Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:1” utilice nuestra app.

And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, [and said,] Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

1. which came down from Judea ] The words of the new comers would derive authority from this. They would be received as the latest ordinance of the heads of the church at Jerusalem. Thus the mission of enquiry to Jerusalem was rendered necessary.

taught the brethren ] These were a mixed body, composed of Jews, proselytes and Gentiles (see Act 11:19-20 and the notes there). Thus it was precisely the place where such a question would arise. Gentile converts who had not passed into Christianity by the gate of Judaism would be sure to be regarded as wanting something, by the people in whose mouths “uncircumcised” had been from old times the bitterest term of reproach. (Cp. 1Sa 17:26 and Act 11:3.) The tense of the verb used implies that these men were persistent in their teaching, they kept constantly to this theme.

after the manner ( custom) of Moses ] The word is found before (Act 6:14) “the customs which Moses delivered” and signifies those rites and usages which had their foundation in the law (cp. Luk 1:9; Luk 2:42; Act 21:21) and so were more than a “manner” or “fashion.” Cp. also Joh 7:22, for circumcision as the ordinance given to the people by Moses.

ye cannot be saved ] A statement likely to cause dissension and questioning among those who had just learnt (Act 14:27) that “God had opened the door of faith” (independent of the observance of the ceremonial law) “unto the Gentiles.”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Act 15:1-5. At Antioch some maintain that Gentile converts must be circumcised. A Mission to Jerusalem about the question. Reception of those who were sent

The history now approaches that subject of controversy which was certain to arise as soon as Christianity spread beyond the limits of Palestine. The first converts to the new faith were made among the Jews, but few of them were likely to cast aside those prejudices of religion in which they had long been educated. As soon as Gentiles who had not first become proselytes to Judaism joined the Christian Church, Jewish exclusiveness received a violent shock, and there was no small danger lest the new community should be rent asunder almost at its beginning. “The covenant,” by which expression the devout Jew specially meant “circumcision,” was constituted a cry by Judaizing agitators, and the opposition, first brought into prominence at Antioch, proved a continuous source of trial through the whole ministry of St Paul, and has left its traces on most of the writings both of the N. T. and of early Christian literature.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And certain men – These were undoubtedly men who had been Jews, but who were now converted to Christianity. The fact that they were willing to refer the matter in dispute to the apostles and elders Act 15:2 shows that they had professedly embraced the Christian religion. The account which follows is a record of the first internal dissension which occurred in the Christian church. Hitherto the church had been struggling against external foes. Violent persecutions had raged, and had fully occupied the attention of Christians. But now the churches were at peace. They enjoyed great external prosperity in Antioch, and the great enemy of souls took occasion then, as he has often done in similar circumstances since, to excite contentions in the church itself, so that when external violence could not destroy it, an effort was made to secure the same object by internal dissension and strife. This history, therefore, is particularly important, as it is the record of the first unhappy debate which arose in the bosom of the church. It is further important, as it shows the manner in which such controversies were settled in apostolic times, and as it established some very important principles respecting the perpetuity of the religious rites of the Jews.

Came down from Judea – To Antioch, and to the regions adjacent, which had been visited by the apostles, Act 15:23. Judea was a high and hilly region, and going from that toward the level countries adjacent to the sea was represented to be descending, or going down.

Taught the brethren – That is, Christians. They endeavored to convince them of the necessity of keeping the laws of Moses.

Except ye be circumcised – This was the leading or principal rite of the Jewish religion. It was indispensable to the name and privileges of a Jew. Proselytes to their religion were circumcised as well as native-born Jews, and they held it to be indispensable to salvation. It is evident from this that Paul and Barnabas had dispensed with this rite in regard to the Gentile converts, and that they intended to found the Christian church on the principle that the Jewish ceremonies were to cease. When, however, it was necessary to conciliate the minds of the Jews and to prevent contention, Paul did not hesitate to practice circumcision, Act 16:3.

After the manner of Moses – According to the custom which Moses commanded; according to the Mosaic ritual.

Ye cannot be saved – The Jews regarded this as indispensable to salvation. The grounds on which they would press it on the attention of Gentile converts would be very plausible, and such as would produce much embarrassment. For:

(1) It would be maintained that the laws of Moses were the laws of God, and were therefore unchangeable; and,

(2) It would doubtless be maintained that the religion of the Messiah was only a completing and perfecting of the Jewish religion that it was designed simply to carry out its principles according to the promises, and not to subvert and destroy anything that had been established by divine authority. It is usually not difficult to perplex and embarrass young converts with questions of modes, and rites, and forms of religion; and it is not uncommon that a revival is followed by some contention just like this. Opposing sects urge the claims of their special rites, and seek to make proselytes, and introduce contention and strife into an otherwise peaceful and happy Christian community.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 15:1-29

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved.

Disturbers of the Church

I. Certain men came down from Judea.

1. Probably they were not appreciated at home.

2. They brought all their intolerance with them.

3. And the Church at Antioch had to suffer.

4. One bigot inside a Church can cause more dissension than two sceptics outside.

II. When certain men come down from Judea.

1. They may sometimes be profitably invited to go back again.

2. It is the wisest course to seek advice from the great Head of the Church. (S. S. Times.)

Controversies and contentions

We have had dissensions before with unbelieving Jews or unconverted Gentiles; but we have now to come to controversies within the Church. There are three of these here:–

I. A controversy that resolved itself ultimately into one of doctrine, though it began with ritualism.

1. In all great movements it is always found that for some time the new and the old overlap each other, and that more or less of collision takes place between them. Men with certain fixed habits of thought and feeling may be compelled to accept some great truth; but they may not be able to accept it with all its conditions, or with all its logical consequences. This was the case in the Church with respect to the relations between Jew and Gentile. Certain Pharisaic members of the Church in Jerusalem accepted the Messiah as the Saviour of the world on the condition of the other nations becoming Jews! They could not understand how that which had once been established by Divine authority could pass away. Certain of these men came down to Antioch and began to disseminate their opinions. Paul and Barnabas met the men by argument, but the Church became so disturbed, that it was judged expedient to get some settlement of the question from the apostles.

2. Paul and Barnabas accordingly went to Jerusalem, and the former refers to this visit in Gal 2:1-9. Nor is there any discrepancy between the two accounts. Paul might be deputed by the Church, and at the same time be moved by revelation. The deputation might have been in consequence of the Divine guidance which Paul had received, or it might have been in consequence of the deputation being appointed that the apostle was directed to avail himself of it for a kindred object. This probable double object of the journey is worth attention. During the journey from which Paul had just returned, the powers of an apostle had been displayed. When he returns to Antioch he does not put down the controversy by authority. He felt, perhaps, that, as the elder apostolic men had not heard what God had done by him, his position, as the commissioned apostle of the Gentiles, had by them yet to be recognised. This, then, was a personal matter, which might yet be important to his action and influence. It was in relation to this, as I apprehend, that he had the revelation he refers to. As deputed by the Church, he went for the settlement of the controversy; as Divinely directed, he went privately to them of reputation, that his authority might be recognised.

3. But there is another matter. Paul says he took Titus with him, while Luke does not mention Titus. Blot mere silence is no argument; while Titus may have been one of the certain other (verse 2). But, even if not, the apostle may have chosen to take Titus with him in connection with his own special object. He determined to have what was in dispute, not only as a matter of argument, but of fact. Hence he appeared with a converted Gentile, determined, as the apostle of such, to stand by the side of one confessedly uncircumcised, thus proclaiming his equality as a brother in the Lord.

4. The deputation was received by the whole Church and the apostles and elders. Paul and Barnabas gave a general account of their ministry, and immediately some of the Pharisees raised the question (verse 5). It was then determined that a day should be appointed when the elders and the apostles should consider the matter. Now, my idea is, that between this preliminary meeting and the day when they came together for the discussion, Paul and Barnabas had that private meeting with the apostles which he mentions in Galatians

2. It is very likely that the Pharisees at the first meeting, knowing that there was a Gentile with Paul, demanded that he should submit to their rite of initiation. The apostle was quite prepared for this, but gave way to it, no, not for an hour. He at once consulted with those who were of reputation, and communicated to them the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles. They received the communication, recognised Pauls apostolic character, and gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

5. Seeing how impossible it is to do public business in a great assembly unless you have the thing marked out beforehand, I think this private interview was used for coming to such an agreement as decided the leaders as to the course to adopt. When they came together, just as in our House of Commons a number of comparatively undistinguished men are allowed to spend their strength while the leaders reserve themselves to wind up the argument–a number of unnamed individuals opened the controversy. After the matter had been thoroughly ventilated, it became the duty of the leaders to interfere.

(1) Peter got up and referred to a matter of fact in which he was the principal actor–the conversion of Cornelius, which he regarded as proving the equality of Jew and Gentile in Christ. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul. Just notice how little things may possess great significancy. On the journey Barnabas and Saul was changed to Paul and Barnabas; but here, where Barnabas was so well known, how natural it is that he should be made prominent! It is a stroke so fine that a fiction writer would hardly have thought of it.

(2) Barnabas and Paul then rose up, and they, too, referred to facts.

(3) Then James, the president, addressed the assembly. As the others had referred to what God had done, he referred to what God had said. He showed that the old prophecies were the basis of the new facts; that they had reference ultimately to the Gentiles being received into the Church. He suggested, therefore, that they should not trouble the Gentile converts by the impositions of the law, but should recommend them, as a matter of expediency, to abstain from certain things which were necessary for the preservation of social intercourse between them and their brethren. This suggestion was accepted. But something else was also recommended; and here you will observe what capital business men these apostles were. The suggestion of James was reduced to writing, and they elected some of their own body to go to Antioch, to confirm, by word of mouth, what was said in the letter. What an admirable arrangement this wast The men went down to Antioch and delivered the epistle. The Gentiles were glad, and rejoiced for the consolation.

II. A rebuke provoked by an outward act, but which sprang from loyalty to truth (Gal 2:11, etc.)

The conduct attributed to Peter was just like him. He was a man of impulse, an earnest, sincere man, but wanting in moral courage, and sensitive to others opinion. Besides, it is quite in keeping with human nature, that social feelings, custom, and prejudice should be practically stronger than a decision of the understanding. You may proclaim by law that the negro shall be recognised as a man and a brother; and yet you will find that white men shrink from the negro, though perfectly assenting to the righteousness of the law which would place him at their side. Some even of your eloquent orators, who talk largely about human equality, may be found to bow to a social prejudice. It is human nature, and it is constantly to be seen in respect to ecclesiastical parties. Peters pusillanimity was contagious. Others dissembled with him, and even Barnabas was for a season seduced. Paul, who looked at things in their principles and issues, saw in such conduct far more than Peter suspected. Hence his withstanding him to the face, etc. The error of the Judaisers and the error of Peter are the faults of human nature. Few are there, indeed, in any Church who do not need to be reminded that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, etc.

III. A dispute arising out of personal feeling (verses 36-41). Barnabas, when he came back from Jerusalem, had most likely brought down his nephew Mark with him, or he might have accompanied Peter; and Barnabas wished, when the second journey was proposed, that he should go with them. Paul would not hear of it. There were no doubt faults on both sides. Barnabas might have been too lenient; Paul too severe. It is no use attempting to smooth over matters. The men were wrong, and evidently gave way to bad temper and strong words. The paroxysm was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder the one from the other, and the pious work of their joint apostolic visitation of the churches was given up! From the infirmity of the men, and the honesty of the historian, much may be learnt. In conclusion, take the three things in reverse order.

1. This schism between Paul and Barnabas was but temporary. We find that afterwards Mark was associated with Paul, and served with him in the gospel. Barnabas and Paul, too, were brought into friendly relations again. It was impossible for such good men, alike servants of the Most High God and fellow workers with Him, to keep their anger forever.

2. It was the same with respect to Paul and Peter. It was just like Peter–with his warm, loving, and honest soul, his tenderness of conscience, and genuine humility–to refer, in one of his Epistles, to those of his beloved brother Paul, though he probably knew that one of them contained the record of his weakness.

3. In regard to the council, we learn the evil of aggravating sectional differences, and insisting on them as terms of communion and salvation. Ritual peculiarities, matters of Church government, external and secondary things which are not of the essence of that faith which unites to Christ, and purifies the heart, are not to be raised into walls of separation. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (T. Binney, D. D.)

Church controversy

From this interesting chapter learn that –

I. controversies are unavoidable, and are a sign of life and activity. They are preferable to the peace of the graveyard. It is through controversy that truth is developed and error defeated. All the great doctrines, the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification, etc., have come out as pure gold from the furnace of theological dispute. Only, let controversy be conducted in a Christian spirit, and with a single eye to the cause of truth.

II. The best way to settle a controversy is by full discussion and personal conference. Even inspired apostles did not decide the question by mere authority, but travelled all the way to Jerusalem to secure a general understanding, after giving a full hearing to the opposition. It is good for Christians to come together, to think and talk together. In the multitude of counsellors there is safety. One man may be wiser than a whole multitude, but if he can convince the multitude, his judgment is all the more powerful.

III. Synodical conferences are clearly sanctioned by apostolic example and precedent. But the time and number are left to expediency. They may be annual, triennial, or occasional; local, diocesan, provincial, national, or oecuminical; advisory, or legislative; all depends upon the necessities of the Church, which vary in different periods and countries.

IV. The composition of a synod should be democratic. The apostles might have decided the controversy by their own personal weight and authority; but they preferred to confer with the brotherhood, and to allow a free and open discussion. The council of Jerusalem consisted of the whole Church (Act 15:6-22). It is therefore a departure from apostolic practice if synods have become purely clerical and hierarchical. This is contrary to the principle of the general priesthood of the laity, which gives every believer the right to take an active part in the government and all the general interests of the Church. (P. Schaff, D. D.)

Controversy, frequently the result of misunderstanding

Some time ago I went down to the Lookout Mountain, and an old resident said to me, Our soldiers fought bravely up there above the clouds; but sometimes the mists were so heavy that they could not distinguish friends from foes, and struck at each other. (J. M. Buckley, D. D.)

Controversialists

Its a great pity we cant agree better. They are small, insignificant beings who quarrel oftenest. Theres a magnificent breed of cattle in the Vale of Clwyd–the most beautiful vale in Wales. They have scarcely any horns, but an abundance of meat; yet if you ascend the hills on every side, there, on the heights, you find a breed which grows scarcely anything but horns, and from morning to night all you hear is the constant din of clashing weapons. So there are many Christians who live on the heights–but on very cold and barren ones. Everything they eat grows into horns, the strength of which they are constantly testing. (J. Thomas.)

Controversy among Christians

I saw once a little incident in Scottish history. It was at the time when conflicts were being waged between two factions in Scotland. One of them was represented by the garrison in the old castle at Edinburgh and the townspeople were on the other side. They fell into a very serious fight about surrendering the town. It was the easiest thing in the world for the castle to subdue whatever force was brought against it. Those of you who have been there know how commanding a position it occupied. In a very little while they opened a terrific cannonade on the town. They were soon subdued. It was an easy victory. But they found that the explosions of their cannon had shaken the rock beneath them and opened the fissures so widely that the waters in the wells that the garrison lived upon had run away into nothing. I dont believe we can afford to be victorious over each other, and that Christian denomination that holds its own by the destruction of any other one will find that its fissures beneath will carry away the water of piety and grace on which it lives. (C. S. Robinson.)

A catholic platform

Dr. Duncan was in Leghorn, Italy, when two godly shipmasters came to the port–the one from Leith, the other from England–the one a Presbyterian, the other a Wesleyan. The Wesleyan came and asked him to preach in his ship. Oh, said he, I could not do that; for you see I am a Calvinist and you are an Arminian, and I might say something to injure your feelings. Sir, was the reply, what we wish you to do is to come and preach against the devil. That is certainly a catholic platform. Calvinist and Arminian should always be agreed to preach against the devil, and in the name of a common Master.

Controversies, after effects of

Old religious factions are volcanoes burned out, says Burke; on the lava and ashes and squalid scoriae of old eruptions grow the peaceful olive, the cheering vine, and the sustaining corn. Those who have seen the sides of Vesuvius can well appreciate the force of this image. There indeed may be seen tracts of desolation; bare, black, and lurid, beyond any other which earth can show. These are where the sulphur still lingers and repels every effort of vegetation. But there are also tracts, close adjoining to them, and even in the midst of them, where the green vineyard, the grey olive, the golden orange, and the springing herb mark that, out of the attrition and decomposition of the ancient streams of lava, the vital forces of nature can assert themselves with double vigour, and create a new life under the very ribs of death. So it is with extinct theological controversies. So far, indeed, as they retain the bitterness, the fire and brimstone, of personal rancour and malignity, they are, and will be to the end of time, the most barren and profitless of all the works of man. But if this can be eliminated or corrected, it is undeniable not only that truths of various kinds take root and spring up in the soil thus formed, but that there is a fruitful and useful result produced by the contemplation of the transitory character of the volcanic eruptions which once seemed to shake the world. (Dean Stanley.)

The gospel not a matter for controversy, but for use

A huge fragment of rock from an adjacent cliff fell upon a horizontal part of the hill below, which was occupied by the gardens and vineyards of two peasants. It covered part of the property of each; nor could it be easily decided to whom the unexpected visitor belonged; but the honest rustics, instead of troubling the gentlemen of the long robe with their dispute, wisely resolved to end it by each party excavating the half of the rock on his own grounds, and converting the whole into two useful cottages, with comfortable rooms and cellars for their little stock of wine, and there they now reside with their families. After such a sort will wise men deal with the great doctrines of the gospel; they will not make them the themes of angry controversy, but of profitable use. To fight over a doctrine is sorry waste of time, but to live in the quiet enjoyment of it is the truest wisdom. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Christian liberty

I. Disputed. The Church at Antioch was made up of both Jews and Gentiles (Act 11:19-23), living in complete harmony. The Church was prosperous. When this is the case the devil tries to get in and break up its concord. Here–

1. There were those who affirmed that, Except ye be circumcised, etc. Note–

(1) The doctrine which meant that the law, with all its requirements and penalties, was still in force.

(2) The advocates of the doctrine. False brethren (Gal 2:4). They assumed an authority which they did not possess, and which was repudiated by the Church (verse 24).

2. Paul and Barnabas were their opposers (Galatians if. 5). It will be interesting to turn to Pauls indignant utterances against circumcision as a saving ordinance (Gal 5:2; Gal 6:12, etc.)

And yet this same Paul afterwards circumcised Timothy (Act 16:3). But not as necessary to salvation, only that he might preach salvation to the Jews more acceptably. Here he fought the doctrine without compromise, because it was declared to be essential to salvation.

3. The result (verse 2). Paul went up by revelation as well (Gal 2:2). Note–

(1) Those sent. Paul and Barnabas, who had the confidence of the Church, and who had been the opponents of the doctrine. Among the certain other of them was Titus (Gal 2:8), and probably some who believed in circumcision.

(2) The wisdom of sending. It sent the dispute where it would receive an authoritative answer. There is no need of a Church being torn asunder by any controversy when it acts in the manner and with the spirit of the Church at Antioch.

(3) The journey. To Paul and Barnabas it was almost a triumphal march (verse 3).

II. Denied.

1. The reception. Paul and Barnabas were accorded, seemingly, a formal and cordial welcome. To men of repute, such as James, Cephas, and John, Paul privately explained the gospel he had been proclaiming among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2); and in this public gathering he and Barnabas rehearsed all things that God had done with them.

2. The attack (verse 5). In the council, therefore, the question was sharply and clearly drawn as to whether faith in Christ was alone sufficient for salvation.

III. Proved. Observe–

1. The composition of the council (verse 22). There was no mere pontifical decision. Peter only argued the case, and voted like the rest. Nor did the apostles alone give judgment, but the whole Church.

2. The arguments before the council.

(1) Peters.

(a) God chose that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. It was not Peter that moved in the matter, but God. Peters scruples had to be overcome.

(b) The reception of the Holy Spirit was conclusive evidence, for God knows the heart, and He never would send the Holy Spirit to take possession of those that were alien.

(c) Their uncircumcision did not stand in the way of the cleansing of their hearts. His exhortation was short and to the point (verse 10). The difficulty of bearing the yoke of Moses is set forth in Rom 7:7-14. Christ, in contrast, says, My yoke is easy, and My burden is light. Peter ends by declaring, But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they. Not they in like manner with us, but we as they–without our circumcision!

(2) Paul and Barnabass. They simply declared the miracles and wonders that God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

(3) James. He makes it manifest that the acceptance of the Gentiles is no new thought, but had been pre-indicated in the Word of God (Amo 9:11-12). This appeal to prophecy, together with the evidence that God was moving in the matter, settled the controversy. The threatened schism in the Church was avoided, and liberty in the faith became a perpetual birthright. So was it that the glorious liberty of the children of God was vindicated. (M. C. Hazard.)

Times in Church history

There is a time–

I. To build and a time to break down (Ecc 3:3).

1. To build the fence of the law of the Old Covenant.

2. To break down that fence in the New Testament.

II. Of contention and of peace (Ecc 3:8).

1. Brotherly contention in order to find the right.

2. Brotherly peace after it is found.

III. To speak and to be silent (Ecc 3:7).

1. To speak boldly when it concerns convictions.

2. To be silent when it concerns obedience to Gods will and brotherly unity. (K. Gerok.)

The first ecclesiastical council–the nature of the dispute

Science informs us that the fiercest hurricanes revolve around a perfect centre of calm. This chapter tells us of disturbance in the centre of the Church. A little examination of this dissension will show that it is, more or less, a type of all Church disputes. It was a conflict between–

I. The ritualistic and the spiritual (verse 1).

1. The names of these breakers of Church peace are not given, nor do we require them. They were not persons of any authority. Their religion had more to do with the senses than with the souls with the form than with the spirit. I can conceive of them urging–

(1) That the law of Moses was the law of God, and therefore immutable.

(2) That the religion of Messiah was to develop, and not abrogate, the Levitical economy.

2. The new religion was, on the other hand, preeminently spiritual; it taught that circumcision or uncircumcision availeth nothing, etc.

II. The traditional and the progressive.

1. For many ages the Gentile who sought religious light could only obtain it through the Jew. These Judaising teachers had felt that what had been must continue. They were institutional conservatives–they could not give up the past.

2. On the other hand, Christianity was preeminently progressive; it made the old a mere starting point. It left Palestine for the world, the Jew for the race, the temple of Jerusalem for the temple of the universe, teaching men everywhere that God is a Spirit, etc.

III. The fettering and the free. To bind the Gentile converts to this Jewish rite would be to enslave their souls; hence Peter exclaimed, Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the necks of the disciples? To tie the soul to a ceremony is to enslave it, and this those bigots now sought to do. They would fetter the limbs of a new faith with the trammels of old ceremonies. Christianity is freedom; it invests the soul with the glorious liberty of the children of God. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The first ecclesiastical council.
the settlement of the dispute

I. A deputation from the Church at Antioch and a full discussion of the subject at a general assembly of the Church (verses 4, etc.)

(1) It was a general synod, not a mere meeting of the apostles and elders. It is not necessary to believe that every Church member was present, but that all were represented.

(2) It was a popular assembly. Notice–

1. The speech of Peter. It is noteworthy that there is no assumption of superiority on Peters part. He speaks only as one of their number, strongly, but with deference to the common judgment. He shows that Jewish ritualism was–

(1) Unnecessary. He quotes his own experience in proof of this, and states that his ministry to the Gentiles was–

(a) By the appointment of God. God made choice among us.

(b) Divinely sanctioned. Giving them the Holy Ghost.

(c) Productive of the same spiritual results. Put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. This work the gospel effects as well without Jewish ritualism as with it, and achieves it in connection with faith and the agency of the Holy Ghost.

(2) Inexpedient (verse 10).

(a) Ritualism is an intolerable yoke.

(b) Men, by their bigoted conduct, may tempt God to put this yoke upon people. Were England to renounce her Protestantism, she would tempt God to put the yoke of Popery upon this country.

(3) Contrary to his faith (verse 11). This is the last speech we have of Peter. Adieu, great apostle!

2. The speech of James. The speech of Peter produced such a deep impression, that, amidst breathless silence, Barnabas and Paul arose. Their speeches are not recorded; only so much is said about them as to show that they were historic. But the speech of James is given. He was chairman, summed up the matter, and gave his judgment. He accepts the position of Peter, and supports it by a prophetic quotation, which points to a great restoration–

(1) Among the Jewish people. The building up of that which was in ruins.

(2) That would lead the Gentiles to seek after the Lord.

(3) Effected by that God who sees the end from the beginning.

3. The decision contained four prohibitions. Against–

(1) Food which had been offered to idols.

(2) Fornication–mentioned in connection with idolatry, because horrible licentiousness mingled with the devotions of those heathens.

(3) Things strangled–things held in abomination among the Jews, and in high esteem among the heathens.

(4) Blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 10:14; Deu 12:23; 1Sa 14:34).

II. A deputation back to Antioch with the results of the deliberation (verses 22, etc.)

The apostolic letter may be regarded–

1. As a homage to the right of private judgment. It is not an enactment enforced by penalties, nor a mere moral appeal addressed to a corporate body; it is directed to the judgment of every member of the Church in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The questions at issue were vital to every man, and to every man appeal is made. The whole Bible recognises this right.

2. As a condemnation of ecclesiastical decrees. Its benign and tender spirit, touching references, popular and advisory features, are in striking contrast to the deliverances of later councils. Little men, who claim to be the successors of these apostles, have issued decrees whose arrogance and intolerance insult the Christian name.

3. As a charter of the Churchs liberties. With this letter issuing from the great council of the mother Church at Jerusalem, the result of apostolic deliberation and heavenly guidance, we claim a liberty from the reign of ritualism.

III. The assembling of the Church at Antioch to receive the communication from the mother Church (verse 30). The whole Church is assembled. Paul and Barnabas, Barnabas and Silas, deliver the letter, which yields great consolation. The strangers exhort the brethren and confirm them, and after a little while return home. Conclusion: Such was the method of settling this first discussion in the Christian Church. How simple, wise, and successful! Would that more recent councils had imitated it. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The assembly at Jerusalem

1. Previous apostolic speeches were for the most part statements or vindications of the gospel. The only one which prepares us for the present discussion is that of Peter in explanation of his conduct towards Cornelius, which for a time silenced the murmurers. But the question was not dead; it only slept awhile, and awoke with energy when the gospel was openly carried to the Gentiles in Syria and Asia Minor.

2. The apostles and elders were seated in order, as constituting a Christian Sanhedrim On the earlier occasion we read of the apostles and the brethren. In the interval, presbyters had been appointed. There is no mention of an institution of this order, as there is of that of deacons; and for this reason–that the latter was a new order; but the Jews had always had elders, and, as a matter of course, continued that order in the new Christian fellowship. Along with their acknowledged leaders were assembled many of the private Christians.

3. As battles have often begun with the skirmishing of light troops, that could decide nothing, but could search and clear the ground for the onset of the battalions that were to decide the fortune of the day, so in this assembly there was much informal discussion before the leaders spoke. At last it was evident that the much questioning was not moving the subject any nearer to solution, and so–

I. Peter rose up. It had always been his way to take the initiative; and the illustrious part he had played on and since the day of Pentecost entitled him to much honour and deference. He saw no need for lengthened discussion. He was guided to his conclusion by the knowledge of facts. The matter was in his view virtually settled by the case of Cornelius. It was not the bent of this apostles mind to plough his way through a deep or careful argument; but he knew how to grasp relevant facts, and make them tell. Why should the objectors tempt God by assuming that He would not save Gentiles elsewhere as He had saved them in the house of Cornelius? And for what end did they seek thus to restrict the mercy of God, and limit the range of the Christian Church? Was it to impose on the Gentiles a yoke which even Jews had been unable to bear? One thing was quite certain, that salvation for all men was through the grace of the Lord Jesus; and no ceremonial or traditional restriction on that grace could be allowed. We can imagine the satisfaction with which St. Paul, who understood the question better than anyone, listened to this clear evangelical statement. He remembered it, and was obliged to remind St. Peter of it on a future occasion at Antioch, when that apostle acted in a manner inconsistent with his speech. St. Peter always spoke with effect, and the whole assembly felt the force of his unanswerable words and kept silence. So far truth and charity had gained the day.

II. The silence was broken by the missionaries, perhaps by pre-arrangement with the leading apostles, perhaps on the happy inspiration of the moment. Barnabas seems to have spoken first–a judicious arrangement, because he had a stronger hold on the confidence of the Church at Jerusalem. Neither were likely to surrender any just claim of Judaism without good cause. Barnabas was a Levite, and Paul a carefully educated Pharisee, who even in youth had been a Sanhedrist. They did not so much argue as narrate what God had wrought, the logical deduction from which was that if God has not refused those Gentile converts on account of their uncircumcision, why should the Church refuse them? And if God gave to them His Holy Spirit, why should men hesitate to give them baptism?

III. St. James then moved the judgment of the court. This fell naturally to him on account of his position as president. His character gave great weight to his opinion, and he was not implicated in any personal intercourse with Gentiles, as Peter was. This is the only speech of St. James which has been preserved. It consists of four sentences:–

1. He recognised the importance and relevancy of the case referred to by his colleague, whom he characteristically styled in the Hebrew form Symeon.

2. He went to the Old Testament to find prophetic sanction. A mind like his craved some ground of Scripture, as well as of observation and reason. He found it in Amos (9:11, 12; LXX.)

The prophet had foretold that the fallen tabernacle of David would be rebuilt, and that a blessing would fall on the Gentiles. The erection of the Church of Christ, the Son of David, was a restoration of the tabernacle of David; and there came into prominent view those words which intimated that the Lords name would be called on by the Gentiles. Was not this being fulfilled in the conversion to Christ of a people whom God was now calling out of the heathen world for His name? And, if so, it certainly was not necessary for them to conform to the separate rites of the Jews.

3. In pursuance of this view, he proposed a decision of the case. The Gentile converts should not be harassed by the Jewish law. Enough that they should conform to certain rules of abstention which could not be called irksome, and which might in some degree conciliate those who were apt to regard all Gentiles alike as unclean.

4. In his last sentence he touched with soothing hand the susceptibilities of the more keen Jewish partisans, and his counsel became the unanimous resolution of the whole conclave. The Gentile liberty was secured, and, at the same time, the peace of the whole Church was promoted.

Conclusion: The whole discussion suggests–

1. The advantage of holding Christian assemblies for the adjustment of difficulties. The narrative is fatal to the Popish system of Church government; for there was open discussion, and the decision went out with concurrence of the whole Church. It is also incompatible with a bare system of independency, which leaves every local church to steer its own course. It is easy to point the finger at councils which have been bigoted and superstitious; but these were not constituted like this. Give us a council of the elders of the Church, as the trusted leaders, deliberating in presence of their brethren, and you furnish the best possible instrument for adjusting difficulties, allaying jealousies, maintaining truth and peace.

2. The debt of gratitude due to those men who settled what are now to us dead controversies. The questions that tormented early Christianity are nothing now but matters of remote history. Thanks to the men who refuted these heresies, and above all to the Spirit of Truth who enabled them to maintain sound doctrine l The question of circumcision which troubled the infancy of the Church so much is now quite dead. But we should remember that our liberty in Christ was won only by a hard struggle, and should honour the men, who broke down the claims of an arrogant Judaism, But oven this decision did not settle the question. St. Paul had still to fight it out in almost every Church. Thanks to him most of all, and then to other Jewish brethren who championed our freedom from a Jewish yoke! (D. Fraser, D. D.)

The assembly at Jerusalem: a model

I. Its occasion: a life question of the Church (verses 5, 11).

1. Not of faith, for concerning that there was no dispute, and that no assembly can finally decide.

2. But of life, of the practical application of the incontestable truths of faith to ecclesiastics ordinance and Christian practice.

II. Its spirit–truly evangelical. A spirit of–

1. Truth, depending on the Word of God and Christian experience.

2. Love, seeking not its own, but the good of the whole.

III. Its result–a blessing for the Church.

1. Progress by the decisive victory over antiquated external ordinances; but–

2. On the ground of steadfast Christian faith and love. (K. Gerok.)

The assembly at Jerusalem: its importance

I. The question that was discussed: a question concerning salvation.

II. The spirit in which it was discussed: a spirit of love and truth.

III. The rule according to which it was decided: Gods testimony in word and deed.

IV. The confession which lay at the foundation of the resolution determined on (verse 11). (K. Gerok.)

Law and gospel

God hath written a law and a gospel: the law to humble us, and the gospel to raise us up; the law to convince us of our misery, and the gospel to convince us of His mercy; the law to discover sin, and the gospel to discover faith and Christ (J. Mason, M. A.)

Essentials and non-essentials

A gentleman who was in company with the Rev. John Newton lamented the violent disputes that often take place among Christians respecting the nonessentials of Christianity, and particularly Church government. Many, he said, seem to give their chief attention to such topics, and take more pleasure in talking on these disputable points than on spiritual religion, the love of Christ, and the privileges of His people. Sir, said the venerable old man, did you ever see a whale ship? I am told that when the fish is struck with the harpoon, and feels the smart of the wound, it sometimes makes for the boat, and would probably dash it to pieces. To prevent this, they throw a cask overboard, and when it is staved to pieces they throw over another. Now, sir, added Mr. Newton, Church government is the tub which Satan has thrown over to the people of whom you speak.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XV.

Certain teachers from Judea insist on the necessity of the

converted Gentiles being circumcised, 1.

Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles

on this subject, 2.

They come to Jerusalem, and inform the apostles of the

conversion of the Gentiles; and of the trouble which certain

Pharisees had occasioned concerning circumcision, 3-5.

The apostles having assembled to consider the question, Peter

delivers his opinion, 6-11.

Barnabas and Paul relate their success among the Gentiles, 12.

James delivers his judgment, 13-21.

The apostles and elders agree to what he proposes, and send

Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to the converted

Gentiles, 22;

and send an epistle containing their decree to the Churches of

Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, 23-29.

Paul and his company return, and read the epistle to the

brethren at Antioch, which produces great joy; and Judas and

Silas preach to them, 30-32.

Judas returns to Jerusalem, but Silas continues with Paul and

Barnabas, teaching and preaching, 33-35.

Paul proposes to Barnabas to visit the Churches where they had

preached; and, on the latter determining to take John Mark

with them, Paul refuses, 36-38.

They disagree; and Barnabas, taking John Mark, sails to Cyprus,

39.

And Paul, taking Silas, goes through Syria and Cilicia,

confirming the Churches, 40, 41.

NOTES ON CHAP. XV.

Verse 1. Except ye be circumcised, c.] The persons who taught this doctrine appear to have been converts to Christianity but, supposing that the Christian religion was intended to perfect the Mosaic, and not to supersede it, they insisted on the necessity of circumcision, because, by that, a man was made debtor to the whole law, to observe all its rites and ceremonies. This question produced great disturbance in the apostolic Church; and, notwithstanding the decree mentioned in this chapter, the apostles were frequently obliged to interpose their authority in order to settle it; and we find a whole Church, that at Galatia, drawn aside from the simplicity of the Christian faith by the subtilty of Judaizing teachers among themselves, who insisted on the necessity of the converted Gentiles being circumcised.

Ye cannot be saved.] Ye can neither enjoy God’s blessing in time, nor his glory in eternity. Such an assertion as this, from any reputable authority, must necessarily shake the confidence of young converts.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Certain men; these were such as did pretend to believe, but were false brethren; some think Cerinthus to have been of them.

The brethren; the Gentiles who were converted unto the faith of Christ, or Proselytes of the gate (as they were called) who were not circumcised, and now professing the true faith. These the pharisaical professors would have excluded from any hopes of salvation, although circumcision was not commanded but unto the posterity of Abraham, Gen 17:10-13, and Abraham himself was justified before he was circumcised, Rom 4:10.

After the manner of Moses; according unto the law of Moses: for God by him did renew and establish that ordinance unto that people, although it was long before his time both commanded and practised, Joh 7:22.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1, 2. certain menSee thedescription of them in Ga 2:4.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And certain men which came down from Judea,…. To Antioch; they were not sent by the apostles, they came down of “themselves”; who they were, is not certain; that they were “judaizing” Christians, and teachers among them, is plain from the following account: according to Epiphanius g they were Cerinthus, and some of his followers: these

taught the brethren; the Gentile converts at Antioch, who are styled “brethren”, though they were Gentiles, because they were regenerated by the grace of God, and were of the same faith with the believing Jews, and in the same church state with them at Antioch: and said,

except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses; or custom of Moses, which had been used from the time of Abraham, and was revived and reinforced by Moses; wherefore the Syriac version renders it, “the law of Moses”; [See comments on Joh 7:19]

ye cannot be saved; these men were not only for retaining circumcision, which was now abolished, but they made it necessary to salvation; which was carrying the matter further than even the unbelieving Jews themselves did, at least some of them: for though indeed it is a notion with them, that no circumcised persons go to hell, but are all saved; and some of them say, that God rejects uncircumcised persons, and brings them down to hell h; yet others of them speak of the godly among the nations of the world, and of the proselytes of the gate, who keep the seven precepts of Noah, as persons that shall be saved; so Ananias the Jew, preceptor to King Izates, when he signified his great desire to be circumcised, in order to put him off of it, told him, that if he was determined to follow the customs of the Jews, he might worship God without circumcision, which was more peculiar to the Jews than to be circumcised i.

g Contra Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 28. h Shemot Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 104. 4. i Joseph. Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2. sect. 5.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Controversy Raised at Antioch; Bigotry of the Jewish Converts.

1 And certain men which came down from Juda taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Even when things go on very smoothly and pleasantly in a state or in a church, it is folly to be secure, and to think the mountain stands strong and cannot be moved; some uneasiness or other will arise, which is not foreseen, cannot be prevented, but must be prepared for. If ever there was a heaven upon earth, surely it was in the church at Antioch at this time, when there were so many excellent ministers there, and blessed Paul among them, building up that church in her most holy faith. But here we have their peace disturbed, and differences arising. Here is,

I. A new doctrine started among them, which occasioned this division, obliging the Gentile converts to submit to circumcision and the ceremonial law, v. 1. Many that had been proselytes to the Jewish religion became Christians; and they would have such as were proselyted to the Christian religion to become Jews.

1. The persons that urged this were certain men who came down from Judea; some think such as had been of the Pharisees (v. 5), or perhaps of those priests who were obedient to the faith, ch. vi. 7. They came from Judea, pretending perhaps to be sent by the apostles at Jerusalem, at least to be countenanced by them. Having a design to spread their notions, they came to Antioch, because that was the head-quarters of those that preached to the Gentiles, and the rendezvous of the Gentile converts; and, if they could but make an interest there, this leaven would soon be diffused to all the churches of the Gentiles. They insinuated themselves into an acquaintance with the brethren, pretended to be very glad that they had embraced the Christian faith, and congratulated them on their conversion; but tell them that yet one thing they lack, they must be circumcised. Note, Those that are ever so well taught have need to stand upon their guard that they be not untaught again, or ill taught.

2. The position they laid down, the thesis they gave, was this, that except the Gentiles who turned Christians were circumcised after the manner of Moses, and thereby bound themselves to all the observances of the ceremonial law, they could not be saved. As to this, (1.) Many of the Jews who embraced the faith of Christ, yet continued very zealous for the law, ch. xxi. 20. They knew it was from God and its authority was sacred, valued it for its antiquity, had been bred up in the observance of it, and it is probable had been often devoutly affected in their attendance on these observances; they therefore kept them up after they were by baptism admitted into the Christian church, kept up the distinction of meats, and used the ceremonial purifyings from ceremonial pollutions, attend the temple service, and celebrated the feasts of the Jews. Herein they were connived at, because the prejudices of education are not to be overcome all at once, and in a few years the mistake would be effectually rectified by the destruction of the temple and the total dissolution of the Jewish church, by which the observance of the Mosaic ritual would become utterly impracticable. But it did not suffice them that they were herein indulged themselves, they must have the Gentile converts brought under the same obligations. Note, There is a strange proneness in us to make our opinion and practice a rule and a law to every body else, to judge of all about us by our standard, and to conclude that because we do well all do wrong that do not just as we do. (2.) Those Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah, as they could not get clear of their affection to the law, so they could not get clear of the notions they had of the Messiah, that he should set up a temporal kingdom in favour of the Jewish nation, should make this illustrious and victorious; it was a disappointment to them that there was as yet nothing done towards this in the way they expected. But now that they hear the doctrine of Christ is received among the Gentiles, and his kingdom begins to be set up in the midst of them, if they can but persuade those that embrace Christ to embrace the law of Moses too they hope their point will be gained, the Jewish nation will be made as considerable as they can wish, though in another way; and “Therefore by all means let the brethren be pressed to be circumcised and keep the law, and then with our religion our dominion will be extended, and we shall in a little time be able to shake off the Roman yoke; and not only so, but to put it on the necks of our neighbours, and so shall have such a kingdom of the Messiah as we promised ourselves.” Note, It is no wonder if those who have wrong notions of the kingdom of Christ take wrong measures for the advancement of it, and such as really tend to the destruction of it, as these do. (3.) The controversy about the circumcising of the Gentile proselytes had been on foot among the Jews long before this. This is observed by Dr. Whitby out of Josephus–Antiq. 20. 38-45: “That when Izates, the son of Helen queen of Adiabene, embraced the Jews’ religion, Ananias declared he might do it without circumcision; but Eleazar maintained that it was a great impiety to remain uncircumcised.” And when two eminent Gentiles fled to Josephus (as he relates in the history of his own life) “the zealots among the Jews were urgent for their circumcision; but Josephus dissuaded them from insisting upon it.” Such has been the difference in all ages between bigotry and moderation. (4.) It is observable what a mighty stress they laid upon it; they do not only say, “You ought to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, and it will be good service to the kingdom of the Messiah if you be; it will best accommodate matters between you and the Jewish converts, and we shall take it very kindly if you will, and shall converse the more familiarly with you;” but, “Except you be circumcised you cannot be saved. If you be not herein of our mind and way, you will never go to heaven, and therefore of course you must go to hell.” Note, it is common for proud impostors to enforce their own inventions under pain of damnation; and to tell people that unless they believe just as they would have them believe, and do just as they would have them do, they cannot be saved, it is impossible they should; not only their case is hazardous, but it is desperate. Thus the Jews tell their brethren that except they be of their church, and come into their communion, and conform to the ceremonies of their worship, though otherwise good men and believers in Christ, yet they cannot be saved; salvation itself cannot save them. None are in Christ but those that are within their pale. We ought to see ourselves well warranted by the word of God before we say, “Except you do so and so, you cannot be saved.”

II. The opposition which Paul and Barnabas gave to this schismatical notion, which engrossed salvation to the Jews, now that Christ has opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles (v. 2): They had no small dissension and disputation with them. They would by no means yield to this doctrine, but appeared and argued publicly against it. 1. As faithful servants of Christ, they would not see his truths betrayed. They knew that Christ came to free us from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and to take down that wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles and unite them both in himself; and therefore could not bear to hear of circumcising the Gentile converts, when their instructions were only to baptize them. The Jews would unite with the Gentiles, that is, they would have them to conform in every thing to their rites, and then, and not till then they will look upon them as their brethren; and no thanks to them. But, this not being the way in which Christ designed to unite them, it is not to be admitted. 2. As spiritual fathers to the Gentile converts, they would not see their liberties encroached upon. They had told the Gentiles that if they believed in Jesus Christ they should be saved; and now to be told that this was not enough to save them, except they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses, this was such a discouragement to them at setting out, and would be such a stumbling-block in their way, as might almost tempt them to think of returning into Egypt again; and therefore the apostles set themselves against it.

III. The expedient pitched upon for preventing the mischief of this dangerous notion, and silencing those that vented it, as well as quieting the minds of the people with reference to it. They determined that Paul and Barnabas, and some others of their number, should go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders, concerning this doubt. Not that the church at Antioch had any doubt concerning it: they knew the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free; but they sent the case to Jerusalem, 1. Because those who taught this doctrine came from Jerusalem, and pretended to have directions from the apostles there to urge circumcision upon the Gentile converts; it was therefore very proper to send to Jerusalem about it, to know if they had any such direction from the church there. And it was soon found to be all wrong, which yet pretended to be of apostolical right. It was true that these went out from them (v. 24), but they never had any such orders from them. 2. Because those who were taught this doctrine would be the better confirmed in their opposition to it, and in the less danger of being shocked and disturbed by it, if they were sure that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (which was the Christian church that of all others retained the most affection to the law of Moses) were against it; and, if they could but have this under their hands, it would be the likeliest means to silence and shame these incendiaries, who had pretended to have it from them. 3. Because the apostles at Jerusalem were fittest to be consulted in a point not yet fully settled; and being most eminent for an infallible spirit, peculiar to them as apostles, their decision would be likely to end the controversy. It was owing to the subtlety and malice of the great enemy of the church’s peace (as it appears by Paul’s frequent complaints of these judaizing teachers, these false apostles, these deceitful workers, these enemies of the cross of Christ), that it had not this effect.

IV. Their journey to Jerusalem upon this errand, v. 3. Where we find, 1. That they were honoured at parting: They were brought on their way by the church, which was then much used as a token of respect to useful men, and is directed to be done after a godly sort, 3 John 6. Thus the church showed their favour to those who witnessed against these encroachments on the liberties of the Gentile converts, and stood up for them. 2. That they did good as they went along. They were men that would not lose time, and therefore visited the churches by the way; they passed through Phenice and Samaria, and as they went declared the conversion of the Gentiles, and what wonderful success the gospel had had among them, which caused great joy to all the brethren. Note, The progress of the gospel is and ought to be a matter of great joy. All the brethren, the faithful brethren in Christ’s family, rejoice when more are born into the family; for the family will be never the poorer for the multitude of its children. In Christ and heaven there is portion enough, and inheritance enough for them all.

V. Their hearty welcome at Jerusalem, v. 4. 1. The good entertainment their friends gave them: They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, were embraced as brethren, and had audience as messengers of the church at Antioch; they received them with all possible expressions of love and friendship. 2. The good entertainment they gave their friends: They declared all things that God had done with them, gave them an account of the success of their ministry among the Gentiles, not what they had done, but what God had done with them, what he had by his grace in them enabled them to do, and what he had by his grace in their hearers enabled them to receive. As they went they had planted, as they came back they had watered; but in both they were ready to own it was God that gave the increase. Note, It is a great honour to be employed for God, to be workers for him; for those that are so have him a worker with them, and he must have all the glory.

VI. The opposition they met with from the same party at Jerusalem, v. 5. When Barnabas and Paul gave an account of the multitude of the Gentiles, and of the great harvest of souls gathered in to Christ there, and all about them congratulated them upon it, there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, who received the tidings very coldly, and, though they believed in Christ, yet were not satisfied in the admission of these converts, but thought it was needful to circumcise them. Observe here, 1. That those who have been most prejudiced against the gospel yet have been captivated by it; so mighty has it been through God to the pulling down of strong-holds. When Christ was here upon earth, few or none of the rulers and of the Pharisees believed on him; but now there are those of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, and many of them, we hope, in sincerity. 2. That it is very hard for men suddenly to get clear of their prejudices: those that had been Pharisees, even after they became Christians, retained some of the old leaven. All did not so, witness Paul, but some did; and they had such a jealousy for the ceremonial law, and such a dislike of the Gentiles, that they could not admit the Gentiles into communion with them, unless they would be circumcised, and thereby engage themselves to keep the law of Moses. This was, in their opinion, needful; and for their parts they would not converse with them unless they submitted to it.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

And certain men came down from Judea ( ). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord’s doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Ac 15:24). In Ga 2:4 Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as “false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty.” It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in Ga 2:1-10 is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15:5-29 in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in 11:29f. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in 11:29f., but only “the elders.” In Ac 15 Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in Ga 2:1-10 Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In Ga 2:2 by the use of “them” () Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses 15:5-6. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24ff.). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. So one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest.

Taught the brethren ( ). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis.

Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved ( , ). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of ). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case ( ) is customary. “Saved” () here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Taught. Rather the imperfect, were teaching. They had not merely broached the error, but were inculcating it.

Manner [] . Better, custom, as Rev.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

JERUSALEM CHURCH COUNCIL ON CIRCUMCISION V. 1

1) “And certain men which came down from Judaea,” (kai tines katelthontesa apo the loudaias) “And some (certain ones) going down from the region of Judea,” of their own accord, and with no sanction or sending direction or authority of the church at Jerusalem. These were Judaizing converted, but untaught Pharisees who were not, though believers, qualified to be teachers of the way of Jesus Christ, Act 15:5; Mat 5:20; Rom 10:2-4.

2) “Taught the brethren, and said,” (edidaskon tous adelphous hoti) “Taught the brethren (at Antioch) that,” something they could not do back at their own church in Jerusalem, Gal 2:11; Gal 2:14.

3) “Except ye be circumcised,” lean me peritmethete) “if you all are not circumcised,” or unless you are all circumcised, in the tradition of the Jewish family mark, Lev 12:3; Gen 17:10; Joh 7:22-24.

4) “After the manner of Moses,” (to ethei to Mouseos) “By or in keeping with the custom (ethical standard) of Moses;” Moses never taught, nor did any of the prophets that one had to be circumcised to be saved, Act 10:43. Just as Jesus never taught that one must be baptized, keep the Lord’s Supper, pay tithes, etc. as a means of obtaining or retaining salvation, Eph 2:8-10; 1Jn 5:1; Joh 1:11-12; Joh 3:15-18; Joh 5:24. Tho many sects of Protestants teach it.

