on account of his desertion of the work at Pamphylia. (See chapter 13:13 for the account of this circumstance.)

Acts 15:39

9Acts 15:39. The original for contention is defined in Thayer’s lexicon by the one word “irritation.” Robinson defines it, “A paroxysm, sharp contention.” It should be noted that no “doctrinal” difference came up between these brethren; it was only a matter of judgment. And after they each went his own way, they preached the same Gospel; neither was there ever any personal ill feeling between them. Instead, Paul made favorable mention of Barnabas afterward (1 Corinthians 9:6; Galations 2:9).

Acts 15:40

0Acts 15:40. Silas had come with Judas from Jerusalem (verses 22, 34) and had remained. That made him available for the work with Paul on the next journey. Being recommended means they started on this journey with the good wishes of the brethren. Nothing is said on that subject about Barnabas, either for or against him. That is because the writer is continuing only with his report of Paul’s work.

Acts 15:41

1Act 15:41. Confirming the churches means to strengthen and establish them.