5) “Ye cannot be saved,” (ou dunsathe sothenai) “You all can not (have not a potential to be) saved,” or there is not a possibility that any of you all can be saved. Tho sincere, they lied, perverted, distorted the true way of salvation and confused new converts. It was making Jewish rite a necessary condition to obtaining and retaining salvation that constituted the seriousness of the error, Rom 4:3-5; Rom 10:9-13. Salvation had never been offered or obtained, conditioned upon, outward compliance with rituals, forms, or ceremonies, but by faith in Jesus Christ, Joh 8:24; Act 4:12; Act 10:43.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

1. When Paul and Barnabas had endured many combats against the professed enemies of the gospel, Luke doth now begin to declare that they were tried by domestic war; so that it was meet that their doctrine and ministry should be proved by all means, to the end it might the better appear that they were furnished by God, and armed against all the assaults of the world and Satan. For that was no small confirmation for their doctrine, in that being shaken and battered with so many engines, it stood nevertheless, neither could the course thereof be broken off by so many hindrances. Therefore, to this end doth Paul boast that he suffered fights without and terrors within, ( 2Co 7:5.) This history is most worthy the noting; for though we do naturally abhor the cross and all manner [of] persecution, yet civil and domestic discord is more dangerous, lest haply they discourage us. − (68) When tyrants bend their force and run violently upon men, flesh indeed is afraid; and all those who are not endued with the spirit of fortitude do tremble with all their heart; but then their consciences are not properly touched with any temptation. For this is known to be as it were the fatal estate of the Church. But when it falleth out so that the brethren go together by the ears, and that the Church is on an uproar within itself, it cannot be but that weak minds shall be troubled and also faint; and especially when the controversy is about doctrine, which alone is the holy bond of brotherly unity. Finally, there is nothing which doth more indamage the gospel than civil discord, because it doth not only pierce and wound weak conscience, but also minister occasion to the wicked to backbite. −

Wherefore, we must diligently note this history, that we may know that it is no new example, if among those who profess the same gospel there arise some wranglings and strife about doctrine, when proud men can get them a name, (whereof they are so furiously desirous,) by no other means but by bringing in their own inventions. It is certain, that as there is but one God, so there is but one truth of this God. − (69) Therefore, when Paul goeth about to exhort the faithful unto mutual consent, he useth this argument, “One God, one faith, one baptism,” etc., ( Eph 4:6.) But when we see wicked men arise, who go about to divide [rend] the Church by their factions, and also either to corrupt the gospel with their false and filthy [spurious] inventions, or else to bring the same in suspicion, we ought to know the subtlety [artifice] of Satan. Therefore, Paul saith elsewhere that heresies come abroad, that those who are tried may be made manifest, ( 1Co 11:19.) And, assuredly, the Lord doth wonderfully make void the subtlety of Satan, in that he trieth the faith of his by such trials, and doth beautify his word with worthy and excellent victory; and causeth the truth to shine more clearly which the wicked went about to darken. But it is very convenient to weigh all the circumstances of the history which Luke noteth. −

Which came down from Judea. This cloak and color was very forcible to deceive even good men then. Jerusalem was honored not without cause among all churches, because they reverenced it even as their mother. For the gospel was deducted, as it were, by pipes and conduits − (70) from that fountain. These seducers come thence; they pretend the apostles; they boast that they bring nothing but that which they learned of them. They blind and blear the eyes of the unskillful with this smoke; and those who are light and wicked do greedily snatch at the color which is offered them. The perturbation of the Church doth, like a tempest, shake those who were otherwise good and moderate, so that they are enforced to stumble. Therefore, we must note this subtlety of Satan, that he abuseth the names of holy men that he may deceive the simple, who, being won with the reverence of the men, dare not inquire after the thing itself. Luke doth not express, indeed, with what affection these knaves were moved; yet it is likely that perverse zeal was the cause which moved them to set themselves against Paul and Barnabas; for there be certain churlish natures which nothing can please but that which is their own. They had seen that circumcision and other rites of the law were observed at Jerusalem; wheresoever they become, they can abide nothing which is not agreeable thereto, as if the example of one church did bind all the rest of the churches with a certain law. And though such be carried with a preposterous zeal to procure tumults, yet are they pricked inwardly with their ambition, and with a certain kind of stubbornness. Nevertheless, Satan hath that he would; for the minds of the godly have such a mist cast before them that they can scarce know black from white. −

Therefore, we must beware first of this plague, that some prescribe not a law to other some after their manner, that the example of one church be not a prejudice − (71) of a common rule. Also, we must use another caution, that the persons of men do not hinder or darken the examination of the matter or cause. For if Satan transfigure himself into an angel of light, ( 2Co 11:14,) and if, by sacrilegious boldness, he usurp the holy name of God, what marvel is it if he do like wickedly deceive men under the names of holy men? The end shall at length declare that the apostles meant nothing less than − (72) to lay the yoke of the law upon the neck of the Gentiles; and yet Satan meant under this shift to get in. So it falleth out oftentimes that those who contrary [oppose] the doctrine of Christ, creep in under the title of his servants. Therefore, there is one only remedy, to come to search out the matter − (73) with sound judgments; also it behoveth us to prevent an offense, lest we think that the faithful servants of God do therefore strive among themselves, because Satan doth falsely abuse their names, that he may set certain shadows by the ears together to terrify the simple. −

(68) −

“−

Plus tamen et intestinis dissidiis est periculi ne anlmos nostros frangant vel debilitent ,” yet there is more danger in intestine dissensions, lest they weaken or dispirit us.

(69) −

“−

Certum quidem est, sicuti unus est Deus, ita unam esse ejus veritatem ,” it is certain, indeed, that as God is one, so also his truth is one.

(70) −

“

Per rivos,” by streams.

(71) −

“

Communis regulae praejudicium,” be not prejudged as a common rule.

(72) −

“

Apostolis nihil minus esse in animo,” that the very last thing the apostles meant was.

(73) −

“

Ad rem ipsam quaerendam accedere,” to enter upon the investigation.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CHURCH QUARREL AND COUNCIL

Act 15:1-35.

CHURCH councils occupy a prominent place in history. Many volumes have been devoted to their relation and interpretation. Hardouin, Labbe, Cossart, Mansithese are all writers upon this subject, and the folios are described as ponderous and dull. The student who is sufficiently interested in this subject to pull his way through them will be profited, and he will be impressed by the fact that they are a practical unit in placing the council at Jerusalem, held probably in the year 48 A. D., at the head of the list, and giving to it the attention its importance deserves.

We are accustomed to search the New Testament for model plans and programs in spiritual things. The first chapter of Acts records a model prayer meeting; the second chapter records a model Pentecost; the same chapter later records the work of a model church; succeeding chapters reveal the life history of model preachers and exhibit model programs of procedure. We are accustomed to explain this circumstance on the ground of the presence, domination and direction of the Holy Spirit, and the force of this argument would apply to the first church council. It could hardly be said that later councils have assiduously sought to be modeled after this; neither could it be denied that the report of this one has had its influence upon councils small and great for well-nigh twenty centuries.

In proportion as any people are loyal to the authority of the Word and consequently influenced by apostolic example and apostolic utterance, this council will continue to play a conspicuous part in the ecclesiastical program.

We can hardly consent with Joseph Parker that this chapter is the Magna Charta of the Christian church; * * * * the key to universal confidence and progress is here, but beyond all question, he is right in saying, This is one of the most important chapters in ecclesiastical history.

The church has never been able to mark progress apart from controversy. By its nature, it is controversial! Truthits message, and salvationits mission, are both born of and maintained by contention! The beneficent mission of the church, instead of saving it from this non-coveted experience, serves rather to accentuate the same. The fact that God is love in no wise reduces the hatred and opposition that Satan everywhere stirs against Him, and the fact that the church is in the world to serve that world unselfishly, renders it even less acceptable to that same world. It doesnt recognize its need of such service and doesnt desire spiritual salvation. The man, therefore, who condemns the church because it gets into controversy with the world, or because the world interjects controversy into it, is incapable of clear, logical reasoning.

The occasion of this council, the arguments introduced into it, the fruits that followed from it these are all worthy of the most careful study and will inevitably result in profit to a sympathetic student.

His perusal of this chapter will impress three thingsThe Contention, The Council and The Conclusion.

THE CONTENTION

The contention originated with unnamed men.

And certain men which came down from Judaea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved (Act 15:1). The phrase, certain men, is suggestive in the last degree. Their names are not calledthey never will be known. Peter became compromised in his course at Antioch, as. Gal 2:12 says, Certain men came from James * * and Peter withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. When a final conclusion on this matter is reached and the Apostles put the same into a formal decision to be sent to the troubled churches, they say, Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such commandment (Act 15:24). Every reference to these men leaves their names uncalled. From time immemorial that has been the most aggravating incident of ecclesiastical difficulties. The men who make them escape the condemnation they deserve, because their names are unknown beyond the disturbed circle.

The moment trouble occurs in a church the newspapers giving publicity to it, exploit the preachers name and call his opponents, the faction, the minority, the displeased, etc.

Commonly they have a ring-leader, but even his name is seldom or never called. The consequence is that the country-wide talk is about the trouble that Reverend Peter is making, that Evangelist Paul is having, that teacher Barnabas is stirring up, that Dr, James is provoking! It is very rare indeed that the real mischief-maker is important enough to have the calling of his name make any impression on the public mind.

One of the exceptions you have recorded in 1Ki 18:17: It came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? How like the indictment of the world! Of course if there is trouble in Israel, it must be the prophet that is making it! That is the common opinion! But in that instance Elijah answers with perfect truthfulness, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim (1Ki 18:18).

Beyond all dispute one of the best things that can be done with the ecclesiastical troubler, the man who is forever exciting contention in his own church, is to name him; separate him even from the crowd he comes from; exhibit his personality to public view; drag his opinions into the light of day, and bring an end to all his dirty work done in the dark.

Perhaps the meanest side of newspaper mongering is at this point. The editorial we has been to the newspaper editor and reporter the cover of darkness from which to fire his gun or strike with his dagger. You can hold certain men in contempt, but what do they care when you do not even know their names?

The contention was about matters of mere ceremony. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved (Act 15:1), Paul did not oppose circumcision per se. As a Jewish rite, he practised and approved it. Timothys mother was a Jewess and nationality was supposed to follow the mothers side, and on that account Paul circumcised Timothy at Lystra, that the Jews might not feel that their ceremonies were being wantonly disregarded.

But as a condition of salvation, Paul utterly repudiated it and positively refused to approve the demand that it be so regarded. In each instance he proceeded Biblically. The circumcision was a command for the Jew (Lev 12:3). Not one prophecy referring to the salvation of the Gentiles ordered circumcision as a condition of the same. To make the Apostles position in this matter apply to Christian baptism and weave out of it an argument against that Bible rite, as at least one famous author has done, is as illogical as unbiblical. To say, The question of baptism does not turn upon Greek terminations and Greek conjugations, is the same as declaring that language is no longer a vehicle of thought, and that if the commands of God happen to be voiced in Greek they are not binding. The remark, We can add nothing to faith without insulting Christ, is in itself an insult, for to faith Christ added His own baptism. In fact, there isnt a baptism recorded in the New Testament or commanded by the same that does not follow faith and give symbolical expression to it. That is why the Apostle Paul, writing to the Romans (Rom 6:4-5), says, Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, and as any casual reader can see, the text actually reads, We shall be also of resurrection. In other words, our resurrection life is, by baptism, illustrated, and instead of returning to the flesh, this is the highest form of spiritual expression.

The truth is, any man who gives an unprejudiced study to the subject of baptism, knows that it is not an ordinance of the flesh, as Peter writes,

God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water; the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him (1Pe 3:20-22).

The one people who in all their church history have consistently and consecutively opposed salvation by any ceremony, baptism included, are the Baptists. In all history there is not a single instance where intelligent, orthodox Baptists have maintained that any ceremony was essential to salvation. They are obedient to baptism because it is a plain Bible command. They see in it the great symbol expressed by Paul, of death to sin, burial with Christ, and resurrection to walk in newness of life. They put it after the exercise of faith because the Bible does the same; and to the unbelieving, in the nature of the case, it could have no significance or spiritual efficacy.

The departure from this Bible custom has resuited in the introduction into the church of wholesale unregeneracy in state religions; in compulsory baptism, enforced confessions, and scores of other undesirable effects.

Every state church in existence, the Greek excepted, with its unfortunate coalitions and spiritual depreciations, practises the man-made substitute of infant sprinkling, and every apostle of the same who attempts to defend it by appealing to this deliverance of Paul concerning circumcision, is doing the great Apostle an intellectual and moral injustice.

The Jewish rite of infant circumcision cannot be carried over and converted at will into infant baptism. They are separate ordinances, having wholly distinct objectives, and the Judaizers are those who attempt by verbal camouflage to convert the one into the other. No! Paul, Peter, James, John these men of God by inspiration were saved from all such reasonings.

The soul has access to God in Christ, and no ceremony stands between it and salvation. That is the Pauline philosophy, or, better yet, the God-given inspiration.

One of the strange facts of ecclesiastical history is that men are far more concerned regarding established customs than they are of Divine inspiration. They will contend more earnestly for a ceremony than they will for the faith once for all delivered.

The contention was accentuated by dissension.

When therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question, and when they were come to Jerusalem, * * there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses (Act 15:2; Act 15:4-5).

Desultory debate never settles any question, but it has great power of division. If strife is desired it is easy to start it. Put opposing views before novices and leave them to fight it out among themselves. Such was the action of certain men here, and those certain men have their successors. Most interesting is it to watch the opposing way of apostles; the way of a council as between competents; the way of a divergence that expresses unity rather than diversity in the same; the way of authority in expression as backed up by a whole church, rather than disputation as started by certain men. Apostles have little time to lose in mere contention, but they can well afford to give thought, time and travel to decisive councils.

Paul was willing to go to Jerusalem, but as some one has suggested, he didnt even waste time on the journey, but preached as he went. Passing through Phenice and Samaria, they made the entire way an evangelistic tour. Like his Lord, his hurry was never so great as to overlook the possibility of a wayside miracle. With the certain men, contention was life. With the true Apostles, life was labor, life was love, life was the Gospel!

THE COUNCIL

Jerusalem is reached; the council is in session! The steps taken are as interesting as they are profoundly instructive. Let us note them!

The Apostles bore their testimony, in turn. Four of them talked, and while they were speaking in their own tongues and in the language of their hearers, they readily obeyed the Pauline prescription for the professed tongues people; namely, They spake by course. No confusion characterized this council. In answer to the certain men, Peter was first, but he was not impetuous. He waited until there had been much disputing and the very phrase employed, Peter rose up and said unto them, has in it calmness, composure, and consciousness of right. Men and brethren, we know how a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe (Act 15:7). That is Peters reference to his experience with Cornelius and to Gods revelation to him of the acceptance of a Gentile who worshiped God in spirit and in truth. He rested his argument as utterly conclusive when he reminded them that the Holy Ghost was given to Cornelius and his house, and that God had put no difference between the Gentile and Jew, justifying their hearts by faith. His conclusion, Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? reminds us of the words of the Lord Jesus addressed to these Jews, Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light (Mat 11:28-30). Salvation through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, as compared with salvation by works and ceremonies, is indeed a light yoke as compared with an unbearable one.

Then Paul and Barnabas were heard, all the multitude keeping silence and giving audience while they declared what miracles and wonders had been wrought among the Gentiles by them. If one wants to find the probable content of this speech, all he needs to do is to turn back into the pages of the Acts over which we have passed. Wonders they were, from the day of Pauls conversion; wonders in Jerusalem; wonders at Tarsus; wonders at Antioch; wonders among the Gentiles; wonders at Iconium, at Lystra! If you would know what miracles were wrought by the preaching of these men, go into North Minneapolis to-morrow and undertake turning a Jew from Judaism to Jesus!

Then in turn came James, saying, Men and brethren, hearken to me. James, the ascetic, who drank neither wine nor fermented liquor; who tasted no animal food; upon whose head a razor was not permitted to come; who never wore woolen, but linen garments instead; James, who is reputed to have entered the Temple alone, commonly, and to be seen by temple visitors upon bended knees and heard by the bystanders, interceding for the forgiveness of his people, and whose habitual prayers had made his knees as hard as a camels. Of all the company, he was the strictest legalist; and of all the Apostles, he was the one most venerated and revered; cousin of our Lord; chosen with that first quartette; of the elect company, enjoying the privileges of conferences, sittings and prayers with Christ Himself. All men will attend when he talks! Like the true Apostle, he has an inspired message, and like the saint, his first sentence distracts attention from himselfSimeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name, and now like every faithful preacher, makes an appeal to the Word of the living God. He had no doubt that Peters vision was real; he had no doubt that Peters revelation was from Heaven, but even that he would confirm by what was written (Amo 9:11-12).

That is the preacher for methe man who will give attention to the opinions and experiences of spiritual brethren, but whose final appeal is to nothing short of the sacred Scriptures themselves! An authority is more essential in religion than in any other sphere of life, and without authority any sphere is converted quickly into anarchy and becomes confusion. But that is particularly true of the sphere of the soul.

A recent paper announced the retirement from the ministry of another man widely known in my denomination and native to our state. Why? The critics have destroyed his confidence in the authority of the Bible and he is manly enough, having lost his message, to cease from his mission. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The Apostles were agreed in their positions. Herein is the proof of the unity of the Spirit. It would be difficult to find four men, who by birth, early environment, temperament and educational opportunities are more diverse. Paul was the scholar, Peter, the unlearned fisherman, Barnabas, the promising student, James, the grave saint. Paul was a man of poise, Peter, the impetuous, Barnabas, the novice and James, the calm ascetic. And yet their words harmonize, their views accord. What a contrast with some of the councils characterizing, for instance, the problems of the papal church! The ruling spirit in the third of the Ecumenical Councils held at Ephesus in 431 A. D., called to deal with the Nestorian heresy, was Cyril of Alexandria. Dean Milman speaks of his arrogance, ambition, intrigue, rapacity, barbarity, persecution and blood shed. He was the enemy of Chrysostom, the golden-moutheda man who was compelled at one time to depose not fewer than thirteen bishops for simony and licentiousness, and yet, as Sir Robert Anderson said, The papal establishment would have us believe that this council was controlled by the Holy Ghost. History testifies that it was controlled by a hired mob, and that, at last, the emperor, unable to restrain the disorder which prevailed, dismissed the bishops with a scathing rebuke, Return to your provinces, and may your private virtues repair the mischief and scandal of your public meeting.

That is the difference between a man-made council and a Spirit-guided one. The first is confusion; the second is order. The first is debate; the second is decision. The first is bitterness; the second is benediction.

The church approved the apostolic opinion. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church (Act 15:22). Herein is a model business meeting. The Apostles were foremost in opinion. To their word the entire assembly gave most respectful audience. The elders of the church joined them, however, in formulating the action decided to be final, and that action was given accentuation and power by the vote of the whole church. Somehow the Pharisee-members have seen the futility of their plea and been brought to silence both in speech and vote, or else, being looked upon as practical opponents on trial by the church, have been disfranchised by their attitude, for the language makes certain the unanimity of the final decision. That was far easier in the first church of Jerusalem than it would have been in the little church at Iconium. Disturbers of the peace of the church of God can succeed in their very dubious, if not dark, ways with a small company of saints, better than they can with a church of hundreds and thousands. The large churches of the country retain pastors for a long time, not because they pay more salary, but because they experience fewer opponents. There are little churches over the land that are deadutterly destroyed by the cantankerous conduct of one certain man, and sometimes that man is a woman. When one of those quits his fellowship and proposes to unite with a large church, some people, knowing his unsavory reputation on a former field, are afraid to receive him. I never hesitate! I know what will happen to him when he undertakes to oppose a thousand people. The stampede of one vote will teach him to get out of the way when the Lords flock moves in a definite direction.

THE CONCLUSION

This is recorded in Act 15:22-35, and reveals the following: The council reached a unanimous conclusion; the church communicated that conclusion by chosen delegates, and the cause at Antioch was confirmed and advanced.

The council reached a unanimous conclusion. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church. That is a great victory. It was won because the business was gone about properly. Peter didnt stand up and say, Am I not an Apostle? Did not the Lord deliver to me the keys of the kingdom? Did He not say to me that whose sins I remit are remitted, and whose I loose are loosed? Wasnt I among the first of His chosen Apostles? Havent I been His chief spokesman on all great occasions? Who dare now oppose my practice, or debate my opinion? That sort of talk would have lost the righteous cause; it always does.

Paul didnt say, Wasnt I a member of the Sanhedrin? Didnt I have every prospect of becoming president of that august council? Didnt I make more sacrifices to become a Christian than anybody else has made? Am I not the best educated of all the disciples? What right have you little Bible School pupils, in your first year, to oppose my theological training at the feet of Gamaliel? What is your opinion worth anyhow? Immature, nonintellectual, uneducated! That sort of argument would have lost the battle for him.

James didnt say, Am I not the holiest among you? Have I not abstained from meats and drinks, refused woolen clothes and worn linen garments to typify both my loyalty and my sanctity? Have I not been longer with the Lord than any of you? Am I not His own blood relative? Did we not grow up together? Does any man essay to know his opinions better than I? That argument would have been costly to the cause.

Great men, in proportion to their greatness, are unconscious of it, and Spirit-guided men are seldom self-assertive ones. Apostles they may be, by Divine appointment, but on that very account they are willing to hear what the elders have to say, and willing to listen to the voice of the church itself. The opinions of plain laymen are appreciated by them, and such men are suited to leading councils to a unanimous conclusion.

The church communicated that conclusion by chosen delegates. Chosen men of their own company went to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Cilicia (Act 15:22-23). That is a suggestive orderthe Apostles, Elders and Brethren that is the proper order. The Apostles should be men of initiative; the Elders should be men of council; the church should be the final appeal. Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words. Mark the phrase, certain which went out from us. This may indicate that these men had disfellowshipped them by withdrawing. Have troubled you with wordscan any one doubt that that phrase was deliberately elected? It was not with opinions; it was with words, subverting the truth; and finally the souls of men believing them. And now the church pays tribute to Paul and Barnabas, that they had not appointed themselves. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; men that have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Act 15:25-26). The compliment is correct, but how much more forceful when spoken by the church, than if even referred to by the Apostles? We have sent therefore Judas and Silasmen who have not hazarded their livesmen who have: not been in the formal controversy and consequently have no special predilections, but who will also tell you the same things, for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well (Act 15:28-29).

That is the acme of argument. Even an apostle might be mistaken. All the elders might reach a wrong conclusion. The vote of the church might be an error, but when the Holy Ghost has come and set to any decision or action the seal of His approval, debate about it is at an end. What a communication!

Then the result is recorded.

So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles.

Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord, with many others also (Act 15:30-35).

The cause at Antioch was confirmed and advanced. Argument gives place to agreement. Bitterness passes and blessing ensues. Diversity consummates in unanimity. Shadows flee away and for the church the sun shines. This is not strange! Nature knows a kindred procedure. Who has not seen the black clouds rise up from the Western sky, spread the heavens over, blot out the sun, while the lightning flashes make the face of nature livid, and the thunders roar rock the mountains themselves? An hour and it is over and the same sky seems the clearer for the cloud that swept over it, and the earth is the greener and brighter because of the shadows that hung above it and the tears that have fallen upon it. In truth, that is all a prophecy, and prophecy is the mould of history.

The best experiences through which the church has passed were born of battle and of blackness, yea, even of despair. And finally, when Jacobs trouble comes and the Great Tribulation is on, and mens hearts fail them for fear of those things that have come upon the earth, and all hope is lost, we will be nearer the realization of that blessed hope than ever before, for when that awful storm shall have passed, the Son will shine forth in His beauty; the earth will be robed in garments of righteousness; this present evil age will have given place to the long looked for millennium; sorrow and suffering will have passed away, and the sound of victory will be upon the lips of angels and men.

That is the day when the Christ of the church shall have come to His conquest!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 15:1-5

Judaising Teachers at Antioch; or, the Circumcision Controversy Raised

I. The Judaising teachers and their doctrine.

1. The teachers. Certain men from Juda. Not those who afterwards came from James (Gal. 2:12), but those who were brought in unawares (Gal. 2:4). Possibly converts from the Pharisaic party in Jerusalem who had been invited by their co-religionists within the Church at Antioch. 2. Their doctrine. That salvation was impossible without circumcision. That the way into the Church of Christ led through the doorway of Judaism. That without submission to this carnal ordinance the spiritual blessing of the gospel could not be enjoyed.

3. Their activity. They taught the brethren. Not content with merely suggesting the doubt as to whether even Gentile Christians could disregard the Mosaic rituala doubt which would, at least, have been not unnatural in a narrow-minded and bigoted Phariseeor with expressing their opinion that the Law God had given to Moses could not safely be set aside, they confidently laid down the dogma that circumcision was imperative: Except ye be circumcised, etc.

II. The Christian Church and its resolution

1. The Church.Was

(1) divided into factions. There was no small dissension. The word points to the rise of parties in the Church. Even had all the Gentile Christians remained upon the side of freedom, there remained still the Jewish Christians (Act. 11:19), who espoused the doctrine of the false teachers; while it is possible that not a few of the Gentiles may have allowed themselves to be overawed by the seeming and perhaps assumed authority of the Judan emissaries.

(2) Rent by disputation. Impossible that it could have been otherwise. To have admitted the tenet of the Judaisers would have been to subvert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 5:2-4). Hence Paul and Barnabas felt themselves impelled to stand forth in defence of Christian liberty against those Pharisaic legalists who desired to bring the Gentiles into bondage. To whom we gave place by subjection, do you say? exclaims Paul. No! not for an hour (Gal. 2:5).

2. Its resolution. To refer the controversy for decision to the Mother Church at Jerusalem. This determination was not necessary in the sense that the Church at Antioch possessed no authority to compose the quarrel had it been able. But it was clearly unable. Hence the reference to Jerusalem was a wise procedure, partly because the troublers had come from Jerusalem and may have represented that they spoke with the authority of the apostles and elders there, and partly because a decision by the mother Church would undoubtedly carry greater weight.

III. The delegates and their journey.

1. The delegates. Paul and Barnabas, with certain others, not named, but most probably chosen from among the prophets and teachers that were in the Antioch Church (Act. 13:1), and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, whose labours had founded the Church (Act. 11:20). Titus (Gal. 2:3), most likely accompanied Paul as a representative and specimen of the sort of converts that had been made among the Greeks.

2. Their journey.

(1) Its object. Whilst the delegates had in view the execution of the Churchs commission which had been entrusted to themviz., the submission of the disputed question to the apostolic tribunalPaul informs us (Gal. 2:2) that he went up by revelation; which may be harmonised with the statement of Luke by supposing that the revelation instructed Paul either to propose or to agree to the reference to Jerusalem; and indeed, without some such inward intimation of the will of his Divine Lord it would not have been surprising had Paul hesitated to submit the decision of this vital question to the mother Church, out of which the very parties had come who had attempted to fetch away from Gentile believers the liberty they enjoyed in Christ. We need not be surprised if we find that Pauls path was determined by two different causes: that he went up to Jerusalem partly because the Church deputed him, and partly because he was Divinely admonished. Such a combination and co-operation of the natural and supernatural we have observed in the case of that vision which induced Peter to go from Joppa to Csarea (Conybeare and Howson); and, the same writers add, in Pauls escape from Jerusalem to Tarsus, which was urged on him by the brethren (Act. 9:30), and at the same time commanded by Christ, who appeared to him in a trance (Act. 22:17-18).

(2) Its commencement. The delegates were accompanied a portion of their way by the Church, as a mark of honour to themselves and as an indication of the interest the Church took in their mission (compare Act. 20:38, Act. 21:5; 3Jn. 1:6).

(3) Its progress. They passed through Phnicia and Samaria (see on Act. 11:19, and Act. 8:5). As Galilee is not mentioned, it may be concluded that they travelled along the coast as far south as Ptolemais (Act. 21:7), and then crossed the plain of Esdrlon into Samaria.

(4) Its accompaniments. The delegates, wherever they appeared, declared the conversion of the Gentiles, and caused great joy unto all the brethren.
(5) Its termination. They came to Jerusalem, within whose gates seldom had a more important embassy arrived.

IV. The mother Church and its procedure.

1. The reception given to the envoys.

(1) By the whole Church, with the apostles and elders at its head, the various congregations having come together for this purpose.
(2) With the utmost cordiality: this implied in the verb used to express the ceremonial.

(3) In patient hearing of their story, when they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. That Paul laid not before the collective Church the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, with its doctrine of salvation without the works of the Law, but reserved this for a private interview with the Church leaders, one naturally infers from Gal. 2:2. Had he done so, instead of confining himself to a simple narration of his Gentile mission, he would most likely have prematurely kindled a conflagration. As it was, his address acted like a spark thrown into a heap of combustible material. It awoke the slumbering prejudices of his Judaising hearers.

2. The opposition developed against the envoys.

(1) This proceeded, in all probability, from the party that had despatched the emissaries to Antiochviz., the sect of the Pharisees who believed, and who may have felt their doctrinal position to be in danger through the enthusiasm aroused by the orations of the missionaries.
(2) The form it assumed was a reassertion of the false and pernicious doctrine which had brought the delegates to Jerusalemthat it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.

Learn

1. The persistence of outworn creeds.
2. The celerity with which error intrudes itself into the Church. 3. The duty of Christian teachers to resist every attempt to corrupt the simplicity of the faith.
4. The function of the Church, as a whole, to guard the truth.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 15:1; Act. 15:5. No Salvation without Circumcision.

I. An old-time truth.Under the Mosaic dispensation it was true that no Israelite could be saved who, in unbelief and disobedience, repudiated circumcision, though, from the nature of the case, submission to the rite was not left in the hands of the individual. Hence it is doubtful if, even under the Old-Testament economy, circumcision was of universal obligation as an indispensable condition of salvation. Certainly submission to the bodily ceremonial was no absolute guarantee of the souls forgiveness and renewal, or of its future enjoyment of eternal life.

II. A plausible doctrine.Like many another mistaken theory, it had some considerations to advance on its behalf. It was by no means surprising that a Jew should have argued that circumcision must have been designed to be of permanent and perhaps also universal obligation, considering that Jehovah Himself had imposed it on the fathers of Israel, that it had descended from a hoar antiquity, and that its value as a religious ordinance had been recognised by so many even of the Gentiles themselves.

III. A dangerous error.To assert that circumcision was indispensable to salvation was

(1) directly to challenge the sufficiency of Christs sacrifice as an atonement for sin;
(2) virtually to impair the fulness of salvation as a gift of grace, by imposing an external condition of enjoying the same;
(3) practically to teach the doctrine of salvation by works, against which the gospel is a vigorous and uncompromising protest;
(4) certainly to destroy all hope of Christianity ever becoming a world-wide religion;
(5) absurdly to exalt a positive enactment to the same level, in respect of saving worth, as a spiritual precept;
(6) foolishly to maintain that a positive institution could never be abrogated or set aside by its founders;
(7) sinfully to corrupt the truth of God which had been revealed through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

IV. An exploded heresy.Nobody now within the Church of Christ thinks of maintaining the necessity of circumcision; though unfortunately the same error survives in spirit among those who teach the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and sacramental grace, or the impossibility of being saved unless one has been baptised and partaken of the Lords Supper.

Act. 15:2. How to Deal with Heretics.

I. Endeavour to convince them by reasoning (Tit. 3:10).

II. Lay the matter in dispute before the courts of the Church (Mat. 18:17).

III. Separate from such as refuse to obey the decision of the Church (1Ti. 6:5; 2Jn. 1:10).

Act. 15:3. The Conversion of the Heathen a Source of Joy to the Church of Christ. (A Missionary Sermon.)

I. As a solid increase to the sum of human happiness.Every sinner saved being a soul rescued from the guilt and power of sin.

II. As an irrefragable proof of the saving power of the gospel.The progress of foreign missions the most powerful apologetic of to-day.

III. As a valuable extension of the Saviours kingdom.Every convert won from heathenism becomes a subject of the empire of truth and love, of salvation and eternal life.

IV. As a delightful prophecy of the millennial era.Each tribe and nation brought under the power of the gospel being a foreshadowing of that happy era when the kingdoms of the world shall have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.

Act. 15:3-4. Paul and Barnabas on the Way to Jerusalem; or, what all ministers ought to be.

I. Champions of orthodoxy.i.e., of the truth. Certainly men who claim to be Church teachers should not war against the faith they profess, or propagate opinions contrary to the truth they have been appointed to expound.

II. Messengers of peace.Constantly directing their endeavours towards maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. As representatives of the Prince of Peace, they should themselves be lovers of peace.

III. Publishers of grace.Heralds of the good news of salvation through the free grace of God in Christa theme so great and glorious that none other in the estimation of a true preacher should for a moment be suffered to dispute its claims on his attention.

IV. Dispensers of joy.Such those preachers and ministers cannot fail to be who are mindful of their calling, and unwearied as well as hearty in its exercise.

Act. 15:4. Pauls Third Visit to Jerusalem.Was this the visit recorded in Gal. 2:1? An affirmative reply seems justified on the following grounds:

I. The impossibility of synchronising the Galatian visit with any other alluded to in the Acts.Either with that recorded in Act. 11:30, which occurred before the famine predicted by Agabus, or that reported in Act. 18:22, which happened at the close of Pauls second missionary journey; all others being practically out of the question. Decisive against the latter of the above two is the circumstance that Barnabas was not then a travelling companion of Paul, as he was on the occasion of the visit spoken of in Galatians; while opposed to the former stand a number of considerations, as, e.g:

1. The different object of the Act. 11:30 visit, which was to carry a benevolent contribution to Jerusalem; whereas the Galatian visit contemplated conversation with the Church leaders about Pauls gospel to the Gentiles.

2. The date of the Act. 11:30 visit which coincided with that of Herods death, not more than ten years after Sauls conversion, whereas the Galatian visit fell at least seventeen years after that event.

3. The unlikelihood of an ecclesiastical council being convened in Jerusalem during, or so near, the time of the Herodian persecution.
4. The improbability of Paul having attained, in the course of one years labour at Antioch, to such preeminence over Peter as he appears in Galatians to have reached.

5. The almost certainty that, if Pauls mission to the heathen had already been recognised at the visit of Act. 11:30, there would have been no need to undertake a second journey to Jerusalem to obtain another decision thereupon; and

(6) the difficulty of harmonising this supposed commission of Paul to the Gentiles, received at the visit of Act. 11:30, with the express statement of Act. 8:1, that Pauls mission was entrusted to him after that visit.

II. The obvious correspondence between the Galatian visit and this to the Jerusalem council.

1. The two narratives assume that Paul and Barnabas had already conducted a gospel mission among the Gentiles.
2. In both journeys Paul is accompanied by Barnabas.
3. Both visits have the same end in viewto obtain a judicial settlement of the controversy which had broken out at Antioch, concerning the amount of liberty to be accorded to Gentile converts.
4. The settlement reported in both accounts is practically the samethat the Gentiles were not to be subjected to the yoke of circumcision.
5. In both narratives Peter and James appear as principal parties in bringing about the deliverance which restored peace to the Church.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE TROUBLES OVER CIRCUMCISION AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Act. 15:1-35

FALSE TEACHERS TROUBLE THE BELIEVERS. Act. 15:1

Act. 15:1

And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, sayings Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act. 15:1 It is very difficult for us to truly understand the vast importance of the law to the Jew. What would it mean to give up their allegiance to that divine injunction they had revered for so long? Only by thinking What it would mean to give up the most treasured of earthly law or government could we approximate the position of the Jew. In reading upon this subject I ran upon this very splendid statement by Cunningham Geikie:

The religions of antiquity were, in all cases, intensely ritualistic. A sacrifice or a private function must, alike, be carried out in exact accordance with prescribed rules if it were to have a claim on the gods, but when everything had been done as required, they were put under an obligation to answer favorably which they were bound to honor. Yet, in the sphere of ordinary life, nearly all races of men were free. They could eat and drink as they pleased, mix with their fellowmen, perform the common offices of daily existence, or of social intercourse, without interference from the priest. Among the Jews, however, as among their ancient fellow-countrymen in Mesopotamiathe Accadians, or as among the ancient Egyptians, with whom they had lived for centuries before the Exodus, not only every detail of religion, but every minute particular of ordinary life, was the subject of religious prescriptions, believed to be divine, and therefore to be obeyed, on peril of offending and even insulting the Higher Powers.
The Jew must bear on his person the mark of a holy observance, must perform endless cleansings of a more or less formal nature, must repeat, at prescribed times, each day, so many prescribed prayers, must eat and drink only prescribed supports and refreshments, prepared in prescribed modes, must submit from his cradle to his grave to customs and traditions sacredly binding authority at every step of his daily life, this authority faced him. He must perform prescribed pilgrimages from any adopted country, however distant, to the national shrine at Jerusalem to satisfy what he conceived the demands of Jehovah.

498.

How could we approximate the position of the Jew in his giving up the law of Moses?

499.

How was the religion of the Jews like all religions of antiquity and yet different?

ANTIOCH OF SYRIA

Situated 300 miles northwest of Jerusalem, on the Orontes sixteen miles from its mouth, Antioch was founded by Seleucus Nicator about 300 B.C. It was the capital of Syria under the Seleucidae and also of the Roman province of Syria. In population and importance it was the third city in the Roman Empire, ranking next to Rome and Alexandria. Its principal street was lined from end to end with Colonnades. The city was called Antioch the Beautiful and The Crown of the East. Its great trade drew to it many Jewish colonists, who enjoyed all the privileges of citizens. The city was notoriously immoral, and yet it is famous as the birthplace of Gentile Christianity. The people of Antioch are said to be noted for their low wit. (Historical Geography of Bible Lands. p. 82.)

Among the Western races, Paul had to discuss questions of doctrine, such as the resurrection and immortality, or the grounds of a souls justification before God, and had to denounce gross sins and novel and equivocal innovations, of which he had to say, We have no such customs, neither the churches of God. In Palestine and among the Jews everywhere, the burning question of the age, was the position of the uncircumcised converts to Christianity, toward circumcision. Could they be saved without becoming, at least to this length, Jews, or even without further observing the whole Jewish Ceremonial Law? Or would they be accepted by God though they lived without recognition of either? (Hours With The Bible, pp. 317318).

There were those in the church in Jerusalem who were not only persuaded that no Christian could be saved without being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses but they felt it their divine responsibility to so teach others. Word had evidently come to these in Jerusalem of the results of the first missionary journey. Even as word of the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch had come to them some years before. (cf. Act. 11:22).

This time the ones who left Jerusalem to visit Antioch were not sent out by the apostles but took it upon themselves to represent them none the less. Upon entering Antioch they immediately began to throw the minds of the Christians there into utter confusion: teaching that except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved. Note that the mere teaching of circumcision as a religious rite was not the point of difficulty, but rather that it was being layed upon them as a test of fellowship. Paul practiced circumcision as a matter of expediency (cf. Act. 16:1-2) but when it came to binding it as a matter of salvation he would not allow itno, not for one hour.

Into the peaceful and happy atmosphere of the congregation in Antioch there was brought by these that came from Jerusalem the stench of strife and dissension. It would be natural that Paul and Barnabas led in defending their position, but no definite conclusion could be reached. When there is not authority present that is recognized by both parties of a dispute then it becomes impossible to reach a satisfactory decision. This seemed to be the situation in Antioch.

500.

Who were the Accadians? (Look it up in a Bible dictionary).

501.

What was the difference in the questions and problems of those in the West and those in Palestine? What was the Burning Issue in Palestine?

502.

What caused the Judaizers to leave Jerusalem and to come to Antioch to teach their doctrine?

503.

If it were not the mere teaching of circumcision as a religious rite that constituted the difficulty what did?

504.

Why could not Paul the apostle settle this difficulty in Antioch without going to Jerusalem?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XV.

(1) And certain men which came down from Juda.We enter on the history of the first great controversy in the records of the Christian Church. It might have seemed as if the conversion of Cornelius had been accepted as deciding the question which we now find raised again (Act. 11:18). It would seem, however, that those who had raised objections to Peters conduct in that case were not content to accept the conclusion which he drew from it, and it is not difficult to represent to ourselves the train of thought which led them to take a different view. To them it may have seemed the exception that proved the rule. Where signs and wonders came in, they may have been content to accept an uncircumcised convert as a member of the Church, simply on the ground that God had dispensed in such cases with His own law; or they may have urged that though, in such cases, they did not require circumcision as a condition of admission, the continuance in the uncircumcised state after baptism was a wilful transgression, which shut men out from the salvation which they were seeking. Circumcision, they may have said, had been given as an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:13), and had never been formally abrogated. Who were the new teachers, that they should change what God had thus established? It is clear that they came, claiming to speak in the name of James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and though he distinctly repudiates having authorised them (Act. 15:24), yet if we suppose, as is probable, that his Epistle was written shortly before the Council, we can easily understand that they might rest their case on the words which he had used in it, that whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all (Jas. 2:10). Here, they might say, is a point confessedly in the Law, and even prior to it; and they were not prepared to draw the distinctions which we have learned to draw between the positive and the moral, the transient and the permanent, obligations of that Law. And it is to be noted that they did not merely make circumcision a condition of church communion; they carried their principles to their logical conclusionas mediaeval dogmatism did in the case of baptismand excluded the uncircumcised from all hope of salvation. (Comp. the account of Ananias and Izates given in the Note on Act. 9:10.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 15

THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM ( Act 15:1-5 )

The influx of Gentiles into the Church produced a problem which had to be solved. The mental background of the Jew was founded on the fact that he belonged to the chosen people. In effect they believed that not only were the Jews the peculiar possession of God but also that God was the peculiar possession of the Jews. The problem was this. Before a Gentile became a member of the Christian Church was it necessary that he should be circumcised and take upon himself the Law of Moses? In other words–must the Gentile, before he became a Christian, first become a Jew? Or, could a Gentile be received into the Church as such?

Even were that question settled there arose another problem. The strict Jew could have no intercourse with a Gentile. He could not have him as guest nor be his guest. He would not, as far as possible, even do business with him. So then, even if Gentiles were allowed into the Church, how far could Jews and Gentiles associate in the ordinary social life of the Church?

These were the problems which had to be solved. The solution was not easy. But in the end the Church took the decision that there should be no difference between Jew and Gentile at all. Act 15:1-41 tells of the Council of Jerusalem whose decisions were the charter of freedom for the Gentiles.

A PROBLEM BECOMES ACUTE ( Act 15:1-5 continued)

15:1-5 Some men came down from Judaea and tried to teach the brethren, “If you are not circumcised according to the practice of Moses you cannot be saved.” When Paul and Barnabas had a great dispute and argument with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders to get this question settled. So they were sent on their way by the Church, and they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling the story of the conversion of the Gentiles; and they brought great joy to all the brethren. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the Church and the apostles and the elders and they told the story of all that God had done with them. But some men of the school of the Pharisees, who were converts, rose and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to enjoin them to keep the Law of Moses.”

It was almost by accident that the most epoch-making things were happening in Antioch so that the gospel was being preached to Jew and Gentile alike and they were living together as brethren. There were certain Jews to whom all this was quite unthinkable. They could never forget the position of the Jews as the chosen people. They were quite willing that the Gentiles should come into the Church but on the condition that first they became Jews. If this attitude had prevailed, Christianity would have become nothing other than a sect of Judaism. Some of these narrower Jews came down to Antioch and tried to persuade the converts that they would lose everything unless they first accepted Judaism. Paul and Barnabas argued strongly against this and matters were at a deadlock.

There was only one way out. An appeal must be made to Jerusalem, the headquarters of the Church, for a ruling. The case which Paul and Barnabas put forward was simply the story of what had happened. They were prepared to let the facts speak for themselves. But certain of the Pharisees who had become Christians insisted that all converts must be circumcised and keep the Law.

The principle at stake was quite simple and completely fundamental. Was the gift of God for the select few or for all the world? If we possess it ourselves are we to look on it as a privilege or as a responsibility? The problem may not meet us nowadays in precisely the same way; but there still exist divisions between class and class, between nation and nation, between colour and colour. We fully realize the true meaning of Christianity only when all middle walls of partition are broken down.

PETER STATES THE CASE ( Act 15:6-12 )

15:6-12 The apostles and elders met together to investigate this question. After a great deal of discussion Peter stood up and said, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made his choice among us, so that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the good news and believe. And God, who knows men’s hearts, bore his own witness to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he had done to us too. He made no distinction between us and them for he purified their hearts by faith. So why do you now tempt God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we had the strength to bear? But it is through the grace of Jesus Christ that we believe that we have been saved in exactly the same, way as they too have been.” The whole assembly was silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told the story of all the signs and wonders God had done amongst the heathen through them.

In answer to the stricter Jews Peter reminded them how he himself had been responsible for the reception of Cornelius into the Church ten years before this. The proof that he had acted rightly was that God had granted his Holy Spirit to these very Gentiles who had been received. As far as the Law’s claims went they might have been ceremonially unclean; but God had by his Spirit cleansed their hearts. The attempt to obey the Law’s multifarious commands and so to earn salvation was a losing battle which left every man in default. There was only one way–the acceptance of the free gift of the grace of God in an act of self-surrendering faith.

Peter went right to the heart of the question. In this whole dispute the deepest of principles was involved. Can a man earn the favour of God? Or must he admit his own helplessness and be ready in humble faith to accept what the grace of God gives? In effect, the Jewish party said, “Religion means earning God’s favour by keeping the Law.” Peter said, “Religion consists in casting ourselves on the grace of God.” Here is implicit the difference between a religion of works and a religion of grace. Peace will never come to a man until he realizes that he can never put God in his debt; and that all he can do is take what God in his grace gives. The paradox of Christianity is that the way to victory is through surrender; and the way to power is through admitting one’s own helplessness.

THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES ( Act 15:13-21 )

15:13-21 After they had been silent James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Symeon has told you how God first made provision for the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name, With this the words of the prophets agree, as it stands written, ‘After these things I will return and I will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen. I will build its ruins again, and again I will set it upright, so that the rest of mankind will seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name’–this is what the Lord says, making these things known from the beginning of the world. Therefore for my part, it is my judgment that we stop making things difficult for the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we send them a letter to keep themselves from the contaminations offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood. For Moses from of old has those who proclaim his teaching in every city, for his works are read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

We may well believe that the matter of the reception of the Gentiles hung in the balance; then James spoke. He was the leader of the Jerusalem church. His leadership was not a formal office; it was a moral leadership conceded to him because he was an outstanding man. He was the brother of Jesus. He had had a special resurrection appearance all to himself ( 1Co 15:7). He was a pillar of the Church ( Gal 1:19). His knees were said to be as hard as a camel’s because he knelt in prayer so often and so long. He was so good a man that he was called James the Just. Further–and this was all-important–he himself was a rigorous observer of the Law. If such a man should come down on the side of the Gentiles then all was well; and he did, declaring that the disciples should be allowed into the Church without let or hindrance.

Even then the matter of ordinary social intercourse came in. How could a strict Jew consort with a Gentile? To make things easier James suggested certain regulations that Gentiles ought to keep.

They must abstain from the contamination of idols. One of the great problems of the early Church was that of meat offered to idols. Paul deals with it at length in 1Co 8:1-13; 1Co 9:1-27. When a heathen sacrificed in a temple, often only a small part of the meat was sacrificed. Most of the rest was given back to him to make a feast for his friends, often in the temple precincts, sometimes in his own house. The priests received the remainder which was then sold for ordinary purposes. No Christian must risk pollution by eating such meat for it had been offered to an idol.

They must abstain from fornication. It has been said that chastity was the only completely new virtue that Christianity brought into the world. In an impure world the Christian had to be pure.

They must abstain from things strangled and from blood. To the Jew the blood was the life and the life belonged to God alone. They so argued because when the blood flowed away life ebbed away too. Therefore all Jewish meat was killed and treated in such a way that the blood was drained off. The heathen practice of not draining the blood from a slaughtered animal was obnoxious to the strict Jew. So was the method of killing by strangulation. So the Gentile is ordered to eat only meat prepared in the Jewish way.

Had these simple regulations not been observed there could have been no intercourse between Jew and Gentile; but their observance destroyed the last barrier. Within the Church the principle was established that Jew and Gentile were one.

THE DECREE GOES OUT ( Act 15:22-35 )

15:22-35 Then the apostles and the elders together with the whole Church took a decision to choose men from their number and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas who is called Barsabas and Silas, men who were leaders among the brethren, and they sent a written message by their hand. “The apostles and the elders, brethren, to the brethren from the Gentiles who are throughout Antioch and Syria and Cilicia–greetings. We have heard that some who came from us have disturbed you with their words in an attempt to upset your souls. They were not acting under our instructions. We have therefore decided, when we were met together, to choose men and to send them to you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who are men who have devoted their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore despatched Judas and Silas to you to tell you the same things by word of mouth. It was the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us to place no further burden on you other than the rules which are necessary–that you should keep yourselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these things you will be doing well. Farewell.” So these were sent away and came down to Antioch. They called the congregation together and delivered the letter to them. When they had read it they rejoiced at the message of comfort. Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many an address and strengthened them. After spending some time there, they were sent away with every good wish for their welfare from the brethren to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas with certain others, too, stayed in Antioch teaching and telling the good news of the word of the Lord.

Once the Church had come to its decision, it acted with both efficiency and courtesy. The terms of the decision were embodied in a letter. But the letter was sent by no common messenger; it was entrusted to Judas and to Silas who went to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Had Paul and Barnabas come back alone their enemies might have doubted that they brought back a correct message; Judas and Silas were official emissaries and guarantors of the reality of the decision. The Church was wise in sending a person as well as a letter. One of the earliest Christian writers declared that he had learned more from the living and abiding voice than from any amount of reading. A letter could have sounded coldly official; but the words of Judas and Silas added a friendly warmth that the bare reception of a letter could never have achieved. Any amount of trouble might be avoided many a time if only a personal visit is paid instead of someone being content with sending a letter.

PAUL TAKES THE ROAD AGAIN ( Act 15:36-41 )

15:36-41 Some time after, Paul said to Barnabas, “Come now, let us go back and visit the brethren in every city in which we preached the word of the Lord, so that we may see how things are going with them.” Barnabas wished to take John who was called Mark along with them; but Paul did not think it right to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. There was so sharp a difference of opinion that they were separated from each other and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and went off when he had been commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia strengthening the churches.

Paul was a born adventurer and could never stay long in the one place. He decided to take the road again; but the preparations for the journey ended in a tragic breach. Barnabas wished to take John Mark but Paul would have nothing to do with the man who had played the deserter in Pamphylia. The difference between them was so sharp that they split company never to work with each other again. It is impossible to say whether Barnabas or Paul was right. But this much is certain, Mark was supremely fortunate that he had a friend like Barnabas. In the end, as we know, Mark became the man who redeemed himself. It may well have been the friendship of Barnabas which gave Mark back his self-respect and made him determined to make good. It is a great thing for a man to have someone who believes in him. Barnabas believed in Mark and in the end Mark justified that belief.

The Second Missionary Journey

The narrative of Paul’s second missionary journey, which occupied him for about three years, is given in the section of Acts which extends from Act 15:36 to Act 18:23. It began from Antioch. Paul first made a tour of the churches of Syria and Cilicia. Then he re-visited the churches in the regions of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch. There followed a period when he could not see his way clear before him. That time of uncertainty ended with the vision at Troas. From Troas, Paul crossed to Neapolis and thence to Philippi. From Philippi he moved on to Thessalonica and Beroea. From there he went to Athens and then on to Corinth where he spent about eighteen months. From Corinth he travelled to Jerusalem by way of Ephesus and finally back to Antioch, his starting point. The great step forward is that with this journey Paul’s activity passed beyond Asia Minor and entered Europe.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

II. THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL ON CIRCUMCISION.

1. Preparations for Council , Act 15:1-5 .

FOURTEEN years have elapsed since the conversion of the apostle of the Gentiles; and, as we learn by his own account in Gal 2:1-10, he now goes up from Gentile Antioch to Jerusalem, accompanied not only by Barnabas, but by Titus. The two accounts so complement each other with additional facts, yet so harmonize in the result, as to furnish a chapter of “undesigned coincidences.” Paul obtains from the Jerusalem Church the full concession in behalf of the Gentiles; that they can be admitted into the Christian Church without becoming circumcised Jews; but by conceding some delicate forbearances from unnecessarily offending the prejudices of the Jews.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. Came down As from a high metropolis. (See note on Act 11:2.) So go up in Act 15:2.

Judea Probably, though not necessarily, from Jerusalem.

Taught According to the Greek imperfect, were continuously teaching.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

PART THIRD.

CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE GENTILES. From Chapter Act 13:1, to End of Acts.

Through the remainder of his work Luke’s subject is the evangelization of the Gentiles, and his hero is Paul. His field is western Asia and Europe; his terminal point is Rome, and the work is the laying the foundation of modern Christendom. At every point, even at Rome, Luke is careful to note the Gospel offer to the Jews, and how the main share reject, and a remnant only is saved. And thus it appears that Luke’s steadily maintained object is to describe the transfer of the kingdom of God from one people to all peoples.
I. PAUL’S FIRST MISSION From Antioch, through Cyprus, into Asia, as far as Lystra and Derbe, thence back to Antioch, Act 13:1 Act 14:28.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, “Except you be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
As with the prophets who had arrived earlier and had been of great assistance (Act 11:27), some men ‘from Judaea’ now arrived in Syrian Antioch, but this time their message to the Christians there was, “Except you be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” They no doubt saw themselves as going with a salutary and godly message in which they believed profoundly. They may have acclaimed themselves to be prophets, but if so Luke refuses to recognise them as such. We note further that he does not say that they came ‘from Jerusalem’. He saw that that would have conferred on them an authority that they did not have, so he says that they were vaguely ‘from Judaea’. Their attitude was not that of ‘the church of Jerusalem’ but of Judaeans. His stress was on the fact that they did not have the authority of the church of Jerusalem behind them (as what followed would prove).
The message of these men would come like a bombshell to many Gentile Christians. To them these messengers were brethren, and appeared to have come from the very home of Christendom. Did this really mean that they had to become full Jewish proselytes, being circumcised and bound to keep the whole ritual and ceremonial Law of the Jews if they wanted to follow Christ? This was not what they had been taught up to this point. But many of them were ready for it if it was necessary. (This was something that Paul resisted so vehemently – Gal 3:1-5; Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:2-4).
It was no doubt ‘of God’ that this had not occurred until the arrival back of Paul and Barnabas. Had it done so it might have caused even greater confusion. But God was in control of affairs and had timed it accordingly.
The question can only be seen as almost irrelevant today. For we would rightly ask, ‘If Christ through His death has fulfilled all offerings and sacrifices, as the New Testament makes clear that He has in a number of places (e.g. Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7), and if, as the letter to the Hebrews emphasises in detail, all such offerings are now redundant and all necessary rituals are now fulfilled in heaven by our heavenly High Priest, what further need is there for earthly ritual? Indeed, as Paul makes clear concerning circumcision, it is precisely on this basis that in Christ all who are His have been circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the circumcision of the One Who was circumcised for us (Col 2:11). We are already circumcised in Christ. We have therefore been made alive, and have been forgiven, without the need for further circumcision (Col 2:13).
But it was certainly a question that still needed settling then, for it went to the root of what salvation is all about.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Demand that All Believers in Christ Be Circumcised And Its Consequence (15:1-3).

News had reached Judaea of the many Gentiles who had become Christians and had not been circumcised. This had horrified many Jewish believers, especially many Pharisees who were believers, for they considered that it was not possible to be within God’s salvation without being circumcised and keeping the whole Law of Moses. They considered that Jesus’ purpose had been to make all men good Jews.
But they were not at first too perturbed. They recognised the principle that it was right for God-fearers to attach themselves to a gathering of believers, with the aim in view that they eventually become full proselytes and be circumcised. So just as the prophets from Jerusalem had previously gone to give assistance to the work in Antioch by giving them spiritual enlightenment, some decided that they too must go to Antioch and guide these new Gentile converts into ‘the full truth’ as they saw it. (They may well at first have been taken by surprise by the vehement opposition of Paul and Barnabas).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Ministry of Paul and Barnabas Results in the Counter-attack of Satan and the Gathering at Jerusalem (13:1-15:35).

Leaving Antioch under the direct commissioning of the Holy Spirit, in a parallel commissioning to that of Jesus to His Apostles in Act 1:8, Paul and Barnabas go first to Cyprus and then to Asia Minor with the Good News, and after rejection by the Jews enjoy a successful ministry among the Gentiles, returning to Antioch with rejoicing over what God has done.
However, as in the case of Peter earlier in chapters 10-11, Antioch then discovered that they also were not to be left alone by the Judaisers. It was one thing for Christ to have made a way of cleansing available for the Gentiles through His cross which rendered them clean without resort to Jewish ordinances, it was another for Jews to be able to accept the fact. It went against all their preconceptions. Man has always loved to think that he can contribute to his own redemption. Jerusalem has now become a drag on the Good News.
The last successful outreaches to Gentiles that we looked at, those to Cornelius and to Antioch in chapters 10-11, had resulted in the debacle and persecution of chapter 12, possibly partly as a result of the offence caused by Peter going in to Gentiles. This coming successful outreach will now result in another attack by Jews, but this time by so-called Jewish Christians. For on their arrival back from their successful outreach, Paul and Barnabas will find that Judaising Christians will arrive from Jerusalem and demand the imposing on all converts of the whole Jewish Law and of all Jewish ordinances. The failure to impose the Law in this way was what had previously angered the Jews themselves. (They would not have objected to the making of true proselytes). Now it was also angering these extreme Jewish Christians. For although they had remained silent when Peter had first stated his position in Act 11:1-18, they had in their hearts refused to accept Peter’s words and vision. So rejected Law-bound Jerusalem would now seek to interfere with Spirit-guided Antioch.
‘Paul and Barnabas’ (note the altered order) will resist their claims with the result that the Antiochenes will determine that the matter must be brought before ‘the Apostles and elders’ in Jerusalem. But in the light of Peter’s previous vision and subsequent experience this could only have one result. The final decision will be reached that all that will be required of Gentiles is to consider Jewish sensitivities by abstaining from strangled meat and blood, so that they can still have fellowship meals together, while at the same time all will be called on to avoid idolatry and sexual misbehaviour. This having been decided the news will be taken to all the churches which have been set up, and the church will continue to expand.
This pattern of continual set backs following the proclamation of the word, resulting in the further moving forward of God’s plan, is found throughout Acts, as we saw in the introduction to chapter 1, and it is no different here. But once again God prevails over their difficulty and triumph results.
That Luke sees all this as due to the underlying work of Satan is latent in most of Acts. It comes out openly in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Act 5:3), Elymas (Act 13:10), and more indirectly with the woman diviner (Act 16:16-18). But above all it comes out in the general statement in Act 26:18 where all are seen to be under the power of Satan. The individual cases, which are like windows letting in the first glimpses of what is happening, lead up to the description of the whole. For in Act 26:18, ‘from the power of Satan to God’, gives a clear indication of the major source of Apostolic problems.
Jerusalem Has Ceased To Be The Evangelistic Centre For the Good News.

Luke has gone to great pains in Act 11:19-30 to stress the unity and love between the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch. This is as a counteracting pattern to the failure of religious Jerusalem and its final rejection in chapter 12. This love was being revealed even while the persecution was going on. As Jerusalem is dying, the church which has sprung from Jerusalem is springing up into more abundant life. But it will no longer be centred in Jerusalem. From now on it will proceed from Jerusalem’s offshoot, Syrian Antioch. Jerusalem has missed its opportunity.
It will have been noted that the incidents mentioned in chapter 12 were not in any way seen as directly connected with the visit of Barnabas and Saul. Luke’s point seems merely to have been in order to stress the oneness of the two churches at the same time as the persecution is going on. He wants us to know that in the background behind the actions of Jerusalem against the church of Christ, in Jerusalem, the Gentiles were continually thinking of the good of the Jerusalem church. His statement ‘about that time’ (Act 12:1) confirms this suggestion, for it avoids a direct chronological link. The idea is that in the midst of their persecution the Jerusalem church were cocooned in the love of the church at Antioch, and could be sure that God had not forgotten them. While God’s movement will go forth from the new, He does not totally desert the old. For His ‘new nation’ is a combination of the churches both old and new, as from now on centred in Antioch, although with the reminder in chapter 15 of its source in Jerusalem.
Agrippa’s death in fact took place in 44 AD. We do not know when the visit of Barnabas and Saul took place, but in his letter to the Galatians Paul tells us that it was fourteen years after his conversion (Gal 2:1). This suggests that it was probably at least a year or so after Agrippa’s death. However, the warm thoughts and the collecting of goods and money to assist them would have taken place earlier. Thus the dark days of the church in Jerusalem are cocooned in the love of the church in Antioch. (The problem for us, of course, is that we do not know with any certainty the year in which Paul’s conversion took place).
We have seen how in chapter 11 Barnabas and the prophets all previously went from Jerusalem to Antioch to minister to them. Jerusalem had ‘fed’ Antioch. This was then followed by the description of the collection of goods or money, which were then brought to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Saul (Act 11:22-30). Antioch would now feed Jerusalem.
All this activity would take some time and much of it had probably preceded the happenings in Jerusalem. But the actual visit probably occurred after those happenings. The point of Act 11:30 would therefore seem to be in order to contrast the love of the Gentile church for the Jerusalem church with the hatred of the Jews for them, even prior to the latter being revealed. Now following that chapter Barnabas and Saul, having visited Jerusalem, and having had their private talks with the Apostles, that is with Peter and John (Gal 2:2; Gal 2:7-9) are portrayed as returning to Antioch for the next stage forward. From this it would appear that for a short while at least Peter and John were back in Jerusalem. But Luke ignores this in view of the point that he is getting over the point that Jerusalem’s influence on evangelism is over. His concentration is now on Antioch. They have become the new place where the voice of the Spirit speaks, and from which He sends forth His witnesses.
In Act 11:30 we read, ‘sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul’, although it does not tell us whether these elders were the elders of the Jerusalem church, or the elders of the Judaean churches. And now here in Act 12:25 he picks up with the fact that Barnabas and Saul ‘returned (to Antioch) from Jerusalem’. ‘From Jerusselm’ may suggest that the gifts had been presented to the elders of Jerusalem for distribution, although elders from Judaean churches may also have been called together for the occasion and have been present (but note the other possible translation below which would signify that it was the Judaean elders).
There is an importance to this that we must not overlook. It emphasises that while Jewish Jerusalem itself has turned away from its Lord, and has been rejected, having turned down its ‘second chance’ (the second chance that Stephen had emphasised), the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch are still as one, and go on together. The passing of the evangelistic commission to Antioch in the narrative takes place in such a way as carefully to avoid the suggestion of any division between the churches. Rather it continues to demonstrate their oneness. Indeed, some of the prophets in Antioch were sent by the Jerusalem church. So even though Jerusalem can no longer be the evangelising centre, and is replaced by Antioch in that regard, the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch are still seen as having ‘all things in common’. They are still seen as one, and the Jerusalem church is still seen as the foundation of that unity, remaining in the closest of relationships with the church at Antioch. It is simply circumstances under God that have brought about the change. We certainly cannot avoid the impression, however, that evangelistically speaking the church in Jerusalem has been sidelined. No longer does evangelistic activity flow from Jerusalem. Peter has thrown it off. Barnabas and Saul have bid it farewell. While it will be allowed one last fling in chapter 15, that will only be in order to proclaim its own slow demise. Its own decrees will in fact render contact with Jerusalem unnecessary. It will not only no longer be the hub of the outreach of the Good News, the mantle having passed on to Antioch (and no doubt also to wherever the apostles were ministering away from Jerusalem), it will no longer even count in the purposes of God.
We may further add that in the light of Luke’s clear indication of Jerusalem’s rejection by God in the person of its king in chapter 12, it is difficult to conceive why, if the destruction of Jerusalem had take place by the time that Luke was writing, it was not hinted at in some way. It would have been the final proof of the rejection of the people of Jerusalem along with their king. This can only lead us to think that that event had therefore not taken place when this was written.
But that the church in Jerusalem is not itself to be seen a part of this rejection comes out in the fact that this next section will lead up to another visit by ‘the Apostles’ (as represented by those who would be present, which certainly included Peter) to Jerusalem, together with Barnabas and Saul and ‘certain other’, where again all will come together as one in order finally to establish the requirement that will be made of Gentiles in the worldwide church (chapter 15). The Jerusalem church is still therefore, in its last fling, the central pivot around which the churches are united. It is not Jerusalem itself which is now central, it is the church in Jerusalem, still seen as the centre around which all the other churches unite. The attempt to reconnect with the Temple in Act 21:17-36 is in fact seen as doomed to failure. There is thus a separation between the ideas of the city and the church. The city is rejected. The church lives on. But, although it does not yet realise it, it too will within a generation sink into insignificance. But by then it will not matter. Christianity will have no further need for Jerusalem.
Luke in fact intended us to see from the beginning that in the end the Good News would go to the Gentiles, for in Luke 4 when Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, having rejected Satan’s offer of kingship, and having offered Himself as the Spirit anointed prophet of Isaiah 61, is caused by the cavalier treatment of his fellow-townsfolk to point out to them how often God sent His prophets to Gentiles because the Jews were not worthy (Luk 4:22-28). Now that idea is coming to its full fruition. Christ has completed His work, the Holy Spirit anointed ‘prophets’ have come, Jerusalem has rather accepted Satan’s offer of an alternative kingship, and therefore the word goes out to those Gentiles who are open to the true King and the Kingly Rule of God. Acts 12 is in a sense the fulfilment of Luk 4:6-7. Acts 10-11, 13-14 the fulfilment of Luk 4:23-27. But this latter is only after Jerusalem has had its opportunity to be God’s evangel to the world and has rejected it. Furthermore this theme of ‘to the Jew first’ will continue to be the theme in Acts although it regularly results in Paul’s turning to the Gentiles (Act 13:46; Act 18:6; Act 28:17-28).
Thus Jesus teaching in Luke 4 has presented the whole scope of the future that is coming. Christ coming in the fullness of the Spirit (Act 4:1), His rejection of an earthly kingdom (Act 4:5-7), His revelation of Himself as the Anointed Prophet (Act 4:18-21), His offering of the Good News to Israel (Act 4:21), His warning that, if they do not heed it, it will go to the Gentiles (Act 4:25-27). This was then followed by His manifestation of Himself as the Prophet by His actions and words (Act 4:31-37), and His concentration on ‘the Jew first’ as He steadfastly trod the path towards Jerusalem (Luke generally ignores Gentile connections like the Syro-phoenician woman and the ministry in Decapolis). And even when he opens Acts he cites Jesus’ words ‘to Jerusalem first’. But this time it is declared that the witness must finally reach the ‘uttermost part of the earth’. And once the message of the Messiah has been rejected first by the leaders, and then in chapter 12 by the people, Jerusalem and its ways will itself be rejected, and the Good News will go out freely to the Gentiles, although even then with the Jews always receiving the first opportunity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Expansion Of The Word In Cyprus and Asia Minor, With Satan’s Counterattack Being Defeated at an Assembly In Jerusalem, Which is Then Followed By Further Ministry (13:1-18:22).

Jerusalem having forfeited its Messiah and its right to evangelise the world, the torch now passes to Antioch. For in his presentation of the forward flow of ‘the word’ Luke now had to find the next great forwards movement and he found it at Syrian Antioch. From there at the instigation of the Holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit too has as it were moved to Antioch) Barnabas and Saul are to be sent out and will successfully and powerfully minister, first to Jews and then to Gentiles throughout Asia Minor, achieving great success, while confirming the dictum that ‘we must through much tribulation enter under the Kingly Rule of God’ (Act 14:22). Having suffered for Christ’s sake, these Apostles will then finally report God’s great successes back to Antioch. It will then be followed after the Gathering at Jerusalem by a second round of missionary activity reaching into Europe.
The first section of Acts (chapters 1-12) had dealt with the going forward of the Good News from Jerusalem, resulting finally in Jerusalem having rejected its last chance and being replaced in the purposes of God. As we saw it followed a chiastic pattern (see introduction to chapter 1)..
This next section of Acts deals with the going forward of the Good News from Antioch and also follows a chiastic pattern covering the twofold ministry of Paul, with two missions from Antioch sandwiching the Gathering at Jerusalem of the Apostles and elders in order to decide the terms on which Gentiles can become Christians, thus emphasising the freedom of the Gentiles from the Law of Moses. It analyses as follows:
a Paul and Barnabas are sent forth from Antioch (Act 12:25 to Act 13:3).
b Ministry in Cyprus results in their being brought before the pro-consul Sergius Paulus who believes their word (Act 13:4-13).
c Ministry in Pisidian Antioch results in a major speech to the Jews with its consequences, including a description of those who desire to hear him again (Act 13:14-52).
d Successful ministry in Iconium results in the crowd being stirred up and their having to flee (Act 14:1-6).
e A remarkable healing in Lystra results in false worship which is rejected and the crowds being stirred up by the Jews. Paul is stoned and flees the city (Act 14:7-21).
f Ministry in Derbe is followed by a round trip confirming the churches and return to Antioch (Act 14:21-28).
g The Gathering in Jerusalem of the Apostles and elders of Jerusalem and the Antiochene representatives resulting in acknowledgement that the Gentiles are not to be bound by the Law or required to be circumcised because God had established the everlasting house of David (Act 13:15).
f Paul and Silas (and Barnabas and Mark) leave Antioch to go on a round trip confirming the churches (Act 15:36 to Act 16:5).
e A remarkable healing in Philippi results in true worship which is accepted (the Philippian jailer and his household) and in Paul’s stripes being washed by a Roman jailer. The authorities declare them innocent and they leave the city (Act 16:6-40).
d Successful ministries in Thessalonica and Berea result in the crowds being stirred up and their having to flee (Act 17:1-14).
c Ministry in Athens results in a major speech to the Gentiles with its consequences including a description of those who desire to hear him again (Act 17:15-34).
b Ministry in Corinth results in their being brought before the pro-consul Gallio who dismisses the suggestion that their actions are illegal (Act 18:1-17).
a Paul returns to Antioch (Act 18:18-22).
We note here from ‘c’ and parallel the movement from Jew to Gentile in the proclamation of the word. Athens is no doubt partly chosen because although small, its reputation was worldwide.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Witness to the First Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) In Act 15:1-35 we have the account of the testimony of the Church at Jerusalem officially accepting the Gentiles to full membership. This passage is often called the First Council at Jerusalem, which met in Jerusalem around A.D. 50. The New Testament church, because of its Jewish heritage, immediately incorporated the Old Testament Scriptures into its daily worship. But these new believers quickly realized that some of the Old Testament teachings, such as the Law of Moses, must now be interpreted in light of the New Covenant. We see this struggle of interpreting the Old Testament taking place at this first council of Jerusalem.
Those like Paul and Barnabas, who had been in the field ministry winning souls to Christ, understood how simple the Gospel is for those who simply believe. However, those Jewish converts who had isolated themselves in Jerusalem wanted to be rigid regarding their Old Testament faith. We can compare this story to similar issues that the Vatican faces in modern times. Those priests who live and work with their parishioners tend to be more compromising on ethical issues, while the bishops at the Vatican tend to be uncompromising on issues and follow their traditions. This is the similar situation that the church at Jerusalem was having to deal with.
James the Pastor It is important to note that the twelve apostles of the Lamb were members of the church at Jerusalem in which tradition tells us that James the brother of the Lord was the pastor. As members of this church, these apostles of the Lamb were subject to their pastor. For in this chapter, it is James who decrees the final verdict of this council by which the apostles and prophets of this church willingly submitted.
First New Testament Epistle In this chapter of Acts, we find the first epistle that was written to the New Testament Church by the hands of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ at the first church council. What caused the need for this first epistle to be written? The occasion was the need to interpret the teachings of the Old Testament and of the Lord Jesus Christ in the light of the foreign cultures outside the nation of Israel.
For example, as an African missionary, I talk with American and Canadian pastors who are shepherding African congregations or Bible schools. In this “foreign” culture, so distant from Western civilization, these pastors have difficulty distinguishing between genuine marriages, common-law-marriages and those who are just living together in fornication. This is because the customs of marriage are so foreign.
When these African men are chosen to be church leaders and pastors, they have to meet the qualifications of being the husband of one wife. But if they had children from several relationships, how does one determine if these were marriages of acts of fornication. One pastor told me that he learned to use the custom of a bride price as evidence of a legal marriage. Otherwise, the need for a marriage ceremony was required for members of his church.
The early Church accepted only the epistles of the New Testament apostles as having the divine authority to establish these new guidelines of conduct for churches everywhere. Each New Testament epistle that was written to the Church by these apostles was occasioned by the need to interpret the teachings of the New Covenant into an unfamiliar culture of people who were being evangelized. Thus, each Pauline epistle, although it may be occasioned by a particular need and have a particular theme, is based upon the underlying theme of laying the foundation, or guidelines, of Christian conduct for the early Church.
Act 15:15-18 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – Act 15:15-18 is a quote from Amo 9:11-12 out of the LXX.
Amo 8:10-11 ”In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek [me], saith the Lord who does all these things.” LXX
However, it differs from the Masoretic text.
Amo 9:11-12, “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”
F. F. Bruce tells us that the LXX substitutes the Masoretic “yireshu” (will possess) for “yidreshu” (will seek) and the Masoretic “adam” (man) for “Edom.” In addition, the LXX neglects the particle “‘eth,” which marks the accusative case preceding “she’erith” (remnant). [211]
[211] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 151.
Act 15:16-18 Comments The Harvest – The passage in Amo 9:11-15 is about the great harvest of souls in the last days. The house of David is symbolic of prayer where churches intercede to God for the harvest of souls. The harvest of souls is directly linked to the prayer efforts of the Church. Todd Bentley speaks regarding this two-fold process in the context of the great harvest that will precede the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
“While traveling to an evening crusade I was caught up in an interactive vision. I saw the great harvest field already white. The angels were working in this field. Then Jesus came to me. I knew in my spirit He was the Lord of the Harvest, but He came to me dressed as the Good Shepherd (John 10) and holding a staff. I wondered why the Lord of Psalms 23 was the Lord of the Harvest. Then I understood this is not just about winning souls, but also about discipling these same souls. Jesus doesn’t want to just be savior, but He also wants to be the great overseer of their souls and He wants to lead them into the depth of Psalms 23. He desires to restore their souls and to lead them beside the still waters. Immediately, these Scriptures came to my mind: Psa 24:1, Rev 11:15, Isa 40:15, Psa 2:8.
“This was a faith level where whole cities and nations can be saved in a day. The Lord said to me, ‘Todd, enter into My harvest power! It’s the Harvest of Amo 9:13, “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.”’
“There is coming an acceleration of the laws of sowing and reaping. The seed will be planted and as soon as the seed is sown, it will be reaped. There will be harvest until the days of sowing and sowing until the days of harvest a holy overlapping of continual sowing and reaping. When this acceleration happens, men and women will cry out, ‘What must I do to be saved?’
“As I continued to walk in the harvest I noticed a tent in the field and asked, ‘Lord, what is that tent doing in the harvest and why does it look so old and ragged? It’s not as glorious and golden as these fields.’ The Lord responded, ‘Todd, this is the tabernacle of David and it looks that way because, for many, prayer is so inviting. It is a matter of perspective and priority. To many, prayer is tedious work, but to others it is the glory. Most importantly, the tabernacle releases the Amo 9:13 harvest.’
“In the book of Acts, Paul, Barnabas, Peter and their ministry teams are seeing tremendous harvest in cities. Churches are being planted and the Holy Ghost is falling on the Gentile believers as well as the Jews. In Acts 15 they meet for the Jerusalem council and give reports of the harvest and discuss whether Gentile believers need to be circumcised. In the midst of this James quotes Amo 9:11-12, ‘In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.’
I said, ‘God there it is again the great harvest and the house of David.’ Night and day prayer, 24 hours a day, seven days a week is already taking place in the Church. These houses of prayer are essential to the releasing of an end-time signs and wonders movement, healing revival and the geographic healing centers.” [212]
[212] Todd Bentley, Journey Into the Miraculous (Victoria, BC, Canada: Hemlock Printers, Ltd., 2003), 327-9.
Act 15:20 Comments – Note that in the book of 1 Corinthians, two of the major topics that Paul dealt with were idolatry and fornication. We learn from the ancient Greek pagan forms of temple worship that these temples kept slaves as temple prostitutes, thus mixing idolatry with fornication. Therefore, the practice of feasting as a part of idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. As a result of this pagan activity, James, the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, focused the first written church decree upon the need to avoid pagan forms of worship for the Gentile converts by listing four things that were practiced during these pagan rituals. They were to avoid idolatry, fornication, and the meats associated with these pagan feasts. Paul the apostle will elaborate upon these topics in 1 Corinthians 5-10.
We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures.
Act 15:22 “and Silas” Comments – Silas ( ) (G469) was of one of Paul’s close traveling companions during his second missionary journey. Although Paul and Peter use his Roman name Silvanus when referring to him in their epistles, we know him in the book of Acts by his Jewish name Silas. His first appearance in Scriptures takes place in Acts 15 during the Jerusalem council where he is identified as a leader (Act 15:22) in the Jerusalem church, and a prophet (Act 15:32). He was chosen along with Judas Barsabas to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to the church in Antioch in order to place into effect some guidelines for Gentile Christians. He moved about with Paul during his second missionary journey and is last identified with Paul in Act 18:5 where he and Timothy meet Paul in Corinth. Paul will refer to him in his two epistles to the church at Thessalonica (1Th 1:1, 2Th 1:1) and in his second epistle to the Corinthians (2Co 1:19). We also find his name mentioned as “faithful brother” and bearer of Peter’s first epistle (1Pe 5:12).
Act 15:25-28 Comments – “it seemed good” The early Church leaders did not make a decision at the first council of Jerusalem by hearing a divine word from God, or by a gift of utterance, or a dream or a vision. They made their decision because they felt in their hearts that it was the right thing to do. They were being led by the Spirit at this time. Luke writes, “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us”. Luke makes a similar statement in the opening passage of His Gospel by saying, “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,” (Luk 1:3). Luke was simply saying that he felt led by the Holy Spirit to write his Gospel.
Act 15:29 “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols” – Comments Abstinence from meats offered unto idols was important in that it helped a weaker brother not to stumble (1Co 8:1-13).
Act 15:29 Comments – Apparently, the practice of feasting at idolatrous temples in those days involved rituals that used the blood of animals after strangling them, feasting on their meat, as well as men laying with temple prostitutes. Therefore, the prohibition against fornication is listed with these other practices that were common in idolatrous worship.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Church’s Organization (Perseverance): The Witness of the Church Growth to the Ends of the Earth Act 13:1 to Act 28:29 begins another major division of the book of Acts in that it serves as the testimony of the expansion of the early Church to the ends of the earth through the ministry of Paul the apostle, which was in fulfillment of Jesus’ command to the apostles at His ascension, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Act 1:8) However, to reach this goal, it required a life of perseverance in the midst of persecutions and hardship, as well as the establishment of an organized church and its offices.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Witness of Paul’s First Missionary Journey (A.D. 45-47) Act 13:1 to Act 14:28
2. Witness to Church at Jerusalem of Gospel to Gentiles (A.D. 50) Act 15:1-35
3. Witness of Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (A.D. 51-54) Act 15:36 to Act 18:22
4. Witness of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (A.D. 54-58) Act 18:23 to Act 20:38
5. Witness of Paul’s Arrest and Trials (A.D. 58-60) Act 21:1 to Act 26:32
6. Witness of Paul’s Journey to Rome (A.D. 60) Act 27:1 to Act 28:29
A Description of Paul’s Ministry – Paul’s missionary journeys recorded Acts 13-28 can be chacterized in two verses from 2Ti 2:8-9, in which Paul describes his ministry to the Gentiles as having suffered as an evil doer, but glorying in the fact that the Word of God is not bound.
2Ti 2:8-9, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.”
Paul followed the same principle of church growth mentioned in Act 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” He first placed churches in key cities in Asia Minor. We later read in Act 19:10 where he and his ministry team preaches “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks”.
Act 19:10, “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”
In Rom 15:20-28 Paul said that he strived to preach where no other man had preached, and having no place left in Macedonia and Asia Minor, he looked towards Rome, and later towards Spain.
Rom 15:20, “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:”
Rom 15:23-24, “But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”
Rom 15:28, “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Convention at Jerusalem.
The question about circumcision:
v. 1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
v. 2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
v. 3. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
v. 4. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
The Christian congregations of Palestine and Syria were now enjoying a season of external peace and prosperity, and therefore Satan, as a sower of discord, determined to create internal dissension, thus working a most severe form of harm. There had been some dissatisfaction among those of the circumcision in Jerusalem at the course of Peter in entering into the house of Cornelius, chap. 11:2-3. At that time the matter had been adjusted satisfactorily when Peter had narrated the facts pertaining to the case. But it seems that certain members of the Church had since grown restive once more, their Jewish prejudices being unable to feel satisfied concerning conditions. Some of these purposely, as it seems, made the journey down to Antioch in Syria, and not only expressed it as their opinion, but, began to teach, they made every effort to force their teaching on the brethren of the congregation, declaring that unless they received circumcision according to the usage of Moses, they could not he saved. They thus made circumcision, an Old Testament sacrament, a condition of salvation in the New Testament. Naturally the matter caused a very heated controversy and discussion, since Paul and Barnabas could not possibly keep silence at such an open attack of their work in Antioch, on Cyprus, and in Asia Minor. The Judaizing teachers, then, mere responsible for the threatening discord; they began the questioning and disputing. It is difficult to realize the distress and confusion which must have followed and racked the minds of the brethren while the controversy was in progress. With such bitter emphasis did the men from Judea insist upon their point that Paul and Barnabas did not succeed in silencing them. So the congregation finally resolved and determined that Paul and Barnabas and some other men out of their midst should make the trip up to Jerusalem to settle this question of dispute, if possible. Paul and Barnabas were thus commissioned by, they acted as delegates of, the congregation at Antioch. Among their companions was Titus, Gal 2:1; Gal 2:3. Note: This procedure of the northern congregation was not an appeal to a higher tribunal nor even to a representative body, but simply a mission or delegation of one congregation, in itself independent and autonomous, to another of the same rank. Having been sped on their journey by their congregation, very probably in this manner, that the members accompanied them out for some distance, an action which both emphasized the solemnity of the occasion and the interest which the brethren took in the matter, the little party slowly traveled down along the coast through Phoenicia, then cutting across Samaria toward the southeast. wherever they found brethren, they narrated to them in full the conversion of the Gentiles as they had witnessed and experienced it. And in all places they found sympathetic listeners, to whom their recital of the wonderful mercy of the Lord brought great gladness. As they neared Jerusalem, they left behind them a string of congregations where the hearts were uplifted to the Lord in pure joy over the wonder of His redemption to all men. Upon their arrival at Jerusalem, Paul and his companions were received by the entire congregation, as well as by the apostles then present in the capital and by the elders of the local body, and they rendered a complete report, telling how many and how great things God had done with them as His instruments of grace, and on their behalf, in giving testimony to the Word as it was preached by them.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION
Act 15:1
Came down and taught for which came down taught, A.V.; saying for and said, A.V.; custom () for manner, A.V. Except ye be circumcised, etc. The question thus raised nearly effected the disruption of the Church, and was the most serious controversy that had yet arisen. If the views broached by these Judaean Christians had prevailed, the whole character of Christianity would have been changed, and its existence probably cut short. How great the danger was appears from even Peter and Barnabas having wavered in their opinion. (For St. Paul’s treatment of the subject, see Rom 2:25, etc.; 4.; Gal 5:2-6; Gal 6:12-15, etc.) The expression, , is so like that in Gal 2:11, as to suggest very strongly the consideration whether Peter was not at Antioch at this time, and whether the scene related in Gal 2:11, etc., did not precede, and in fact cause, the Council of Jerusalem. In this case the “dissension and disputation” spoken of in Gal 2:2 would include and directly point to the memorable rebuke given by Paul to Peter; and we should understand that Peter, accepting Paul’s rebuke, preceded him and Barnabas, and prepared the way at Jerusalem for the solution arrived at. And, indeed, Peter’s words at Jerusalem are almost an echo of Paul’s words addressed to him at Antioch. If Barnabas had shown a leaning towards the Judaizing party, he would the more readily have been accepted by them as one of the embassy. The chief objection to this hypothesis is that in Gal 2:11 Peter’s visit to Antioch seems to be spoken of as something subsequent to the journey of St. Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. But it is not in the least necessary so to understand it. St, Paul’s mention of his visit to Jerusalem might naturally recall the incident which had led to it, and which was another example of his own independence. Farrar places Peter’s visit to Antioch between the Council of Jerusalem and the quarrel with Barnabas, in the time indicated in verse 35 of this chapter (vol. 1. ch. 23.), and so do Conybeare and Howson, Meyer, and Alford. Renan and Lewin (vol. 1. ch. 13.) place it after St. Paul’s return to Antioch, at the conclusion of his second missionary journey (Act 18:22, Act 18:23). No absolute certainty can be arrived at, but see note to verse 35. Custom (see Act 16:21); is the technical term for the Mosaic institutions, used by Josephus and Philo (see too Act 6:14; Act 21:21, note).
Act 15:2
And when for when therefore, A.V.; questioning for disputation, A.V.; the brethren (in italics) appointed for they determined, A.V. Certain other of them. One of these would be Titus (Gal 2:1). The circumstance that, on this occasion, St. Paul did go up to those who were apostles before him, to consult with them on a matter of doctrine, shows at once why he refers so pointedly to this visit in Gal 2:1, etc., and is almost conclusive evidence that this visit is the one there referred to. The companionship of Barnabas; the agreement of the expression, “I went up by revelation,” with the fact that he was sent by the Church, doubtless in obedience to some voice of the Spirit, like that mentioned in Act 13:2; the occasion, a dispute about the circumcision of Gentile converts; the line taken by Paul and Barnabas in declaring the conversion of the Gentiles (Act 15:4, Act 15:12; Gal 2:1-21 :27), and the result (Act 15:19; Gal 2:5, Gal 2:7, Gal 2:9), are all strong, not to say conclusive, marks of the identity of the two visits. The apostles and elders. This phrase marks the constitution of the governing part of the Church of Jerusalem. The addition in Act 13:22 and Act 13:23 of “the whole Church,” and (according to the T.R.) of “the brethren,” shows the part the body of the believers had in approving and sanctioning the decisions of the elders. The transaction marks the position of the Church of Jerusalem as the metropolitan Church of Christendom.
Act 15:3
They therefore passed for and they passed, A.V.; both Phoenicia for Phonice, A.V. Being brought on their way (). The word has two distinct though allied meanings: one is “to conduct a person on his way,” as in Act 20:38; Act 21:5; the other is “to help a person on his way, by supplying him with all necessaries for his journey,” as in Rom 15:24; 1Co 16:6; 1Co 2:1-16 Col 1:16; Tit 3:13; 3Jn 1:6. This last is the meaning here. Being the messengers of the Church, they traveled at the Church’s expense. Both Phoenicia and Samaria. Their course would be through Berytus, Type, Sidon, and Samaria. Declaring the conversion of the Gentiles. There was an especial reason for doing so, as it had a strong bearing upon the great controversy about to be decided at Jerusalem.
Act 15:4
The apostles for of the apostles, A.V.; the elders for elders, A.V.; rehearsed for declared, A.V. They were received of the Church, etc. Being themselves the formal envoys of the Church of Antioch, they were formally received as such by the Church of Jerusalem, headed by the apostles and elders.
Act 15:5
Who for which, A.V.; it is for that it was, A.V.; charge for command, A.V. There rose up, etc. As soon as Paul and Barnabas had finished their recital of the conversion of the heathen to whom they had preached the gospel, certain Christian Pharisees who were at the meeting disturbed the joy of the brethren and the unanimity of the assembly by getting up and saying that all the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the Law. This, of course, would have included Titus, who was present with St. Paul (Gal 2:1, Gal 2:3). The Epistle to the Galatians deals directly and forcibly with this question.
Act 15:6
The elders for elders, A.V.; were gathered for came, A.V.; to for for to, A.V. The question was too important, and, perhaps, the persons who advanced the objections too considerable, to allow of a decision to be taken on the spot. A special meeting of the Church was called to consider the matter.
Act 15:7
Questioning for disputing, A.V., as in Act 15:2; brethren for men and brethren, A.V., as in Act 7:2, etc.; you for us, A.V. and T.R.; by my mouth the Gentiles for the Gentiles by my mouth, A.V. Questioning. It was a repetition of the same scene that took place at Antioch. Peter, etc. It seems to have been wise on Peter’s part to allow the meeting to exhaust itself by fruitless disputations before he rose to speak. His rising, with all the authority of his person and position, commanded immediate attention. A good while ago; literally, from ancient days, or still more exactly, from the days of the beginning of the gospel ( ), days belonging to the beginning () of the Church’s existence, and dating far back in Peter’s own apostolic life. Nothing can be more natural than this allusion to the conversion of Cornelius, and the gift of the Holy Ghost to the Gentile inmates of his house, as related in Act 10:44.
Act 15:8
Heart for hearts, A.V. (). Bare them witness; i.e. set the mark of his approval upon them, vouched for their sincerity (see the use of the verb in Luk 4:22; Joh 3:26; Act 6:3; Act 10:22, etc.).
Act 15:9
He made no distinction for put no difference, A.V. (comp. Act 10:20, note); cleansing for purifying, A.V. This is exactly the doctrine of Gal 2:16 and Rom 3:30, with which compare also Rom 3:11.
Act 15:10
That ye should put for to put, A.V. The Greek words cannot be construed as the A.V. takes them. It is not a Greek construction to say , “to tempt any one to do evil.” The infinitive must be taken gerundially, “by placing,” or “putting,” and the sense isWhy do you try God’s patience by your provocation in putting an unbearable yoke upon the necks of those who believe? Or, “as if he had not power to save by faith” (Chrysostom).
Act 15:11
We shall be saved through the grace, etc., for through the grace we shall be saved, A.V.; Jesus for Jesus Christ, A.V. and T.R.; in like manner for even, A.V. “How full of power are these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here” (Chrysost., ‘ Hem.,’ 32.).
Act 15:12
And for then, A.V.; they hearkened for gave audience, A.V.; rehearsing what signs for declaring what miracles, A.V. Kept silence; marking the contrast between the noisy questionings and disputings which had preceded Peter’s speech, and the quiet orderly attention with which they now listened to Paul and Barnabas, telling them of the conversion of the Gentiles. It recalls Virgil’s description of the effect of the presence of a man of grave piety upon an excited crowd
“Tum, pielate gravem ac meritis si forte virum quem
Aspexere, silent, arrectisque auribus adslant.”
(‘AEneid,’ 1.152.)
Act 15:13
Brethren for men and brethren, A.V., as Act 15:7. James answered. James’s place as presiding bishop is here distinctly marked by his summing up the debate. “This (James)was bishop, as they say, and, therefore, he speaks last” (Chrysost., ‘ Hom.,’ 33.). And again, “No word speaks John here, no word the other apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule.” “He says well with authority, ‘My sentence is‘” (ibid.). A remarkable testimony against papal supremacy.
Act 15:14
Symeon for Simeon, A.V.; rehearsed for declared, A.V.; first God for God at the first, A.V. Symeon. This is the only place (unless Symeon is the right reading in 2Pe 1:1) in which Simon Peter’s name is given in this Hebrew form, which is most proper in the month of James speaking to Palestine Jews. Singularly enough, Chrysostom was misled by it, and thought the prophecy of Simeon in Luk 1:31 was meant, How first; corresponding to the” good while ago” of Luk 1:7. Did visit, etc. The construction is very unusual, and indeed stands alone. The verb always has an accusative case after it (Act 6:3; Act 7:23; Act 15:36), unless Luk 1:68 is an exception, which, however, it hardly is. There are two ways of construing the phrase. One is to consider it as elliptical, and to supply, as the A.V. and R.V. do, . So Alford, who compares the construction in Luk 1:25, where must be supplied. But this is a harsh construction. The other and better way is to take , not in the sense of” visiting,” but of” looking out,” or “endeavoring to find something.” The sense of the infinitive after the verb is nearly equivalent to” look out for and took,” literally, looked out how he might take. With a slight modification of meaning, Irenaeus (in ‘Speaker’s Commentary’) renders it” Excogitavit accipere,” “planned” or “contrived to take.” A people for his Name; 1.e. to be called by his Name. was the peculiar designation of “the people” of God, answering to the Hebrew .
Act 15:16
These things for this, A.V.; I will for will, A.V.; fallen for fallen down, A.V.
Act 15:17
May for might, A.V.
Act 15:18
Who maketh these things known, etc., for who doeth all these things (in Act 15:17 of A.V.); known for known unto God are all his works, A.V. and T.R. Known from the beginning of the world. The above passage from Amo 9:11, Amo 9:12, is quoted, not very exactly, though with no change of sense, from the LXX., where it ends with the words, “saith the Lord, who doeth all these things,” as in the A.V. But the LXX. verse 17 differs widely from the present Hebrew text. For whereas the Hebrew has, “That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen that are called by my Name,” the LXX. (Cod. Alex.) have …, where it is evident that they read , seek after, for , possess, and , men, for , Edom. There is every appearance of the LXX., followed here by St. James, having preserved the true reading. As regards the reading of the R.V. in verse 18, it is a manifest corruption. It is not the reading of either the Hebrew or the Greek version of Amos, or of any other version; and it makes no sense. Whereas the T.R., which is the reading of Irenaeus (3.12.), as Meyer truly says, “presents a thought completely clear, pious, noble, and inoffensive as regards the connection,” though he thinks that a reason for rejecting it. Nothing could be more germane to St. James’s argument than thus to show from the words of Amos that God’s present purpose of taking the Gentiles to be his people was, like all his other works, formed from the beginning of the world (comp. Eph 1:9, Eph 1:10; Eph 3:5, Eph 3:6; 2Ti 1:9, etc.). As regards the interpretation of the prophecy of Amos intended, the idea seems to be that that apparent ruin of the house and family of David which culminated in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus would be followed by those “sure mercies of David,” which consisted in his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of God, and the gathering in of the Gentiles to his kingdom. The phrase, “the tabernacle of David,” is rather difficult, because the word in the Hebrew is , tabernacle or booth of David. It is the word used for the booths at the Feast of Tabernacles, and denotes a temporary shed of branches or the like of a very humble character. It is difficult to say why this word was used, unless it was to show that the house of David had fallen to a low estate before it was pulled down.
Act 15:19
Judgment for sentence, A.V. ( ); turn for are turned, A.V.
this is explained by , things offered to idols, though some apply the “pollutions” to all the things here mentioned, not the idols only. Later St. Paul somewhat enlarged the liberty of Gentile converts in respect to meats offered to idols (see 1Co 8:4-13; 1Co 10:25-28). What is strangled, etc. The things forbidden are all practices not looked upon as sins by Gentiles, but now enjoined upon them as portions of the Law of Moses which were to be binding upon them, at least for a time, with a view to their living in communion and fellowship with their Jewish brethren. The necessity for some of the prohibitions would cease when the condition of the Church as regards Jews and Gentiles was altered; others were of eternal obligation.
Act 15:21
From generations of old for of old time, A.V.; sabbath for sabbath day, A.V. The meaning of this verse seems to be that, in requiring the above compliances, the council was not enjoining anything new or strange, because the Gentiles who attended the synagogues were familiar with these Mosaic doctrines. It has been often stated that these four prohibitions were in substance the same as the so-called seven precepts of Noah, which were binding upon proselytes of the gate. This is, however, scarcely borne out by the facts. The four prohibitions seem to have been a temporary arrangement adapted to the then condition of the Church, with a view to enabling Christian Jews and Gentiles to live in brotherly fellowship. The Jew was not to require more of his Gentile brother: the Gentile was not to concede less to his Jewish brother. St. Augustine (‘Cont. Manich.,’ 32, 13), quoted by Meyer, ridicules the idea of Christians in his time being bound by the law of things strangled (see Hooker and Bishop Sanderson, quoted by Wordsworth, in the same sense).
Act 15:22
It seemed good to for pleased it, A.V.; the elders for elders, A.V.; to choose men out of their company and send them, etc., for to send chosen men of their own company, A.V.; Barsabbas for Barsabas, A.V. and T.R., as Act 1:23. To choose men, etc. This is a necessary, change, because the middle aorist () cannot have a passive meaning (chosen); see verse 40. Chief men (); literally, leaders. So in Luk 22:26 is rendered, “He that is chief.” In Heb 13:7, is, “Them which have the rule over you;” your spiritual rulers. Silas seems to be a contraction of Silvanus, like Lucas for Lucanus. In the Acts he is always called Silas, in the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter, Silvanus. Going as direct emissaries from James and the Church of Jerusalem, and Judas would have great weight with the Jews in Syria and Cilicia.
Act 15:23
Wrote thus by them for wrote letters by them after this manner, A.V.; the elder brethren for elders and brethren, A.V.; unto greeting for send greeting unto, etc., A.V., as Act 23:1-35. 26. The elder brethren, etc. The grammar of the sentence is irregular, as there is nothing for to agree with. But “the elder brethren” is a phrase unknown to the Scriptures, and it is much more in accordance with the feeling of the times that “the brethren,” i.e. the whole Church, should be included in the salutation. Greeting. It is remarkable that the only other place in the New Testament where this Greek salutation occurs is Jas 1:1.
Act 15:24
The words in the A.V. and the T.R., saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law, are omitted in the R.T. and the R.V.; commandment for such commandment, A.V. The certain which went out from us are the same as the “certain men” which “came down from Judaea,” of Act 15:1. The word rendered subverting () occurs nowhere else in Scripture or in the LXX. It is spoken properly of a person who moves and carries off all the goods and furniture from the house which he is quitting. Hence to “disturb,” “throw into confusion, turn upside down,” and the like. To whom we gave no commandment. Observe the distinct disavowal by James of having authorized those who went forth from him and the Jerusalem Church to require the circumcision of the Gentiles. The A.V. expresses the meaning most clearly.
Act 15:25
Having come to for being assembled with, A.V.; to choose out men and send them for to send chosen men, A.V. (see note on Act 15:22). Having come, etc. The Greek is capable of either meaning. Alford prefers that of the A.V. Others think that stress is laid upon the decree being unanimous. Our beloved Barnabas and Paul. James and the council thus gave their full and open support to Barnabas and Paul. Observe that Barnabas is named first, as in verse 12.
Act 15:27
Themselves also shall for shall also, A.V.; by word of mouth for by mouth, A.V. Judas and Silas (see Act 10:7, note).
Act 15:28
It seemed good, etc. The formula is remarkable. It implies the consciousness on the part of the council that they had “the mind of the Spirit;” but how this mind of the Spirit was communicated we are not expressly told. There may have been some “revelation,” similar to that recorded in Act 13:2; Act 10:19; Gal 2:1, etc. It is, however, generally understood as resting upon Christ’s promise to be with his Church always. Hefele quotes Cyprian as writing to Pope Cornelius in the name of the Council of A.D. 252: “Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente;” and the Synod of Aries as saying, “Placuit, praesenti Spiritu Sancto.” And this is the general language of the synods. Constantine claimed for the decrees of the three hundred bishops at Nicaea the same authority as if they had been “solius Filii Dei sententia.” But, as Bishop Wordsworth on Act 15:28 wisely says, “It cannot be held that councils of the Church now are entitled to adopt the words of the text in the framing of canons.”
Act 15:29
Things sacrificed for meats offered, A.V.; it shall be well with you for ye shall do well, A.V. The phrase means to” prosper,” to “fare well” (comp. Eph 6:21, “How I do”).
Act 15:30
They, when they were dismissed, came down for when they were dismissed, they came, A.V.; having gathered for when they had gathered, A.V. The multitude does not exactly express the idea of , which is the fullness or the whole of the body spoken of. Thus Luk 1:10, is “The whole congregation;” Luk 2:13, is “The whole heavenly host;” Luk 19:37, , “The whole company of the disciples;” also Act 6:2 and Act 4:32, is “The whole company of believers;” Act 22:1-30 :36, is “The whole body of the people;” in Act 22:12 of this chapter, is “The whole Church of Jerusalem.” So here, means “The whole Church.”
Act 15:31
And when they had read it for which when they had read, A.V.
Act 15:32
Being themselves also prophets for being prophets also themselves, A.V. Being themselves also prophets, exhorted, etc. Observe the connection of exhortation with prophecy, and compare the explanation of the name of Barnabas in Act 4:36, note. Confirmed them; , as verse 41 and Act 14:22; Act 18:23. Nothing is so unsettling as controversy; but the preaching of these “chief men” brought back men’s minds to the solid faith and hope of the gospel. How rich the Church of Antioch was at this time, with Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, and probably Titus, and some, if not all, of those mentioned in Act 13:1, for their teachers.
Act 15:33
Spent some time there for tarried there a space, A.V. (see Act 18:23; Act 20:3; Jas 4:13); dismissed for let go, A.V. those that had sent them forth for the apostles, A.V. and T.R.
Act 15:34
This verse is omitted in the R.T. and by the best manuscripts and commentators. It seems to have been put in to explain Act 15:40. But Silas may have returned to Jerusalem, as stated in Act 15:33, and come back again to Antioch, from having formed a strong attachment to St. Paul and his views.
Act 15:35
But Paul for Paul also, A.V.; tarried for continued, A.V. It is at this time that Meyer and other commentators (see Act 15:1, note) place Peter’s visit to Antioch mentioned in Gal 2:11. But it is quite inconceivable that Peter, with all the influence of the Jerusalem Cornell fresh upon him, and after the part he himself took in it, and when his own emissaries, Silas and Judas, had just left Antioch, should act the part there ascribed to him. Nor is it within the region of probability that, so soon after the council, any should have come “from James” to unsay what James had said and written at the council. We may with much confidence place Peter’s visit to Antioch before the council, as suggested in note to verse 1.
Act 15:36
After some days for some days after, A.V.; return now for go again, A.V.; the brethren for our brethren, A.V. and T.R.; wherein we proclaimed for where we have preached, A.V.; fare for do, A.V. After some days is hardly equivalent to . The expression in Greek is quite indefinite as to time, and may cover months as well as days. That it does cover a considerable length of time we gather from the expression in Act 15:33, that Judas and Silas “tarried some time at Jerusalem,” followed by that in Act 15:35, that after their departure “Paul and Barnabas tarried () in Antioch.” We can hardly suppose the two periods together to have included much less than a year. Let us return, etc. The singular loving care of Paul for his young converts appears here.
Act 15:37
Was minded for determined, A.V. and T.R.; John also for John, A.V. and T.R.; who was called for whose surname was, A.V. Was minded. It is doubtful which is the true reading, or . The difference of meaning is small. The first means “took council with himself,” i.e. planned, thought, to take Barnabas; the second, “wished,” i.e. his deliberate will was to take Barnabas. Singularly enough, Alford, who rejects , which is the reading of R.T., translates by “was minded,” which is the translation of in the R.V. We see in this choice of Mark by Barnabas the natural partiality of a near relation. We may also see the same flexibility of disposition which made him yield to the influence of the emissaries of James (Gal 2:13). Who was called. It might seem odd that this description of John should be repeated here after having been given in Act 12:25. But perhaps it was usual so to designate him (see Luk 8:2; Luk 22:3; Mat 10:3; Act 1:23; Act 10:6).
Act 15:38
Take with them him for take him with them, A.V.; withdrew for departed, A.V. Withdrew. The Greek word (from which comes the substantive apostasy) is a strong one, and denotes decided blame, as does the indication of the opposite course, by way of contrast, which he did not take. “He did not go with them to the work“ to which God called them, as he ought to have done. The whole phrase, too, which follows is strongly worded. “Paul thought good,” as regards one who had turned back from the work, “not to take that man.” The of Act 15:38 is, as Meyer observes, sharply opposed to the of Act 15:37. Luke evidently sides strongly with Paul, and almost reproduces the ipsissima verba of the “sharp contention.” One would infer that this passage was penned by Luke before the reconciliation which appears in 2Ti 4:11, and that we have here an indication of the early date of the publication of “The Acts.” Perhaps also there is an indication in the narrative, coupled with Mark’s subsequent attach-merit to Peter, that Mark rather leant at this time to Judaizing views, and that his previous departure “from the work” was partly owing to a want of complete sympathy with St. Paul’s doctrine. St. Paul would have no half-hearted helper in his grand and arduous work.
Act 15:39
There arose a sharp contention for the contention was so sharp between them, A.V. and T.R.; parted for departed, A.V.; so that for so sharp that, A.V.; and Barnabas for and so Barnabas, A.V.; took Mark with him for took Mark, A.V.; sailed away for sailed, A.V. There arose a sharp contention, etc. The sense “between them” must be supplied, if the English word “contention” is used. The word only occurs twice in the New Testament: once in Heb 10:24, in a good sense, “To provoke” (for a provocation)” stimulate or excite”” unto love and good works,” which is its common classical sense; the other time in this passage, where the sense is attributed to it in which it is used in the LXX., as in Deu 29:28, , “in great indignation;” and in Jer 32:37 (39. 37, LXX.), coupled with the same words, , “in great wrath;” answering to in Hebrew. But it is more probable that St. Luke uses the word here in its common medical sense. In medical writersGalen, Hippocrates, etc.the is equivalent to what we call an access, from the Latin aecessio, used by Celsus, when a disease of some standing takes a turn for the worse, comes to a height, and breaks out into its severest form. This is the sense in which our English word “paroxysm” is used. The meaning of the passage will then be that, after a good deal of uncomfortable feeling and discussion, the difference between Paul and Barnabas, instead of cooling down, broke out into such an acute form that Barnabas went off to Cyprus with Mark, leaving St. Paul to do what he pleased by himself. And Barnabas, etc. The R.V. is much more accurate. The consequence of the quarrel is said by St. Luke to have been that Barnabas took Mark off with him to Cyprus. The statement that Paul chose Silas is a separate and independent statement, as appears by (in the nominative) and in the indicative mood. St. Luke’s narrative quite sides with St. Paul, and throws the blame of the quarrel, or at least of the separation, upon Barnabas. Renan thinks St. Paul was too severe upon John Mark, and that it was ungrateful of him to break with one to whom he owed so much as he did to Barnabas for any cause of secondary importance. He also thinks that the real root of the quarrel lay in the constantly changing relations between the two apostles, aggravated by a domineering spirit in St. Paul. But the force of this censure turns upon the question whether it was a cause of secondary importance. If St. Paul had a single eye to the success of his mission, and judged that Mark would be a hindrance to it, it was a question of primary importance to “the work,” and St. Paul was right. Renan also remarks upon the extinction of the fame of Barnabas consequent upon this separation from his more illustrious companion. “While Paul kept advancing to the heights of his glory, Barnabas, separated from the companion who had shed a portion of his own luster upon him, pursued his solitary course in obscurity.” Sailed away. Cyprus was Barnabas’s native country (Act 4:36), and the scene of the earliest mission (Act 11:19), and of Paul and Barnabas’s first joint evangelistic labors (Act 13:4). Barnabas would have many friends there, and could form plans at his leisure for his future action. The friendly mention of him in 1Co 9:6 shows both that he continued his disinterested labors as an apostle and that the estrangement between him and St. Paul had passed away. The paroxysm had yielded to the gentle treatment of charity.
Act 15:40
But for and, A.V.; went forth or departed, A.V.; commended for recommended, A.V.; to for unto, A.V.; the Lord for God, A.V. and T.R. Chose Silas. If Act 15:34 of the T.R. is a true reading, it accounts for the presence of Silas at Antioch. Otherwise there is no difficulty in supposing that Silas, attracted by the holy zeal of St. Paul and by desire to work among the Gentiles, had come back to Antioch after giving account to the apostles at Jerusalem of the success of his mission with Judas to the Churches at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
Act 15:41
Syria and Cilicia (see Act 15:23). This rather looks as if the “some days after” of Act 15:36 did not cover a very long time, because the special mention of “the Churches of Syria and Cilicia” indicates that St. Paul’s visit had some connection with the epistle addressed to them by the apostles and elders of the Church of Jerusalem (Act 15:23), as we see from Act 16:4 was the case. Confirming; as Act 14:22; Act 15:32; Act 18:22 (T.R.). In the passive voice means to “lean upon,” as in 2Sa 1:6, LXX., and in classical Greek. Renan thus indicates their probable route: “They traveled by land northwards across the plain of Antioch, went through the ‘Syrian Gates,’ coasted the gulf of the Issus, crossed the northern branch of the Issus through the ‘Amanean Gates,’ then,, traversing Cilicia, went perhaps through Tarsus, crossed Mount Taurus through the ‘Cilician Gates,’ one of the most terrible passes in the world, and thus reached Lycaonia, going as far as Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium”.
HOMILETICS
Act 15:1-35
The controversy.
The apprehension of truth, full, pure, and unmixed with error, should be the desire of all good men. And it is a great help towards attaining truth when we are able to love it and to seek it absolutely for its own sake, without reference to its consequences, without regard to the wishes of others or undue submission to their opinions. It is also necessary for a man in pursuit of truth to divest himself of prejudices, and the influence of false opinions which he has adopted from habit, and without due consideration. The mind should approach the consideration of truth unwarped and uncolored by any subjective influences except the love of God and innocency of character. Divested of prejudices and of passions, and possessed of adequate knowledge, the mind would receive moral and religious truth with nearly as much certainty as it does mathematical problems. The object of controversy should be to clear away all prejudice, all ignorance, all passion, every groundless opinion and prepossession, which stand in the way of the acceptance of truth. And controversialists should be ready to admit the probalility that those who differ most widely from them may, for that very reason, see some side of truth which is hidden from their own eyes, and therefore should be ready to give a candid consideration to their arguments. The controversy which is described in its origin, progress, and settlement, in the passage before us, is an instructive one. We see on the side of the Judaizing party the types of the hindrances constantly existing to the reception of new truths. There was at first a blind and indiscriminate attachment to old opinions. They had been brought up in the belief that the Mosaic institutions were unchangeable. The very suggestion of a modification of them was treason against Moses and against God. They had been brought up in the belief that they were exclusively the people of God. All the pride and selfishness of their hearts rebelled against the idea of others being admitted to an equality of privileges with themselves. They had cherished a contempt and hatred for all other nations of the earth: how could they believe that those nations were as much objects of the love of God as they themselves were? Again, they had fattened in the opinion of their own righteousness, of their own moral superiority over other people: how could they be willing to accept a gospel which taught them that they could only be justified by grace, and that they must seek that grace on a level with all other sinners, through the merits of Jesus Christ? Again, their reverence for their rabbis and great men, and for their sayings and teaching, which they were accustomed to lean upon with a certain superstitious awe, and to quote with a proud fondness, was another hindrance to the reception of the gospel in its integrity by them. And all these influences, good and bad, concurred to close the eyes of their reason against all opposing evidence. They would, indeed, admit a Christianity which left the Law of Moses intact, and obliged all Christians to become Jews, so to speak. That exalted their nation, flattered their pride, increased their self-importance, left the prejudices of their childhood undisturbed. But the gospel as preached by Paul they could not and would not accept. The controversy on the other side was waged with fairness and firmness combined. St. Paul’s large experience, both of the prejudices of his opponents, which he had once felt himself in their full power, and of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which had been manifested to him in so remarkable a manner, gave him an unrivalled command of the argument. He had as much reverence for Moses, as full a conviction of the Divine origin of the Law, of the inspiration of the prophets, and of the infallible authority of Holy Scripture, as his opponents had. But he had a deep insight into the doctrines of grace, borne witness to by the Law and the prophets, which they had not. He saw the harmony between the Old and New Testaments; how the Law was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ; how Christ was the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believes; and how in the gospel of God’s grace in Jesus Christ the Law was not destroyed, but fulfilled, tie had, therefore, a full certainty as to the main points of the controversy which others had not. And yet he was tender and considerate toward his opponents (Gal 4:19), and brought, not abuse, but argument to bear against their errors; as in the two wonderful Epistles, to the Galatians and to the Romans. And in a similar spirit we find him here willing to refer the matters in dispute to the Church at Jerusalem, presided over as it was by James, who had the credit of leaning to the side of his antagonists. But combined with this gentleness we have to mark his unflinching firmness and boldness. It required no small courage and strength of conviction to withstand a person of such weight and authority as Peter, and to reprove him before the Church. It required no little heroism to go into the very stronghold of Judaism, and there, before James, and Peter, and the Pharisees, and the most Judaizing members of the Churches of Judaea, to proclaim the gospel of the free grace of God (Gal 2:2; Act 15:12), and the free admission of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ. And let us mark the result. All the true-hearted men were won by Paul’s way. Peter recovered from his weakness and openly sided with Paul; James threw his great weight unequivocally into the same scale; Barnabas shook off his momentary hesitation; the whole assembly gave a unanimous vote in favor of Paul’s view; and the Church was saved from disruption. In an age when the peace of the Church is so much disturbed by controversy, and when such violence, both of language and of action, is indulged in by those who wish to enforce their own views, it is important to study carefully the history of this first great and trying controversy, which threatened at one time to split the Church to its very foundations, but which was brought to such a happy issue, under the blessing of God, by the wisdom, charity, and firmness of the apostle to the Gentiles. God grant, of his tender mercy, a like spirit to the leaders of party in our own days, and a no less happy settlement of the questions which separate brother from brother, and impede the progress of Christian truth.
Act 15:36-41
The paroxysm.
The proposal of two friends whose fast friendship was of many years’ standing; of two brethren loving and beloved; of two apostles of Jesus Christ, who had long labored together to win souls to Christ and to advance the kingdom of God, and who had achieved together the most signal triumphs over the powers of darkness, who had suffered together, who had undergone the most appalling dangers together, who had stuck by one another under every circumstance of trial and difficulty;the proposal, I say, of two such men to start together on a new errand of love, might have seemed to be the very last occasion likely to produce contention and strife. Alas! for the infirmity of our poor fallen nature, that any evil should arise from purposes so good and holy. The faithful, truthful record of the sacred history in our text suggests much caution and many useful lessons for Christian practice.
1. There was perfect agreement between the two apostles as to the end in viewthe revisiting the Churches they had planted for the purpose of confirming them in the faith of Jesus Christ. As far as we know, they were both of one mind, both equally desirous of advancing the kingdom of God, both equally ready to spend and be spent for the Name of the Lord Jesus and for the spread of his gospel in the world. Thus far we may well believe that their communications on the subject of the new mission were carried on in perfect harmony and love, because there was in each a single eye and an unmixed motive, viz. the glory of Christ.
2. The difference arose when Barnabas proposed that they should take John Mark as their companion. Here we seem to detect the entrance in of human motives. His partiality for his cousin; possibly the feeling that his own softer character needed the support of a steady ally to enable him to hold his own against the strength of Paul’s will; possibly too some leaning towards the Jewish party in the Church, or at least an unwillingness to offend them,made him blind to the inconvenience of taking a half-hearted companion with them. He was consulting with flesh and blood, and not with the Spirit of God, when he made the suggestion. We can imagine that Paul objected at first with mildness, and pointed out the evils that might arise. He would dwell upon the vital interests of the mission, the dangers and difficulties of the work, the insufficient guarantee that John Mark’s constancy would be equal to the task. It is, of course, possible, though it does not appear, that Paul may have judged Mark somewhat severely, or may have urged his objections without all the tenderness that was due to the feelings of Barnabas. But there is not the slightest evidence that this was so. Probably at first he hoped to persuade Barnabas to give up his project. Probably Barnabas hoped so to state his wish to reinstate John Mark that Paul might give way. But when these hopes broke down on either side, then gradually, no doubt, the discussion assumed a growing tone of asperity, till at length the paroxysm came on. Barnabas cut the discussion short by turning upon his heel, and separating himself from his old companion and friend, and going forth in self-will with his cousin to Cyprus. The old partnership with Paul was dissolved, and nothing remained for Paul to do but to choose another missionary companion, and pursue his project in sadness. We cannot doubt that the peace and joy of both apostles was clouded by this unfortunate episode. But St. Paid had probably the testimony of his conscience that he had acted from the purest motives, and, from the friendly mention of Barnabas alluded to in the note to verse 39, we may hope that, when the paroxysm had subsided, the old relations between the two brethren were restored to their former footing of cordimity and love. But the great practical lesson we learn is the importance of keeping our motives of action pure and simple. We must try and not allow our judgment to be clouded by partialities and personal influences of any kind. We must endeavor never to subordinate the great interests of the Church and of the gospel to any private feelings or wishes, however innocent in themselves. And even right feelings and reasonable wishes must be so kept under control as never to overflow the banks of reason and of charity, and never to injure the great cause of the gospel of Christ, to which they ought always to be made subservient. Generally, the narrative of this paroxysm enforces the wise words of St. James, “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (Jas 1:20, Jas 1:21).
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Act 15:1-11
A grave crisis in the kingdom of God: more lessons.
The crisis of the kingdom will be found in the life of the Divine Leader of the faith. In those hours when all that was human in him shrank from the sufferings and sorrows which were before him, or from the agony which was upon him, or from the darkness which enshrouded him, then was “the crisis of the world” and of the kingdom of God on earth. But this also was a crisis, grave and serious. If the Church at Antioch had yielded to these “false brethren” (Gal 2:4), when they came to invade its liberty; or ifa much greater perilthe Church at Jerusalem had decided in favor of the Judaizers, and had passed a sentence that circumcision was necessary to salvation; and if Christian truth had thus been narrowed to the small dimensions of a mere adjunct to Judaism, where would Christianity have been to-day? From the incident here related we draw the lessons
I. WHAT HARM ZEALOTRY MAY TRY TO DO. These men “who came down from Judaea” (Act 15:1) were members of the Pharisaic party “which believed“ (Act 15:5); they were formal adherents of the Christian faith; they spake reverently of Christ, and believed themselves to be acting in the interests of his kingdom. Yet we know that they were taking a course which, if they had carried their point, would hove simply extinguished the faith in a few years. Often, since then, has blind zealotry done its best to bring about a condition which would have proved fatal to the cause of God and of redeemed humanity.
II. IN WHAT UNINVITING LABORS FIDELITY MAY INVOLVE US. How different from evangelizing risks and toils, and from the fraternal intercourse which followed these, how much beneath both the one and the other, how much more uninviting this controversy with false brethren, narrow-minded, mistaking a rite whose significance was exhausted for an essential of salvation! How uncongenial, to the spirit of the apostle this “dissension and disputation” (Act 15:2)! But it was necessary; it was as much a part of their bounden duty and their loyal obedience to their Lord as the preaching of the gospel or the indicting of an Epistle. The Christian workman cannot always choose his work. He must sometimes give up the congenial for the unpleasant, the inviting for the repellent.
III. HOW WELL TO ENCOURAGE THE FAITHFUL IN THE HOUR OF THEIR ANXIETY. Those who constituted the deputation were “brought on their way by the Church” (Act 15:3). In the profound anxiety which must have filled the sagacious and earnest mind of Paul at this critical juncture, such gracious attention on the part of the Church must have been exceedingly refreshing. No “moral support’ of tried and anxious leaders, in times of supreme solicitude, is thrown away; it is well-spent time and trouble.
IV. THAT IT IS SOMETIMES OUR DUTY TO TAKE INTO CONSULTATION OUR BRETHREN IN A HIGHER POSITION. The Church at Antioch was not obliged to consult that at Jerusalem; the latter had no jurisdiction entitling it to decide the disputes of the former. But it was becoming and it was wise, and therefore it was right, to refer the matter in dispute to “the Church [of Jerusalem] and the apostles and the elders” (Act 15:4, Act 15:6). Often when no written constitution obliges us to refer to authorities, it is a matter of practical wisdom, and therefore of rectitude, to go outside our own “body” and submit our case to those in high repute. We may gain far more than we lose thereby.
V. THE TEACHING OF GOD‘S PROVIDENCE. (Act 15:7-9.) Peter would not have taken the side he took now had not his eyes been opened by the event in which he had borne so large and so honorable a share (Act 10:1-48.). We should grow more charitable and more large-minded as we grow in years.
VI. THE FREEDOM OF THE GOSPEL FROM ALL BURDENSOME IMPOSTS. (Act 15:10.) Why tempt God by putting on the neck of the disciples an intolerable yoke? Why invite defeat? Why multiply difficulty and ensure disappointment by requiring of the whole Gentile world a conformity which they will not render and which God does not demand? Why make burdensome the yoke which the Master himself made easy (Mat 11:30)? The gospel of his grace was meant to be a source of blessedness and deliverance; how insensate the folly of tying to it any institutes which would make it become an insufferable vexation!
VII. THE ESSENCE OF THE ORDINANCE. Circumcision was but the outward sign of admission to the privilege and obligation of the Law. The Law was but the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. Those, then, who were saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 15:11) had the very essence and substance of which the old Jewish rite Was but the sign and symbol (Php 3:3; Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29).C.
Act 15:12-35
A grave crisis in the kingdom of God: more lessons.
After Peter’s speech (Act 15:7-10) came the narration of facts by Barnabas and Paul, in which they laid stress on the Divine tokens of favor and support which they had received in the execution of their work (Act 15:12); and then James summed up the matter, evidently giving voice to the decision of the Church. We learn
I. THAT MEN OF DIVERGENT THOUGHT SHOULD STRIVE TO MEET ONE ANOTHER‘S VIEWS IN CHRISTIAN COUNCIL. Probably it would be hard to find two good men of any age or country who have taken more divergent views of the gospel of Christ than did James and Paul. Their Epistles show us how they viewed the one truth from separate and even distant standpoints. Had they come to this Church meeting intent on magnifying their own distinctive points, there would have ensued bitter conflict and fatal rupture. But they strove to meet one another, and the end was peace and the furtherance of redeeming truth.
II. THAT AN EQUITABLE COMPROMISE MAY BE THE MOST HONORABLE SETTLEMENT. (Verses 19-21.) In concession to the Gentile party, it was not required that they should submit to the distinctive rite; in concession to the Jewish party, it was required that certain statutes should be observed by them. Occasions will very frequently occur when each side owes it to the other to make concession. The spirit that strives only for victory is not the spirit of Christ. We should, as his disciples, count it an honor and a joy to concede, when we conscientiously can do so, to Christian brethren who differ from us.
III. THAT WE MAY LEAVE UNIMPORTANT MATTERS TO THE SETTLEMENT OF TIME. The particular precepts which James and those who thought with him desired to have enforced have long since disappeared. Their observance at the time was expedient, for Moses had in every city them that preached him, etc. (verse 21). But when the special reasons for conformity were removed, then they fell through. Where the peace of a Church or a large Christian community is at stake, we do well to accept small matters which are unessential; time is on our side.
IV. THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS PURIFIED AND PROPORTIONED PUBLIC MORALS. It surprises and shocks us to read of abstinence from meat which had been offered to idols, and from things strangled, being placed side by side with abstinence from the sin of fornication, as if, in morals, these things stood on the same level. We feel that the latter is a thing so utterly and inherently bad that the former is not at all comparable with it in heinousness of offence. The fact is that we think thus because our holy religion has purified our thoughts, and taught us to see ceremonial and moral offences in true perspective. But wherever Christianity has been corrupted, where the traditions of men have overlaid its simplicity with their ceremonialism, we find this defective view prevailing. It was necessary, at that time and in the then condition of the world, formally and expressly to disallow a custom which we now shudder at and shrink from as a shameful sin.
V. THAT DECISIONS, WHEN ONCE ATTAINED, SHOULD BE COURTEOUSLY AND CAREFULLY CARRIED OUT. (Verses 22-33.) The Church at Jerusalem, though on the main point it had yielded to the Church at Antioch, did not give way sulkily or grudgingly. It did not dismiss the deputation with a cold and formal resolution. It sent able and influential men, with letters, to accompany Paul and Barnabas, and these greeted the Syrian Church and laid the matter fully before them. So that, in the end, the two communities understood one another and rejoiced in one another the more. What is done in Christ’s name and cause should be done with utmost courtesy and with perfect thoroughness.
VI. THAT WE MAY REST HAPPY IN THE ALL–SEEING WISDOM AND ALL–EMBRACING LOVE OF GOD. (Verses 14-15.) James intimated that what was then happening was only the fulfillment of the Divine intention. God knew from the beginning what he should accomplish, and he purposed the recovery and redemption of the whole Gentile world,
1. When we are baffled by the perplexities of the way, let us remember that all things are in the hands of the omniscient One.
2. When we are distressed by the disappointments and difficulties of our work, let us be consoled by thinking that God means to restore mankind; his wisdom and his love will prevail, though we see not our way and though our fears abound.C.
Act 15:26
Self-sacrifice for Christ.
There are two classes of men of whom we are reminded by these words of the Jerusalem Church.
I. THOSE WHO ARE READY TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES FOR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BUT THE BEST AND HIGHEST. The soldier for victory; the sportsman for excitement; the explorer for the gratification of curiosity; the Alpine climber for credit; the artist for fame; the sailor for love of the sea, etc. There is no lack of men who risk life for something. But we have to consider that while
(1) there is a touch of nobility in some of these cases which wins our admiration; yet
(2) often the end is not worth the sacrifice,life and all that life means to its holder and to those who are related to him and dependent on him are too precious to be parted with for a slight object, too valuable to be sacrificed for any but a serious and great end. And
(3) when thus lost, it is often laid down from instinct or passion rather than from principle. There is something essentially unsatisfactory in it; for it is a material loss with no corresponding gain. It brings sadness to the heart, loneliness and misery to the home, and does not bring adequate consolation to the mind.
II. THOSE WHO RECOGNIZE THE HIGHEST AND THE BEST BUT SACRIFICE LITTLE OR NOTHING TO IT. We should, perhaps, say to him; for:
1. The highest and best meet in a living One, even Jesus Christ. It is, indeed, to honor his Name (see text), but it is also and chiefly to exalt and extol him and make him very high (Isa 52:13) in the estimation and affection of the world, that his servants strive and suffer.
2. Ourselves and all that we have are his due; therefore our lives, when he asks us to lay them down at his feet.
3. There are those who recognize his claim, but do not comply with his desire. There are those who do; men that have hazarded their lives for Jesus Christ, from Paul and Barnabas down to our own Christian martyrs; men and women who, on various fields of holy, daring, and heroic suffering, have cheerfully sacrificed all to honor him and do his bidding; but there are too many that acknowledge the validity of his claim but do not respond to his call. There are in our congregations and even in our Churches
(1) men who withhold themselves from missionary or ministerial service, because, though well fitted for it, they are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices;
(2) men that will not step into the breach when some other kind of holy activity is demanded, because they shrink from the burdens or the annoyances it will entail;
(3) men that will not encourage some good work of Christ, because, to do so, they must part with that which the world counts precious. These are far from being numbered with the “good and faithful servants.”C.
Act 15:36-41
Apostles at fault.
When a grave and critical juncture had been safely passed without damage done to any, there arose a quarrel about an unimportant and insignificant matter, which had regrettable, not to say deplorable, results. The heart of the earnest and affectionate Paul yearned to know how their converts fared in “every city where they had preached the Word of the Lord” (Act 15:36). Barnabas immediately acquiesced in Paul’s proposal to visit them; everything promised another useful mission journey, in which the calmer and more genial qualities of the one man would supplement the intenser and more vehement characteristics of the other. But there arose a question as to companionship, which wrecked their agreement to work in one another’s company, and which separated the two friends for life. Barnabas wished to take Mark, and would not abandon his desire; Paul would not consent to take him: “and the contention was so sharp that they departed asunder” (verse 39). We learn from this incident
I. THAT AS ACT OF MORAL WEAKNESS MAY HAVE FAR LONGER AND MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAN WE CAN POSSIBLY FORESEE. Could Mark have foreseen that his desertion of the cause in Pamphylia would have led to the lifelong separation of his uncle from Paul, he would probably have remained with them, and “fulfilled the work,” even as they did. But he did not reckon on after consequences. It is well for us to consider that our acts of minor wrong-doing, of moral weakness, of spiritual shortcoming, may do an amount of mischief from the commission of which we should shrink with dismay if we could only look it in the face.
II. THAT BETWEEN THE TWO APOSTLES A DECIDED AND REGRETTABLE FAULT WAS COMMITTED. Their intention to work together in the cause of Christ need not and should not have been broken off by their disagreement. They ought either to have compromised the matter by mutual concession, or one of the two should have yielded to the other. Paul owed too much to Barnabas to be justified in pushing his own will to the point of separation. Barnabas owed too much to Paul to make it right for him to insist so pertinaciously on his particular desire. One should have yielded if the other would not. It was an unedifying, unseemly, unchristian thing for two apostles to throw up a plan on which they had sought Divine direction, and which must have received the sanction of the Church, because they could not agree on a matter of detail. They must both have lived to regret it. Men in prominent positions, and those who are engaged in great matters, are bound to be above such unseemliness of behavior. Either
(1) the ingenuity of love should devise a middle way, or
(2) the sacrificial spirit of love should yield the point altogether.
III. THAT IN EACH CASE THE FAULT COMMITTED WAS THE SHADOW OF HIS OWN PARTICULAR EXCELLENCY. Probably both of the apostles were blameworthy. But so far as Paul was to be condemned, his failure was the shadow of his intensity. Such was the entirety of his devotedness, such the intensity of his zeal, such the strenuousness of his soul, that he could not brook anything which looked like half-heartedness. And so far as Barnabas was to blame, his fault was the shadow of his kind-heartedness, his willingness to give another chance to a young man, his reluctance to exclude from noble service a man who had made one mistake. Each was animated by a commendable spirit, though each may have gone too far in his own course. Often when we unsparingly condemn, it would be well to remind ourselves and others that the faults of good men are usually but the shadow of their virtues.
IV. THAT GOD JUDGES THE GOOD BY THEIR ABIDING SPIRIT, AND NOT BY THEIR OCCASIONAL DISPOSITIONS: so also should we. These two men were not the less servants of God, ambassadors of Jesus Christ, because they were betrayed into temporary ill humor. God appraised them by their essential, abiding spirit of love and devotion; he forgave their passing ebullition. In the same way we must take care to estimate men, not by an occasional outburst which is not really characteristic and is no true criterion, but by the “spirit of their mind “that which really shapes and colors their life and character.
V. THAT THIS FAULT OF THE APOSTLES HAD, AS BECAME THE MEN, A CHRISTIAN ENDING. Paul afterwards wrote kindly of Barnabas, and actually sent for Mark, declaring that he was “profitable for [the] ministry” (2Ti 4:11). The sun should not go down upon our wrath. If any man has a quarrel against any, he is to “forbear and to forgive” (Col 3:13).C.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Act 15:1-5
The Judaizers at Antioch.
There must needs be heresies, that is, divisions and separations of opinion, in order that that which is approved may be made manifest. In conflicts of this kind, the chaff of falsehood is sifted from the genuine wheat of truth.
I. THE POSITION OF THE JUDAIZERS.
1. It was a reactionary position. It aimed at the re-establishment of circumcision as the condition of salvation. This was going back from the “spirit” to the “flesh,” from the principle of an internal to that of an external religion. It was substituting works for faith, doing for being, as the condition of salvation.
2. It was a revolutionary position. Such a claim convulses the very heart of the Christian Church. Wherever it has come up, a deep mark has been left in history. This was essentially the conflict of Isaiah and other prophets against the ceremonialists of the day. The question came up again at the Reformation. Law or gospelMoses or Christ? Behind this question lies a world. Is religion stationary and stagnant or ideal, Divine, and possessed of the power of an expansive and endless life?
II. THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF THE RAISING OF THE QUESTION.
1. Private dissension. Alas! often is it so. The loving missionary comrades, Paul and Barnabas, are disunited. But we must remember, “Though Plato is my friend, truth is my friend still more.” Paul felt that evangelical freedom was threatened (Gal 2:4). And the gospel was dearer to him than life. Truth must not be compromised in the supposed interests of friendship. Indeed, the supposition is illusory. For if it be “a strong and habitual inclination in two persons to promote the good and happiness of each other,” this cannot be at the expense of truth.
2. Public discussion. The difference between Paul and Barnabas could not be ignored. The topic must have been on the tongue of every one. See how good comes out of controversy as well as evil. Private pain is often the condition of public blessing. A cloud comes between two minds, but the truth shines presently the more brightly forth.
III. THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH. They resolved to despatch Paul and Barnabas to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Note the appropriateness of this decision.
1. As to the men sentPaul representing the Gentiles and the missionary work, Barnabas the Church at Antioch. Besides, from Gal 2:1, et sqq., we see that St. Paul had a special inward direction to proceed thither.
2. The destination. Jerusalem, the mother city and the mother Church, and the seat of apostolic authority. Yet Antioch was probably not second to Jerusalem in numbers and influence. Without debating questions of Church government, the lesson may be drawn that no particular community should act for itself in important questions without consulting the general sense of the Christian Church.
IV. THE JOURNEY AND ARRIVAL AT JERUSALEM.
1. They had a conduct from the Church of Antioch as they set forthan expression of confidence in the men, and of deer interest in the result. Said the electoral Prince of Brandenburg to his envoy, proceeding to a conference with the papists, “Bring me the little word sola, i.e.” alone, faith only, backor come not back at all.
2. They told good news on the way. They told of the conversion of the heathen, and. the news was received with great joy. Here was a great argument for Paul, gathered on the way. So does God solve our disputes in words by the irresistible logic of his facts.
3. At Jerusalem they tell the great things God has done for them. The facts of the past are prophetic of the future. Divine mercy as an historical fact is the basis of sure hope and confidence. The temper of devout recollection and thanksgiving fits the mind for the view of present duties.J.
Act 15:6-21
The council at Jerusalem.
The claim of the Judaizers is sharply and absolutely put. Circumcision is a necessity; the Law of Moses must be observed. The whole question is open, and the air is full of debate.
I. DISCOURSE OF PETER.
1. The question whether the Mosaic Law is binding upon the heathen or no is referred by him to experience. This is the great guide of all. In no case may it be neglected. In every case recurrence to it as a whole will be found helpful. Now, at Caesarea it was clear that the Gentiles, no less than the Jewish Christians, had received the Holy Spirit. This fact the apostle considers to be significant proof that God had already decided the question in debate. God, he had before learned, was no “respecter of persons.” Here he expresses the same truth by saying that God has made no difference between them; has placed the two upon one footing. He has testified to the Gentiles by imparting to them the Holy Spirit, his grace and good pleasure.
2. The reference to immediate experience leads to the larger reference to historythe history of the sacred past. The entire revelation of God in both testaments rests on history and consists in history. Christ “lived his doctrine and preached his life.” And the living experience of prophets and apostles offers a rich fund of instruction. Paul’s doctrine is his own life translated into consciousness and knowledge. And the doctrine of Peter is his own life wrought out in views of duty and principles of Christian thought. Christian doctrine is the expression of the results of Christian history. The discourse of Peter evidently produces a great impression. Silence follows, broken only by the voices of Barnabas and Paul, who relate the significant occurrences which have befallen among the heathen.
II. DISCOURSE OF JAMES.
1. He, like a true Jew, trained in ear and memory by the prophetic oracles, reverts to them, and finds confirmation there of the views wrought out in the minds of the others by the certain discipline of experience. The writings of the prophets were used by the apostles as a guide to the interpretation of the signs of the present, and for directions as to present duty. Now, the oracle from Amos adduced by James refers in the first instance to the house of David. His royal house is fallen into ruins. But God would raise it up out of the ruins, would restore and extend it among the Gentiles among whom his Name shall be knownthat is, among those who shall decide to acknowledge and serve him. All this God would bring about in accordance with his eternal designs (verse 18).
2. Here, then, is light on the question of debate. Observe that the theocracy, the kingdom of God, stands in the center of the promise, and not the Law as such. Further, the “calling on the Name of God” is laid down as the condition or incorporation with the kingdom of God. This condition has been already, fulfilled by the converted heathen Lastly, it is “the Lord who doeth these things.” It is not our short-sighted counsel and prudence which have to make new history and new laws, but God has promised that he will do it. Already has he adopted a people out of the heathen (verse 14). If, thenthis is the argument of Jameswe should lay a burden on the Gentile Christians, this would be going against the teaching of facts, striving against the current of history, thwarting the will of God therein revealed.
3. The decision of James. He would not have the Gentile Christians harassed, who are turning in repentance and good works to God. He would recognize their evangelical freedom; would reject the demands of the Pharisaic party; in fact he fully, though on different grounds, coincides with Paul. At the same time, he insists on certain moral and ceremonial abstinences. The whole illustrates the mild, gentle, and loving character of this apostle. There was in him, with the greatest strictness towards himself, the most compassionate love to others. Unceasingly in the temple, on his knees, he prayed for forgiveness for his people (Eusebius, ‘Eccl. Hist.,’ 2. 25). He who loves his own household best will be the kindest to them without. The true patriot is the true philanthropist; the loyal adherent of his Church the best friend of universal Christianity and progress.J.
Act 15:22-29
Decision of the council at Jerusalem.
This, the first council of the Church, is generally considered an example for all times.
I. AN EXAMPLE OF CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE.
1. In the selection of emissaries. It had reference partly to the Churches, partly to Paul and Barnabas. The Churches were assured that the emissaries were not delivering their own private opinion, but the deliberate judgment of the Church. And the apostles had the legitimacy and purity of their office sealed by the highest Church authority.
II. AN EXAMPLE OF BROTHERLY LOVE AND WISDOM. Without the taking of some such step, the Judaizers in Antioch and elsewhere would remain unchecked, and left to pursue their disturbing and factious intrigues. And by this step a new bond of sympathy and affection was established between Jew and Gentile, between Jerusalem and the world.
III. AN EXAMPLE OF INSPIRED ACTION. “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” The words may be abused or used with genuine devout feeling. The Holy Spirit is the Source of light and wisdom in the mindthe Judge and Decider in spiritual things. The conclusion of a matter, discussed by the faithful in the light of the Holy Spirit, may justly be looked upon as the decision of the Holy Spirit. The whole stamp of the message is spiritual, impressive, full of Christian piety and love. Its closing word, promising blessing on the conditions laid down, is far better than a threat of pains on disobedience would have been. The Christian “Farewell!” contains not only the wish for a brother’s happiness, but that he may abide in Christ, and walk as he walked in the world.J.
Act 15:30-34
Effects of the mission from the Church.
The few words of the decision gave rise to a large joy and consolation at Antioch. Let us generalize this.
I. THE GOSPEL BRINGS PEACE TO TROUBLED HEARTS. Freedom from the yoke of the Law only truly to be enjoyed by those who have previously smarted and groaned beneath that yoke.
II. IT UNITES THE SOULS OF BELIEVERS IN PEACE. Judas and Silas, by the exercise of their prophetic gifts, exhorted and strengthened the brethren. The faithful teacher’s heart is in his element in bringing souls to the Savior.
III. IT LEADS IN PEACE TOWARDS THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, TO THE MOTHER CHURCH ABOVE. They were sent with peace from the brethren to those who sent them forth. All interchange of love on earth, all messages of reconciliation, are prophetic of and prepare for the home of peace above.J.
Act 15:36-41
Beginning of the second missionary journey.
The dissension of Paul and Barnabas, painful in itself, may yield useful matter of reflection.
HUMAN INFIRMITY IS MATURE CHRISTIANS.
1. The fact of it. Paul judged severely of Mark on moral grounds. His desertion of him and Barnabas (Act 13:13) on a former occasion was to his mind a strong proof of inconstancy. But Mark had fallen away from them, not from Christ. And Barnabas would lean to the side of leniency and clemency towards the young disciple. The contention became sharp. Both thought themselves to be contending for Christ; both were unconsciously contending for self. Both were in the right, each from his own point of view aiming at the good of the young man and the furtherance of the kingdom.
2. The consolation of it.
(1) With reference to the person concerned. Chrysostom says that the strife was of great service to Mark; for the sternness of Paul brought a change in his mind, while the kindness of Barnabas suffered him not to feel abandoned.
(2) With reference to us. We may be encouraged by the thought that these holy men were of like passions with ourselves, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Divine love triumphs over and is made perfect in human weakness. Apart from that, man’s very virtues become faults; the mildness of Barnabas degenerates into softness, the severity of Paul into harshness. Divine love converts faults into blessings. Mark is humiliated, and thereby raised in Christian manhood. The separation of the apostles divides the stream of saving grace into two streams, and so the more widely spreads it in the world.J.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Act 15:1-21
The first council: spiritual liberty established.
The controversy between a corrupt Judaism and the gospel of Christ certain to be brought to a crisis. The conversion of Saul, taken in connection with his special mission to the Gentiles, forced the matter on the attention of the Church. The scene of the controversy was Antioch, where Paul would have many supporters. But Jerusalem was the proper place for a settlementnot because any authority was assigned to the spot, but because there could be gathered a more really representative assembly of the whole Church. Notice
I. THE FACTS THEMSELVES are never questioned, but gladly acknowledged. The acceptance of the Gentiles, the blessing on the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed on others than the Jewish believers.
II. THE POINT OF CONTENTION is the claim asserted by a small section of the Jewish Church, of Pharisaic spirit, to impose on the new Gentile converts the obligations of the Mosaic Law, particularly circumcision. This showed that they regarded Christ as only a Reformer of the Law, not as substituting the gospel for the Law.
III. THE WHOLE CHURCH is the body of referees. The apostles and ciders are the speakers and leaders, but the multitude is present, and to them (Act 15:22) the decision is referred.
IV. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT in the facts rehearsed, the signs and wonders wrought, is plainly the voice of God to the apostles. Both Peter and James stand firmly on that foundationGod hath called them. Therefore we must obey his voice. The witness of the facts agrees with the witness of the word.
V. THE RESTRICTIONS which were deemed necessary were simply the dictates of brotherly love. Stumbling-blocks should not be thrown in the way of weak brethren. Let the Gentiles use their liberty, only let them respect the feelings of Jews and the moral demands of the Law.
VI. THE CONTENTIOUS PARTY must have been a mere handful of men. They are condemned by the letter sent to Antioch. The effect of the epistle was to silence them and produce a happy peace. Which representation entirely overthrows the statement of such critics as Baur, that there was a Pauline element in the Church opposed by the Petrine.
VII. THE CAUSE OF STRIFE IS BURIED in the depth of zealous labor for Christ and souls. Judas and Silas, the messengers from Jerusalem, soon forgot the trouble in much higher topics and co-operation with the Church at Antioch in their evangelistic efforts. Thus this first occasion of ecclesiastical settlement shows the Church pervaded with the spirit of brotherly love and faith. They had no conception of Church authority apart from the voice of God’s Spirit. They came together in perfect equality. They reverenced age and spiritual distinction, and the mind of the brethren gathered together in conference, but their chief dependence was on the promise of the Holy Ghost and his guidance, so that they could say, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.“R.
Act 15:9
The spirituality of the gospel.
“Purifying [cleansing] their hearts by faith.” Purity comes from within. The influence of pure thought and pure feeling on practice. The purification of Judaism typical. The Holy Ghost did the work. When the temple was closed, the kingdom of grace opened. The Spirit must operate upon the spirit. All ritualism, as such, contradicts the essential principles of gospel liberty.
I. THE HEART NEEDS CLEANSING.
1. Of its falsehood. The heathen world a world of lies. The tendency of fallen nature to believe strong delusions.
2. Of its corrupt desires. The Fall was a lowering of the spirit of humanity to the level of the inferior races. Animalism is the characteristic of heathenism and of an unregenerate state.
3. Of its self-justification and pride. The evil holds to it. A broken and contrite heart is required.
II. THE HEART IS CLEANSED. Consider the nature of the purity bestowed.
1. The conscience, by a sense of forgiveness; “perilous stuff” cleansed away.
2. An object of love revealed to whom the heart is surrendered. “Thou knowest that I love thee.” The germ of the new life in the soil of the affections.
3. Consecration. Circumcision was a covenant sign. “Out of the heart are the issues of life.” A pure will is that which is pledged by a changed course of action and a new position.
III. THE HEART IS CLEANSED BY FAITH. The contrast between the old covenant and the new. The truth accepted becomes the power of God unto salvation. Spiritual cleansing differs from:
1. Mere ritual purification.
2. Mere nominal separation from the world by an external life.
3. Mere slavish obedience to the letter of the Law. A purity which rests upon faith is a purity embracing thoughts and desires, lifting the heart with joy, securing it against the temptation to self-righteousness and superficial morality. Believe; give your mind to the message; welcome the personal Savior; follow the leading Spirit. Rejoice in the liberty of God’s children. Christ’s yoke is easy, his burden light.R.
Act 15:26
Spiritual heroism.
“Men that have hazarded their lives,” etc.
I. THE POWER OF CHRIST‘S NAME.
1. Those who were ready to die for him must have accepted him as the fulfillment of all their hopes. The previous position of Paul and Barnabas instructive as showing what the Name of Christ was to them.
2. No mere change of creed so expressed. A personal affection at the root of their heroism. The self-sacrifice not only proved sincerity, but exemplified the transforming and ennobling power of the gospel.
II. THE INFLUENCE OF HEROIC EXAMPLES.
1. In strengthening faith.
2. In stimulating feeling. The Christianity of the present time apt to languish for lack of such influence. Times of great danger to the Church times of great testimony. The Effect of missionary zeal in promoting the growth of character.
3. The true leaders of the Church should be foremost in devotion. Apostolic zeal very different from ecclesiastical fanaticism. The world bows before spiritual might.R.
Act 15:36-41
Contention amongst brethren.
Importance of the record as showing:
1. The sincerity and simplicity of the Christian writers. An impostor would never have inserted such a fact.
2. The overruling grace of God. The treasure in earthen vessels. Infirmities in the agents magnifies him who, notwithstanding, accomplishes his proposes. Notice
I. THE TRUE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN WORK. Constant watchfulness and inspection. “See how they fare;” for encouragement and confirmation; for maintenance of order for advancement in teaching. “Visit the brethren.” Not only in each Church, but in the outlying districts; maintain brotherly sympathy. The true conception of the Church is that of a society resting on a spiritual basis of mutual confidence and love.
II. SUBORDINATION OF PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS to the highest interests of Christ’s kingdom. Barnabas thought more of his nephew than the work. He was most in the wrong. The Church, by their commendation of Paul in prayer, plainly expressed their sympathy with his side of the controversy. At the same time, as Mark proved himself faithful, events showed that Paul might have yielded for the sake of peace without injury to the cause of truth. His strong will tempted him.
III. THE ERRORS OF GOOD MEN are not suffered to hinder the work of God. More good done by the division of labor. Introduction of Silas. Mark probably best under the sole guidance of Barnabas. The divisions in the Christian Church viewed in the light of this primitive contention. Not wholly injurious. Partly due to the natural differences of intellect and temper. Overruled to develop the variety of Christian character. Will be at last, like discords resolved into harmony, the source of glory to God. Yet, as at first, so always, remembrance of the infirmity and fallibility of great and good men should keep us near the throne of grace.R.
HOMILIES BY P.C. BARKER
Act 15:1-35
A great dissension or, the threshold of the Gentile Church, and the apostolic management of it.
One subject knits together very firmly the contents of this paragraph. And the subject is one of the greatest importance. Its interest is all of the practical kind; and well had it been for the unconverted world had the Church through all these centuries abided by the suggested lessons that we have here. The one subject is the beginning of ecclesiastical dissension within the Church catholic itself; not on matter purely doctrinal, not on matter purely disciplinary, but on matter that may be for the time supposed to lie on the border-land between these two. For some will insist on making it mostly a question of veritable doctrine; others would stickle for it as a question at least of “decency and order” in discipline. Let us notice
I. THE SIMPLE QUESTION ITSELF AT ISSUE. Gentiles have many great signs and wonders wrought amongst them, of which they are by no means simple beholders. They themselves are “a great part of them.” They are believed in multitudes of cases to have become true converts to the new faith. The apostolic verdict and pronouncement have gone forth that “God had opened the door of faith” to them. And facts seem to speak for themselves, saying that they have received the gifts as well as the gift of the Holy Ghost. Must these Gentiles submit to the Jewish initiatory rite of circumcision?
II. THE ORIGIN OF THE GREAT DISSENSION THAT AROSE UPON THIS SIMPLE QUESTION. Certain men, evidently of the Church in Judaea, came down to Antioch, and with volunteered assiduity (Act 15:24) took upon them to teach the brethren at Antioch that circumcision was a rite necessary for them to submit to, if they would be saved. Of these men, before they are condemned as mere officious idlers or “busybodies,” it shall be granted that they had a right to their own religious views, their own reading of the Law and prophets, and their own past history; that they also had a right to travel and to go and see the new Gentile converts, whose Church at Antioch must in itself have been such a sign; and that, arrived there, they were not bound to keep a perpetual silence. But from the very moment that these things are conceded to the members of any Christian society dates the solemn responsibility which rests upon them. One of the great facts of the “liberty” (Act 15:10; Gal 5:1) of Christ’s Church is that individual character shall be called out and strictly tried by the vast increase of individual responsibility. But the liberty cannot be had and the responsibility left. And up to this point these things may be noted
(1) that from the very first “offences would come,” even within the Church; but
(2) that it was no less “woe” to them by whom the offence should come; for that on them lay the responsibility (of which they should be aware and beware), and not upon any laches on the part of the Church as a whole in not legislating, for instance, to suppress the freedom of individual thought and word. For to do this under the rule of Jesus would be to originate worse “offence.” The very Worst affront to Jesus is to substitute letter for spirit, law for love. The origin of a dissension, then, that excited much disputation, consumed much precious time, is certain to have awakened some bitterness of word and of temper, as well as to have caused no slight anxiety and pain to those concerned, was the gratuitous work of men who had not correct knowledge, did not try to get it (Act 15:24), and who went out of their way to “make a great stir.”
III. THE APOSTOLIC MANAGEMENT OF THIS DISSENSION. The somewhat indefinite phraseology of the second verse, compared with the words of the Apostle Paul in Gal 2:2, leaves us in very little uncertainty that we are to understand that Paul and Barnabas received special intimation from the Spirit that the question should be moved to Jerusalem; that the Church at Antioch heartily fell in with the rightness of this course, and rejoiced to attend the steps of the apostles and other delegates to the last, as well as to commend them in prayer to God.
1. If, then, the intimation of the Spirit showed the way for the apostles, it may be gathered
(1) what really important issues were at stake, not in the matter only, but in the manner of treating this dissension; and
(2) it may be assumed that many a time and anxiously and fervently did the two implore Divine guidance. The Spirit is the Ruler in the Church. How imperfectly is this vital fact remembered in modern days! And the Spirit’s guidance is sought and obtained when clouds and stormy weather were presaged. As to the practical uses to be gained by this reference of the question to Jerusalem and to the body of the apostles and elders, it goes by saying.
2. When Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the Antioch Church with them, reach Jerusalem, they are, in the first instance, courteously received by the whole Church with “the apostles and elders.” The meeting was a set, ice, and a happy, holy service. All hear what God has done (Gal 2:4), and the joy is great. And, finally, the question is opened, apparently as temperately as plainly (Gal 2:5).
3. The proper council shortly come together. It consists of “the apostles and elders.” But the matter appears to have been argued in the presence of the whole assembly still (Gal 2:7, Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13, 22). Four leading speeches and arguments are recorded, and the order and the wisdom alike of the selection of speakers must be apparent. Who better to begin than Peter? His argument is plain, practical, and cannot be gainsaid. But the way in which he turns the tables on his brethren of the Jewish sticklers for circumcision (Gal 2:11) is most significant. There follow Barnabas and Paul with their missionary tidings. These carried volumes of conviction, and were well fitted to do so. Men listen still wonderfully in preached sermons to facts and reliable history. It is these which weigh, too, with the unsophisticated and the mass. And with what keenness of attention and almost sympathetic pride they listen to these recitals from the lips of men who had “hazarded their lives for the Name” of the Lord Jesus Christ (verse 26) 1 And after these thrilling speeches James (probably “the brother of the Lord” and the writer of the Epistle general) renews argument, corroborating it by Old Testament Scripture quotation. Nor does he sit down without making definite proposals to meet the present case.
4. In harmony with those proposals, the apostles and elders and the whole Church agree. And they agree to write and to send what they write by the honored hands of Paul and Barnabas, and two others specially delegated from their own home communion to Antioch. Verses 23-29 contain the words of a letter which, for kindly respect, for conciliatory tone toward all, for fidelity of truth (verse 24), for “honor to whom honor” is due (verse 26), for religious calling to witness of the one Ruler of the Church, “the Holy Ghost” (verse 28), and for the word of exhortation (verse 29), could not be surpassed. 5. The four peacemakers speed on their way to Antioch. They call “the multitude” (Act 4:32; Act 6:5) together, deliver their letter, and congratulate the Gentiles liberated from many a fear in its “consolation.” This gentle touch at the end speaks much of what had been transpiring in the minds of those Gentile converts, and helps as practical comment upon verse 10 of this chapter. The two visitors, Judas and Silas, also address the Antioch Church, the latter of whom finds such interest in place and people that he stays at Antioch, there a while assisting Paul and Barnabas in their ministry and in their pastorate of the flock.
IV. SOME GENERAL LESSONS FOR CHURCH LIFE SUGGESTED BY THIS HISTORY. We should observe:
1. The sanction here given to the patient and faithful use of strictly moral forces in the government of the Church of Christ. The case had aspects that might well, on the one hand, try the forbearance of the large-hearted, and, on the other hand, tempt to high-handed dispatch. But a world of trouble is not grudged to keep well within the spirit of the Master, and to have compassion on the weak, and to consider others in their errors and their small-mindedness, “lest they also be tempted,” with whom confessedly may lie now the strength and the right and the goodness.
2. The honor done to courtesy and respect and to the observance of “duty towards equals,” or those who for the time must be called so. Christianity often seems to offer us a very clear, very beautiful outline of the perfections possible to human society merely as such.
3. The kindest attention here paid to human feelings. It seems to shine out again and. again. Where a cold, despotic, hard-and-fast ecclesiasticism would have found its occasion for triumphing, the true order of Christ’s Church finds a chosen occasion for reverencing feeling. For upon and in addition to all the honor shown in the transactions recorded in this chapter to respect and courtesy, there is apparent the sympathy of true and heartfelt love. Amid great dangers the least possible damage was done to the reputation of young Christianity, and the comment might still be, “See how these Christians love one another.”R.
Act 15:37-39
Symptoms more starting.
There is a sense in which human nature and Christian principle are opposed to each other. When in conflict they are indeed two rare antagonists. It is astonishing at how many angles the former can be touched by the latter, and how deeply and incisively this cuts into that. The great dissension in the matter of circumcision and the new Gentile converts filled larger space under the eye; but how often has it faded away from the mental gaze of even the most devout reader when the present dissension has come immediately after upon his view, and with unwelcome semi-fascination riveted attention! Faithful, we may well say, as the “Spirit of all truth” is his Book. The sins and failings of apostles are not concealed. Nor are they even glossed over, though it was the very moment when men of devout sympathies would have given anything to veil them from view and withdraw them from any permanent record. The record lies here, and it must be for use. A certain indefiniteness characterizes it where it would have particularly suited our curiosity to have exact detail and pronounced verdict. That very incompleteness is sure to shelter valuable hints. We shall do well, then, to notice as simply as possible the track of the narrative, and keep near it. We are taught
I. ONE ELEMENT OF THE RESPECT DUE TO SCRIPTURE. This is to compare Scripture with Scripture. The slight hint of Act 13:13 lies for a while like a chance seed dropped in chance soil. But now it has appeared above ground, and it takes shape and color, and buds with meaning. Act 20:1-38 :39 furnishes us with another kind of instance of the value of reading Scripture in this way, where we glean a beautiful saying of “the Lord Jesus,” not recorded elsewhere, though the apostle calls on those to whom he was speaking to “remember“ it as a thing they had heard or read.
II. SCRIPTURE‘S EXAMPLE AS TO OCCASIONAL RETICENCE. Here was a quarrel undoubtedly. There was, without doubt, Divine reason for writing certain facts of it on the page of inspiration. But how frugal the language is! How utterly absent the least symptom of satisfaction in the narrating of it! And there is not an attempt to dilate or expatiate upon it.
III. SCRIPTURE‘S EXAMPLE AS TO PASSING JUDGMENT AND MEASURING OUT PRAISE AND BLAME. If Scripture is thus cautious, with all the resources, amounting often as in this case to certainty of knowledge, which it possesses, how much more careful should we be to avoid a course for which our nature seems often to manifest a strong predilection! It is our very disappointment here that blame is not apportioned between Paul and Barnabas, nor any final verdict pronounced. But, on second thoughts, is that disappointment of worthy sort?
IV. HOW TWO UNDOUBTEDLY CHRISTIAN MEN MAY TAKE VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF DUTY IN SOME ONE PRACTICAL MATTER.
1. It is even pleasant and suggestive to note that the difference was none of doctrine. The “unity of the faith,” at all events, is not wounded in the house of its friends.
2. It is even possible, though perhaps scarcely probable, that this difference of opinion was abundantly legitimate, and that it proceeded from as much excellence of one kind in Barnabas as of another in Paul. Barnabas may have leaned to John in compassion and forgivingness and desire to give him another trial, instead of shutting him out from it for one offence. And strong, trenchant Paul may have been so stricken with the “memory“ of the words of “the Lord Jesus” about the man who “put his hand to the plough, and looked back,” and like words, that he could not feel it was a case for human kindness as against Divine fidelity, and could not entertain two opinions upon it. Paul also may have rightly estimated the incalculable disgrace and reproach it would bring upon the work of Christ if at some more unfortunately critical point than before Mark should fail. It must be admitted that both of these good men way have been justified in thinking that the matter was not a little matter and not a matter for yielding, but for allowing conscience “to have her perfect work.”
V. HOW TREMBLINGLY CAREFUL GOOD MEN SHOULD BE IN DIFFERING TO GOVERN TEMPER AND RESTRAIN ALL BITTERNESS. However possibly motives may have been unimpeachable on this occasion, and justifiable room have existed for two opinions, yet it is impossible to escape the conviction that difference degenerated into dispute. The passage-at-arms was not altogether that of brethren, but it was “so sharp” that the sacred phraseology uses an equivalent not less forcible than the word “exasperation.”
VI. HOW MUCH BETTER IT IS TO SEPARATE, AND BOTH WORK RATHER THAN FIGHT AND BOTH STOP WORK. The separation of tiffs place may be regarded as the typical instance of the New Testament, as the separation of Abram and Lot (Gen 13:5-18) is that of the old, with consequences not altogether dissimilar. For from this point the star of Paul is more and yet more in the ascendant, as it was with Abram, but of Barnabas henceforth the sacred record fails to tell.
VII. HOW GRATEFULLY WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE GOODNESS AND THE PITY THAT STILL USE SINFUL, IMPERFECT MEN, AND OUT OF ALL THE TANGLE OF HUMAN STRIFE BRING TO PASS DIVINE PURPOSES AND THE SALVATION OF MEN. For when all else is said, and our whole brief narrative in these few verses is surveyed, we most gratefully gather this residuum of good and of comfort.
1. The purpose that visited Paul’s heart and his sharing of it with Barnabasa purpose that rose from a heart’s deep and high love, and that was nothing daunted by the prospect of danger and suffering.
2. The outspoken and honest objection taken by Paul to the company of Mark. That this objection, with its blunt honesty, finds room given to it on the page may be taken as some indication that the right lay with Paul. Nothing is breathed to detract from the propriety of his firm veto of Mark as a companion.
3. The prayers of the brethren who send Paul forth, and their “recommending him to the grace of God.” These three things are welcome reliefs in the midst of a scene not attractive in its main aspects. Would that as much redeeming impression could be found in other cases of “sharp contention” among Christian brethren and fellow-laborers in the same vineyard!B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Act 15:1
Circumcision and salvation
Revised Version, “Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” It was inevitable that the claims of Judaism and of Christianity should presently come into conflict. The conflict, when it came, would be sure to rage round some one particular point of difference; not necessarily the most important point, but the one which would give most prominence to the essential differences. Circumcision was only a formal rite, and its importance might easily be exaggerated; but it sealed the exclusiveness of the Jewish system, and it illustrated its ceremonial character, so it formed a good ground on which to fight. The Jews had this vantage-ground. Circumcision was unquestionably a Divine institution; and the Christian could bring no proof whatever that it had been formally removed. The Christian teachers could only urge that the “life in Christ” no longer needed formal bonds, and that God’s grace in Christ Jesus was given to those who were not of the circumcision. St. Paul took very firm ground on the question. While prepared to go to the very limits of charitable concession in dealing with those who felt the helpfulness of rites and ceremonies, he was prepared to resist to the death any tampering with the gospel condition of salvation, or any attempt to declare that saving grace could be found in any formal ordinance or ceremony. “When the very foundations of Christianity were in danger of being undermined, it was not possible for St. Paul to “give place by subjection.”
I. MAN‘S HIGHEST NEED CONCEIVED AS SALVATION. Not reformation; not religion; not material prosperities; not intellectual attainments; not culture; but distinctly salvation, which is a moral good, bears direct relation to personal sins and to a sinful state, and is conceivable only by some Divine intervention, and on revealed Divine terms. Man’s final cry is,” What must I do to be saved?” “How can man be just with God?” Salvation, conceived as man’s reconciliation with God, was the idea of Judaism, and it was represented by man’s being brought into covenant relations, and kept in them by sacrifice and ceremonial. Judaism had a moral life within its ritual, and this finds expression in the Psalms and in the prophets. Salvation, as apprehended by Christianity, is man’s reconciliation to God, upon his penitence for sin, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the all-sufficient Sacrifice for sin and Savior entrusted with authority to forgive. The two systems are related, as a shadow is related to the figure that throws it; but the two cannot be combined; the shadow must pass altogether when the substance has come. The salvation man wants is a soul-salvation, and that no rite, no ceremonial, can touch.
II. THE OLDER IDEA OF THE MEANS OF SALVATION. Salvation was a Divine favor granted to one particular race. The Abrahamic relations, standing, and rights were secured to all who adopted the appointed sign and seal of circumcision. In later years outsiders were admitted to share the “salvation,” or ‘”standing with God,” of the Abrahamic race, by submitting to the rite of circumcision. As spirituality faded from the Jewish life, increasing importance became attached to the mere rite, and zealots contended for it as if in it alone lay the hope of salvation. There is an important place for ritual, but it is ever perilous to spiritual truth if it is put out of its place. It is a useful handmaid; it is a tyrannous mistress.
III. THE NEWER IDEA OF THE MEANS OF SALVATION AS REVEALED TO THE APOSTLES. Not works of righteousness, but “faith,” which presupposes penitence. How is a sinner saved? Apart from all systems or ceremonies, he must accept the salvation freely offered to him by God in the person of his Son Jesus Christ. The act of acceptance is called “faith.” We cannot wonder that this new and most gracious condition of salvation should have pushed the older idea altogether out of the apostles’ minds. It seemed new; they would not even try to think how it fitted the old. Conscious of the new life and joy it brought, they would find themselves gradually being weaned from Jewish ceremonial, and the more advanced thinkers, such as St. Paul, would be even in some danger of exaggerating the contrasts between the old and the new.
IV. THE EFFORT TO RESTORE AGAIN THE OLDER IDEA. Truths and practices which have long absorbed the interest of men do not die without a struggle. Some champions linger on, and show fight at every opportunity. A wealth of interests gather round every religious system, and generations must pass before these can be wholly changed. So we cannot wonder that the sterner Judaism showed fight against the apostles, or that paganism again and again made desperate efforts to resist advancing Christianity. The Jewish tethers seem on this occasion to have acted in an underhanded and unworthy way. “The course they adopted, in the first instance, was not that of open antagonism to St. Paul, but rather of clandestine intrigue. They came as ‘spies’ into an enemy’s camp, creeping in unawares, and gradually insinuating or openly inculcating their opinion that the observance of the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation.“ Two things need to be considered.
1. Why their teaching had to be so vigorously resisted.
(1) Because it tended to confuse the minds of the disciples;
(2) because it was fundamentally opposed to the Christian teaching.
2. On what grounds the resistance could be made. These were
(1) the exclusiveness of the Christian condition of salvationby faith;
(2) the supreme claims of the teaching of Christ, who laid no such burden on his disciples;
(3)the fact that the Holy Ghost sealed believers from among the uncircumcised. This is enough, then and now. “Whosoever believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life.”R.T.
Act 15:2, Act 15:4
The Jerusalem Church.
Christianity started out from Jerusalem. The disciples fulfilled their Lord’s command, and “began at Jerusalem.” The gospel was first preached at Jerusalem. The Holy Ghost endowed the Christian teachers, and scaled the Christian believers, first at Jerusalem. The Church first took form at Jerusalem. Its officers were first appointed at Jerusalem. And the records intimate that, when the other disciples were scattered abroad, the older and prominent apostles remained behind in the holy city, and exercised a kind of supervision over the work of the various Christian teachers. The constitution of the Jerusalem Church cannot be certainly known; but it is clear that St. Peter had no exclusive authority, and that if disputes and controversies were submitted to an apostolic council, their decision took the form of recommendation and not of Command. As the subject will be treated from several points of view, according to the bias of the preacher, we give only the general outline of the topics that may be usefully considered.
I. JERUSALEM, THE CHRISTIAN STARTING–POINT. The first teachers were Jews; and Christianity is not only the proper outcome and perfection of Judaism, but it bears the Jewish stamp. It links on to the fundamental ideas of God, sin, redemption, which were revealed to the Jews. If it were wholly new, it could not be true.
II. JERUSALEM, THE APOSTOLIC CENTER. A kind of mother Church. Observe how its council of apostles and elders was sought when difficulties of doctrine or practice arose; and how the Gentile Churches sent their charitable gifts to the poor saints at the mother Church.
III. JERUSALEM, THE MODEL CHURCH. How far any Church could present a model may be disputed. Any model would be efficient by reason of its illustrating working principles, not by virtue of its mere form.
IV. JERUSALEM, THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY. How far apostles claimed authority on the ground of their knowledge of Christ, inspiration, miraculous gifts, and power to give or bring the Holy Ghost, needs to be carefully considered.R.T.
Act 15:9-11
Salvation by grace for all.
This passage is part of the speech delivered by St. Peter at the conference, tits words ought to be weighty words, seeing that God had been pleased to reveal directly to him the relations in which the Gentiles should stand to his gospel. St. Peter would have been an intensely Jewish man but for his experiences at Joppa and Caesarea. He had evidently learned well the lesson of the broadness of the Christian platform; and yet even he subsequently faltered, and brought himself under the rebuke of St. Paul. After reminding his hearers of the part which he himself had taken in admitting the Gentiles into the Christian Church, St. Peter urges this point: “The communication of the Holy Ghost was the true test of God’s acceptance; and God had shown that he was no respecter of persons by shedding abroad the same miraculous gifts on Jew and Gentile, and purifying by faith the hearts of both alike.” He further reminds them what a heavy yoke the Jewish Law had proved for many generations; how thankful they were to be relieved from the legal bondage by the salvation offered through faith; and how unreasonable it would be to attempt to impose on others a burden which neither they nor their fathers had ever been able to bear. Dean Plumptre gives thus the conclusion of St. Peter’s speech: “The Pharisee might regard the Law as binding; but even he, if he believed in Christ, was compelled to confess that his hope of salvation was found in the work of Christ as the Savior; and if so, then, as regards that hope, Jew and Gentile were on the same level, and the judgment that men could not be saved without the Law was but the inconsistency of an intolerant dogmatism, insisting on imposing that which was acknowledged to be profitless.” There is in St. Peter’s speech a firm declaration of the great evangelical principles.
I. SALVATION ON GOD‘S SIDE IS HIS ACT OF GRACE. The idea of purchase or desert is wholly excluded from it. Salvation by perfect obedience to formal rules, and faithful keeping of covenant terms, had been thoroughly tried in Judaism, and it had certainly and hopelessly failed, because sinning man lacked the power. Man could no more save himself by the attempted obediences of Judaism than by the human schemes devised in heathenism. It was evident that salvation for man must be an intervention of Divine love, a manifestation of Divine grace. And this is the very essence of the gospel message concerning God: “What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Salvation is a Divine gift, offered freshly and freely, apart from all previous revelations and conditions, on terms which God himself is pleased to arrange. And, without bringing forward any older ideas or customs, our simple duty is to listen to God as he tells us the conditions upon which he is pleased to offer forgiveness and life. We may be quite satisfied if we can find the terms laid down in the new covenant of grace, and they are these: “God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life.”
II. SALVATION, ON MAN‘S SIDE, IS HIS ACT OF FAITH. NO gift can be of value unless there is a proper preparedness to receive it. We do not simply scatter our common earthly gifts, we choose to whom we shall give them, and we expect them to be in such a state of mind and feeling towards us as shall ensure that they will accept and make good use of our gifts. Such conditions apply to the gift of salvation. Of free grace, though it is, it requires something in man which can alone secure that the gift will be valued. The spiritual preparedness of man for the spiritual gift is called faith. It is illustrated in the disposition of mind which Christ required in those whom he miraculously healed. And it includes
(1) surrender of self-trust;
(2) confidence in God’s provision and promise; and
(3) a full desire for and expectancy of Divine help.
Faith, as a disposition or mood of mind, is to be distinguished from faith as an act. The state of faith sets us ready to receive the gift; the act of faith appropriates the gift. So presenting man’s faith, it will be clearly seen that no kind of “merit,” as a saving work, can attach to it.
III. BOTH ARE LARGE ENOUGH CONDITIONS TO COVER AND EMBRACE ALL HUMANITY. Jew and Gentile too. This is St. Peter’s point in Act 15:9,Act 15:11. The grace of the universal Father can, without doubt, reach and bless and save all. And faith is so common, so universal a human faculty that it can be made a condition for all. Every one can thankfully open hand and heart to receive a gift. Everybody can trust.R.T.
Act 15:26
The highest Christian commendation.
Nothing could be said more fitted to ensure the confidence of the Churches in the messengers sent from the conference than this description: “Men that have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus.” It may be observed that men have established this test of sincerity, nobility, or belief in any truth: “Could the man stake his life on it?” “Was he willing to die for it?” The heroic traveler is the man who stakes his life on his purpose, as did Livingstone. The heroic soldiers are they who volunteer for the forlorn hope, and die to serve their country. The heroic martyrs are the men who can die for their faith and opinion. No man’s faith has come under the full testing unless, in some form, it is proved whether he will die for it. The sublimest of all illustrations is found in our Lord’s purpose of perfect obedience to his Father’s will. That purpose came under many and various testings, but we could not feel that it was perfect, and indeed the infinite example, if he had not kept it through the trial of that agonizing death, He not only “hazarded,” he actually yielded his life in maintaining that obedience. By the same test Barnabas and Paul had been proved, and in their first missionary journey their lives had again and again been in peril; once indeed Paul had been left for dead after the riotous stoning of the populace (Act 13:50; Act 14:19). From the Christian standpoint the noblest and best men are
I. THOSE WHO CAN SACRIFICE SELF. Self-seeking is the marked characteristic of the unrenewed man, toned, however, by amiability, kindness of disposition, generosity, motherhood, etc., as elements of the natural character. Self-denial is the highest conception of purely human virtue, and is the noblest adornment of human character. In a thousand forms “self-denial” is demanded in our common life and relations; and none of the responsible positions in life can be occupied without this virtue being demanded. Self-sacrifice is seldom required; but the man who can meet this demand gains the first place in the world’s esteem. Illustrate by the doctor who dies for his patient; the mother who dies for her child; the rescuer who dies in rescuing; the missionary who yields his life in his mission, The extreme demand may not always be made; it often has to be faced. And we may test our own hold of truth, duty, or hope, by putting to ourselves this question, “Could I die for it?” Show what kind of moral Power the heroic leaders in self-sacrifice gain over their fellows.
1. They declare that duty is before pleasure.
2. They attest the grandeur of a cherished idea.
3. They glorify the conception of right.
4. They uphold faith in God.
5. They affirm the insignificance of this life in view of the life that is to come.
6. They keep up the standard of life for us all; and are, as angel-ministrants, ever beckoning us on to higher and nobler things.
II. THOSE WHO CAN SACRIFICE SELF FOR THE SAKE OF CHRIST‘S NAME. Taken in two senses:
1. For the sake of upholding the honor of Christ’s Name, seeing that he is ever honored in the conduct of his servants. Men praise him through what they see of him in us. He “laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
2. For the sake of making witness for Christ. No witness can have the power of a martyrdom. Illustrate Stephen’s witness in his death.
(1) Self-sacrifice sets Christ up in the view of men, for all gather round the martyr, and wonder over his calmness and victory.
(2) Self-sacrifice proves the truth of doctrine (see Paley’s argument from the persecutions and sufferings of the early teachers).
(3) Self-sacrifice for Christ impresses upon us the extraordinary fascination which the Lord Jesus can exert on men’s souls. How we must love those for whom we are willing to die! None can take our love so that for the sake of it we will yield our life, as does the Lord Jesus Christ. Conclude by showing that passing ages do not change the Divine demands, only change the forms in which they find expression. The heroic life of self-denial in many things, and even of self-sacrifice sometimes, as our witness to Christ, is still demanded, in these indulgent times, of all who name the Name of the Lord Jesus.R.T.
Act 15:28, Act 15:29
Reasonable and unreasonable burdens.
“To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” The precise nature of the things which the council thought essential to Christian standing and life are discussed in the Expository Portion of this Commentary, and materials for the introduction of our subject will be found in it. “The letter does not say why these things were necessary, and the term was probably chosen as covering alike the views of those who held, like the Pharisee Christians, that they were binding on the Church for ever, and those who, like St. Paul, held that they were necessary only for a time, and as a measure of wise expediency.” The letter is a most wise and careful one; it avoids the details of the dispute, or any report of the discussion in the council. It accuses no one, but by implication supports the position which St. Paul had taken. It effectually checked for a time the agitation created by the Judaizing party. Two dangers attended the young Christian Church.
1. A false conception of liberty in Christ, which really meant “license,” and ruinous loosening of self-restraint and reasonable rule.
2. A mischievous bondage to mere forms, out of which the life and meaning had long faded, and passed. The council wisely met the twofold danger by declaring that the old forms were no longer binding, but that the Christian liberty ought to be set under safe, prudent, and mutually accepted rules and restraints. The laying on Gentile Christians of the old Judaic burdens was unreasonable. But the laying on them of burdens coming from the relations of Christian principles to the sins and evils of society, all must recognize to be reasonable. They were free, but they must not use their liberty unwisely, or so as to injure the conscience and sensitive feeling of even the weakest brother among them. We may gather from this advice given to the Antiochene Church some clear distinctions between the reasonable and unreasonable in burdens laid on us as Christians.
I. THE BURDEN OF CUSTOM IS UNREASONABLE. The plea, “Everybody does it, therefore you must,” is one which the Christian is quite justified in rejecting. Fashion in religious conduct, or in religious worship, or in religious doctrine, if it is imposed as a burden, the Christian may call unreasonable. He is in no sense obliged to follow such lead unless he can clearly discern that the fashion or custom expresses the claim of the right. Oftentimes customs grow up which become a terrible slavery, and it becomes necessary for some Christians to break the bonds as resolutely as St. Paul did the bonds of these Judaizing teachers. Illustrate from the three spheres:
(1) religious doctrine;
(2) religious worship;
(3) religious society.
II. THE BURDEN OF ABROGATED LAW IS UNREASONABLE. Recognizing the progression of Divine revelation, we see that a step upwards involves freedom from the step below. Judaism was one step in Divine revelation, and it prepared for the spiritual revelation in Christ, which was a step higher. It was unreasonable to press the demands of formal Judaism, and much more unreasonable to press the claims of rabbinical Judaism, on those who had been lifted up to the spiritual and Christian platform. This point is well argued by Phillips Brooks, in a most suggestive sermon on the ‘Symbol and the Reality.’ He says, “There is no better test of men’s progress than this advancing power to do without the things which used to be essential to their lives. As we climb a high mountain, we must keep our footing strong upon one ledge until we have fastened ourselves strongly on the next; then we may let the lower foothold go. The lives of men who have been always growing are strewed along their whole course with the things which they have learned to do without.” What an overburdened life ours would be if we were compelled to carry all the old things we once valued and used with us in our advance to the new! Yet there is a sense in which, even in our Christian times, men press on us the burden of that which is past, abrogated, and done with. It may be effectively illustrated in relation to Christian doctrine. It is said that Judaic forms of sacrifice explain the Christian redemption; and we may urge that this is an unreasonable burden, and all that we need to accept is, that Judaic sacrifice was the figure and symbol, by the help of which men were prepared to apprehend and receive the moral and spiritual redemption wrought in and by the Lord Jesus. We, as well as the early disciples, may properly refuse the burden of Mosaic symbols and forms, which have had their day, done their work, and ceased to be.
III. THE BURDEN OF AGREED RULES IS REASONABLE. All associations of persons together involve mutual acceptance of conditions of fellowship; and those conditions must put limitations on personal liberty. Illustrate by the necessary rules of a nation, a club, a family, a congregation. These are reasonable, and are no infringements of liberty, but a proper expression of it. No one feels such to be a burden. Further than this, society, as constituted in each country and age, has an unwritten code of manners and morals, and this need not be unreasonable, nor is it felt to be a burden so long as it manifestly concerns the preservation of social virtue and goodness. As with the early Church, the conditions of society may make specific demands on Christians, such as are indicated in Act 15:29; but these may reasonably be accepted as the restraints of the few for the good of the whole.
IV. THE BURDEN OF CHARITY IS REASONABLE. Here we come upon ground which St. Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians has made very familiar. Christian love even rejoices to put itself into bonds if thus it can gain influence on others. In conclusion, urge that life properly refuses bonds, and demands free expression; but the life in Christ willingly puts itself under rules for his sake and for others’ sake.R.T.
Act 15:37-39
Contentions and separations.
It is sometimes a weakness of dealing with Scripture characters that “inspiration” is not distinguished from “perfection.” The place of human infirmity in divinely endowed men is not sufficiently recognized. And yet, for the correction of this very tendency, the frailty of good men is always indicated in the Scripture histories. Of only one manthe Man Christ Jesuscan it be said, “In him was no sin.” So when it is manifest that good men have fallen into error and sin, unnatural ways of explaining the fact are often resorted to, and men are afraid to recognize that these great men of Scripture were really “men of like passions with us;” and so, from our own experiences, we can best apprehend their failings. A point needing much careful thought is the relation of the Divine regeneration to the natural disposition and character. It is a renewal of the man if it renews his will; but it has to be followed up by a continuous Divine work which renews the mind, character, temper, habits, and relations; and we must not be surprised if, at any particular point of that work, there remain frailties and infirmities. Evidently no idea of absolute perfection of character and disposition can be entertained concerning either Barnabas”a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost”or of Paul, who had been called to the apostleship. A close survey of the relations between these two missionaries reveals a gradual drifting apart, a kind of widening distance between them, which probably neither of them consciously recognized or in any way encouraged. When they started out, Barnabas, as the elder man and the elder Christian, took the leading place; but circumstances brought Paul to the front. There was force of character, power on others, natural leadership, which men soon recognized, in spite of his somewhat insignificant appearance; and as he gradually subsided into the second place, Barnabas could very naturally cherish the idea that Paul had better go alone, or with companions of his own choosing. Actual grounds of separation usually follow on a period of secretly divided feeling, and the difficulty that arose over John Mark need not have been so serious if there had been no previous unconscious drifting asunder. Difficulties and dissensions occur only too often in family and Chinch life, but they seldom are mere sudden storms which cannot be accounted for; they follow on a condition of atmosphere which has necessitated them sooner or later. Olshansen says, on this contention between Barnabas and Paul, “Paul appears, although indeed this cannot be imagined, to have permanently violated the principle of love, for on account of a single fault he entirely threw off Mark; and of Barnabas it might be feared that love for his relative, more than a conviction of his fitness, was the motive for taking him as a companion on his missionary journey. But on closer consideration these surmises are seen to be perfectly groundless.” These considerations prepare the way for a closer examination of the “contention” and the consequent separation of these two good friends and fellow-laborers.
I. THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTENTION. Give some account of Mark; his probable youthfulness; his mother’s dependence on him; his particular office as minister or attendant on the two missionaries. The difficulties and dangers of traveling in those times required that several should go together; and as men of good family and associations, both Barnabas and Paul would be accustomed to, and dependent on, the daily offices of servants or attendants. Ministry to such a person as St. Paul we would count honorable indeed.
II. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CONTENTION. These may easily be imagined. Each man took his own point of view and pressed it too hard. Each had good show of reason, but each manifested self-will in presenting it. The arguments were of little avail towards producing satisfactory results, because the divergence was rather one of sentiment and feeling than of deliberate judgment. Arguments seldom help the settlement of disputes that really arise from diversity of feeling. Christian principle and Christian charity and brotherliness can do more in such cases than the most convincing arguments.
III. THE RESULTS OF THE CONTENTION. These may be shown so far as they affected
(1) St. Paul,
(2) Barnabas,
(3) Mark,
(4) Silas.
It may be shown that St. Paul’s severity with Mark did not influence his personal affection for him; and that if, as a matter of judgment, he declined his service, he did not take up a permanent prejudice against him. In conclusion, lessons may be learnt from this incident concerning
(1) the insidious growth of feelings that tend to separate “very friends;”
(2) the hopelessness of settling the disputes which arise between men by mere argument;
(3) the hope that lies in the exercise of mutual forbearance, kindly yielding of our own, anxiety to find common ground, and the true Christian brotherliness, to preserve us from separating contentions, and to heal them when they arise.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Act 15:1. And certain men, &c. A circumstance now occurred, which was the occasion of very considerable consequences in the Christian church: for some persons who came from Antioch to Judea, full of Jewish prejudices,among whom it was a common maxim, that all uncircumcised personsgo to hell; taught the Christians in their public and private discourses, that, except they were circumcised, according to the manner prescribed in the law of Moses, and became obedient to all the whole system of his precepts, they could not possibly be saved by the gospel; which, they urged, was intended to make all that were converted to it Jews, and that they could not otherwise be true and genuine Christians;objections, which it was of the greatest consequence entirely to remove.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 15:1-2 . The Jewish-Christian opinion, that the Gentiles could only in the way of circumcision and observance of the law that is, in the way of Jewish Christianity obtain the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, was by no means set aside by the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles, which had so successfully taken place since the conversion of Cornelius. On the contrary, it was too closely bound up with the whole training and habit of mind of the Jews, especially of those who were adherents of the Pharisees (comp. Ewald, p. 464 f.), not to have presented, as the conversions of the Gentiles increased, an open resistance to the freedom of the Gentile brethren from the law, a freedom which exhibited itself in their whole demeanour to the scandal of the strict legalists, and to have made the question on which it hinged the most burning question of the time. This opposition the most fundamental and most dangerous in the apostolic church, for the overcoming of which the whole further labour of a Paul was requisite emerged in the very central seat of Gentile Christianity itself at Antioch; whither some [23] from Judaea ( , as Syr. p. has on the margin, and codd. 8. 137 in the text, as a certainly correct gloss, see Act 15:5 ) came down with this doctrine: If ye shall not have been circumcised ( ., see the critical remarks) according to the custom, ordered by Moses (and so have taken upon you the obligation of obedience to the whole law, comp. Gal 5:3 ), ye cannot obtain the salvation in Christ!

(Act 23:7 ; Act 23:10 ; Soph. O. R. 634) . (Act 25:20 ; Joh 3:25 ); division and disputation .
] namely, the , Act 15:1 , the Christians of Antioch, comp. Act 15:3 .
Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Christianity; here the apostles had their abode, who, along with the presbyters of the church, occupied for the Christian theocracy a position similar to that of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Grotius. The recognition of this on the part of Paul is implied in Gal 2:1-2 .
] among whom, according to Gal 2:1 , was Titus, not named at all in the Acts, unless Paul voluntarily took him as companion, which is more suitable to the expression in Gal 2:1 .
We may add that the commission of the church , under which Paul made the journey, is by no means excluded by the statement: , Gal 2:2 ; see on Gal. l.c. Subtleties directed against our narrative may be seen in Zeller, p. 224 f.
, quaestio , i.e. question in dispute , in the N.T. only in the Book of Acts; often in Greek writers.
[23] According to Epiphan. Haer. 26, Cerinthus is supposed to have been among them.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SECTION II
PAUL AND BARNABAS, THE APOSTLES OF THE GENTILES, ABE SENT FROM ANTIOCH TO JERUSALEM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRANGING MATTERS THAT CONCERNED GENTILE-CHRISTIANS; THE PROCEEDINGS IN JERUSALEM, AND THEIR RESULTS
Act 15:1-35
A.THE JUDAIZING DEMAND RESPECTING CIRCUMCISION PRODUCES AN EXCITEMENT IN ANTIOCH; PAUL AND BARNABAS ARE COMMISSIONED TO PROCEED TO JERUSALEM IN REFERENCE TO THIS SUBJECT; THEIR JOURNEY, AND THE OCCURRENCES WHICH FIRST TOOK PLACE ON THEIR ARRIVAL
Act 15:1-5
1And certain men which [who] came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said [om. and said,], Except ye [If ye do not suffer yourselves to] be circumcised1 after the manner [usage] of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation [contention]2 with them, they determined [arranged] that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other [some others] of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question [controversy]. 3And [So then] being brought [conducted] on their way by the church, they passed [journeyed] through Phenice and Samaria, declaring [relating] the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 4And [But] when they were come to [arrived at] Jerusalem, they were received3 of [by] the church, and of [by] the apostles and elders, and they declared [announced to them] all things that [how much] God had done with them. 5But [Then, ] there rose up4 certain [some] of the sect of the Pharisees which believed [who had become believers], saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and [saying, It is necessary to circumcise them, and] to command them to keep the law of Moses.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 15:1. a. And certain men which came down.The arrival of these men from Judea, and the declarations which they made in Antioch, plainly show that very serious difficulties had arisen, involving a principle of vast importance, which not only needed elucidation, but which it was indispensable that all should distinctly recognize and adopt. The men who created the confusion, which was now continually increasing, are described by Luke as , that is, they belonged to Judea, or, they came from it. The words do not simply contain a geographical notice, but also allude to sentiments and modes of thought which were preminently Jewish. The [later] Syriac version [in the margin], and Cod. 8 [named Stephani , a cursive or minuscule ms. of an uncertain date, and also Cod. 137, named Ambrosianus 97, of the eleventh century, in the text (Alf.)Tr.] insert after the words: ; they are, it is true, interpolated from Act 15:5, as an explanation, but no doubt correctly describe the facts. Several Christians of this class came to Antioch from Judea, and probably from the city of Jerusalem. The circumstances authorize us to assume that their arrival was not accidental, but in accordance with a settled plan, and possibly, too, after they had previously had an understanding with persons who entertained the same sentiments. And the fact that the apostles and elders directed their official letter not only to Gentile-Christians in Antioch, but also to the converted pagans in Syria and Cilicia, Act 15:23, allows us to infer, with some appearance of truth, that these Judaizing men did not restrict themselves in their operations to Antioch, but also attempted to influence the Gentile-Christians in Syria and Cilicia.
b. Except ye be circumcised.When these intruders appeared, they proclaimed a certain doctrine in a distinct and formal manner; , data opera, (Bengel); they set forth a certain proposition in a categorical form, expressed in very comprehensive terms, and with great confidence demanded a recognition and an adoption of it on the part of all. It is obvious that they did not merely express certain scruples, doubts, or apprehensions, although their first efforts may have assumed such a form. The principle which they avowed, was virtually the following: The Gentile-Christians cannot possibly be saved from destruction, and obtain salvation in Christ, unless they submit to circumcision according to the custom and usage of Moses, that is, according to the custom that was legally sanctioned by Moses. [The doctrine in this form was nothing less than an utter subversion of the scheme of Christianity. It denied the sufficiency of faith in Christ as the only condition of pardon and reconciliation. (Hackett).Tr.]
Act 15:2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension, etc.As a consequence of the proceedings of these men, a or schism, as it may be easily imagined, occurred in the congregation in Antioch, which consisted principally of Gentile-Christians, and had hitherto been free from the Mosaic law. It may hence be inferred that the whole congregation did not unanimously oppose the innovators, but that their representations had produced an impression on the minds of certain individuals, and that certain members had, accordingly, united with them. At the same time, an animated , a debate, arose, during which Paul and Barnabas sustained the cause of Christian liberty, in opposition to the legalists. It may, however, be readily perceived, that a positive and absolute decision of the point in dispute, could not be effected in Antioch; the Judeans would not yield, by permitting themselves to be convinced that the Gentile-Christians were exempted, by a divine right, from the duty of observing the law, and Paul and Barnabas, on the other hand, could not abandon the cause of the evangelical Christians, and yield to the Judaists; the congregation in Antioch, besides, had a direct interest in the case, and could not act as judge in its own cause. It was therefore judiciously determined to transfer the decision to Jerusalem. The innovators who introduced such disturbing elements, had come from Judea, and, as we may easily conjecture, spoke in the name of many others, possibly, too, alleged that they represented the primitive congregation and the apostles themselves. It thus became necessary to submit the whole case to Jerusalem. The congregation (, scil. , Act 15:1, the Antiochian Christians) accordingly resolved that Paul and Barnabas, together with some others of their own number (the former, as missionaries to the Gentiles, in an independent capacity, the latter, as representatives of the congregation) should proceed to Jerusalem, and there submit the point in dispute to the apostles and elders, in order to obtain, if possible, a definite decision. It is true that Antioch had already become the mother church of several newly formed Christian congregations; still, Jerusalem continued to be, at that period, the metropolis of all Christendom, principally because some of the apostles were yet established in that city, and the Christians knew of no higher authority in the visible world.When the language in Act 15:1-2, is compared with that in Gal 2:1 ff., it will be perceived that the , in consequence of which Paul travelled to Jerusalem, is not inconsistent with the on the part of the Antiochian congregation, nor does the latter contradict the former. [It maybe that Paul was instructed to propose the mission to Jerusalem; or, if the measure originated with the church, that he was instructed to approve of it, and to go as one of the delegates. (Hackett).Tr.]. It is certain that in both passages the difficulties are alike described as having originally proceeded from Judo-Christians who were legalists in sentiment. And when Paul relates that he and Barnabas had taken Titus with them, his statement fully agrees with the remark in the present passage that went up with Paul and Barnabas.
Act 15:3. And being brought [conducted] on their way by the church.II may signify either to send on before; or, to accompany; the latter alone can be the meaning here: the Antiochian congregation attended them for some distance with great solemnity, thus demonstrating alike the affectionate interest with which the messengers were regarded, and also the great importance which was attached to their mission. During the journey, which conducted them through Phenice [Phenicia, see Exeg. note on Act 11:19. c.Tr.] and Samaria, they visited the Christians, and created great joy among them all, partly by the visit itself, and partly by the communications which they made respecting the , i.e., not the walk of the Gentiles (Luther), which the word never means, but their conversion; comp. Act 14:15; Act 15:19, . The missionary journey in Asia Minor, (Acts 13 and Acts 14.) with its results, was evidently the chief subject of their comp. , Luk 1:1.
Act 15:4-5. And when they were come to Jerusalem.Their reception in this city like their departure from Antioch, was of a solemn and official character; , i.e., they were publicly and honorably received, as ambassadors of the congregation in Antioch, by the congregation in Jerusalem, as well as by the apostles and elders, in a solemn assembly, after having, as it is obvious, previously informed some individuals of the object of their mission. It was at this congregational meeting that Paul and Barnabas made a full report of the deeds which God had performed among the Gentiles through them, and with them ( , as in Act 14:27). In connection with these statements, but, at the same time, in a direct manner, they introduced the subject of the difference of opinions that had appeared at Antioch; and, at first, they avoided argument and discussion. But certain Judo-Christians, who had, previously to their conversion, been Pharisees, instantly made objections to the reception of so many pagans into the Church of Christ without any reference to the Mosaic law. , i.e., at this meeting; the narrative of Luke is here regularly continued, and the words , etc. are not pronounced by the messengers who came from Antioch (Beza; Heinrichs). [See above, note 4, appended to the text.Tr.].The assertions of the Christians who entertained Pharisaic views, although essentially the same as those made by the Judaizers in Antioch, nevertheless differ in the following particulars:1. Those in Jerusalem demand the circumcision of the Gentiles as a duty which must be authoritatively prescribed to them, ( . a duty which they must be compelled to perform. Those in Antioch, had simply taught that the Gentile-Christians ought to submit voluntarily to circumcision.2. In Antioch the claims of the Mosaic law were advocated only in so far as it sanctioned their demand respecting circumcision, and required the observance of that rite as a custom and usage ( , Act 15:1); but here in Jerusalem, far more was expected; the demand was distinctly made, that the observance of the Mosaic law in general should be imposed on Gentile-Christians as a duty ( . . M.). It is plain that the party in Jerusalem felt that it there appeared on its own ground, and was conscious that it possessed more power there than elsewhere; hence, those who belonged to it, openly recognized even the extreme inferences to which their doctrine conducted, whereas the speakers in Antioch encountered different influences in that city, and deemed it necessary to express themselves with great caution and reserve.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The difference of opinion which here assumes prominence, involves fundamental principles, and is radical in its nature. The point in dispute was this: Law, or Gospel? Evangelical liberty, or legal bondage? Moses, or Christ? The opponents undoubtedly had no intention to reject Jesus, for they would not, in that case, have been Christians in any sense of the word, whereas they were , Act 15:5; we have, indeed, no reason to assume that they did not sincerely believe in Jesus as the Saviour, or that their Christianity was a mere pretence. But all their tendencies induced them to demand an unconditional observance of circumcision, the covenantal sign of the old covenant, and, consequently, to demand the observance of the old covenant itself, and of the law of Moses, as indispensably necessary to salvation. Now, whenever aught else, except Jesus Christ Himself, and a living communion with him, is assumed to be a ground of salvation, the Redeemer and his work suffer a loss of honor and dignity. The two are at first, united, and the same rank is assigned to each, that is,the redemption of Christ, and the law of Moses; the grace of Christ, and our own works; (or elseChrist, and the saints; perhaps, tooChrist personally, and the true doctrine). And now, another step is unconsciously taken, and that which was, in the main, only cordinate, is advanced to the highest rank, and the truth is positively displaced. The point, therefore, which was really in dispute, although not expressly stated at this early period, was, the perfection or all-sufficiency of Christthe principle that his divine-human Person had no equal.
2. The foregoing remarks present the case in one aspect: another point of view exhibits evangelical liberty as endangered. Paul himself distinctly refers to this circumstance in Gal 2:4. The evangelical liberty of the redeemed depends on the grace of God in Christ. When limits are assigned to grace, which is all-sufficient in itself, the liberty of the conscience will be circumscribed in the same degree by the yoke of the law. The points in dispute were, accordingly, thesethe exclusive dignity, and the all-sufficient merit, of Christ, as well as the dignity and inward liberty of redeemed soulsthe servile, or the childlike and happy, state of the conscience with respect to God.
3. Moreover, the universality of Christianity (its design to become the sole religion of the world) was involved in the dispute. The Judo-Christians who entertained Pharisaic sentiments, would, no doubt, have consented that pagans should be received into the church of Jesus Christ; they could, certainly, have offered no objections, even if all the pagans had been converted, provided that the latter would submit to circumcision, and adopt the entire Mosaic law. They might regard such views as sufficiently liberal, and believe that they by no means restricted the influence of the Gospel, which was designed for the whole world. Nevertheless, they would have virtually erected a barrier that would, necessarily and essentially, have interfered with the vast and comprehensive design of salvation in Christa design which embraced the entire human race. The attempt to maintain the unconditional validity of the Mosaic law, and to establish the observance of it as necessary to salvation, was, in truth, an attempt to secure an absolute perpetuity for the old covenant, and to prevent the establishment of the new covenantit was an attempt to maintain the distinction which had existed between Israel and the nations of the world, and to perpetuate a system of exclusiveness for the benefit of a single class of men.
4. It was for such reasons that Paul did not feel at liberty to connive at error by silence, or to yield. Peace is a blessing of very great value, and unity in the church is an important end. Yet it would be unwise to seek, or to maintain, peace at any price, and to regard unity as absolutely and unconditionally the sovereign good. Truth is higher than all things else. The pure word of the grace of God in Christ alone, must be maintained, or recovered, even with the loss of concord. This is the course which the apostles, and the Reformers of the church in their day, invariably pursued. But let us honestly endeavor to secure the kernel, not, merely the shellto defend the true faith itself, not merely scientific and learned statements of itto promote the glory of God and Christ, not merely human and party interests.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See below, Act 15:6-21.
Footnotes:
[1]Act 15:1. , instead of [of text. rec., from E. G. H.], is sufficiently sustained [by A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.], and has therefore been preferred by all the recent critics; the present tense, on the other hand, appears to be less exact, [ not only, as in text. rec., precedes , but is also inserted after it by Lach. and Tisch. from A. B. C. and also Cod. Sin.; it is omitted after by D. E. G. H. and by Alf.Tr.]
[2]Act 15:2. , which with [before it], is entirely wanting in one MS. (E) [as well as in the Vulg.], is far better sustained [by A. B. C. D. G. H. Cod. Sin.] than [of text. rec.], which is not found in a single uncial MS. [The latter is a correction from Act 15:7. (Meyer).Tr.]
[3]Act 15:4. is supported only by a minority of the MSS., it is true [A. B. D (corrected)., Cod. Sin., and adopted by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf.], but it is, nevertheless, the original reading; . [of text. rec.] was substituted only because the former word is unusual. [The latter is found in C. E. G. H., nearly all the minuscules, some fathers, etc., and is regarded by Meyer as the genuine reading.Tr.]
[4]Act 15:5. [In the margin of the English Bible, the translators offer another interpretation, according to which Act 15:5 is not a part of Lukes narrative, but a quotation which he gives from the report of Paul and Barnabas; hence, they insert in the margin in Italics the words said they between rose up. See the Exeg. Note on the passage, below.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS
Disputes arise in the Church, on the Subject of Circumcision. The Apostles and Elders are consulted on it. Their Determination is sent to the Churches. Paul and Barnabas differ, and separate.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (2) When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (3) And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. (4) And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. (5) But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
I beseech the Reader not to overlook, how early dissention arose in the Church, notwithstanding the Apostles had been so openly ordained by the Holy Ghost to the ministry. One might have thought, that nothing would have sprung up to disturb the peace of the Church, at such a golden age, when men so highly taught, were alive to prevent it. Every case of dispute arising from the remains of in-dwelling corruption, might have been brought before them, and their decision unerring and final. But, we learn from hence, how universal and unceasing the deadly fruits of our fallen state are! It is blessed, however, to observe, how sweetly the Lord overrules evil for good; and makes that which is sinful in itself, by his grace, to minister to his glory. There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1Co 11:19 .
I beg the Reader, however, to observe, (and the same will serve to guide him upon all similar occasions,) that those men which came from Judaea, came not from the Apostles’ authority. (See Act 15:24 ). All schism, springs from the corruptions of men; they derive no sanction from God. And, it should be further observed, that this rite of circumcision, which they contended for, was joined with the necessity of keeping the law of Moses (see Act 15:5 ). And thus they were shackling the free grace of God, with the will-worship, and will-working of man. And, the ultimate object was, to render Christ and his finished salvation, a matter of uncertainty, whether it should prove beneficial or not to the Church of God. Reader! pause over the subject. Will-worship is the same, in every age of the Church, under whatever covering it hides itself. Ordinances, even the purest, and the best of Ordinances, are no Saviors. When men lay more stress upon them, than they do upon the everlasting love of God the Father; the union of Christ with his Church, before all worlds; and his finished redemption in the glories of his Person, blood, and righteousness, when saving her from all the sin and evils of this time-State of her warfare; and the regenerating grace of God the Holy Ghost; they abuse them, in converting them into a purpose for which they were never intended. In such seasons of the Church, it is blessed to live above all party spirit of men, by living upon Christ; and suffering not God’s’ grace to be made subservient to man’s will. If the Reader will consult what Paul said to the Ga 1-6 throughout, particularly Gal 5:1-6 .
It appears, that Paul and Barnabas, who were preachers of free grace, in opposition to the doctrine of circumcision, had warm disputes with those free-will men and work-mongers, before the subject was proposed to be brought before the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. And probably, those men, as we find Paul himself took notice of upon several occasions, were disposed to call in question Paul’s authority, and to run down his Apostleship as much as possible: as if his judgment was not to be considered, in point of value, with the first and original Apostles. See Gal 2:1-10 . Reader! think it not strange, at what is going on now in the Christian world, in the opposition made to the plainest and purest doctrines of the Gospel; when we find such men as Paul and Barnabas so lightly esteemed. The great enemy of souls, wageth war chiefly with those grand truths, in which the present and everlasting welfare of the Church depends. Such, I mean, as the eternal love, purpose, and grace, of God the Father, to the Church, before all worlds. The Godhead, Person, work, blood-shedding, and righteousness, of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Person, Godhead, love, and grace, of God the Holy Ghost, in his regenerating, convincing, converting, and sanctifying influence, upon the persons of the Lord’s people, While these grand, and infinitely momentous doctrines are insisted upon, as the sole life of the soul; the enemy will raise up all the various methods his subtlety can devise, to counteract them, and keep as much as possible in the back ground their importance. He stirreth up enemies from without, among the ungodly and carnal, to say, that good order among men is in danger, and nothing but licentiousness will follow, if such doctrines are allowed to be preached. And, he stirreth up the corruptions of friends within, to lay more stress upon things of less moment, in order to keep out of view those most essential truths, Paul saw this, and felt it in his day, and before his departure from the Church at Ephesus foretold it, as an evil that would follow. I know, (said he,) that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them, Act 20:29-30 . But, Reader! let you and I learn to make a proper distinction, between things which are essential, and others which are of no moment. If we are called upon to contend, let it be a holy contention for what is worth contending for; namely, the faith which was once delivered to the saints, Jud 1:3 . And, let us see that we are living ourselves upon what we contend for with others, or would recommend to them to live upon also. All our springs of grace here, and glory hereafter, are in Christ. His Godhead, and our complete justification in him, are the life of our soul. To give up these, were to give up life. For, if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal 2:21 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Self-inquiry in Religion
Act 15:36

This was a proposal made by St. Paul to Barnabas after their first missionary journey; he suggested revisiting the Churches they had founded, to see if their members were continuing steadfast in the faith, growing in grace, advancing in the spiritual life standing still, or falling away.
It was both a wise and useful proposal. And we, nineteen centuries after, may apply it to ourselves; let us ‘consider our ways,’ and find out how things stand between ourselves and God; for if ever self-inquiry in religion was needed, it is needed now.
I. Do we ever think about our souls at all? Thousands cannot answer satisfactorily. They never give the subject of religion any place in their thoughts. They are absorbed in the pursuit of business, pleasure, politics, money, self-indulgence; and death, judgment, eternity, heaven and hell, and the Resurrection are never seriously regarded.
II. Do we ever do anything about our souls? There are multitudes in England who do occasionally think about religion, but never get beyond the thinking. These people are always meaning, purposing, and resolving; they say they ‘know ‘what is right, and ‘hope ‘to be found right at the last; but there is no actual separation from the service of the world and sin; no ‘doing’ in their religion they never attain to action.
III. Are we trying to satisfy our consciences with mere formality? How many are making shipwreck on this rock! They are punctual in the observance of the outward forms and ordinances of religion, even the most solemn; yet all this time there is no secret heart in their Christianity. Of these our Lord’s words are true (St. Mat 15:9 ).
IV. Have we sought and received the forgiveness of our sins? Forgiveness has been purchased for us by the eternal Son of God, Who became incarnate, lived, died, and rose again, as our Substitute, in our behalf. But this forgiveness is a thing which each must lay hold on, appropriate, and make his own by faith. Jesus is able and willing to save, but man must come to Him in faith; without believing there is no forgiveness.
V. Do we know anything by experience of conversion to God? Without conversion there is no salvation. Sense of sin, deep hatred of it, faith in Christ, and love to Him, ‘hungering and thirsting after righteousness,’ detachment from love of the things of the world these are some of the signs of true conversion.
VI. Do we know anything of practical Christian holiness? ‘Without holiness no man shall see the Lord ‘(Heb 12:14 ). Holiness is not absolute perfection, freedom from all faults. That is for heaven and not earth, where we have a weak body, wicked surroundings, and a busy devil ever near at hand. Yet Christian holiness is a real thing, with distinct characteristics; it is seen more than heard: humility, kindness, gentleness, unselfishness, consideration for others, meekness, a forgiving temper, the faithful performance of duty, the rising to the test alike of trial or prosperity; this is practical Christianity. But it is never attained or maintained without a struggle, a constant conflict.
VII. Do we use and enjoy the ‘means of grace’? God has graciously appointed certain means to be the channels of Divine grace to man’s heart, to maintain his spiritual life. Tell me what a man does in the matter of Bible study, private prayer, public worship, attendance at the Holy Communion, and I will soon tell you what he is, and on what road he is travelling.
VIII. Are we preparing for, and looking forward to, the Second Coming of our Lord? The Bible emphatically declares this glorious fact, that He shall return with power and great glory to raise the dead, to judge the souls of men, and to set up a kingdom where sin and death shall have no place.
The late Bishop Ryle.
References. XV. 36. Expositor (5th Series), vol. viii. p. 25; ibid. (6th Series), vol. x. p. 366. XV. 37, 38. J. D. Jones, Elims of Life, p. 239. XV. 37-39. Expositor (6th Series), vol. xi. p. 206. XV. 39. C. Vince, The Unchanging Saviour, p. 263. F. D. Maurice, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 243. XVI. 1. H. A. Smith, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. v. p. 345. Expositor (5th Series), vol. x. p. 17; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 446. XVI. 1, 3. Ibid. vol. i. p. 107. XVI. 4. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. x. p. 266; ibid. (6 th Series), vol. ii. p. 298; ibid. vol. viii. p. 419. XVI. 5. J. J. Blunt, Plain Sermons (3rd Series), p. 284. XVI. 6. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vii. p. 404; ibid. vol. viii. p. 325; ibid. vol. ix. pp. 45, 294, 332; ibid. vol. x. p. 6; ibid. (5th Series), vol. x. p. 11.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Chapter 46
Prayer

Almighty God, because thou art full of compassion our lives are spared until now. We are wicked, and deserve not to live, but thy grace is greater than our sin, and thy love enables us to live even amidst the corruption of sin. We have read of thy lovingkindness and thy tender mercies in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament of thy Son we see thy grace and truth and love. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He is thy Son. In him shone the fulness of thy glory. He was the express image of thy Person. So we do not only read of thy love: we see it, and touch it, and rest upon it, in the Person of Immanuel. He is all our salvation, and all our desire. In heaven he is the light; of the cities of the earth he is the One Saviour. By his grace he has redeemed all time from contempt, and saved the earth from being swallowed up. The Cross of Christ is our hope, and light, and infinite strength; hidden within its purpose, we know no pain, or shame, or fear: we have peace with God. Enable us continually to realize this sacred truth, and to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Keep us to vital principles. Root us and ground us in the unchangeable truth. Deliver our mind from all influences that are local and temporary, and fix our hearts upon eternal realities. Then shall we be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; not living in our own opinions, but in the broad and full and holy revelation of thy truth. May thy grace glow in our hearts like a hidden fire, which burns but not consumes. In that fire may we find thyself the God of history and the God of prophecy, the Beginning and the Ending, the First and the Last filling the one circle which includes infinity. Reveal thyself to us day by day in new aspects, and speak to us with tones that shall surprise even the hearts that are most familiar with that sweet music. Thus shall we have the old and the new, eternity and time, the holy heaven touching with benediction the unholy and transient earth. Thou knowest us altogether. That is our terror and that is our joy! Give unto us according to our sin, necessity, and pain, and enable us in all thy gifts to trace the Image of thy Person. So shall we be consciously near thee, and every occurrence in life shall come to us, not as an accident that shall alarm, but as part of thy purpose which thou art carrying out with all the breadth of infinity, and all the duration and calmness of eternity itself.
We pray for one another: for the heart that is enduring the anguish of its first great sorrow; for the eyes that are looking upon death as they never looked upon it before; for the heart that feels the intolerable coldness of death. Thou dost make us acquainted with the enemy. Some of us thou hast made familiar with his presence, and some of us are now looking upon him for the first time, and the sight affrights us by its infinite ghastliness. Come, thou Spoiler of Death, and bless us with one glance of thine eye, with one smile of love, and all the darkness shall flee away, and the valley of the shadow of death shall be as the sanctuary of thy presence.
Regard those of us also who are in high glee of heart, full of prosperity, and abounding in strength, lest in the rioting of our power we forget that our breath is in our nostrils, and our roots are covered by a very shallow soil. Help us to make prosperity an altar, and success a place of sacred worship. Send messages of comfort to those who are in the sanctuary of home prisoners for a time, but prisoners of hope; from thy banqueting table send some gift which shall make them glad also, yea, lengthen the table till it reaches from the church lo the house, and makes the banqueting chamber as large as human necessity. Kiss all the children, and give them to feel that thine arms are about them. Find flowers for them in the darkness, and sing songs to them when their little hearts are afraid. Send messages to the despairing; to the men who have broken all the commandments, and torn down the cross, and trampled under foot the blood of the everlasting covenant. We do not know their speech: it is not in our power to say one word to them; but thou dost make speech. Language is but an instrument in thine hand; make new words that shall touch this intolerable desperation. The Lord comfort us, enlarge our inheritance, show us that our estates and riches are in eternity, and away in the fair land where there is no sin, no night, no death. Amen.
Act 15:1-2
1. And certain men came [were not sent; for the kind of men they were, see Act 15:5 . Peter may have preceded them; in that case we have Paul’s opinion of them in Gal 2:4 ] down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised [ Gal 5:3 ] after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved [liberal Jews, like Hillel, especially Grecian Jews, accounted devout Gentiles to be true proselytes, although uncircumcised: Pharisees, such as Shammai, would not eat with them; such persons worshipped Jehovah and kept the seven precepts of Noah and were afterwards called proselytes of the gate]. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren [ Act 15:1 and Act 15:3 ] appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them [Titus, Gal 2:1 ] should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question [ Gal 2:2 ].
The Christian Magna Charta

THIS is one of the most important chapters in ecclesiastical history. This chapter is the Magna Charta of the Christian Church. I make bold to say that if we could fully master the reasoning of this chapter, and fearlessly reduce it to practice, we should give the Church of Christ a new standing-place in the mind and heart of our age. This is the chapter which the Church either cannot or will not learn. The key to universal confidence and progress is here, and we are afraid to use it. There arose a certain number of men who said to Gentile Christians, “Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” What has that to do with this age? I reply fearlessly that with this age, and every age, this matter has to do vitally. The voice of the Judan teachers was clear, and their doctrine was short. Behind it there was an. undoubtedly sacred history, and in the spirit of the men there was what would be regarded, without questioning, as a loyal and filial obedience to law and tradition. Just at this moment the Church needed a kind of man it had not yet fully known. From this point Paul becomes the man that God meant him to be when he elected him as a chosen vessel unto the Gentiles. Paul made history at this moment Just this type of man was wanted. Barnabas was no debater when he was alone. Peter could make a short, distinct, and emphatic speech; but even Peter had not escaped the period of education in which even noble spirits may momentarily dissemble. A new type of man was needed. Paul was a minister without whose presence the Church, humanly speaking, would not have been complete. He was intellectually and spiritually gifted with piercing insight; a man who could lay hold of the essential realities of things and distinguish between the accidental and the permanent. That man is needed in every age. So Paul, having had much dissension and disputation, said, “This matter must go further, and must be settled.” The Judaizing teachers said to the Gentiles: “We are quite willing for you to come into the Church: you may believe in Christ as we have done; but you must do more; you must obey Moses as well as Christ; therefore, unless you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; add circumcision to faith, and then all will be right.” That seemed to be a reasonable case. The most difficult positions to assail are those which seem to be supported by-most obvious reasons. How will Paul address himself to this occasion? Compare his speech with others, and see how it rises immeasurably above them in spiritual majesty and moral massive-ness. Peter will make a good speech, but his speech will relate to an incident that occurred in his own life. Peter will relate an anecdote, and found upon it a gracious judgment. Paul will develop a philosophy. That is the difference between the men. This question must be settled upon principle. Any anecdote that can be quoted may be taken as helpful and elucidatory, but we cannot build a great temple of truth upon a personal incident; we must have principles, philosophies, and reasons time can neither change nor impair. At this moment Paul became his very self. “What,” said he, “having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” “By the works of the law no flesh is justified.” “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” The men who want you to submit to the Jewish rite of circumcision know not what manner of spirit they are of; they are bondmen, not freemen; they are still in the beggarly elements, they have not advanced to spiritual principle. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Christianity is not a set of rites and ceremonies; it is spiritual; it is a condition of the heart. All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” That was the grand speech which Paul made. He had no personal anecdotes to quote, beyond giving an account of his missionary journey; but he felt that this was the only right and unchangeable view. We know some things without having been formally instructed in them. The heart is often its own theologian. Deep communion with Christ brings away from the sacred and glowing fellowship a power of insight and exposition which no formal teaching can ever give. But what has this to do with the century in which we live? No man wants us now to be circumcised; all references to circumcision are out of date; we live under new conditions, and the sooner circumcision is forgotten the better. In that view you are mistaken. The Pharisees still live, so do the Judaizers, so does every man who in any age ever sought to add anything to the simplicity and dignity of faith. Probably there are no men who say in so many words, “You must be circumcised, or ye cannot be saved”; but there are men who say, “Except ye be baptized your Christian position is at least doubtful.” There are Christian men in this country, but still more in the United States of America, who would not allow us as infant Baptists to sit down with them at the table of the Lord! That is true of a comparatively small community in this country, but it is very broadly true of Christian communions in Transatlantic lands. This is the answer, this is the reply, to which there is no possible answer that can stand, “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” The question of baptism does not turn upon Greek terminations and Greek conjugations, or pedantic references to Greek concordances nothing vital can ever turn upon such mechanics. We need Paul here; the philosophic spirit, the prophet-mind, the piercing genius, the inspired teacher. Paul says, “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” You are inverting spiritual sequence; you are changing violently and without right the law of cause and effect! We must remember that beginnings are often reversed by processes, and that at the end they may be turned upside down. Advancing according to God’s method of educating the world namely, from the natural to the spiritual, from the vulgar to the refined, from the broad to the typical, take this very matter of circumcision. The rite was intended for children eight days old, but it did not begin with them; circumcision began upon a man who was ninety-nine years old! Nothing, therefore, can be argued from the mere point of origin. You must begin somewhere, and it has pleased God often to begin with a man when he meant, in the working out of the process, to get hold of the child. Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, but the rite was not meant for adults. Christ said, “And be baptized” to adults, following exactly the analogy of Jewish history. But who dare say, with that analogy fully in view, that he the very God who ordered the circumcision of Abraham did not mean in this second instance also to begin with the children? The suggestion is supported by analogy and is vindicated by history; it therefore ought to be answered with something better than contempt.
Unquestionably, Christian baptism began with adults; there is no doubt whatever about that. But the Apostle would say to any man who wished to add baptism to faith, as a necessity of salvation, “Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” God moves by the contrary method; first the natural, then the spiritual; first the water, then the Holy Ghost. This is the line along which we, as pdo-Baptists, proceed. Speaking for myself, when the little child is brought to me it is something more than a little child; it is human life, than which there is no greater term but one it is human immortality. I do not baptize the child a few weeks old; I baptize the child that may never die! I begin thus in the flesh; the perfection is in the spirit. I begin in the typical, knowing that the fulfilment of the thought will come in God’s due time. We can add nothing to faith without insulting Christ. It is not enough to say that at the beginning the relations were such and such; so they were in the case of circumcision, but, apart either from the one view or the other, this is the principle that settles everything having “begun in the Spirit,” we are not to be “made perfect in the flesh.” This view of the case, if limited to any one set of Christians, however small, would not be worth discussing if the principle which is involved did not touch every point in the whole circumference of Christian liberty and education. How glorious is this principle! It drives off all door-keepers; it kills the priest, thank God! There are those who would love to keep the door of the Church, and to say, ” You may go in. but not you.” There are some who like to sit in guard-boxes, and watch-towers, and confessionals, and who like to be able to say, “You may pass into the Church, but that other man must on no account go in.” This principle of Paul’s kills the damnable priest, whether he be dissenter, or episcopalian, or baptist, or congregationalist, or presbyterian, for the Pope is in every man, and this principle kills the universal Pope, and therefore to my mind it is true and Divine. The Pope may be in a Nonconformist pulpit! We must never allow that a minister is officially needed to admit people into Christ’s heart. I will not have anything to do with a religion that only a minister can explain. My minister must be my other self a great-hearted, royal-souled man, who calls me brother, and says, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with US.” I will not have the Benediction that is pronounced upon me as somebody out of the ministry; the minister must say “US,” and then the communion will be complete. My fear is and it makes me cold with a deadly chill sometimes that young men should imagine that by going through certain processes of so-called, or rightly called “education,” they become qualified in some magical sense to explain the heart, the love, the grace of Christ; then they will be pedants, tricksters, priests, self-appointed gatekeepers, and against the whole progeny of them, if making such official claims, I launch a protest of fire. It is not the minister who has any priestly rights in this matter; you are all God’s clergy; the Church is a sublime democracy. Certainly there are men amongst us greater than their brethren “chief men among the brethren” is a phrase in this very chapter but their greatness is not a question of priestly quality, or magical qualification, or official authority; it is personal: a question of capacity, sympathy, devotedness; a spiritual heroism, not an official elevation. Let us drive the priest away from the Cross! No priest can be saved until he renounces his sacerdotalism. We should drive off all ceremonialists. It pleases us to be a little ceremonial. It suits human nature to go to heaven through one set of antics rather than another. It looks very pretty in the eyes of idiotic infancy of mind to go to heaven down one aisle of the church in preference to another. This is Paul’s answer to ritualism, ceremonialism, formalism, and all the other “isms.” Some men are born priests; they are born ecclesiastics; they seem, by some unaccountable mystery of Providence, to have been so shaped as to wear clerical clothes. In any other clothes their nearest and dearest friends would not know them! These are the men who tell us that if we belong to this Church, we are all right, but if we belong to some other Church, in the spirit of charity, they would merely doubt whether we are right or not! Away with their notions! not themselves. The Lord burn their sophisms, but spare their souls! With the immortal Robertson, of Brighton, I would say with my whole heart, “If any man, or any body of men, stand between us and the living God, saying, ‘Only through us the Church can you approach God; only through my consecrated touch can you receive grace; only through my ordained teaching can you hear God’s voice; and the voice which speaks in your soul in the still moments of existence is no revelation from God, but a delusion and a fanaticism,’ that man is a false priest. To bring the soul face to face with God, and supersede ourselves, that is the work of the Christian ministry.”
In Scotland there were, long ago, two sects one called the “Lifters,” and the other the “Anti-Lifters.” The “Lifters” were those who took up the bread on the Lord’s table who “lifted” it, and brake it. The “Anti-Lifters” were those who let the bread lie on the Lord’s table, and allowed people to come and take it for themselves. These are the people who would have torn up the seamless robe of Christ and sold it at so much a square inch! That Christ’s dear Cross and sacred blood should have been dragged down to so infamous uses is incredible. Let us then “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.” We need no baptism after faith. What can come after faith but love? I wonder not that Paul should have said, “I thank God that I baptized none of you but about as many as I can count on my fingers; for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.” I speak not about those who do not make baptism essential to salvation; they entirely escape the purpose of my criticism. My remonstrance is addressed in other directions, in which you will find that there are persons unscrupulous and anti-Christian enough to tell you that “except ye be circumcised [or, in modern language, ‘baptized’], ye cannot be saved.” Paul’s answer is complete. It does not turn upon little points of learning and exegesis, of declining Greek nouns and conjugating Greek verbs, but this heaven-wide principle Having begun in the Spirit, we are not to be made perfect in the flesh.

Selected Note

“It is to this period that we assign the contest of Paul with Peter, which is mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians. Peter, it would appear, went down from Jerusalem on a visit to the church of Antioch. He had heard so much of its flourishing condition, that he wished to have the pleasure of seeing it himself. He associated freely with the Gentile converts, and his visit was hailed by all as a cause of joy. Some Judaistic teachers, however, came down from Jerusalem. They were strict in their notions of Jewish purity, and held it unlawful to eat with the Gentiles, as by doing so they might be defiled. Peter, carried away for the time being by the same feeling of timidity which induced him to deny his Lord, withdrew from the Gentiles and manifested a sinful compliance with the prejudices of the Jews. His example was contagious. Other Jewish Christians followed, and even Barnabas, one of the apostles of the uncircumcision, was carried away by the current. Again the peace of the church of Antioch was disturbed, and here, unfortunately, by the pernicious example of those who were regarded as the leaders of Christianity. Then it was that Paul came boldly forward and rebuked Peter for his inconsistency; and no doubt the rebuke was well taken, and the fault corrected. Peter, like most impulsive men, was ready to acknowledge the error which he had committed. It is to be observed that no change of opinion is attributed to Peter, but merely an inconsistency of conduct. It was an inconsistency, however, which, if unchecked, might have led to the gravest consequences. Nor is there any trace of a disagreement between these great apostles. Their writings show that they taught the same Gospel, viewing it in the light of their individual peculiarities; and in his last Epistle Peter speaks of the writings of his beloved brother Paul.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXI
THE GREAT CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM CONCERNING A VITAL QUESTION OF SALVATION AND THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM ON PAUL’S INDEPENDENT APOSTLESHIP AND GOSPEL
Act 15:1-35 with Gal 2:1-10 .

In order to understand thoroughly Act 15 we must consider the scriptures cited at the head of this chapter, and their several themes, in addition to the scriptures and themes in the succeeding chapters. On these great events we have the richest, the ablest, and the soundest literature in Christian history. That part of Conybeare and Howson that touches Act 15 ; Dr. Lightfoot’s great discussion on the same subject in his Commentary on Galatians , that part of Farrar’s Life of Paul that touches on Act 15 , and Philip Schaff’s great discussion on the subject in his History of the Christian Church , are very fine. I could cite many others, but these are all great books, and their discussion of Act 15 is the most important and far-reaching in the history of Christianity.
The history of the question raised at Antioch, is as follows: A number of Pharisees, nominal converts to Christianity, who held membership in the church at Jerusalem, and who opposed the reception of Gentiles into the church, left Jerusalem and went to Antioch, and side-stepped into the church, i.e., stepped sideways into the church. That is what the Greek says. It means surreptitiously, privily. Their purpose was to spy out what was done at Antioch in the matter of Gentiles, and then to bring them into bondage to the Jewish customs. It was a villainous thing; it didn’t come up naturally. When they got up there, they privately agitated this question: “Except a man be circumcised after the manner of Moses, he can not be saved!” That made it intensely important a question of salvation: “Except one submit to this external rite (that God never intended for anybody but Jews), he could not be saved.” It stirs me every time a question of that kind comes up, e. g., when a man says, “Except you be baptized, you can’t be saved.”
Whoever and whenever anyone makes salvation depend upon an external rite, that one is an enemy to the gospel of grace.
They commenced the agitation that way, and finally what is discussed so much privately comes out publicly, somebody says something about it. Paul and Barnabas soon learned that there were a lot of “sneaks” that had slipped into the church, and were undermining the most fundamental things that they preached, and, of course, as says our history, there was no small discussion about the matter.
But why didn’t Antioch, being an independent church, settle that question itself? The answer is that the men who were making this issue came from a similar church at Jerusalem, and claimed to have the backing of the authorities at Jerusalem. Hence, there was a propriety that could not be disregarded, viz.: that this matter should be referred to that Jerusalem church and to the apostles. Their questions were, “Did you give these men any such permission to come to us? Are they representatives of you, or are they just representing their own deviltry?” We do that now in our churches. If a man, or a set of men, goes from one church to another church, and stirs up a row there on a question of intense doctrinal importance, before voting on it the latter church must decide whether these people represent the former church. That is why the matter was referred to the church at Jerusalem by the church at Antioch.
Two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle and himself competent to decide it authoritatively. They were these: The church at Antioch elected him as a messenger, to take this matter up at Jerusalem. Paul was accustomed to yield to a church. An apostle is set in the church, and not over it. But he took precaution to carry the matter to the Lord, and so the second motive was, that the Lord, by revelation, told him to go up that these things needed settlement at Jerusalem. It was an intensely important thing that the apostle should not even seem to be preaching contrary doctrines, and if the apostles and the authorities in the Jerusalem church were teaching that men could not be saved except they become Jews, then it was quite important for that matter to be known. If they were not teaching that, it was equally as important that these men who came to represent them, should be publicly exposed. As a test case Paul took Titus along. Here is” a full blood Gentile Titus who on that first missionary tour, while the record nowhere says it in so many words, it is quite probable was converted. He was a Paul man and a life-long companion of Paul. Is suppose he was converted in the island of Cyprus, the first place they touched and labored.
Paul took this case along. These men said, “Except a man be circumcised, he cannot be saved.” Paul answers, “Here is a man, not a lineal descendant in any way from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and do you mean to say that this intelligent man, who has the evidence of his conversion and the attestation of the Spirit of God, who is evidently already saved, can’t be saved until he is circumcised? He is not a Jew; he doesn’t want to become a Jew. He is not even a proselyte of the gate.” It was important to take along a case on the great question. The history of the journey to Jerusalem is found in Act 15:3 : “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.” You will note that the church having sent these messengers out, accompanied them part of the way. They didn’t let them slip off. They were going on a very important mission a mission for this church and were to represent the church in this matter, and so this church brought them on the way, and I suppose paid all their expenses. A church ought to pay the expenses of any messengers that they send to represent them in an association or convention. I don’t know whether it was at this time, or during the five years that he was in Cilicia (Tarsus) that he did that preaching on the coast of Judea, but certainly he had a chance to do some of it on this trip. He went right through the country, and through the coast country. And the record says that they went talking about this question that was going to come up, and talked about the salvation of the Gentiles, and there is no other statement in the New Testament or anywhere about Paul’s having preached in the coast of Judea.
After the arrival at Jerusalem there were several public and private conferences, but it is somewhat hard to tell just how many. We know that there were very important private conferences. We will notice one of them presently, but we know that there must have been at least three public conferences.
The first was when the delegation got there. The record says that they were received by the apostles and the elders and the church. It was a grave matter. These representatives came with high credentials. The matter touched both churches, and the Jerusalem church, in a very dignified way, turned out to hear what they had to say. Then the record says that there was much discussion, and some of the sect of the Pharisees boldly took the position that those men that went to Antioch were right that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. That may have been the second assembly the reception assembly first and then the discussion, as to the object of their coming, in a second assembly. Anyhow, there is one assembly, and no conclusion reached. The matter is discussed. There were men right in Jerusalem avowing precisely what those fellows that slipped in up at Antioch had said. The record then says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.” The apostles and the preachers all the preachers in the church at Jerusalem held a meeting for them, but the main body of the church was not there. Just as one would gather together all the officials of a church to consider a grave matter, and then when they had considered, one goes before a church meeting and presents his recommendations. The record then says that they called the whole church together, and the letter says that the church participated in the decision that had been reached in that meeting of the apostles and elders. So there were certainly three public meetings and one private meeting. Paul affirms that one of the meetings was held in private, and it was with the apostles only, and the pastor of the church, James.
This was not a council in the ordinary sense of the word. A deliberation of one church is not a council it is a conference. The Antioch church sent some questions there, and the Jerusalem church conferred upon these questions. A council is where a number of churches, through messengers, regularly accredited, meet and consider a matter. So when we get into ecclesiastical history, and they tell us about this being the first great synod, and the first great council, we need not believe it. This was just a church conference. Paul didn’t vote in it. They deliberated, and rendered a decision. The Antioch church referred the question to the Jerusalem church for final decision.
The record says that they sent these men to the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem, but they were received by the whole church, and when the apostles and elders had considered it, then the whole church came together and considered it, and joined in the answer, or final decision.
We will now hear the decision of the question submitted to them: “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, . . .” and then it goes onto finish the decision. They not only decided against the statement that those men made in Antioch, but they utterly disavowed those men, and I think they ought to have had a little church trial after that crowd got away, and called these men up for lying and spying. They may have done so. But, anyhow, they decided the question in favor of Paul.
This decision was communicated in a formal letter, and then two great representatives of the church were sent along to confirm it by word of mouth. It was a very important proceeding. To whom was it communicated? “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.” They sent it to a whole section of the country. By whom was it received? The record says, “So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together [the whole church], they delivered the epistle [to the whole church],” and then Judas and Silas got up and spoke by word of mouth to the whole church. What was its effect? It gave very great joy at Antioch. That is a fine suggestion to young preachers about how to do things. There wasn’t a misstep made anywhere. The church at Antioch didn’t get mad and kick and say the Jerusalem church had gone into heresy. They didn’t fuss about IT. They said, “Let us find out if this is so.” They did it in a dignified, honorable manner. Every time I read it over, I am charmed with the method with which they went at the thing, and how the response was made.
The order of all the proceedings, private and public, was as follows:
1. They were received by the whole church at Jerusalem, and then the question stated) whereupon certain members of the church took the position that they ought to be circumcised. The case of Titus was presented: “What are you going to do about this man?” That meeting reached no decision; that was for discussion.
2. When they adjourned, Paul met the apostles and the elders and privately laid before them a question, somewhat involved in this matter, as to his independent apostleship and his gospel. That matter had to be settled separately. There were Jewish members of the church that denied that Paul had an independent apostleship. They thought he must be subordinate to the others. So he wanted that question settled. There were some among them that questioned whether he had the full gospel. He wanted that settled. Then there were others that questioned whether it was his particular mission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. He wanted that settled, and that was not to be settled by the church at Jerusalem, but by these apostles. The apostles were Peter and John and James, the half brother of our Lord and not an apostle, but the pastor of that church, and one of the most influential men among the Hebrew Christians in all the world certainly on outside Jews more influential than all the rest of them put together. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that it became evident in this private conference that nobody gave him anything or added anything to his gospel. He didn’t get it from any of them. He didn’t get his authority from them. He was called to be an apostle independently by the Lord Jesus Christ, and they recognized the divine call of Jesus Christ; that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and that Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, and got up and gave each other the right hand of fellowship on it. That was a tremendous gain. That was in the private conference.
3. So when the public meeting came, in which the apostles and elders were to consider this question, we want to know what the proceedings were. James presided, because he was pastor of the church, and all the apostles were there, and so when the case was ready for consideration, the first thing was for Paul and Barnabas to state the case of their work among the Gentiles, and they got up and recited that missionary journey we have just discussed, how they went to Cyprus and what followed there; how they went to Phrygia, and Mysia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; what were the tremendous effects of that tour; what mighty signs and displays of divine power attended that work; they recited it all. “Now you are to consider whether we dare go back over that journey, and tell those people they are not saved. They repented they believed, they were baptized, the Spirit attested the work.” Paul testified that Jesus sent him to do the work; the Holy Spirit testified that he had Paul and Barnabas set apart to do that work. Now that is the case.
As soon as that was over, only two men spoke. Peter got up and said, “Brethren, this case has already been settled. You have already passed on it; you know how that in the beginning I led, under the divine guidance, the Gentile Cornelius into the kingdom of heaven. You have already investigated that fact, and passed on it. Are you going to repeal your decision in these other cases?”
Then James got up and said that what Simeon said (he calls him Simeon, which is the Aramaic name for Simon) was confirmed by prophecy; that prophecy said that it should be just that way and he quoted the prophecy. He says, “Brethren my view of the matter is that we should not attempt to put on these Gentiles a burden that neither we nor our fathers were ever able to bear. You can’t impose the whole Mosaic ritual on the Gentile world.” When those two men got through speaking, the case was settled unanimously, so far as the apostles and the preachers were concerned.
4. Then came the whole church conference. They were called together, and the recommendations made by the apostles and preachers were presented, and to the surprise of everybody that leaned to the Mosaic side of the question, the decision was unanimous. Whereupon they wrote this letter and sent these men. I don’t know when there ever was such a meeting of the church except the meeting on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was received.
The test case brought by Paul had to be discussed and disposed of publicly, because it represented the marrow of the question that was sent down to them, viz.: “Shall Titus be circumcised?” Paul says, “He certainly was not,” and it was decided that Titus did not have to be circumcised.
The infidel Renan says that Paul yielded, and that Titus was circumcised. The semi-infidel Farrar takes the same position. He devotes about four pages most elaborately arguing to show that Paul, in order to gain the main question, would make concession in the case of an individual. Paul was never known to concede a principle. I have warned you more than” once concerning Farrar. He was a very great man, had a very bright mind, and was a great scholar. His Life of Christ is really masterful, and so is his Life of Paul , but you can’t trust him. You have to watch him with both eyes all the time. The first tiling you know, he will go off at a tangent on some freak. His head wasn’t level. As old Governor Brown, of Georgia, used to say, “He was a very brilliant man, but he lacked judgment.”
Let us analyze the letter sent: (1) A most respectful greeting; (2) disavowal of the men who came to represent them at Antioch; (3) the decision itself; (4) a restriction on the Gentiles of certain necessary things which we will consider later.
James, in his speech, uses this language: “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 pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood,” or, as it is expressed in the letter, “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.” Could you do any one of those things without committing a wrong. In other words, would it be wrong for you to eat an animal that had been killed by being choked to death? Or would it be wrong for you to eat blood pudding? My answer to the question is this: That the most of these things are a part of the covenant with Noah before there were any Jews a covenant that touched the whole human race. There is where we find it, and therefore in imposing that upon Gentiles, they did impose no more than God imposed in the Noah-covenant for the whole race. The reason that they assigned for not : eating things strangled or for not eating the blood after it was taken out in an any way, is that the life is in the blood. It is all right to eat a beef, but not the blood. [Opinions differ here.] To my mind none of us are justified in taking life in order to live, nor are we called upon to make cemeteries of our digestive organs in which to inter dead hogs and cattle.–Editor. , When you put the knife in the throat to let the blood out, don’t catch that blood and make a blood pudding out of it. Old Mr. John McKnight, at Independence, said that he liked blood puddings better than any other food that he had. In the first place, it is an animal way of eating. Tigers and lions catch a deer by the throat and drink its blood. Minks and polecats do that when they get into the chicken house. One of them will kill a dozen chickens and just drink the blood. A sheep-killing dog will do that, or a wolf. One hungry wolf in one night may kill dozens of sheep never bothering them except just to cut the jugular vein with his tusks and drink the blood. It is a beastly thin, and I say it is wrong now.
In the very next chapter, Paul and Silas carried this very decree, or decision, and gave it to the churches in Antioch, Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe, to be kept by the churches. Dr. Farrar tries to make it appear that a good many of those things were just local, and soon passed away. The decree of the conference at Jerusalem was delivered to all the churches. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, very many years after this, in making his revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos, brings up this charge against two of those churches. “You eat things sacrificed to idols. . . .” Repent, therefore; or else I come, . . .” So that what they imposed at the end of that letter (and this is about what James meant: “We don’t propose to make Jews out of you, but we do insist on your being decent men”) was that these Christians were to observe things that touch all mankind.
Here we need to harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Act 16:3 ) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Gal 2:3-5 ). There stood Paul at Jerusalem and said, “Ye can’t circumcise Titus,” and a few days after, at Lystra, he takes Timothy and circumcises him. Timothy was a Jew, and as a matter of expedience, in order to give him a greater entrance in preaching to Jews, Paul circumcised him. Titus was not a Jew. Paul says in the matter of expediency: “I will be all things to all men to enable me to save them. I will become a Jew to those that are Jews; to those that are weak I will be weak. I will put myself on their basis, if there isn’t a great principle involved.” He saw no use in circumcision at all. He says, “Circumcision availeth nothing, and uncircumcision availeth nothing,” but in the minds of Jews, and particularly at that day, a Jew that wouldn’t be circumcised couldn’t get a hearing.
A certain premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, in which he said, “Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.” They say that the object of preaching is to take the elect out of the crowd not to preach to save everybody, but to go to pick out the elect. That is the first step. “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will again build the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up.”
They say that the next stop is the restoration of the Jews and the Jewish polity, the Temple, and all its services, etc., that having now taken the elect out of the heathen nations, and having brought the Jews back, the other elect, then “the residue of men may seek after the Lord.” They say that that is the order.
A Campbellite man was the first I ever knew to present that thought. In a great debate between Thompson, a Baptist preacher, and Burgess, a Campbellite preacher, when they were discussing election, the Campbellite preacher took the position that the elect were the picked crowd, and that they were elect in every sense of the word, but that the bulk of the saved would consist not of the elect, but of those that would come in afterward. But, here will never be such an anticlimax as Christ coming back to the earth, and then setting up the old Jewish polity, and becoming the king of the Jews literally, and through the kingdom of the Jews, ruling the World.
That is the very interpretation that Paul fought all his life, and that James fought. That is premillennialism. That when they say, “Thy kingdom come on earth,” they mean to say, “at Jerusalem with Christ as earthly king, and ruling all the rest of the world through the Jews, with the old polity set up.” They misinterpret the words of Christ. The New Testament shows that the restoration of the Jews is the conversion of the Jews; that it is a spiritual restoration, and that the Jerusalem they come into is the heavenly Jerusalem, and not the earthly Jerusalem, and that the old Jewish polity will never be set up.
I doubt, not that the Jews will one day settle again in the Holy Land. I think that is very probable. Personally I would like to see them do it, but if you mean by it that when they get there that Jesus will come to them come before the millennium and that their old polity of sacrifices will be established, and that he, as king at Jerusalem, will rule all kings of this world through the Jews, I don’t believe a word of it.
1Co 8:8 teaches that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble. It takes the position that there is no sin in eating a piece of meat offered to an idol; that every creature of God is good; that is all right, but you must not consider the abstract right of a thing. You must consider it in its relation. There isn’t a particle of harm in my pressing my finger on a piece of crooked steel, but if that crooked steel is the trigger of a pistol, and the pistol is pointing at another, then there is a great deal of harm in pressing a crooked piece of steel. Paul says, “If my eating meat causes a weak brother to stumble, I will never eat it while the world stands.” As a proof that it is wrong, Jesus Christ himself speaks against it in Revelation in regard to the churches, holding them responsible for violating that law. Then Paul himself says in that same letter to the Corinthians, and in a different connection, “You cannot take the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.”
It is of immense signification that the decision was here made that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others. The first part of the immense signification is that it wipes off the face of the earth the foundation stone of Romanism that the pope of Rome is the head of the Christian world. Here was a man (they say Peter was the first pope) who gave no authority to Paul. Here is a man that is welcomed by Paul. Here is a man that goes up and gives the right hand of fellowship upon this fact that Paul was independent of him, got nothing from him, and was not responsible to him. But the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, did not forever settle the questions decided. They did settle them authoritatively, but not practically.
There were some important matters also not decided by this conference which occasioned much trouble later. One of them was, Shall Jewish Christians socially eat and drink with Gentile Christians? Another was, Is it essential for a Jew, not a Gentile, to be circumcised in order to be saved? But Peter greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision. He followed right on after, and he got up there and confirmed what Silas and Judas had just said.
QUESTIONS 1.What must we consider in order to understand thoroughly Act 15 ?
2. On these great events what valuable helps have we?
3. Give the history of the question raised at Antioch, showing its origin, its importance, its discussion, and particularly why it should be referred to Jerusalem, since Antioch was an independent church having competent jurisdiction over its own affairs.
4. What are two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle, and himself competent to decide it authoritatively?
5. What is test case did Paul take with him, and why?
6. What is the history of the journey to Jerusalem, and was this the time when he preached throughout all the coasts of Judea, as is affirmed in Act 26:20 ?
7. After the arrival at Jerusalem, how many public and private conferences were held? Explain fully.
8. Was this a council in the ordinary sense of the word? If not, what was it?
9. To whom did the Antioch church refer the question, and by whom was the matter finally decided?
10. What was that decision, how was it communicated, to whom communicated, by whom received, and the effect of its reception?
11. Recite the order of all the proceedings, private and public.
12. Was the test case brought by Paul considered and disposed of publicly or privately?
13. How was it decided?
14. Who of prominence in modern times contend for a different result in this particular matter? What is their contention?
15. Give in order the incidents of the discussion, and the decision of the main question, the speakers, and their speeches. (See the record.)
16. Analyze the letter sent.
17. What have you to say of the necessary things imposed on the Gentiles by this letter? Would you now consider it wrong to do any of those things, and why?
18. What subsequent proofs that this decision was not local, not to be limited in time, not to be limited to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia?
19. Harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Act 16:3 ) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Gal 2:3-5 ).
20. What premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, and what the reply to it?
21. Does not 1Co 8:8 teach that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble, and what the application in this case? What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say about meat eating?
22. Before whom were the questions of Paul’s independent apostleship, gospel and the subdivision of labor brought, how decided, and why was this particular matter not referred to the Jerusalem church at large?
23. What is the immense signification of the decision that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others?
24. Did the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, forever settle the questions decided?
25. What important matters were not decided by this conference, which occasioned much trouble later?
26. Who, coming to Antioch, greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said , Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Ver. 1. And certain men, &c. ] Cerinthus, the heretic, with his complices, saith Epiphanius. These are said to “subvert the gospel,” Gal 1:7 . A little thing untowardly mingled, mars all, saith Chrysostom.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 35. ] DIFFERENCES RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUMCISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS. COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS AT JERUSALEM.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1. ] Called in Gal 2:4 , , .
See the addition in var. readd. probably from Act 15:5 . Doubtless it represents the fact. In spite of the special revelations which had accompanied the reception of the first Gentiles into the church, the strong Judaizing party adhered to their old prejudices respecting the necessity of conformity to the law of Moses. With this party Paul was in conflict all his life; and even long after, we find it raising its head again in the sects of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.
Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 185, note) notices the account in Josephus (Antt. xx. 2.4), where Izates, king of Adiabene, is converted to Judaism by a certain Ananias, who, for fear of a commotion among his people, allows him to remain uncircumcised when a certain Eleazar, , prevails on him to perform the rite, for that without it he could not be a Jew. On the idea that Cerinthus and Ebion were the here spoken of, see the patristic reff. in Wordsw.’s note.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 15:1 . . .: on the vagueness of the expression see Ramsay, St. Paul , pp. 158; I59. ., i.e. , to Antioch; see critical notes for [278] reading, and additional note at end of chapter on the identification of Gal 2:1-10 with Acts 15 : in the early Church in favour of the identification, cf. Iren., Hr. , iii., 13, 3; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. , v., 2. : imperfect, representing perhaps their continuous efforts to force their teaching on the brethren. , see critical note. .: R.V. as in Act 6:15 , “custom of Moses”; in A.V. “manner,” which might be used of a temporary fashion or habit; marks a national custom, but see also Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien , p. 79. On its national significance, see art [279] “Circumcision,” B.D. 2 , and Hastings’ B.D., “Beschneidung”; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopdie des Judentums , i., 2, 174; Weber, Jdische Theol. , p. 266 (1897); Renan, Saint Paul , p. 66; and cf. Book of Jubilees , xv, cf. i.; Assumption of Moses , viii.; Jos., Ant. , xx., 2, 4; c. Apion. , ii., 14; Vita , xxiii. , i.e. , in the Messianic salvation, cf. Act 2:40 , Act 4:12 , Act 11:14 . On the tradition that Cerinthus was amongst these Judaisers, as he and his had already rebuked Peter, Act 11:2 , see “Cerinthus,” Dict. of Christ. Biog. , i., 447. It is very probable that the successful mission of Paul and Barnabas was really the immediate cause of this protest on the part of the narrow Judaic party. This party, as the Church in Jerusalem grew, may well have grown also; the case of Cornelius had been acquiesced in, but it was exceptional, and it was a very different thing to be asked to embrace all Gentiles in the new covenant, and to place them on a level with the Jewish Christians, whether they did homage or not to the Mosaic law, Hort, Ecclesia , p. 67; McGiffert, Apostolic Age , p. 192.
[278] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.
[279] grammatical article.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Acts Chapter 15

The Spirit of God next brings before us the first signal working of that judaizing which was destined to play a deep, wide, and permanent portion in the history of the church of God. ‘And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised1 after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved’ (ver. 1).
1 The critical or aoristic form as in ABCD and many cursives, is preferable. The Text. Rec. though largely supported implies continuance or habit, which does not apply here.
In every point of view this was serious. It was an error, and yet it claimed to be founded on the word of God. It proceeded from men bearing the name of Christ, and withal it struck at the foundation. Satan’s habitual effort is to insinuate evil, not only under fair appearance and if possible by one part of the word made to neutralize another, but through disciples. No principle more false than to urge the reputation of advocates in defence of their doctrine, which must stand or fall according to scripture interpreted in the light of Christ and His work, for these ever call for the energies of the Holy Spirit, as they command the hearts of the faithful.
It is clear also that the truth of God is imperilled by an unwarranted addition even more than by the manifest opposition of unbelief. These men did not avowedly deny the gospel, nor teach that one could be saved by an ordinance only; but they did insist on the necessity of circumcision in order to salvation. This is to undermine Christianity, which is not merely promise but accomplishment; but mere promises leave the door open, as inspired history shows, for thereby insinuating the law, instead of sovereign grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. It was really ignorance of Christ risen from the dead and glorified in heaven, the proper object of the Christian. He never can thus be by faith before the soul without maintaining the efficacy of His atoning death. What has law or circumcision to do with Him Who is at the right hand of God? On this side of the cross law has its place (1Ti 1:8-11 ).
But these men were occupied with their prejudices and were looking back at things and persons on earth, not through the rent veil upon Christ above. Hence their pride was wounded. They could not bear to hear that the distinctive mark, the ancient glory of a Jew, was now eclipsed and gone. They had but feebly learned the teaching of the cross. They had not discerned there the sentence of death on the flesh at its best. They would no doubt have acknowledged their need of Him Who suffered once for all their sins, but they saw not their religion (and circumcision was its initiatory and characteristic badge) treated as naught, yea, utterly condemned therein. Error flows from a wholly false measure. Had Christ, the truth been before their souls, had they estimated aright His death on the cross, they had never fallen into a mistake so profound and unworthy.
But they were wrong otherwise also. The Lord had promised the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to guide into it all and to teach what they could not bear during His earthly ministry. The truth was there in His person; but yet the best taught of His disciples did not understand at all fully even fundamentals till He was risen and glorified. But now the Holy Spirit had been sent down from heaven, and Gentiles without circumcision had received Him, no less than did the circumcised believers. Was this nothing in their eyes? Is it not a solemn lesson that disciples could be so blinded by their religious habits as to overlook a fact so plain, certain and conclusive? For God had taken care that not the apostles of the uncircumcision but Peter himself should be His chosen instrument for the call of Cornelius in the presence of the six brethren of the circumcision that accompanied him from Joppa.
It is instructive also to observe, if faith is ever humble, bold though it may be, how presumptuous error is. For these men who were clamorous for the necessity of circumcision, ventured not to plead that apostolic authority had laid down any such dogma as they sought to impose. Their judgment and their dignity, we may say, proceeded from themselves, behaving in this like the Gentiles who know not God.
Insurrection against the truth was thus permitted to display itself in the face of the apostles that the Lord might give us His own distinct and ever-abiding correction. What a mercy to us, as well as to the church of God ever since, that this question was not suppressed till the apostles disappeared from the earth! We should then have had only an uninspired answer, however sound. Now we have what all Christians own to possess divine authority. That which an apostle writes is really the Lord’s commandment (1Co 14:37 ).
The troublers came from Judea, which with the weak and ignorant would be apt to lend weight to their words. Of this Satan is ever active to take advantage. Human tradition readily creeps in, and as naturally flatters the flesh. The Holy Ghost falls back upon the word; only we must take care that we do not require the letter which kills when we can only have the spirit which gives life. Subjection to Christ alone keeps us right life in Him is always obedient and holy, and is the way of true intelligence. Human tradition is never to be trusted even among disciples. God is jealous for His word, which bears constant testimony to Christ and therefore against human pride. The men who came down from Judea were imperious nominally for God; it was really for the flesh and self. They would have cut off, if they could, not only the Gentile saints but the apostles of the uncircumcision.
‘And’ when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up unto Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question’ (ver. 2). Here again let us admire the wisdom of God’s ways. Paul and Barnabas themselves were unable to settle the dispute. Self-will is invincible, even for apostles. God had it in His mind to interpose in a much more impressive and efficacious manner. It might have been dangerous, however desirable in itself, to have terminated the present matter of debate at Antioch. For the evil, being inveterate as to principle in the nature of things, would surely have broken out afresh subsequently, and elsewhere, probably worst of all in Jerusalem itself. It was true wisdom, therefore, to transfer the further discussion of the question to the source from whence the mischief had come; more particularly as Paul and Barnabas would go there in order that it might not only be heard but there and then settled by all the authority given of God for the governing of His assembly on the earth. All was thus directed under the good hand of God, for the evil was judged in the quarter from whence it emanated, where presumably, not to say notoriously, was its hotbed, where lived those who knew best its promoters, and where all was rather favourable than hostile to them, with on the other hand the immense moral weight that would follow the judgment from such as God had set first in the church to govern in the Lord’s name.
1 Text Rec. followed by the Authorized Version and many has ‘therefore’, and even Lachmann adheres to it, as AEHP and most cursives give it. But the correct particle has the best support and is clearly right. The common is unfounded.
In Gal 2:1 , Gal 2:2 the apostle Paul says he went up ‘according to revelation’. Here the inspired historian says that they (i.e., the brethren or the labourers generally without defining more) arranged or decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem about this question. There is no more contradiction here than in Act 13:2 where the Spirit called unmistakably and exclusively the same servants of the Lord to a definite missionary work, while they also enjoyed the cordial and holy fellowship of their fellow-labourers in commending them to the grace of God for that tour. They may have had the revelation direct as in Act 16:9 , Act 16:10 , or through the prophetic intimation of others as before, what is certain is that ‘according to revelation’ Paul went up, and not merely as a step appointed by others. Each statement is in perfect keeping with the document where it is given, and the Holy Spirit’s design in each, though men as usual have not been wanting to set them in antagonism. Titus was one of these others, and his case at least was of immediate bearing on the question as an uncircumcised Gentile endowed and honoured of God beyond most; but this again is specified only to the Galatians for its importance there, though room be amply and evidently left for it in the Acts. The rationalistic misuse of God’s word is an instance of that ignorance or dishonesty, if not both, which characterizes the system. The believer ought to have no hesitation or difficulty, inasmuch as faith adheres to all scripture as divine.
‘They therefore, having been set forward by the assembly, passed through both1 Phoenicia and Samaria, recounting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy to all the brethren’ (ver. 3). Is there any good reason why propemfqevnte” should not be rendered ‘set forward’ here as in Rom 15:24 , 1Co 16:6 ; 3Jn 1:6 ? No doubt the heart of the saints was with them, not with the legalists; but there was considerate and affectionate care for their wants by the way, whether or not there was any escort, as in Act 21:5 , which some conceive here. The picture is a lovely one, the joy in all created by the accounts heard of God’s grace outside Israel. What a contrast with Jewish jealousy! Yet are unlettered men and women peculiarly open to superstition, prejudice, and human feeling. But divine love prevailed, in accordance with the truth. Others alas! who for the time ought to have been teachers had again need to be taught the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God and had come to need milk, not solid food (Heb 5:12 ). It is harder to unlearn than to learn.
1 Text. Rec. follows most in omitting ‘both’, which the more ancient authorities insert.
‘And on arriving at Jerusalem they were welcomed1 by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and reported all things that God did with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, believers, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them and charge [them] to keep the law of Moses’ (vers. 4, 5).
1 The critical reading is stronger than that of Text. Rec.
The heart of the church beat truly, but there were adversaries now within as well as without. It was not yet the conference, but meetings preliminary to it, where the wonderful works of God by the gospel drew out sympathy or opposition among those at Jerusalem who bore the Lord’s name. Those who at this time resented the liberty of grace are expressly said to have believed. The crisis, therefore, was grace. Unity – unity not merely by-and-by in heaven, but now on earth – is the blessed privilege and the inalienable responsibility of the body of Christ, the assembly. There was no such unhappy wish as to forestall the due place by dealing with the question where Paul and Barnabas had especial and commanding influence, and then arguing on the church’s unity to compel the communion of the assembly in Jerusalem and of course everywhere else. Yet Antioch might have been plausibly set forward as the only proper place to discuss and determine a question which so intimately concerned the Lord’s glory among the Gentile believers. For not from Jerusalem but from Antioch were those ambassadors of Christ sent forth who had been the great pioneers in the missionary work of the Holy Spirit. Self or party could have furnished abundant reasons; but Christ held His place, which first sought His will and then made all saints dear, even those who were creating trouble by their lack of grace, lowliness, and intelligence. Thus the snare was avoided by which Satan sought even then to scatter and make a Jewish church apart from the Gentile; or, at the least, by leaving out the assembly in Jerusalem the apostles, and the elders, to begin a separate course at Antioch, which would end in division ere long, if not immediately. But grace and truth prevailed, the respect due to all those whom the Lord had honoured and, as we have seen the particular principle of dealing with evil in its root, and not merely its fruits.
It was, I presume, at this juncture that the apostle, as he tells us in Gal 2:2-10 , set the gospel he preached to the Gentiles before those of reputation in private. It was then they saw that he had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision; and that James, Cephas, and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship according to that partition of the work which the Lord had already marked out for all that had eyes to discern. This was of the utmost moment to state in the Epistle; but it was outside the public history and independent of the council which is the Spirit’s object in the chapter before us. The independence of Paul’s mission and work does not enter into view here, whereas in the letter to the Galatians it was of capital moment, and the decrees of the council are not named where they could have no just place, and their mention might have wrought only mischief. How truly, in the New Testament as in the Old, to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven! Above, such distinction is uncalled for, where all is light, peace, and love, to God’s glory.
It seems evident that much was done before the council. The opposition of the judaizing party had come out fully and distinctly from the time the apostles of the Gentiles had been received by the assembly, as it had wrought since the baptism of Cornelius and his household. Naturally the public recital of what God had done in Asia Minor provoked their prejudices yet more. What occurred privately is not stated here; but we know from the early verses of Gal. ii. that it was of high moment.
What is reported in Act 15 had for its prime object the repression of Jewish feeling and the distinct recognition of the Gentiles who believed on common ground with the Jewish disciples. The decrees that were ordained by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem had the greatest weight in that point of view. But, in writing to the Gentile assemblies, the apostle takes the high ground of grace, and proves the incompatibility of a fleshly ordinance, however venerable or instructive, with the truth of a dead and risen Saviour as a ground of justification before God. In that grand scheme, wherein God Himself has wrought for guilty and lost man in the cross and blood of His Son, circumcision made with hands wholly vanishes away. And the Gentile believers, dead in their offences and the uncircumcision of their flesh, Christ quickened together with Him, no less than the Jewish faithful, having forgiven us all the offences. The handwriting written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, He blotted out and took out of the way, nailing it to the cross (Col 2:13-15 ).
We can understand how truly it was of God, thus to confront and set aside all Gentile inclination for ordinances by the teaching of the truth of Christ, which had buried the question in His grave and given the Christian a new place in Him, to which the flesh never had, nor can have, a claim. The decrees had their place and season most suitably while the early Jews who believed were objects of the patience of God: but the apostolic Epistles treat the question on a deeper foundation and with higher associations, which abide for ever. But it is highly instructive to notice that the apostle was not behind others in honouring and using the decrees, which are not even mentioned in the final discussion of the case for the edification of the church in general.
‘And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter. And when there had been much questioning, Peter stood up and said to them, Brethren (lit. Men-brethren) ye know how that from early days God chose among you1 that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving [them]2 the Holy Spirit, even as to us also, and He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God, that ye should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe3 that through the grace of the Lord Jesus4 we shall be saved in like manner as they’ (vers. 6-11). Here we have the opening of the council. None but the apostles and elders are mentioned as gathered together. It was emphatically for their decision, but assuredly not without the presence and concurrence of the assembly, as we know from verse 22, not to speak of verse 12; and this of course as a reality, not a mere form which Christianity forbids. But God would have the positive seal of the highest authority in the eyes even of the remonstrants. Hence the prominent mention throughout of the apostles and elders, while it cannot be doubted that the assembly was present and free to take part. It was a matter in which every soul had a real interest but in which the judgment of the wisest was particularly needed. And One wiser than any took His guiding part here (ver. 28), Whose personal presence we have seen to be sedulously acknowledged throughout this entire Book, as indeed it is characteristic of the church of God according to the scriptures. The Holy Ghost was there and was counted upon for guidance to the glory of Christ.
1 Most with Text. Rec. read ‘us’.
2 The pronoun here is doubtful, the sense is clear.
3 The Sinaitic, et al., have the strange error of the future here.
4 ‘Christ’ in the Text. Rec. has some authority, but neither much nor the best.
This, however, did not preclude discussion. Verse 7 lets us know that there was much debate or questioning. No doubt it was sorrowful and humiliating that there should be such disputation, even in the presence of the apostles, but the fact is plain and is calmly recorded by the Holy Spirit, which should convince not a few how far their notion of ecclesiastical order differs from primitive history. Even in apostolic days we see how liberty prevailed though flesh undoubtedly took advantage of it. To destroy the liberty because of its abuse were a remedy worse than the disease; and thus it is with Christendom bound in fetters of brass for ages, and denouncing true liberty as licence. Human rules have rendered the scriptural state of things just as impossible against good as against evil. But faith, when directed to God’s revelation in this, can never rest satisfied short of subjection to scripture, and the rather as the Holy Spirit was promised to abide with us for ever.
The apostles, it is evident, bore patiently with the difficulties and even disputes of their less discerning and more prejudiced brethren. They were strong in the grace that is in Christ. They had His glory livingly before their souls. They sought not lordship over the faith of their brethren, but that others should stand by faith even as they stood. As the grace and truth of Christ faded in men’s hearts, ecclesiastical authority became an idol or self-importance a snare. Such was, such is, no small part of the present ruined state of the church: no one contends that there was perfection even in apostolic days, still less can one look for perfection now even within the most circumscribed sphere. But every faithful soul is bound to stand for the Lord’s honour according to the written word, and to eschew whatever is opposed to God’s order as well as to doctrinal truth and personal holiness. The denial of such a responsibility is in substance not only a sin but antinomian in principle, no matter whose be the names or what the fair-spoken pleas to excuse the unfaithfulness. It is easy to point out grievous shortcoming even where a truthful stand is made. But those who point it out with complacency fail in this very matter to exhibit the Spirit of Christ, and will never be able to justify human methods in God’s church, even if they succeeded in carrying them out ever so successfully. How much more worthy to do better according to the word what they blame for being done so feebly! Is it uncharitable to say that to act themselves according to the word is far from their purpose, which is simply to discredit those who do seek it?
Peter then reminds all of his mission to Joppa, where the Gentiles received the gospel through him as God’s first and apostolic instrument. Most powerfully does he urge God’s dealings with them, ‘the heart-knowing God’ bearing witness to them in the gift of the Holy Spirit, uncircumcised as they were, nay, further, that He put no distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile believers, seeing that His purification is of the heart by faith. For this a rite avails nothing. ‘Now, therefore, why tempt ye God’? Their prejudice, in itself, and specially if maintained, was a real disbelief of God’s word and acts. It was putting a yoke of law upon the neck of the disciples, which none in the past or present could bear: a circumcised man was debtor to do the whole law. For, introduced in glory as it was, it is a ministry of death and condemnation. The gospel believed is salvation through the grace of the Lord Jesus, Who bore our penalty and blotted out our sins in His blood. This is grace indeed, where all the guilt was ours and all that availed for our forgiveness and deliverance was His, to the vindication of that God, His God and Father, Whom we had rebelled against or lived without. In reality we knew Him not as He is, believing the lie of Satan rather than the truth of God. We did our own will and gave Him no credit for love, though He so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth should not perish but have everlasting life. But now we have seen the Son and believed in Him. His grace in suffering for our sins, the Just for the unjust, has made us both ashamed of ourselves and acquainted with God; and He is love. ‘Hereby know we love, because He laid down His life for us’ (1Jn 3:16 ).
Formed by that grace, it is remarkable that Peter says here, ‘we believe that we Jews shall be saved in like manner as they (Gentiles)’. The natural phrase for a Jew would have been, ‘They in like manner as we’; but grace reigns and Peter says, ‘We, in like manner as they’. How worthy of the gospel! This was not Simon Bar-Jonah left to himself, but it was Peter – a true rock-man. Flesh and blood had not prompted the thought or word but the Father Who is in heaven.
Peter had made an admirable introduction and his argument was the reflection of the grace of the Lord Jesus. It was well and worthy that the apostle of the circumcision should so speak not merely from personal experience but from the sovereign choice of God. We can understand the effect: ‘And all the multitude kept silence.’ None could doubt the strong Jewish prejudice of Peter, no more could they question now his assertion of liberty from the law for the Gentiles. But there was another reason for keeping silence. ‘And they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God wrought among the Gentiles by them’ (ver. 12). Here there ought not to be a hesitation that ‘all the multitude’ must take in not merely the apostles and the elders but the assembly. This seems certain from verse 22, whatever may be our judgment of the true reading in verse 23. It is interesting to note that the signs and wonders are said to have been wrought of God by Barnabas and Paul, whereas in verse 4 the more general work of the Lord is said to have been all that God wrought with them. The signs and wonders were more external and they are viewed as mere instruments. ‘With them,’ implies more of fellowship and divine association than exercise of mere power. Such a statement must have had the most powerful effect on Jewish minds. God graciously gave in abundance what they would expect peculiarly in so novel a work among the Gentiles. His grace had fully provided for all emergencies beforehand.
‘And after they had held their peace, James answered saying, Brethren [Men-brethren] hearken to me; Simeon has rehearsed how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of [them] a people for His name’ (vers. 13, 14). This is a most important proposition in its way; it gives a separate character to the present work of God. It in no way denies that God had a line of saints in Israel, and before Israel, and what is more, outside Israel; but it asserts a special gathering ‘gut’ at this present time, and it leaves no room for the vain thought, that even one nation, as a whole, shall be brought by the gospel to confess the Lord, still less that all nations shall be so changed. The truth is that God only proposes while Jesus is at His right hand to take out of all a people for His name. This is the church of God and it is as distinct from the ways of God before the cross as from those which are to follow the Lord’s appearing and reign by-and-by.
‘And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written; After these things I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen, and will build again its ruins and will set it up; so that the residue of men may seek out the Lord and all the nations upon whom My name is called, saith [the] Lord, Who maketh [all] these things known from the beginning of the world’ (vers. 15-18).
It is an error to suppose that these last words allude to the mystery of forming the believing Gentiles with the faithful Jews into one body, the church. Rom 16:25 , Rom 16:26 and Eph 3:5 , Eph 3:6 do refer to that mystery, but not our text which simply speaks of God’s gracious recognition of those of the nations that believe as His own, though Gentiles still, whether under the gospel now or in the future kingdom. Union with Christ and the Head as His body goes much farther, though said of Gentiles now as of believing Jews, but no Old Testament prophet reveals it. The prophetic writings of Rom 16 and the prophets of Eph 3 are New Testament exclusively.
It will be observed that the prophets are referred to generally, though none but Amos is quoted, and the object is general. James draws from their testimony, proved expressly by the one cited, the principle of Gentiles as such having the Lord’s name called upon them. So far were they of the nations from having to accept circumcision that the prophet speaks of all the Gentiles. This will be in the days of the kingdom as no Jew could deny. They will not become Jews any more than the Jews will become Gentiles, both will be blessed of the Lord in their respective positions when the Messiah reigns. It was absurd therefore to object to God’s grace toward the Gentiles now, under the gospel, and in the church where is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all and in all.
The reading in verse 18 is somewhat doubtful, and even the version, which may mean ‘Who doeth these things known from the beginning of the world.’ The general sense is plain enough. Accordingly James gives his judgment: ‘Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not those who from the Gentiles turn to God, but write to them that they may abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath’ (vers. 19-21).
‘The pollution of idols’ were meats offered to idols, as in verse 29. Cf. Dan 1:8 , Mal 1:7 , not to speak of Ecclus. xl. Bentley’s conjecture of (‘pork’) for is an instance of the great scholar’s audacity and erudite ignorance (perhaps suggested by Bellonius’ Observat. iii. 10 whom he cites in ver. 29). We may think it strange to see unclean sin classed with idolatrous sanction; but the Jew felt differently, and to the Gentile they were equally indifferent.
Thus it was going up rather to God’s ways with Noah, than enforcing the law of Moses. Noah being a sort of head of mankind generally after the flood, Gentile liberty was thus secured, idolatry was intolerable, and so was fornication, however universal both among the nations. Abstinence from things strangled and blood brought in the recognition of God’s taking account of man as fallen. God forbade both: the use of the creature was not forbidden to man, but God prohibited meddling with the special signs of death; life belongs to God, and it was forfeited through sin. As for the law, there was no reason why the church should busy itself in that direction: from generations of old Moses had in every city those that preach him. The synagogues at any rate had the law read there every sabbath. The Gentiles henceforth might well rejoice in the gospel.
It may be noticed by the way that no vote was taken, nor any equivalent measure. For it was no question of the will of man but of God. Who wrought by the Spirit to give holy wisdom and general concurrence.
‘Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders with the whole assembly having chosen1 from among them to send men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called2 Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brethren, having written by their hand, The apostles and the elder brethren3 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Whereas we heard that some who went out from us troubled you with words, upsetting your souls4; to whom we gave no commandment, it seemed good to us, having been of one accord5 to choose6 and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, themselves also announcing by word the same things. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Farewell’ (vers. 22-29).
1 ‘Chosen’, verses 22 and 25, in the Authorized and other Versions is ungrammatical. G. Wakefield is half right, half wrong.
2 Text. Rec. with some authority gives ‘surnamed’, as in Authorized Version.
3 The common text follows EHLP, et al., as opposed to ABCD et al., and probably was framed to suit verse 22; it was a mere clerical error.
4 Text. Rec. with many MSS. adds ‘saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law’. The most ancient authorities omit.
5 The Authorized Version renders this in a way of no bearing here.
6 ‘Chosen’, verses 22 and 25, in the Authorized Version and others is ungrammatical. G. Wakefield is half right, half wrong.
It will be observed that the most ancient authorities open with a reading which is now accepted by almost all critics. This yields a sense rather more remote from ecclesiastical tradition than the ordinary text, where ‘the elders’ are distinguished sharply from ‘the brethren’ immediately following. The ‘elder brethren’, however, is a formula which exactly agrees with the state of things which was obtaining at Jerusalem. No doubt they were ‘the elders’ there, as we find them called in Act 11:30 , as well as in Act 15:2 , Act 15:6 . They were the local authorities; but they appear not to have been chosen formally, as the elders undoubtedly were in the Gentile assemblies, by apostolic authority, direct or indirect; they seem rather to have acted simply from their experience and moral weight, as was usual among the Jews. This falls in remarkably with the peculiar expression employed here, ‘the elder brethren’, and harmonizes with the tone of Peter’s address in 1Pe 5:1-4 .
But there is another remark to make of still more immediate and important application practically. Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, characterized as ‘leading men among the brethren’. They were neither apostles on the one hand, nor were they elders or elder brethren on the other, but were for their fitness chosen by the council to visit Antioch. It is the same expression which we find three times (vers. 7, 17, 24) in Heb 13 . The Revised Version, like the Authorized translates it ‘chiefs in Act 15:22 ; but ‘those that had (or, ‘have’) the rule’ in Hebrews: ‘had’ for the departed chiefs, ‘have’ for such as still lived and laboured. They are not spoken of as elders, but seem to have been identified with the ministration of the word (ver. 7), rather than with oversight or presiding like the elders. This fact gives us clear insight, when duly recognized into the far greater liberty as well as variety of gift exercised in the apostolic church as compared with the straitness of modern Christendom I do not speak of sign-gifts, such as miracles and tongues, but of spiritual endowments given of Christ for the perfecting of the saints. Denominational arrangements on the worldly system of a salary, with the claims of an exclusive position, directly interferes with the Lord’s wild in this respect and destroys the beautiful liberty of the Spirit to the famishing (not the edification) of the body of Christ.
Yet it will be found by the attentive reader not only of the Acts of the Apostles but of their Epistles, that the principle and the practice of this free ministration in the assemblies is easily vouched for apart from local authority or official rank throughout the New Testament. Rom 12:4-8 is plain. ‘Teaching’ and ‘exhorting’, and ‘ruling’, or ‘leading’, are spoken of as ‘gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us’ distinct from ‘prophecy’, as well as one from another. In the church or assembly according to God’s word there was and ought to be room for them all. It were the sheerest unbelief to assume that they are now extinct. Woe be to the adversaries of the Holy Ghost who affirm such a falsehood to justify their system!
The reader can compare also 1Co 12 and 1Co 14 throughout, as well as 1Co 15:1-21 , Gal 6:6 , Eph 4:7-16 , Phi 1:14 , Col 2:19 , 1Th 5:12 , 1Th 5:13 , 2Ti 2:2 ; 1Pe 4:10 , 1Pe 4:11 ; 3Jn 1:7 , 3Jn 1:8 , which prove in the clearest manner the full opening in the assembly as well as towards the world for those suitably gifted which scripture maintains, and only persons like Diotrephes, as far as God’s word speaks, dare to oppose and neutralize.
It is in vain to plead, as unbelief blindly does, that such largeness and liberty were only suited to the apostolic day. For this really gives the highest sanction to such free action of the Holy Ghost. If inspired men, if the highest gifts that God ever set in the church, did not hinder but help on every form of gracious ministry, how can men in avowedly inferior position nowadays justify their opposition? None but the most prejudiced will contend that the ordinary gifts of edification fail. None but enthusiasts will deny that the sign-gifts, which ushered in the present economy, are extinct. Not so those, thank God, that are given by the ascended Christ unto the work of ministering, save such as were for laying the foundation (Eph 2:20 ) which once laid was laid for ever.
We may remark in the letter of the council that the order is ‘Barnabas and Paul’ (ver. 25) as in verse 12, whereas earlier in the chapter as in verse 2, and later as in verse 35, and subsequently, it is ‘Paul and Barnabas’. The feeling of the saints in Jerusalem expressed itself in the former way, as was the feeling elsewhere in the early days of the great apostle’s testimony. Compare Act 11:30 ; Act 12:25 ; Act 13:2 , Act 13:7 . But Act 13:13 , marks a great change, as we see in verses 43, 46, 50 (but not Act 14:14 ). The reader of the Old Testament may find a similar principle in Exo 6:13 , Exo 6:20 , Exo 6:26 and 27. In the order of nature it is ‘Aaron and Moses’; in sovereign grace it becomes ‘Moses and Aaron’. The author of the Old and the New is the same, and can only be God Himself working in man through His unerring Spirit.
This was the only council which was entitled to say, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.’ If others have imitated the language, it is but profanity. Yet it was not an ecumenical assembly at all, but simply the assembly at Jerusalem where the apostles and local elders met together to consider the matter. The decision was most rightly taken there, whence the evil had sprung, and where the apostles were, Paul and Barnabas going up for the purpose. It was they with the whole assembly at Jerusalem who decided for the liberty of the Gentile converts. How different and disastrous it must have been had it been a council at Antioch, even though the decision had been the same! It is of all consequence that the way as well as the end be of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the word of God. So it was with this council, and we hear no more of the ‘much’ discussion or questioning which had agitated the brethren before the council. Judas and Silas were sent as the most unequivocal witnesses of the decision at Jerusalem that Barnabas and Paul might thence have a support above all question. The power of divine grace had thus wrought in truth and righteousness for the name of Jesus; and there was a great calm.
There was no such portentous error as a portion of the assembly (though in Jerusalem exceedingly numerous) deciding for itself alone then, the other portions following suit and lastly, all who objected to the fraud and force of the transaction jostled and declared outside in the city, with the like course pursued throughout the country. No wonder that breaches must be created by so gross a departure from the word, even if the object had not been partiality to a favourite preceded by unrighteous oppression. At the council in Jerusalem, as love wrought for Christ’s glory so righteousness was the result, and unity throughout was maintained. Nobody thought of another judgment of the question, either in other parts of Jerusalem or anywhere else. God honoured His own principles in His word, grace triumphed, and the saints at large, however previously alienated, owned and rejoiced in the blessing, where appearances had threatened a storm of evil omen to all who valued the gospel.
But the ecumenical councils anathematized individuals and forced divisions far and wide. In this they succeeded; for nothing is so easy as to scatter the saints. To allay fleshly violence, to conciliate the alienated, to repress party, needs grace and truth wielded by the Lord: what was so rare at these councils (as the patience of Christ)? Will and passion reigned more humblingly and bitterly than in the political sphere.
Even the first and most important of these ‘general councils’ was convened by the Emperor Constantine, though an unbaptized man! to be held at Nicea. The number of western delegates was ridiculously small, as indeed it ever was at all the councils in the East. Later, when the popes exercised the power of the emperors, the eastern bishops were wholly absent. Thus the claim to be ‘ecumenical’ was a nullity, and most evidently after the West quarrelled with the East, for thenceforward only the Latin party attended. Thus God took care that, as the departure became complete and evil was enforced by man’s will, unity should be manifestly at an end, though none were so loud and arrogant in their claim of it as those who in their blind zeal had done most to destroy the testimony to it.
The scene now changes to Antioch, whither the chosen envoys repair with Paul and Barnabas.
‘They then having been let go, went down unto Antioch, and having gathered the multitude delivered the letter. And when they had read it they rejoiced at the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse and strengthened [them]. And having continued a time, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto those that sent them’ (vers. 30-33).
At Antioch was the assembly where the Holy Ghost had exercised His sovereign rights in making good the glory of Christ by calling and separating His servants. It was there that Satan had sought to judaize by legal influence derived from Jerusalem. And now that the assembly in Jerusalem had repudiated and cast out that leaven of Pharisaism, Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had triumphed in the very circle whence the evil had spread. The multitude assembled, the letter was delivered, and, when it was read, ‘they rejoiced at the consolation’.
Alas! it has been rare in ecclesiastical history when such is the fruit of ‘decrees’; for they are in general a dreary record of anathemas, and, like Ezekiel’s roll, lamentation and mourning and woe are written there. Here the gracious power of the Spirit was at work, whatever the adversaries; and edification resulted, not destruction. There was no selfish design, still less a purpose to scatter. The word of God was proved to tally with the ways of His mercy, and the Holy Spirit bound all together, great or small, in giving emphasis and freedom to the gospel in its widest range. Those whose prejudice would have fettered and really corrupted its character, stood abashed and silent, however obstreperous they might have been before. Those who simply desired to hold fast grace, ‘rejoiced at the consolation’, which was the sweeter because the material of it came from Jerusalem.
‘And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse and confirmed them.’ We cannot but see the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Clerical rights, and personal jealousies? had no place yet. The brethren accordingly confirmed all, as might be looked for, through these ample witnesses, whose one desire for all was growth through the truth. It was the same principle at work here? which was developed years afterwards in 1Co 12:14 , as indeed the New Testament knows none other according to God. After some time Judas and Silas were dismissed in peace ‘unto those that had sent them’? not merely ‘unto the apostles?, as in the later copies and some early versions? the more important of which join the ancient in omitting verse 34 of the Text. Rec. as reflected in the Authorized Version. It was probably an insertion due to an inference from verse 40? which is as easy to account for as it is hard to conceive? the best leaving it out if genuine. Silas may have returned, instead of abiding, which last does not well agree with verse 33.
‘But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch teaching and evangelizing, with many others also, the word of the Lord’ (ver. 35). Here again we have a plain scripture fully confirming the large and active ministry of the word which characterized these early days. If it be answered that such simplicity was suited to days of testimony before Christianity became an institution established here below, the reply is that the mischief lies there exactly. Christianity ought never to be other than a pilgrimage of faith, and never to have become a thing settled in the earth like judaism. Communion with Christ and separation from the world are the necessary conditions of fidelity. Our only right establishment will be the holy city Jerusalem? coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, in the day of Christ’s appearing. Till then neither ease nor honour nor peace nor power in the world, but, as the apostle says, boasting in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom the world is crucified to each, and each of us to the world. Hence ministry is in scripture no question of worldly rank or emolument (though the labourer is worthy of his hire) but of devoted and loving service according to the gift of Christ.
Here we cannot do better than introduce an incident of the liveliest but withal painful interest, the collision between the great apostle of the circumcision and the younger but still greater apostle of the Gentiles (Gal 2:11 et seq.). There seems no real reason to doubt that it occurred at Antioch about this very time after the council of Jerusalem and before the departure of Barnabas, and so it is understood by Ussher (Works, xi. 51), as by others of the greatest weight of old as now. Yet as a fact never was a plain matter so distressingly perverted than by respectable ancients, never greater anxiety to alter its time among recent writers, some of whom prefer an earlier, others a later, date. The real moral is the reluctance of men to bow to the truth, which is all the more impressive if we give due weight to the time when it happened. Certainly man is not exalted thereby, but God Who does not fail of raising up an adequate testimony to His own glory.
No less a man than the chief of the twelve, after all that grace had done failed to walk straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel; and having sinned publicly, he was publicly reproved for a compromise so dangerous, and for an inconsistency in his case most glaring. ‘But when Cephas came unto Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he was condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself fearing those of the circumcision; and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw them not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou being a Jew livest Gentile-wise and not Jew-wise, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to judaize? We, Jews by nature and not sinners from among Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but only through faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus . . .’ (Gal 2:11-16 ).
One can see on the one hand what a handle was given to enemies not only by the circumcision itself but yet more by the indelible page of inspiration; as on the other hand we may be sure the Holy Spirit would never have thus recorded it for ever unless it were due to God’s glory and a most needed lesson for the highest of the Lord’s servants through all time. And so we learn how Porphyry chuckled over both (Hieron. vii. 371) and Marcion turned it to his Gnostic account (Tertull. Adv. Marcionem, etc.) as the author of the Clementines to his malignant aspersion of the apostle Paul.
But there is incomparably more to humble a serious Christian in the way the truth was evaded save by very few. Clemens Alex. is mentioned by Eusebius H.E. i. 12 as authority for the notion that the Cephas in question was not Peter but one of the seventy (!) a notion which spread of old and has not quite disappeared from modern times. Far more weighty are those who condescended to the still baser idea of Origen that the dispute was a mere feint promoted knowingly by both Paul and Peter in which the latter plays the errorist in order to be crushed the more effectually by the former! The greatest preacher of Constantinople, Chrysostom, more than once advocates this monstrous figment; as did Jerome with his usual keenness. With such a representation Augustine dealt worthily, arguing that to accept inspired men’s acting a falsehood was to shake the entire authority of scripture. The correspondence is characteristic of each, and may be seen in the Epistolary portion of their works. Jerome was neither humble nor magnanimous enough to sing the palinode to which Augustine had at first invited him, but his authorities, real or assumed, as well as his threats of crushing his adversary under the weight of his own blows, did not deter the Bishop of Hippo from an overwhelming overthrow of the case alleged and a faithful vindication of the plain bearing of God’s word, which in fact ought never to be called into question for one moment.
Thenceforward Peter vanishes from inspired history. This is the last of his acts noticed, though both his Epistles appeared much later. It is affecting and solemn that so it should be; but so it was. People think it strange after being so used and honoured – after Pentecost, Caesarea, and the council in Jerusalem quite recently. But the fear of man was ever a snare to Peter; nor was it the first time that he was rebuked for shrinking from the practical consequences of the truth in this world.
‘But after certain days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return now and see after the brethren in every city wherein we announced the word of the Lord, how they fare. And Barnabas was minded to take with [them] John also that was called Mark; but Paul thought good not to take with [them] him that withdrew from them from Pamphylia and went not with them unto the work. And there arose a sharp feeling, so that they parted one from another; and Barnabas taking Mark sailed away unto Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the assemblies’ (vers. 36-41).
Alas! further sorrow was not far off; and the ardent desire of the apostle Paul to visit the young assemblies in Asia Minor gave occasion to it. For Barnabas, already damaged by the influence of Peter, set his heart on taking with them John Mark, his cousin. Paul had not forgotten his formerly forsaking the work, its toils and its disagreeables, its shame and the self-abnegation it entails, hence he set his face against such a companion, till grace had wrought complete restoration in self-judgment and devotedness without stint. Good a man as was Barnabas and attached to his honoured companion, this proved too much for his present state which resented Paul’s estimate as severe and beyond measure. But honey, however sweet in itself, was an element forbidden in an offering to the Lord (Lev 2:11 ), and Barnabas should have remembered that his natural tie was not favourable to a righteous judgment in the point of difference. Certain it is that there arose a sharp feeling between those blessed servants of the Lord ‘so that they parted one from another’, never more to join in common labours. It is not that there ceased on Barnabas’ side earnestness in the work or the blessing of the Lord; and the apostle Paul speaks of him with nothing but warm affection and respect in subsequent allusions. Further, it is the joy of grace to hear of Mark owned in the Lord’s service, put forward by the apostle where the lack of such a recognition might have stood in his way, and this with peculiar appreciation in the latest Epistle he ever wrote (2Ti 4:11 ). Lastly, it was this very Mark who, I doubt not, purchased to himself a good degree and signal honour in being the inspired witness of our Lord’s ministry. Who could enter so deeply as Mark into the wonders of a gospel service where glory shone out of the clouds of unequalled humiliation without one shade of failure, where grace reigned unwaveringly in the midst of sore trial and continual provocation with not a single comfort save from above?
So ‘Barnabas taking Mark sailed away unto Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.’ It seems plain that Barnabas, beloved as he was, failed at this moment to carry the conscience of his brethren with him. Paul on the other hand was once more accorded, and Silas with him, that mark of united recommendation to the grace of the Lord, which he and Barnabas enjoyed on their first mission to the Gentiles from Antioch (Act 13:2 , Act 13:3 ; Act 14:26 ). It is almost needless to remark how unfounded is the assumption that ‘ordination’ is in question here: the renewed mention shows how little they understand the mind of the Lord who are in quest of such perverted efforts to sanction old wives’ fables, and overlook the grace which identified the brethren that tarried by the stuff with the mightier champions that went down to the battle.
Another feature of interest to note is that, while ministry is of individual faith, this does not hinder one of superior discernment choosing another as companion in work; as the Lord had Himself sent out His servants, both twelve and seventy, two and two before His face. Such a choice is scriptural; election of a minister in the word by an assembly is wholly unknown to the word.
We are meant to observe too that not a word more is said historically of Barnabas, who with his kinsman sailed off to his native isle. Of Paul it is written that ‘he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the assemblies’ (ver. 41). The ‘rite’ of confirmation has no real source in God’s word; but His servants were diligent in strengthening the faith of the saints. They rightly felt that the truth is best learnt within, where practice illustrates and develops principle. Church action where living and true is the ready comment on scripture, and continual teaching draws attention to details as well as to the truth as a whole in the person of Christ. Thus are the assemblies confirmed according to God.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

Acts
THE BREAKING OUT OF DISCORD
Act 15:1 – Act 15:6 .
The question as to the conditions on which Gentiles could be received into Christian communion had already been raised by the case of Cornelius, but it became more acute after Paul’s missionary journey. The struggle between the narrower and broader views was bound to come to a head. Traces of the cleft between Palestinian and Hellenist believers had appeared as far back as the ‘murmuring’ about the unfair neglect of the Hellenist widows in the distribution of relief, and the whole drift of things since had been to widen the gap.
Whether the ‘certain men’ had a mission to the Church in Antioch or not, they had no mandate to lay down the law as they did. Luke delicately suggests this by saying that they ‘came down from Judaea,’ rather than from Jerusalem. We should be fair to these men, and remember how much they had to say in defence of their position. They did not question that Gentiles could be received into the Church, but ‘kept on teaching’ as the word in the Greek implies that the divinely appointed ordinance of circumcision was the ‘door’ of entrance. God had prescribed it, and through all the centuries since Moses, all who came into the fold of Israel had gone in by that gate. Where was the commandment to set it aside? Was not Paul teaching men to climb up some other way, and so blasphemously abrogating a divine law?
No wonder that honest believers in Jesus as Messiah shrank with horror from such a revolutionary procedure. The fact that they were Palestinian Jews, who had never had their exclusiveness rubbed off, as Hellenists like Paul and Barnabas had had, explains, and to some extent excuses, their position. And yet their contention struck a fatal blow at the faith, little as they meant it. Paul saw what they did not see-that if anything else than faith was brought in as necessary to knit men to Christ, and make them partakers of salvation, faith was deposed from its place, and Christianity sank back to be a religion of ‘works.’ Experience has proved that anything whatever introduced as associated with faith ejects faith from its place, and comes to be recognised as the means of salvation. It must be faith or circumcision, it cannot be faith and circumcision. The lesson is needed to-day as much as in Antioch. The controversy started then is a perennial one, and the Church of the present needs Paul’s exhortation, ‘Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.’
The obvious course of appealing to Jerusalem was taken, and it is noteworthy that in Act 15:2 the verb ‘appointed’ has no specified subject. Plainly, however, it was the Church which acted, and so natural did that seem to Luke that he felt it unnecessary to say so. No doubt Paul concurred, but the suggestion is not said to have come from him. He and Barnabas might have asserted their authority, and declined to submit what they had done by the Spirit’s guidance to the decision of the Apostles, but they seek the things that make for peace.
No doubt the other side was represented in the deputation. Jerusalem was the centre of unity, and remained so till its fall. The Apostles and elders were the recognised leaders of the Church. Elders here appear as holding a position of authority; the only previous mention of them is in Act 11:30 , where they receive the alms sent from Antioch. It is significant that we do not hear of their first appointment. The organisation of the Church took shape as exigencies prescribed.
The deputation left Antioch, escorted lovingly for a little way by the Church, and, journeying by land, gladdened the groups of believers in ‘Phenicia and Samaria’ with the news that the Gentiles were turning to God. We note that they are not said to have spoken of the thorny question in these countries, and that it is not said that there was joy in Judaea. Perhaps the Christians in it were in sympathy with the narrower view.
The first step taken in Jerusalem was to call a meeting of the Church to welcome the deputation. It is significant that the latter did not broach the question in debate, but told the story of the success of their mission. That was the best argument for receiving Gentile converts without circumcision. God had received them; should not the Church do so? Facts are stronger than theories. It was Peter’s argument in the case of Cornelius: they ‘have received the Holy Ghost as well as we,’ ‘who was I, that I could withstand God?’ It is the argument which shatters all analogous narrowing of the conditions of Christian life. If men say, ‘Except ye be’ this or that ‘ye cannot be saved,’ it is enough to point to the fruits of Christian character, and say, ‘These show that the souls which bring them forth are saved, and you must widen your conceptions of the possibilities to include these actualities.’ It is vain to say ‘Ye cannot be’ when manifestly they are.
But the logic of facts does not convince obstinate theorists, and so the Judaising party persisted in their ‘It is needful to circumcise them.’ None are so blind as those to whom religion is mainly a matter of ritual. You may display the fairest graces of Christian character before them, and you get no answer but the reiteration of ‘It is needful to circumcise you.’ But on their own ground, in Jerusalem, the spokesmen of that party enlarged their demands. In Antioch they had insisted on circumcision, in Jerusalem they added the demand for entire conformity to the Mosaic law. They were quite logical; their principle demanded that extension of the requirement, and was thereby condemned as utterly unworkable. Now that the whole battery was unmasked the issue was clear-Is Christianity to be a Jewish sect or the universal religion? Clear as it was, few in that assembly saw it. But the parting of the ways had been reached.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 15:1-5
1Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Act 15:1 “Some men came down from Judea” This paragraph refers to events in Antioch. “Some men” refers to a group of believing Jews who were committed to both Judaism and Jesus. They saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT faith (cf. Mat 5:17-19), not a rival or substitute for it (cf. Act 11:2; Act 15:5; Gal 2:12). These persons’ theology is related to the false Jewish teachers (Judaizers) referred to in Galatians. These men were somehow connected to the church in Jerusalem (cf. Act 15:24), but they were not official representatives.
Notice it says “down.” If you look at a map, it seems to be “up,” but for Jews everywhere was “down,” theologically, from Jerusalem (cf. Act 15:2).
“began teaching” This is an imperfect tense, which can mean (1) started to teach or (2) taught again and again.
“Unless you are circumcised” This is a third class conditional sentence, which means potential action. Circumcision was the covenant sign to Abraham and his descendants (cf. Gen 17:10-11). This was not a minor matter in Judaism, but related to salvation itself. These men felt that the only way to YHWH was through Judaism (cf. Act 15:5). This type of people became known as Judaizers (cf. Gal 1:7; Gal 2:4. They believed in Christ plus conformity to the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Act 15:5). Righteousness was based on their performance, not on God’s free gift. One’s relationship with God was achieved by one’s performance (cf. Rom 3:21-30; Gal 5:2-9). The real issue was who are “the people of God” and how do you characterize them?
Act 15:2 “Paul and Barnabas had great discussion and debate with them” Luke uses the expression “great discussion” to show extreme emotion (cf. Luk 23:19; Luk 23:25; Act 15:2; Act 19:40; Act 23:7; Act 23:10; Act 24:5). This debate was crucial! It was directed at the heart of the gospel message:
1. How is one brought into right standing with God?
2. Is the New Covenant inseparably linked to the Mosaic Covenant?
The phrase in the NASB, “had a great discussion and debate,” is literally “discord and questioning not a little.” Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible (p. 95), has “not a little dissension and disputation.” This literary technique of expressing something in a negative understatement is characteristic of Luke’s writings. See full note at Act 12:18.
“the brethren determined that” This refers to “the church” (cf. Act 15:3). There are several groups in Acts 15 that relate to the different leadership or polity styles.
1. In Act 15:2-3; Act 15:12; Act 15:22 congregational authority is mentioned.
2. In Act 15:6; Act 15:22 apostolic or episcopal authority (i.e., James) is mentioned, which is Roman Catholic or Anglican polity.
3. In Act 15:6; Act 15:22 the authority of the elders is mentioned. This seems to parallel Presbyterian polity.
The New Testament records all of these polity structures. There is a development from the authority of the Apostles (who would one day die) to the authority of the congregation, with the pastors being the leadership catalysts (cf. Act 15:19).
In my opinion the polity structure is not as crucial as the spirituality of the leaders. Great Commission, Spirit-filled leaders are crucial to the gospel. Certain forms of polity fall in and out of favor, usually based on the cultural political model.
“and some others” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 224, has an interesting comment on this verse, “Certainly Titus (Gal 2:1; Gal 2:3), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts.” This is certainly a possibility, but it is based on several assumptions. We must be careful that because a text (with our presuppositions) can mean or imply something, does not mean that it does! We must be content with the original author’s writings and not our expanded assumptions, valid though they may be.
“to the apostles” The leadership structure of the Jerusalem church is not settled. From several texts it looks as if James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the leader. This appears to be true in this chapter also. Yet, there were other leadership groups (cf. Act 15:4; Act 15:22):
1. the Twelve
2. local elders
3. the congregation as a whole
What is uncertain is how James relates to these groups. He is called an apostle in Gal 1:19. It is also possible he was the acknowledged leader of the group of elders (cf. Peter called himself an elder in 1Pe 5:1; John calls himself an elder in 2Jn 1:1 and 3Jn 1:1).
“elders” In this context “elders” would refer to an older group of leadership modeled on the synagogue pattern. See note at Act 11:30 or Act 14:23.
Act 15:3 “church” See Special Topic at Act 5:11.
“they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria” This is an imperfect middle indicative. Phoenicia was mostly Gentile, while Samaria was a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. These areas had previously been evangelized (cf. Act 8:5 ff; Act 11:19).
“describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles” It seems that Paul and Barnabas reported the marvelous work of God among the “nations” to every congregation they came in contact with. To people knowledgeable of the OT, the conversion of the “nations” was a fulfilled prophecy (i.e., Isa 2:2-4; Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6)!
It is also possible that by widely reporting the success of the mission endeavor that the church in Jerusalem would not be able to quietly and secretly dismiss the issue (cf. Act 21:18-20).
“were bringing great joy to all the brethren” These were Gentile areas. The churches would have been mixed churches. Their response is a prophetic reminder to the Jerusalem church. The world-wide mission started by Hellenists, is confirmed by Hellenist churches.
Act 15:4 “the church and the apostles and the elders” Here all their polity groups are mentioned, as in Act 15:22.
“they reported all that God had done with them” This had become a pattern!
Act 15:5 “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed” Faith (perfect active participle) in Jesus as the promised Messiah was the foundation of the church. But within the church there were differences of opinion about how this faith in Christ related to the covenants and promises to Israel. This vocal group (“stood up” is fronted in Greek to show its emphasis) of saved Pharisees felt that the OT was inspired and eternal and therefore must be maintained (cf. Mat 5:17-19)! One must trust Jesus and obey Moses (i.e., dei, necessary [1] to circumcise; [2] to charge them; and [3] to keep; all three are present infinitives). It is this very question that forms the theological content of Romans 1-8 and Galatians! See SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES at Act 5:34.
“it is necessary” See full note on dei at Act 1:16.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

certain men. Greek. tis. App-123. These men are disavowed by the Apostles (Act 15:24). Compare Gal 1:2, Gal 1:12.
Judaea. As though from head-quarters. Perhaps some of the priests of Act 6:7. Compare Gal 1:2, Gal 1:4.
taught = were teaching.
the brethren. See note on Act 11:26.
Except = If not. Greek. ean (App-118) me (App-105).
after = in.
manner = custom. See note on Act 6:14.
Moses. See notes on Act 3:24. Mat 8:4, and compare Joh 7:22.
cannot. Literally are not able to.
saved. Compare Act 15:11, and Act 16:30.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-35.] DIFFERENCES RESPECTING THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUMCISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS. COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS AT JERUSALEM.
Fuente: The Greek Testament

Chapter 15
And certain men which came down from Judea [to the church in Antioch] taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved ( Act 15:1 ).
Unfortunately, there are always those troublers who are going around trying to disrupt God’s work among the body of Christ. When we were over a block away at the other church, sort of the early beginnings of the Jesus movement when so many hundreds of young people were coming to the Lord, and we were having, even as we do now, the baptisms, I was having them then every Monday night. After the Monday night class we would go down to Newport Beach, 19th street, and we would have a baptism every Monday night. And there would be fifty, sixty, seventy kids being baptized every Monday night at that time.
One night after church I saw this little fellow talking to some of the young people. And he had gathered a group around him and he was very into what he was saying, and so I went up to hear what he was saying. And he was telling them, “If you haven’t been baptized in the name of Jesus only, it doesn’t count.” But, boy, I’ll tell ya, FIRE! That’s about as close as I’ve come to hitting somebody in a long time. I went up and grabbed the little guy by the collar and just lifted him up and I said, “Fella, you better get out of here in a hurry because I’ll not guarantee what I’ll do.” And I took him right out to his car, pushed him in his car and said, “Now get out of here!”
It’s unfortunate that there are those people that are going around trying to disrupt the work of God. They can’t stand you having so much joy in the Lord. Those that are wanting to put you into bondage. You know, “You should never be a happy Christian. You should never be a joyful Christian.” And they are always trying to lay their trip on you. It’s existed from the beginning. The fellows from Judea who believed in Jesus, but who at one time were Pharisees, came down, they saw the Gentiles worshipping God and they said, “Look, you’re not really saved unless you’ve been circumcised.”
Now they believed that salvation was only for the Jew and the only way to become a Christian was to become a Jew. And you could not be saved if you were not a Jew. And so there in the church of Antioch they brought this disturbing doctrine.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension ( Act 15:2 )
I mean, they really faced these guys and there was a big uproar over it.
they had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question ( Act 15:2 ).
Notice the men came down from Judea and they go up to Jerusalem. Just a little aside. You never go down to Jerusalem. You never say, “Let’s go down to Jerusalem.” Even though you’re on the top of Mount Hermon, ten thousand feet, you don’t say, “Well let’s go down to Jerusalem.” You always say, “Well, let’s go up to Jerusalem.” And from Jerusalem you always go down. “Let’s go down from Jerusalem.” But you never go down to Jerusalem. Jerusalem sits there, of course, in the Jerusalem mountains, and from whatever direction you come to Jerusalem, you’ve got to go up to Jerusalem. And so it’s always going up to Jerusalem. So even to the present day it’s always up to Jerusalem, never down to Jerusalem. So they determined that they should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and the elders about this question. “Let’s get this thing settled.”
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren ( Act 15:3 ).
Now churches had already been established in the areas of Phenicia, Lebanon, and in Samaria, and so they were sharing with them everywhere they went of God’s work among the Gentiles and great joy came to the brethren because of the work of God. But…
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them ( Act 15:4 ).
So they gave a missionary report to the church in Jerusalem.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider [this problem] this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith ( Act 15:5-9 ).
Peter, first of all, is the one who gives the first witness to the counsel how that God had called him to go to the house of Cornelius to bring him the gospel, and that God obviously worked among them by His grace through faith because they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. God did not make a difference between them, but their salvation was through faith.
Paul tells us in Rom 3:22 that there is no difference. God has taken away the differences. All have sinned, all have come short of the glory of God, but all of us are redeemed through faith in Jesus Christ. Whether we be Jew or Greek, there’s no difference. There’s only one way to salvation and that’s through faith in Jesus Christ. So Peter said,
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they ( Act 15:10-11 ).
In other words, our salvation is just like theirs. It’s through grace, through faith. So why should we put on them the yoke, that is, the law, which we nor our fathers were really able to bear? Why hang something on them that we weren’t able to handle?
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, who declared the miracles and wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through their ministry. And after they had held their peace [that is, the opposition], James ( Act 15:12-13 )
Who was the pillar of the early church, the leader of the early church? Not Peter. But James was the leader there in Jerusalem. Not the brother of John, but the half brother of Jesus, whom Jesus appeared to in a special appearance after His resurrection.
James answered, saying, Men and brethren, listen to me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit 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 this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning ( Act 15:13-18 ).
Now he brings forth a prophecy from the Old Testament where God declared that after His work . . . After what work? After His work among the Gentiles, He will return again and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down. The temple will be rebuilt.
There are those today who try to identify the church as Israel and make all of the prophecies concerning Israel apply to the church. And needless to say, they have so messed up eschatology that they have the church going through the Great Tribulation. They declare that God’s work with Israel is finished, that Israel had their opportunity, and that from now on the church is Israel. But it just totally messes up the whole prophetic picture. And actually, the bulk of prophecies where God declares that He will once again return and put His Spirit upon the nation of Israel and work with them as a people.
Now James in the early church recognized that this work among the Gentiles was to draw out a people for His name. We are still living in that age where the dominant work of the Spirit is among the Gentiles, still drawing out a people unto the Lord. He has drawn out you and He has drawn out me. We’re a part of this work that God intended to do among the Gentiles as He is developing the body of Christ out of basically the Gentile nation.
But through His grace there is no difference. The Jew is saved just as the Gentile. Right now, as far as God is concerned, there’s no racial differences. Salvation is open to every man, Jew and Gentile alike. But the day is coming when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, then God will again restore His work on the nation of Israel. But here he says he’s visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
God knows exactly who those people are; God has a number. And Paul tells us that when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then God will deal with Israel once more. But God knows exactly what the fullness of the Gentiles is. For known unto Him are all of His works from the beginning. God knows exactly who is going to be saved. God has always known who was going to be saved. “Known unto Him are all of his works from the beginning.”
I utterly reject the doctrine of the moral government of God that tells us of a God who is limited in His knowledge. A God who is disappointed and shocked by Adam’s sin. A God who was caught by surprise when man fell, and had to hastily devise a plan of redemption through the sending of His Son. How is it then that Christ was crucified from the foundations of the world?
I utterly reject that concept of the limited knowledge of God that He doesn’t know what you are going to do until you do. And then is so disappointed when you make the wrong choice. “Known unto Him from the beginning are all of his works.” He’s known it from the beginning of the world. He’s known exactly who He is going to save, when He is going to save them, the circumstances under which they will be saved. He knows, He has known from the beginning.
There are no surprises with God. He’s omniscient. He can’t learn anything new. When you enter into heaven, God is not going to say, “Well, what a surprise to see you here! I really never thought you were going to make it!” You may be surprised, but He won’t. For known unto Him are all of his works from the beginning of the world.
And so God knew His plan to reach out to the Gentiles, to draw out a people for His name. God knew that Israel was to be set aside as the favored nation status. That God might work among the Gentiles, but yet, one day as Hosea returned to his unfaithful wife, so God will come to unfaithful Israel and restore His work among them, pouring out His Spirit once more among them and drawing them unto Himself. James says,
Wherefore my sentence is, that we not trouble them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas whose surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, You must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth ( Act 15:19-27 ).
Now Paul and Barnabas had just come back. They said, “Ah, you know, you’re not telling us the truth. And you’ve fabricated the letters, and all.” So the church had wisdom in sending Judas and Silas with them to confirm, “Yes, this is indeed what the council decided in Jerusalem. That you as Gentiles are not under the law of Moses. You as Gentiles do not have to proselytize and become Jews in order to be saved. We’ve recognized the work of God’s grace in your midst and we recognize that you are saved through faith and the grace of God just as we are, and you don’t have to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved.” Recognizing that salvation is not a thing of works, but a thing of faith.
And here it was established in the church. Yet, unfortunately, there are so many churches that still insist on a righteousness through works and have established their standards of holiness and their do’s and their don’ts in order that you might have a righteous standing before God.
The Galatian church had the same problem after Paul left this area. There were certain men that came in and said, “Now look, Paul doesn’t have any authority. He has only taken on the role of an apostle himself, but nobody laid hands on him. And Paul is wrong in teaching you that you have been justified by faith. You’ve got to keep the law of Moses; you’ve got to bring forth works that prove your righteousness.” So as Paul writes to the Galatians, he says, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you so soon turn away from the truth. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now going to be made perfect in the flesh? This I would learn of you, did you receive Christ by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or the hearing of faith?” And Paul writes to the Galatians who had been subverted by this undercurrent of judiaising Christianity, which was prevalent in those early days. But the issue was established for the church.
Now there are still those today, Seventh Day Adventist, who proclaim, as did these men from Judea, that you’ve got to keep the law co-mingled with faith in Christ in order to be saved. Herbert Armstrong in his Good News of the World Tomorrow, also advocates the keeping of the law, as do the Jehovah Witnesses. As the works/righteousness emphasis that they have rather than righteousness through faith, which is the emphasis of the New Testament. And was determined by the church at the council here in the fifteenth chapter of Acts.
So Paul and Barnabas came back to Antioch with the letter, along with Judas and Silas. And so they gave the letter, which said,
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ( Act 15:28 );
And so they recognized that the counsel that came forth was from the Holy Spirit. Now here I believe that we have an example of the word of wisdom, the gift of the word of wisdom in operation through James. We have disputing parties. We have a strong dispute going on in the church. There is a danger of splitting the church. There are those that are saying they’ve got to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. How can they be saved and keep the law of Moses? How can they be saved without doing that?
Paul says, “Look, it’s obvious that God is working among them. There are signs and gifts and they haven’t been circumcised.” And there is this dispute going on, and James says, “Brethren, this is what I feel we ought to do. Let’s write them a letter and just recognize that God has saved them through faith and just tell them that they ought to keep themselves from pollution and from fornication and things that strangled and from blood, and if they do this, they do well.” And everybody was satisfied. The word of wisdom through the Holy Spirit.
And so they write, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Recognizing that the counsel came from the Lord. “To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,”
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled ( Act 15:29 ),
So the first thing is this thing of meats, which also was a problem in the early church. The Jew would not eat any meat of an animal that was strangled. They had their special way of killing the animal, making sure that all of the blood went out of the animal because of their respect for the blood and the life that was in the blood. And, of course, it was a part of the Mosaic law. And so they reiterated this part of the law to the Gentiles. However, Paul modified this later as he was writing to the Corinthian church.
In those days, quite often, when you would take your sacrifice to the priest to offer it to a pagan god, they would take a portion of the meat and offer it to the god as a sacrifice. But then they would give you what was left and you could have a feast for yourself and your friends. And then often the priest would take that portion that belonged to the priest and they would sell it in the meat markets.
So when you went to the butcher shop to buy a steak, it was quite possible that that particular steak came from an ox that was offered to one of the pagan idols. So Paul said, “When you go to the butcher shop to buy your meat, don’t ask the butcher, ‘Was this steak offered to an idol?'” He said, “Just buy it, go home and enjoy it without asking questions, for your conscience’s sake. Because the meat can’t hurt you. Eating meat can’t defile you; it can’t make you a sinner.”
As Jesus said, “It isn’t what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles a man. It’s what comes out of the man’s mouth. That which goes into a man passes through his system and on out. It isn’t the thing that defiles you. It comes out of the man that is the defiling thing. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and out of the heart issue the fornications and all of these other things” ( Mar 7:15-21 ).
And then Paul said when you’re invited to eat, eat what is set before you, asking no questions. So if a friend invites you over to his house to eat and he lays out this beautiful roast, you don’t say, “Was this roast offered as a sacrifice to an idol?” He said just eat what’s set before you, asking no questions. Again, for conscience’s sake.
So Paul sort of modified these rules in his letter to the Corinthians. And then to the Romans he said, “He that is weak in the faith eats vegetables,” as do the Seventh Day Adventists, “and he who is strong in the faith eats meat. Now don’t let him who eats meat condemn him who doesn’t eat meat.” So they don’t want to eat meat, that’s all right. If they want vegi-weiners and vegi-burgers and all, that’s fine. I don’t condemn them. But yet, on the other side of the coin, they who don’t eat meat should not judge them that do. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” ( Rom 14:2-5 ).
So the first rule was concerning their dietary eating habits. They should not eat meat they said that was offered to idols. Paul later on said that’s only for conscience’s sake.
and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well ( Act 15:29 ).
I mean, it was not laying out the whole Mosaic law. Nothing here about the Sabbath Day and the ordinances of the law, it’s just, hey, basic, simple things. And if you do this, fine. God bless you.
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered this letter: and when they had read it, they rejoiced for the [comfort] consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them ( Act 15:30-32 ).
Now the prophets and he who prophesieth speaks unto the church with exhortation, to comfort, to edification. So they were exercising their gift as prophets within the church, exhorting the brethren and confirming them in their faith.
And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding Silas decided to stay there for a while. Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also ( Act 15:33-35 ).
That Antioch church must have been quite a church! With Paul and Barnabas teaching and preaching, and Silas, and that work that God had wrought in Antioch.
And some days after, Paul said to Barnabas ( Act 15:36 ),
Paul had sort of a restless spirit, I guess. He just couldn’t stay at any one place too long. Always moving around. Always anxious to get out. “Let’s go! Let’s go for it! Let’s head out and preach again!” And he could only stay in one place for long before he got antsy and he had to go and get into uncharted territories again. He was always a man who was ready for a challenge. So after some days, Paul said to Barnabas,
Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do ( Act 15:36 ).
Let’s go back and visit them and see how they’re doing.
And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark ( Act 15:37 ).
That is, his nephew who had jumped ship in Pamphylia and did not go into the Asia Minor with Paul and Barnabas. He left them in the first journey, and Barnabas was determined to take Mark with him again.
But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus ( Act 15:38-39 );
Interesting little insight that the Bible gives us concerning these beautiful brothers, Paul and Barnabas. The contention became so great that they split company. Can Christians have disagreements? Obviously.
Now, I see this in a very positive light. I believe that the contention was really from God. I believe that God desired to broaden the missionary endeavor of the church. Rather than having one team go out, I think God wanted two teams to go out. You can cover twice the territory in the same amount of time. Both Paul and Barnabas were skilled missionaries. And so for them to go together again was not a good utilization of manpower. Let’s get the gospel out further. So God created this dissension and this dispute with Paul and Barnabas. The net result was the doubling of the efforts.
I think that there is room for disagreement. I think that we must guard, though, in disagreements, that we disagree agreeably, realizing that we are all a part of the body of Christ and maybe God wants to expand His work. So whatever the motive may be for someone starting up another work, God can use it to expand the overall work of His kingdom.
It seems that whenever God is doing a powerful work in an area, there are always those that want to come in and build on another man’s foundation. I cannot really understand a man declaring that he has received a call of God to come to Orange County to establish a new church. When there are counties all over the United States that are crying out for someone to come and share the truth! Every week I receive multitudes of letters from people just crying out for us to send someone to minister in their area, because there is no church where they can really be taught the Word of God.
So I have difficulty with that person that says, “Well, God has called me to Orange County.” Because of all of the successful, powerful works of God in this county. But nonetheless, though there are many powerful works of God in this county, we surely are not reaching all the people that need to be reached. So that other churches are raised up is good, because God is just expanding His work, and in that we glory.
And as Paul, writing concerning those in Rome, some preaching Christ out of contention, some have impure motives, bitterness, or whatever, I rejoice that Christ is being preached. That the work of the kingdom of God is expanding.
And I have no ego problem to believe that I have the message for everybody. I know that there are people that I can reach; I know there are people I cannot reach. And I praise God that there are other ministers that have a different emphasis of ministry who are able to reach those people I cannot reach. There are people who need an emotional experience when they go to church. They need emotional releases. So I praise God that He has developed emotional churches. I’d hate to have those emotional people frustrated here. So God knows the needs of people and raises up various ministries, and I rejoice that the work of God is expanding.
So Paul and Barnabas, I believe, God was in the dispute. It is obvious that the dispute did not last forever. And Paul later writes concerning what a blessing Mark was to him and he said, “Please send Mark as quickly as possible. He’s been such a blessing to me” ( 2Ti 4:11 ).
But at this time, God desired to expand the missionary outreach of the church, and so this dispute over Mark between Paul and Barnabas so great that Barnabas took Mark and headed off and went again to Cyprus where Paul and Barnabas had first gone.
And Paul took Silas ( Act 15:40 ),
This brother who came down. He was a brother of great note in the church in Jerusalem. And Paul took Silas.
and they journeyed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches ( Act 15:40-41 ).
And then back up into the area of Derbe and all, where Paul meets Timothy. And we’ll get into that next week as we move into chapters 16 and 17. And we get Paul’s second missionary journey now with Timothy, as they are moving into areas which will ultimately take them the next leap over into Europe. As Paul in Troas is troubled because he can’t seem to get any direction, and then the Spirit calls him to come to Europe to carry the gospel even further.
So the glorious expansion of the church, as we have it recorded here in the book of Acts as God is working. Even in the disputes, to expand His work.
Father, we thank You for Your Word, and we pray now that Your Spirit would just lock it up in our hearts. Thank You, Father, for that grace that we have received in which we stand, in which we walk. Thank You, Lord, for Your work among the Gentiles as You are gathering out a people for Thy name. And, Lord, we’re so thankful that You’ve gathered us according to Your plan which You have known from the beginning. Now, Lord, bless Thy people as we go out as lights shining in a dark place. And may our lives this week just bear witness of God’s love to that needy world that we will be facing. God, help us to be all that You want us to be: Thy witness carrying Thy message of grace to those hearts in need. In Jesus’ name. Amen. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Act 15:1. , who came down) as if about to supply what Paul and Barnabas had omitted.-, began teaching) deliberately.-[ , after the manner of Moses) As it is written in the law of Moses.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 15:1
DISPUTE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION SETTLED
Act 15:1-35.
QUESTION RAISED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA
Act 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. (Act 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 without 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. (Act 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.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

In the work among Gentiles the question of circumcision very naturally arose, and its difficulty is revealed in the calling of a council. That council seems to have opened with much desultory discussion. Then followed the serious contributions. Peter’s address is chronicled. In it he faced a supreme fact, that in sending him to the Gentiles God had proved that He made no distinction. The next speakers were Paul and Barnabas, who simply repeated the story of their work. The summing up by James is characterized by wisdom, and his finding was that the Gentiles should not be troubled with anything that was purely Jewish. The difficulty cleared away, the discussion ceased. Remarkable unanimity had been gained, for it is said that the apostles and the elders of the whole Church were in agreement. Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, and there was rejoicing when the message was delivered to the church.
A revealing story of sharp division between these two men occurs here. Paul seems to have been afraid of Mark, because he had withdrawn from, them on a previous occasion, whereas Barnabas believed in him, and defended him. It is good to remember that subsequently Mark was restored to Paul’s favor, as certain references in his letters clearly show.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

One Way of Salvation for All
Act 15:1-11
Paul and Barnabas were quietly resting in Antioch after their arduous toils, when these persons from Jerusalem stealthily commenced to undermine their influence. They contended that the way from paganism to Christ must be through Moses. They especially insisted that Gentiles must become Jews by submitting to the initial rite of Judaism. This insidious teaching followed Paul throughout his life, and extracted from him many of the noble arguments and appeals of his epistles. We can easily understand the vehemence with which he protested.
Finally it was determined to submit the question to the judgment of the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem. The journey thither was a triumphal progress. The story of the seal that God had placed on all the labors of the two missionaries not only filled all hearts with joy, but was the conclusive answer to the Judaizing teachers who were the cause of all the trouble. The first great address at the solemn conclave was by Peter, who quoted his own experience at the house of Cornelius to prove that God at least made no difference between Jew and Gentile. Notice his statement that the believing heart is cleansed by receiving the Holy Spirit, Act 15:11.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

One of the hardest things for these poor minds of ours to grasp is the freeness of Gods salvation. In other words, it is so difficult for us to abide in a sense of grace, to realize that the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is justified by faith, justified on the ground of the finished work of Christ, plus nothing else! Absolutely nothing is to be added to the propitiatory work of the Lord Jesus Christ as the ground of our salvation. This is the gospel proclaimed in the beginning and preached by Gods faithful servants down through the centuries. But always there have been found those who, because of their legalistic minds, thought it too good to be true that men could be saved by grace alone and attempted to add something else to the gospel.
One comes along and says, Yes, you are saved by faith- but you must be baptized to get to Heaven. We practice baptism, but not as a means of salvation. Another says, Grace saves us- but it is mediated through the sacraments, and you must partake of the Lords supper to have divine life. We observe the Lords supper, but not as a means of salvation. Others will say, Yes, we are saved by grace- but God saves men through the church, and you must join the church if you are to be saved at last. We believe in the church, but the church does not save and does not have anything to do with the forgiveness of sin.
Law and Grace (Act 15:1-35)
In the beginning, as the apostles labored among the Gentiles, they were preaching salvation by grace alone. This troubled certain men who came down from Judea to Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were ministering that time, having returned from their first missionary journey. These men said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. This was an attempt to add something to the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It created so much division that a showdown was necessary and they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. They would go to the city where the first church had been established and find out if the gospel they were preaching was in accordance with the gospel that was being preached in Jerusalem.
When they reached Jerusalem they did not launch immediately into a discussion of the subject of law and grace. The church had a welcome meeting for Paul and his companions and they took the opportunity to give-what we call today-missionary addresses. They declared all things that God had done with them.
It must have been most interesting to sit in that group and listen to those veteran missionaries as they reviewed the years they had served the Lord and told about some of the marvelous miracles of grace wrought among the Gentiles. One might have supposed that this alone would have answered the question whether people need anything other than grace in order to be saved. But seated there were brethren who before their conversion had been Pharisees and they had brought their Phariseeism into the church. These were, after all, honest men. It is hard for us to realize when religious conflicts arise, that a godly man may believe something altogether contrary to what we believe. Yet if we are honest before God, we need to recognize that usually he is honest too and is seeking, according to the light God has given him, to stand for what he believes to be the truth.
These men had the Old Testament–remember they did not yet have the New Testament. In the prophecies of the Old Testament Israel was recognized as Gods chosen people separated from the rest of the nations. There it was made clear that as others came to a knowledge of the true and living God they came to Israel and through circumcision were admitted into the congregation of the Lord. The prophets declared men would be saved, but it was always in subjection to Israel. The Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising (Isa 60:3), and It shall come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many citiessaying, We will go with you; for we have heard that God is with you (Zec 8:20-23). These are but samples of many Old Testament passages that declare Israel to be the vehicle through which God would save the nations.
As the legal-minded Pharisees read these Scriptures they said, We can thank God for the conversion of the Gentiles, but they must come to God through Israel; they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. So we read in Act 15:5, There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed [do not forget that they were sincere believers and yet they differed with others as to salvation by grace alone], saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. After a good deal of disputation it was decided the apostles and elders should come together and consider this matter, instead of the whole church going into session about it.
It seemed eminently fitting that Peter should be the chief spokesman on this occasion. He was recognized as the one to whom the Lord Jesus Christ had given a very special commission, Feed my lambs.. .feed my sheep (Joh 21:15-17). He was the one chosen of God to go down to Cornelius and preach the gospel to him and his household. So after the brethren had been gathered together to consider this matter and had a great deal of discussion, Peter rose up. He said, as it were, Now, brethren, let me speak. (And they were willing to listen to him.) You know how by my mouth the Gentiles heard the gospel and believed. Then he related, as he had told them before, what had occurred when he had preached the gospel to the Gentiles.
We remember that when he went and preached the gospel to the household of Cornelius he did not add works, he did not say anything about clean or unclean foods, or Jewish practices such as circumcision. He told them about the Lord Jesus Christ who lived and died and was raised again, and as he preached the gospel, God which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.
When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost upon that great multitude of converted Israelites, He came in power and there were outward signs of His presence. In the same way when these Gentiles heard the Word and believed, immediately the same blessed Holy Spirit fell on them and baptized them into the body of Christ. They received the same outward signs He had given the Israelites in Jerusalem-thus demonstrating to a certainty that God accepted Gentiles on the ground of pure grace, altogether apart from the works of the law. There was no difference!
How we need to stress that no difference doctrine today. Paul said in his Epistle to the Romans, There is no difference; For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (3:22-23). It does not make any difference what religious standing you may have-no difference as to what part of the world you were born (whether among Christians or among the heathen)-or maybe you are a Jew-there is no difference! For all have sinned. The Greek word for sin literally means to miss the mark, and all men have missed the mark. Not one man has ever lived in this world without failure and sin-except of course the Lord Jesus Christ. Another Scripture says, There is no difference.. .for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him (Rom 10:12). There is no difference-the same Savior is for everybody, and by putting their trust in Him, all men may be justified. So Peter said God put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
That is what happens when people believe the gospel; it is not merely that they are justified before God-but there is new life; their hearts are purified by faith. Whereas they once loved sin, they now love holiness: whereas they once loved impurity, they now love purity. There is a complete change and reversal of attitude when people are born of God. This had taken place in these Gentiles. Who could doubt that God did the work?
Perhaps some of you have heard evangelist A. H. Stewart tell how, when greatly concerned about his soul, he was told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and trust Him as Savior. But he thought that way was far too easy. He went about it his own way-he joined a church, sang in the choir, and became quite a worker. He hoped in all these things to obtain peace with God, but there was no peace! One day, while he was reading in his Bible the parable of the sower, he came to the words, Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved (Luk 8:12). Stewart threw down his Bible and said, Will you look at that! Even the devil knows a man will be saved if he will believe! And that day he settled it and turned to Christ and trusted Him as Savior. Yes, God saves men when they believe; He saves all sinners, no matter what their situation or condition, when they trust His Son.
So Peter said, Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Act 15:10) They were in bondage all the years they were in Judaism and they had to be delivered from this and brought into the liberty of grace. Why bring the Gentiles into the same bondage out of which they had been saved?
The breadth of Peters vision comes out here magnificently. We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. We would not have expected him to say that. We would rather have expected him to say, We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, they shall be saved, even as we. But grace had done its work in Peters heart so he turned it right around. In other words he said, Do you not see, God is saving Gentiles by grace and thank God He saves Jews by grace too! He delivers the heathen from the corruption of idolatry, He delivers the Jews from the bondage of legalism.
The Christian Pharisees did not know what to say, but deep in their hearts they were probably thinking, The Bible says these Gentiles are to come to God through Israel, and Israel is marked as separate through circumcision; therefore they must abide by the law. However, we read, Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them (12). They did not get up and try to argue the question. Very rightfully. They were visitors and did not want to be too prominent. But after Peter made this thing clear, Paul and Barnabas said in essence, We will give you some examples how He has been changing wicked men into holy men through grace. So they gave example after example, just as returned missionaries have done through the years, telling of corrupt men changed by grace to godly men. So Paul and Barnabas gave testimony; and this helped clear the minds of the Pharisaic Christians.
After Paul and Barnabas had finished, the last man you might have expected spoke on their side: And after they had held their peace, James answered. Who was James? The brother of the Lord. He is often called the first Bishop of Jerusalem. He was a legalist of the legalists before his conversion, which did not take place until after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was the leader of the Jewish party in the church, and was careful not to depart from the old ways until a fuller revelation had come. But God gave to James the special light that was needed for the moment.
Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. These Pharisaic brethren had the Old Testament and there they read of the day when the Gentiles were going to turn to God and be blessed through Israel in the kingdom reign of the Messiah. James explained that this, however, is not what is happening now. God is now taking out from among the Gentiles a people to His name and He used Peter first to go to the Gentiles. That is the work going on at the present time. In other words, God is not converting the world today. What is He doing? He is taking out an elect people from the world and bringing them to a saving knowledge of His blessed Son.
James said in effect, I understand. You brethren are perfectly right, but God is working out His own plan. The day is coming when God will bless the Gentile world through Israel and they too are going to enjoy the kingdom reign of Messiah and will all be united together as one holy, happy people; but that is not what God is doing now! God is now taking out a people, Jew and Gentile, to constitute the church of God. When He completes this work, the Lord is coming back the second time. That will be the time of blessing for the whole world. He will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down. He will then bring Israel as a nation into blessing again. Then all the remnant of the Gentiles will return to God-that is, in the millennial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. Wars will cease. The Lord Jesus Christ will reign in righteousness over all the earth, and Jew and Gentile will be one happy, redeemed people, glorifying God together.
In light of this fact, James said,
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them [knowing the intense feeling of the Jewish brethren toward certain things tolerated by the Gentiles], that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [from which every Christian should abstain], and from things strangled [which in the Jewish mind were very unclean], and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day (19-21).
To this they agreed, and the first council of the church ended in happy unison. What a wonderful thing it was that the Spirit of God should have so overruled, where men held such different views, as to bring them all at last to see that salvation is by grace alone through faith! How we can rejoice today that that precious truth has been preserved through the centuries and that, believing in Him, we can be a part of that great company of the redeemed some day to be revealed as the glorified church of our Lord!
Meantime, as we wait for His return from Heaven, we are to seek to get the gospel of His grace out to all men everywhere, that all may have an opportunity to know of the Savior and to find in Him life and peace, through faith, altogether apart from meritorious works of any kind.
Pauls Second Journey Begins (Act 15:36-41)
We have already considered the many momentous events that took place in connection with his first journey. We have seen how he and Barnabas eventually returned to Antioch in Syria, from which city they had set out on their gospel tour. Then, after remaining for some time, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, it came into the heart of Paul to go on another journey.
We do not have in connection with this second missionary journey the same evidences of direct divine guidance as on the first. In that instance, we are told that the Holy Ghost said very definitely, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. In this case, we are told, Some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. It seems to have been a voluntary thing on Pauls part rather than the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit as on the previous occasion. And, strikingly enough, from the very start things seemed to go wrong and you find the missionaries perplexed on several occasions as to just what their task should be.
Barnabas wanted to take his young cousin John Mark along. He had taken him to Cyprus when they went on their first journey, but when they returned to the mainland Mark left the apostles. He returned to Jerusalem, evidently preferring the company of his mother Mary and the comforts of home to an itinerant missionary life. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. I take it Paul considered the work of the Lord so serious he could not think of linking up again with a man who had shown so little sense of the importance of service for the Lord. These mission trips were no Sunday school picnic! They were times of severe testing, hard work, and service for the glory of God. Paul did not wish to take anyone who was not divinely guided nor ready to endure hardship. Barnabas evidently felt differently.
The contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder. It is rather pitiable to read such a statement about these two devoted apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the Bible never tries to hide the faults of Gods servants. In that aspect the Bible is so different from many secular biographies. One would think their heroes perfect in almost everything. But the Word of God turns the light on and gives the record of their failures just as truly as of their successes and victories. This is both for our warning and our encouragement.
So these two venerable brethren could not agree in regard to this companion for their travels. They separated and for years did not labor together again. We are told in Proverbs, A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city (18:19). Many of us know that the beginning of strife is as one little drop of water, which, after the break in the dike has begun, soon grows into a torrent of water that is practically impossible to stem. However in this instance, as the years went on, a kindly, considerate feeling prevailed, and in his old age Paul spoke affectionately of both Barnabas and Mark. As he wrote from his prison cell to Timothy we read, Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
I am sure most of us are thankful that Barnabas gave Mark another chance. There is many a young Christian who has failed in the beginning, but gone on later to become a valuable worker in the vineyard of the Lord Jesus Christ. We who are older need to be careful of our condemnation of the younger. Barnabas gave a helping hand to Mark, however it is very evident the brethren sided with Paul and thought he was right. But Mark brought forth good fruit later on.
So we read here, Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus- the same field in which they had labored before and found conditions so congenial. But Paul chose Silas, who is called a prophet- the one who went down to Antioch to convey the decree of the Jerusalem council. He proved himself to be an able man, as well as a prophet. We read that they went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. These were the two areas where Paul and Barnabas had labored before.
Chapter VI, The First Church Council; The Parenthesis Recognized By The Apostles
Acts 15 is the great dispensational chapter of that book. It occupies a unique place in the New Testament, and is a very distinct help in the understanding of Gods present work of grace and His future plans for Israel and the world.
When Paul returned to Antioch at the conclusion of his first missionary journey, we are told that the whole Church was gathered together, to whom he and Barnabas rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles (Act 14:27). For some time afterwards they continued in that same city, teaching and enjoying the fellowship of the saints, but soon a discordant note was introduced, destroying the spiritual harmony which up to that time had prevailed.
We are told in the first verse of chapter 15: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. It is evident that these men maintained they acted under apostolic authority and were the official representatives of the Church at Jerusalem. They were evidently rigid Jews of the Pharisaic type who had professed conversion to Christ and had been identified with the churches in Judaea. Having only the Old Testament, they based all their conclusions upon it. We need to remember, in order not to judge them too harshly, that so far as we have definite information, not one book of the New Testament had yet been written. There is a bare possibility that Matthew or Mark or perhaps both might be exceptions to this, but of that we have no proof. When these brethren or others referred to the Scriptures, it was necessarily the Old Testament which they had in mind. From the Old Testament they learned that God had made a covenant of grace with Abraham, had promised that all nations would be blessed through his Seed, and had given the ordinance of circumcision as the outward sign that was to separate the covenant people from the rest of the world.
Of course, from the beginning the apostles had taught, as Peter did, the setting aside of the nation of Israel because of their rejection of Messiah, and called upon those who trusted Him to separate themselves by baptism from the apostate part of the nation, and thus save themselves from that untoward generation and the judgment soon to fall upon it; but we can well understand that many Jewish believers might not have grasped the full implication of this, nor have recognized the fact that God was doing an altogether new thing not predicted in Old Testament times.
There is, therefore, no reason to question the sincerity of these Judaean emissaries who doubtless thought that Paul and Barnabas were playing fast and loose with the divine order in not insisting that the Gentile believers accept the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and thus identify themselves with the remnant of the chosen people.
There was evidently considerable discussion in the Antiochian Church regarding the whole matter, as a result of which Paul and Barnabas were asked to go with some others directly to Jerusalem and confer there with the apostles and elders about this question. As they made their way toward their appointed destination, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring whenever they came in contact with Christian assemblies how God had wrought in power in converting the heathen from among the Gentiles. The news of this brought great joy, we are told, unto all the brethren. It is evident that the questions raised by the men from Judaea had not come before these churches as they made no mention of bringing such demands to bear upon the young converts, but simply rejoiced in what God had done for them.
In verse 4 we are told that when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. This was evidently in a large open meeting where a great number of the Jerusalem Christians gathered together to receive them and to welcome them in their midst. In this meeting no doctrinal matters or questions of ceremonial observances were discussed until after Paul and Barnabas had given their testimony to the way in which God had wrought through their ministry to the Gentiles. After this we are told: There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. These men, like the others who had appeared at Antioch, felt sure of their ground for they could appeal directly to Old Testament Scripture, and they took it for granted that God was now doing what He had promised to do through the prophets, that is, to give the knowledge of His salvation to the Gentiles, but that they would receive blessing through Israel and would be united to them as children of the covenant by taking upon them the outward sign to which they referred. See Isa 56:6; Isa 60:3-5; Zec 8:23, to which many other passages might be added.
Apparently the leaders decided not to debate the question at that time nor to attempt to handle it in a large open meeting, for in verse 6 we read: The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. This would be much wiser, of course, than putting the question up to the entire body of believers, many of whom would have a very imperfect understanding of the Gospel itself and a very slight knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. The apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus to carry the message into all the world and those who had be selected as elders to guide the affairs of the local churches met in council with Paul and Barnabas and the associates to go into the matter dispassionately and carefully.
We can see, as we read on, that even these brethren were of one mind, for we are told that there was much disputing. How long this went on we do not know, that eventually the Apostle Peter took the floor and reminded them how God had in a very clear and definite way sent him to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius, but that there had then been no commandment to circumcise the believers or to put them under the yoke of the law of Moses. I quote Peters address in full so far as we have it here. Doubtless verses 7 to 11 give us but an abbreviation of what he presented to the assembled company:
Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (Act 15:7-11).
Observe how carefully the Apostle Peter presented his case. It was God who had chosen him to go to the Gentiles, that through his lips they should hear the word of the Gospel and put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. As he was preaching, Cornelius and his household believed the message, and immediately God, who reads the hearts, recognized their faith and gave them the Holy Spirit in the same way in which He gave it to the one hundred and twenty of Israel on the day of Pentecost. The fact that these were uncircumcised Gentiles and that those were circumcised Jews made no difference whatever to God. It was the state of the heart upon which He looked, and so Peter insists that He did not distinguish between the two groups, but purified their hearts by faith, that is, regenerated them when they believed the Gospel. If this satisfied God, why should it not satisfy the Jewish Christians? Were they not tempting God when they sought now to put the yoke of the law upon the neck of these young believers from among the Gentiles, a yoke which they themselves, as Jews, had always found burdensome?
Then Peter closes in a remarkable way. He says: We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. We might well expect that he would have turned it completely around. He might have said: We believe that they shall be saved even as we; but he does not do that. He declares that the Jews, despite all their privileges, are to be saved on the same basis of pure grace as idolatrous or philosophical Gentiles who put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
This was evidently so convincing that the legalists were nonplused and for the moment knew not how to reply. Taking advantage of the silence, Barnabas and Paul, one after the other, addressed the audience. Note that Barnabas came first in this case as he was well known to the Jerusalem Christians and was highly esteemed for his godliness and righteous life. Paul, who was doubtless more or less under suspicion on the part of some, followed. Both gave the same marvelous testimony to the mighty wonder-working power of God as He wrought among the Gentiles. In this they corroborated the testimony given by Peter.
We can imagine the rigid Pharisaic Christian Jews silenced but unconvinced. In their own minds they would be saying, But we have the Word of God on our side. Regardless of the remarkable experiences Peter and Barnabas and Paul can relate, it is very definitely stated in Scripture that those whom God recognizes as His covenant people are to be marked out from the rest of the world by the covenant sign. Moreover, who has been authorized to set aside the commands of the Law, a Law given by God Himself when He appeared to Moses on Sinai? They knew, of course, that there were many promises in the Old Testament of blessing for the Gentiles. They knew that the day was yet to come when all the nations of the world would recognize in the Lord Jesus Christ Gods King, but when that day came, Israel was to have the pre-eminent place. There was no proof that Gods attitude would be changed in regard to the matters in question. The presumption was that all the Gentiles would in a certain sense become as Jews when together they should all enjoy the blessings of Messiahs reign. Yet these brethren must have been puzzled to explain the way in which God was now working among the Gentiles and His apparent indifference regarding what to them seemed so important.
James, however, had the key to the entire situation. We have a brief outline of his speech given in verses 13 to 21:
Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit 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 this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day (Act 15:13-21).
He refers to what Peter had already told them, but he uses an expression which is of great interest to us, and was indeed the explanation to the present work of grace. God, he says, at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. Now this is not the conversion of the Gentiles as predicted in the Old Testament. The taking out of a people, instead of the conversion of the nations as such, was something very different from that revealed by the prophets. This spoke of a special election from among the Gentiles and that doubtless for a particular purpose. This is the work that God is doing now. While the messengers of the Gospel are to carry it to all nations, Gods present object is not the conversion of the nations through this testimony but that all men may have an opportunity to come to Christ if they will, but He who knows the end from the beginning has foreseen the fact that only a small number comparatively would actually receive the message in faith, and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. This company is designated throughout the book of Acts as the Church of God, and of the Church of God as such we hear nothing in the Old Testament prophecies.
But now observe how James harmonizes the present work of God in taking an elect people out from among the nations and the prophecies of the conversion of all the nations in some future day. He refers his hearers to the prophecy of Amos as recorded in chapter 9, verses 11 and 12: After this I will return. This is not exactly the way Amos wrote it, but James is quoting from the Septuagint, and he recognizes the correctness of the expression. After this, that is, after the present work of God in taking a people out from among the nations is concluded, Messiah will return again. Then when He comes back He will build once more the Tabernacle of David which has been for so long set aside. He will raise up the throne of David again and fulfill the prophecies made to that man after His own heart. It will be in that day that the residue will seek after the Lord and all the Gentiles upon whom His Name will then be called.
This made everything clear. James, you see, recognized and explained the Great Parenthesis in Gods dealings with Israel. He showed that the Church of God had been called out and was bearing its witness in that parenthetic period. When it shall come to a close, the Lord will return again and fulfill all the prophecies connected with Israels restoration and the salvation of the nations of the world. And so he exclaims, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. God is working according to a plan, and that plan was partly unfolded in Old Testament times, but now has been fully made known. In the light of the revelation thus given, James suggested that no further pressure should be brought upon the Gentiles to make them conform to Jewish rites or ceremonies, but that they should be called upon simply to abstain from the evils connected with idolatry, from the immorality that was so common among the nations, and from unclean foods which to their Jewish brethren were abhorrent. If any of the Gentile believers wished to know more of the teachings of the Law, they could easily find enlightenment, for in virtually every city there were synagogues in which the Law of Moses was read and taught, and any who desired could go in to hear.
This settled the matter at least for the present, and a letter was drawn up and sent out to the Gentiles to put their minds at rest regarding the teaching of the legalists who were seeking to turn them away from their liberty in Christ. We have the letter given in verses 23 to 29:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well (Act 15:23-29).
It must have been with great joy and light hearts that Barnabas and Paul and their companions left Jerusalem and returned to Antioch. The truth for which they had been contending for so long was now acknowledged by the brethren at Jerusalem, and they could go on preaching with the full assurance that their testimony was endorsed by those who had been in Christ before them. They immediately gathered the Church together, to whom the letter was read, and all rejoiced for the consolation that it brought. It is true that later on further trouble developed, because legalism is a form of leaven, and it is in the nature of leaven to work; and so we have the Epistle to the Galatians, written to Gentile believers some years later in order to counteract the contentious propaganda of certain Jews who still insisted on pressing upon the Gentiles the necessity of conforming to the Law of Moses. That letter is in itself the very best answer to legality of every description.
The pitiable thing is that in the centuries that have elapsed since, the Judaizing of the Church has gone on in an amazing way until in many places the Gospel of the grace of God is looked upon as though it were a strange new heresy, whereas the effort of men to procure justification by human merit and sanctification by attention to religious rites and ceremonies is accepted as the ortho- dox position. It only shows how hard it is for these poor hearts of ours to abide in the truth of the grace of God. We so readily seek some other ground of approach to God and fitness for His presence than that of pure, unadulterated grace as set forth in the work of our Lord Jesus Christ and the purifying power of the Holy Spirit. One great reason for this is that so many fail to differentiate between the covenant of works given at Sinai and the grace of God as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. We read in John 1, verse 17: The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. That Law, Paul tells us in the Galatian letter, was a child-leader designed to guide the steps of the people of God in the days of their nonage until Christ Himself should come. Now that He has come there is no further need of the child-leader, but all that is required both for justification and sanctification is found in the risen Christ, who, of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1Co 1:30).
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Act 15:9
The three great outbreakings of selfishness in our unrenewed nature are: (1) Pride-the inordinate valuing of ourselves; (2) Covetousness-the inordinate valuing of created objects; (3) Self-indulgence-the inordinate valuing of that which created objects can bring us. From each of these justifying faith in Christ purifies our hearts. Take
I. Pride. This is setting up the honour of self above the, honour of God. It is self-worship, and refuses to recognise any righteousness but self-righteousness. Now watch the effect of justifying faith on this sin. What is the very prime object of faith? What do I receive into my heart if I realise Christ’s work for me? Is it not this, that the mighty God, He who is higher than the highest, laid aside all His glory and came down into the depth of humiliation for me? If I love Christ, if I am changed into Christ, how can I be proud? how can I honour self, worship self? And accordingly we see that pride is the very first obstacle that must be cleared away before a man can believe on Christ. The life of faith is the death of pride.
II. Covetousness. The opposite of covetousness is the love which imparts to others. The very highest example of this love is He on whom justifying faith is fixed. If my inner regards are really fixed on Him who gave all He had, yea Himself, for me; if this blessed self-devotion of Christ be really apprehended in my heart; if I be really fused into and united with such a course as this, where is there room in me for covetous desires?
III. Self-indulgence. Has faith a charm to draw the eye from its desire-a gem before which the jewels of this earth are dull? Yes, for who is its object? Is it not He who has solemnly told us that none can be His disciple without daily self-denial? The Christian who lives by faith in Christ can and does enjoy in the best and highest sense the true delight of social intercourse, the true kindnesses of companionship; but the Christian who lives by faith in Christ cannot be a seeker of pleasure, cannot surrender his noble privilege of self-denial, in the bondage in which he sees the children of the world fettered. Faith is an enemy to self-indulgence no less than to pride and covetousness.
H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iv., p. 206.
References: Act 15:9.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1350. Act 15:11.-Ibid., vol. xiii., No. 765; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 36. Act 15:28.-J. J. S. Perowne, Sermons, p. 134. Act 15:30, Act 15:31.-R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 4th series, p. 31. Act 15:36.-Homilist, vol. iv., p. 51; W. Adamson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxii., p. 163. Act 16:1.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., p. 309.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible

CHAPTER 15
1. The false teachers from Judea. Paul and Barnabas sent to Jerusalem (Act 15:1-5).
2. The Council in Jerusalem (Act 15:6-21).
3. The Result made known (Act 15:22-29).
4. The Consolation brought to Antioch (Act 15:30-35).
5. Paul and Barnabas separate (Act 15:36-41).
A very critical time had now arrived for the church. An important question had to be settled. That Gentiles can be saved and salvation must be extended to the Gentiles had been fully demonstrated. The Apostle of the circumcision, Peter, had been used to preach the Gospel to a company of God-fearing Gentiles. Evangelists had gone to Antioch and the great Gentile center had there been founded. Paul and Barnabas had completed their great missionary journey and numerous assemblies of Gentiles, saved by Grace, were formed. The question of the salvation of Gentiles could no longer be raised. But we remember from the eleventh chapter of this book, that when Peter returned to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him. They objected to Peter going to men uncircumcised and eating with them. But those of the circumcision had not been fully satisfied with the status of the believing Gentiles. What about circumcision in their case? Should they not also keep the Law? In other words, the question of the relation of the believing Gentile to the Law and to circumcision had to be determined.
These teachers which taught that Gentiles, in order to be saved, had to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, disturbed greatly the church in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas with others were therefore delegated to go with this question to Jerusalem. Gal 2:1-10 must be carefully read for interesting and additional information. The question was settled in favor of the Gospel Paul had preached. James declared: Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. They were to abstain from pollution of idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood. Of great importance are the words which James uttered by inspiration at this occasion. It was the first church-council, and here the Holy Spirit revealed Gods gracious purposes concerning the age that is and the age to come.
Note in Act 15:14-18 the four important steps: 1. God visits the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. This is the purpose of the present age. The called people constitute the church, the body of Christ. 2. After this I will return. This means the second Coming of Christ. When the Church is completed and all the members added to that body, Christ comes again, first, as subsequently revealed, for His saints and then with them. 3. The Restoration of Israel follows after His Return. The Tabernacle of David will be built again and will be set up. 4. Then all the Gentiles will seek after the Lord. This is the world-conversion. How strange that this divinely revealed program should be entirely ignored by all church-councils at the present time.
Then after the results of the council and the decision concerning the Gentiles had been made known by a letter, Antioch received consolation.
The beginning of the second missionary journey of Paul is described in the closing paragraph of this chapter. We read nothing of prayer or waiting on God for guidance. Paul said to Barnabas, Let us go again. He wanted to go over the same territory. This was not the plan of the Spirit. Failure follows on account of self-will and self-choosing. Paul and Barnabas separate on account of John Mark. Barnabas took Mark and Paul chose Silas.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

41. THE CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM
Act 15:1-41
Throughout the history of christianity there have been numerous church councils. Some have been of monumental significance, but most have been of very little consequence. Denominational churches have regular councils for the purpose of determining both doctrine and practices among the churches of the denomination. In those councils three things always take place: debate, negotiation, and compromise. In order for opposing parties to get along and function together in a united, co-operative program, there must be compromise on both sides. That is the way denominations survive. But with men of principle and conviction there can be no compromise. The truth of God is not debatable! It is not possible for a person or a church believing the gospel to co-operate with people who do not believe the gospel in religious works and activities.
The conference at Jerusalem was not that kind of religious council. The apostles and elders met at Jerusalem not to debate doctrine, but to declare the truth of God with a unified voice. In that day, as in ours, there were legalists in the church who tried to mix law and grace, trying to bring God’s elect under the yoke of legal bondage, subverting their souls. Therefore the church at Jerusalem held a conference. Many apostles, elders, and preachers attended, but only three spoke: Paul, Peter, and James. They spoke as one and the church made a unified denunciation of legalism. In Acts 15 Luke gives us the historical narrative of the conference. Paul explains the theological issues of it in Galatians 2.
As stated above, the conference at Jerusalem was not a church council to debate doctrine. When Paul went up to Jerusalem his mind was already made up. He refused to budge an inch, or give any ground at all to the legalists (Gal 2:5; Gal 2:21). He went to Jerusalem only so that the doctrine of the believer’s absolute freedom in Christ from the law of Moses might be publicly avowed, even by those whose primary sphere of ministry was among the Jews. At the Jerusalem conference the apostles and elders, and the church as a whole, being led by the Holy Spirit (Act 15:28), publicly denounced legalism and stripped all preachers of law and legality of all credibility.
THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE LEGALISTS (Act 15:1-3) – There were some self-appointed, freelance preachers who came from Jerusalem to Antioch perverting the gospel, teaching salvation by the works of the law. They were Pharisees who professed faith in Christ. They claimed to believe the gospel doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But they mixed works with grace and said, “Unless you keep the law you cannot be saved.” Paul, Barnabas, and the church at Antioch, by their example, demonstrate that the doctrine and spirit of legalism must never be tolerated (Gal 2:1-5). Paul declares the legalists to be “false brethren”. It matters not whether men teach obedience to the law as a basis of justification, the measure of sanctification, the believer’s rule of life, the motive for Christian service, or the ground of reward in heaven, all attempts to put believers under the yoke of the law are intolerably evil. The word of God states emphatically and plainly that in Christ we are free from and no longer under the law (Rom 6:14-15; Rom 7:4; Rom 10:4; Gal 3:24-26; Gal 5:1-4; Col 2:8-23; 1Ti 1:5-10). Never, not even once, in the New Testament is a believer commanded to do anything on the basis of, or being motivated by the law. So far is the law from being a rule of life that Paul declares it is “the ministration of death” (2Co 3:7). Legalists say, “The preaching of the law promotes holiness.” But Paul says the law is “the strength of sin” (1Co 15:56). Let no one be confused. The issue is not godliness or ungodliness. The issue is not what a believer does. The issue is the motive of the heart. Legalists are motivated by fear of punishment and desire for reward. Believers are motivated by love for Christ (2Co 5:14).
THE CONFERENCE OF THE LEADERS (Act 15:4-21) – There were many gifted men in the church in those days, but three stood out as men gifted of God and specifically chosen by him to be his messengers to that first generation of Christians. The first spokesman at the conference was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Act 15:4-6). The second preacher was Peter, the apostle to the Jews (Act 15:7-11). His message had two main points: (1) God purifies the hearts of men by faith in Christ (Act 15:9); and (2) Salvation is by grace alone (Act 15:11). In Act 15:12 Paul rose to speak again, declaring what wonders God had done through him and Barnabas among the Gentiles. The third man to speak at the conference was James, our Lord’s half brother, pastor of the church at Jerusalem (Act 15:13-21). It was fitting that he bring the concluding message. He gave the opinion of the apostles, the opinion of the Holy Spirit, the opinion of the New Testament regarding the issue at hand (the relation of the law to believers in the New Testament age) in four points.
1. The calling of the Gentiles in one body with the Jews was foretold by the prophets (Act 15:13-17; Isa 11:10; Amo 9:11-12).
2. The fall of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles was according to the eternal purpose of God (Act 15:18; Rom 11:25-26).
3. Believers in the Gentile world must never be troubled with the yoke of bondage, which no man other than Jesus Christ the God-man has ever kept (Act 15:19; Act 15:10).
4. In matters of indifference it was recommended that the Gentile believers should abstain from those things that might hinder the preaching of the gospel and offend weaker brethren (Act 15:20-21). NOTE: Certainly fornication is not a matter of indifference. It is a horribly evil thing. Yet, it was treated as a matter of indifference because to the Gentiles, who were uninstructed in the law of God, it was commonly looked upon as such.
THE CIRCULATION OF THE LETTER (Act 15:22-34) – The church at Jerusalem drafted a letter to be sent to the churches in the Gentile world. To confirm the truthfulness of the letter they sent Judas and Silas back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The letter denounced all preachers of the law as false prophets (Act 15:24), commended Paul and Barnabas as faithful servants of God (Act 15:25-26), and assured God’s saints that their liberty in Christ was approved of God (Act 15:28-29). When it was read in the churches this letter was the cause of great joy among God’s saints (Act 15:31).
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO LABORERS (Act 15:36-41) – Paul and Barnabas had labored together for a long time. They stood shoulder to shoulder in the heat of battle. They had, at least for the time being, settled the issue of legalism. But satan is a crafty foe. He could not frighten either man by persecution. He could not divide the two doctrinally. But the old serpent found a weak point and exploited it to divide these two brethren – John Mark, Barnabas’ nephew. Perhaps Barnabas was too lenient with Mark. Perhaps Paul was too severe. We are not told. But these two friends left one another in an angry dispute. What a shame! Yet, God providentially overruled this evil for the good of his church and the furtherance of the gospel (Psa 76:10). Instead of one missionary team, now there were two. God blesses in spite of our failures!
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

Cir, am 4057, ad 53
certain: Act 21:20, Gal 2:4, Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13
the brethren: Act 15:23
Except: Act 15:5, Rom 4:8-12, Gal 5:1-4, Phi 3:2, Phi 3:3, Col 2:8, Col 2:11, Col 2:12, Col 2:16
after: Gen 17:10-27, Lev 12:3, Joh 7:22
ye: Act 15:24, 1Co 7:18, 1Co 7:19, Gal 2:1, Gal 2:3, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:13-16
Reciprocal: Act 11:2 – they Act 15:31 – they rejoiced Rom 16:17 – cause 1Co 2:15 – yet 2Co 11:13 – false Gal 1:7 – but Gal 5:2 – that Gal 5:10 – but Gal 5:12 – trouble Gal 6:12 – they constrain 1Th 2:2 – much 1Ti 1:7 – to Tit 1:10 – specially
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

FOURTEEN YEARS HAD passed since Pauls first brief visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, as recorded in Act 9:26-29, and in Gal 1:18. The whole of Gal 2:1-21 furnishes us with remarkable insight to what was at stake in the discussion, which was started at Antioch and carried to its conclusion at Jerusalem; nothing short of the truth and liberty of the Gospel. We also discover that though in our chapter it says, they determined that Paul and others should go to Jerusalem, Paul himself went up by revelation; that is, the Lord distinctly revealed to him that he was to go. Also we find that Paul was led to take a very firm line in the matter; giving place to those who opposed him, by subjection, no, not for an hour; taking Titus, who was a Greek, with him, and declining to have any compulsion laid upon him as to his being circumcised. The Galatian epistle clearly shows that Paul was fully assured what was the mind of God in this matter, but that it was revealed to him that he should consent to it being referred to Jerusalem for settlement there.
In this of course we see the wisdom and power of God. Had Paul attempted to settle the matter, and act on his own apostolic authority at Antioch, there might easily have been a breach between himself and the other Apostles. As it was, the decision in favour of liberty being accorded to the Gentile converts, was reached in the very place where, had not God controlled by His Spirit, the decision would have gone the other way. But in saying this we are anticipating.
On the journey to Jerusalem the tidings of Gods grace to the Gentiles caused great joy to the brethren, but in Jerusalem itself the issue was soon raised. Those who contended for the observance of the law by the converts from among the Gentiles, were believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees. For the present they retained their Phariseeism, though believers. This occasioned a formal coming together of the Apostles and elders to go into the question as before God.
There was much disputing, or discussion, and then Peter made a decisive pronouncement, by referring to the case of Cornelius, in which he had himself been involved. He pointed out that the heart-knowing God had borne witness to these Gentile converts by giving to them the Holy Spirit, just as He had given Him to themselves on the Day of Pentecost. These Gentiles had been cleansed, as the vision of the great sheet indicated, and God had wrought the purification in their hearts by faith, and not as a matter of mere ceremonial cleansing The fact was that God had already decided the point in principle by what He did in the case of Cornelius. We can now understand why so much space is devoted to that case in the Acts; for this is the third time that we have it brought before us.
The law was a yoke, which God had placed upon the neck of the Jew, and both they and their fathers had found its weight to be crushing. To endeavour to impose it upon necks, that had never been subjected to it by God, would be to tempt God Himself. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ was the only hope of salvation, whether to Jew or Gentile. The way verse Act 15:11 reads is quite remarkable. It is not, they, Gentiles, shall be saved even as we, Jews, but, we shall be saved even as they. The salvation of the Gentiles could not be on any other ground than grace; and the Jew must come in on this ground too.
Let us not miss the lovely contrast between Mat 11:29, and verse Act 15:10 of our chapter. The crushing yoke of the law is not to be laid upon our Gentile necks, but because of that we are not left yokeless. We take upon us the light and easy yoke of the blessed Jesus, who has become to us the Revealer of the Father.
From Peters words it is evident how thoroughly he had learned the lesson he was taught in connection with Cornelius. He pointed out how the thing had been settled there; and so the way was cleared for Barnabas and Paul to rehearse how God had worked in miraculous power among the Gentiles. Barnabas is now mentioned first, for evidently he, free, from any jealousy or envy, could speak more freely of the things done, mainly through Paul. Their testimony was that what God had done in practice through them agreed with what He established in principle through Peter.
Peter, Barnabas and Paul having had their say, James spoke. He seems to have had a place of special responsibility in Jerusalem, and Gal 2:12 indicates that he was noted as holding strict views as to the measure of association that was permissible in the church of God between Jews and Gentiles. Yet he endorsed Peters declaration, and then pointed out that Old Testament scripture supported it. Amos had predicted how days would come when the Name of God would be called upon Gentiles. If we turn to his prophecy we can see that he had millennial conditions in view, so James did not quote his words as though they were being fulfilled, but as being in agreement with what they had just heard.
The words in which James summarized Peters testimony are worthy of special note. God… did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. This is Gods programme for the present dispensation. The Gospel is not sent forth among the nations with the object of converting them as nations, and so making the earth a fit place for Christ to return to, but to convert individuals, who thereby are taken out from the nations to be His special possession- a people for His Name. This is a fact of a most fundamental nature. If we are wrong on this point we shall be wrong as to the whole character of the dispensation in which we live. The nations will only be subdued when Gods judgments are in the earth, as Isa 26:9 so plainly says. The Gospel goes forth in the earth in order that an election from both Jews and Gentiles may be called out; and that election is the church of God.
Having stated this, James gave what he judged to be the mind of God as to the question at issue. His sentence, or judgment, was that the yoke of the law should not be placed on the neck of Gentile Christians, but that they should merely be told to observe certain restrictions in matters as to which they had been notoriously careless. Idolatry and fornication were known as evil, even before the law was given, and so too was the eating of blood, as Gen 9:4 shows. God knows from the outset all that He will develop as time goes on. The calling and election from the Gentiles was new to them, but not to God. It was theirs to move on with God; and as for Moses, his words were well to the fore in every synagogue every sabbath day.
The judgment that James expressed carried the whole council with it. They had had before them first, Peters testimony as to what God had done in connection with Cornelius: second, through Barnabas and Paul an account of Gods actings during their missionary journey: third, the voice of Scripture, as quoted by James. What God had said agreed with what God had done. They had come together to seek His mind, and by His word and His actions they plainly discerned it; and all were of one accord. Thus a difficult question, which might have divided the whole church, was settled, and ended by drawing them together. When Barnabas and Paul went up to
Jerusalem, it was as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left they were bearers of a letter in which they were spoken of as our beloved Barnabas and Paul.
They were also spoken of as men that have hazarded [or delivered up] their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. To hazard ones life is to risk it, as a gambler risks his money on a throw of the dice: to deliver up ones life is to accept death as a certainty rather than a risk. Anyone who delivers up his life in this fashion should be esteemed as beloved in the church of God. This letter from Jewish believers to Gentile believers breathes throughout a spirit of love and fellowship and unity. They were able to say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; so sure were they that the Holy Spirit had governed their decision. To put the Gentiles under the law would have had the effect of subverting their souls.
All this is very much to the point for us today. The same kind of trouble cropped up amongst the Galatians a little later, and the attempt to mix law and grace is often seen in our day. It cannot be done without destroying the fulness of grace and subverting the souls of those who imbibe such teaching. Verses Act 15:30-33 of our chapter show how the vindication of grace and the liberty that it brings, contributed to the establishment and joy of the Gentile believers at Antioch. Also Judas and Silas, the delegates from Jerusalem, exercised their prophetic ministry and strengthened the brethren. This shows how freely those who had gift were permitted to exercise it in any place, and in the presence of men whose gift might be in many ways superior to their own-for Paul and Barnabas were now back in Antioch.
Shortly after, Paul proposed to Barnabas that they take another journey with pastoral work in view. The words of verse Act 15:36 breathe the spirit of a true pastor, who desires to see how the believers are getting on. The welfare of their souls is the great point before him. The sad thing was that this excellent proposal became the occasion of a breach between these two devoted servants of the Lord. Barnabas proposed that Mark, his nephew, should again accompany them. Paul, remembering his early defection, was against it, and this difference of judgment generated such warm feeling that they parted company, as unable any longer to work together. Barnabas went to Cyprus, where their first journey had started, and Paul towards Asia Minor, where that journey had extended. Paul found a new companion in Silas, and left after the brethren had committed them to the grace of God. It looks as if Barnabas left hurriedly, before the brethren had time to pray for him.
It ill becomes us to judge these eminent servants of our Lord, but the record certainly seems to infer that Barnabas was too much influenced by natural relationship, and that the sympathy of the brethren lay with Paul. Still the warm feeling and contention lay between them, and the Spirit of God does not hide it. We are not to conceive of Paul as other than a man of like passions to ourselves. He was not perfect, as was his Lord.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1
Act 15:1. This chapter introduces what is commonly called Judaism. The term is not to be found in the New Testament, but the doctrine is reported at various places. It was the principal error that afflicted the church in the first century, and whole chapters and books had to be written to expose it, which will be commented upon as we come to them in the COMMENTARY. The doctrine is that people under the Christian Dispensation must keep the Jewish law also in order to please God. The men who taught that doctrine are called Judaizers. These certain men who came to Antioch with this agitation did not truly represent the church at Jerusalem. (See verse 24.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The Circumcision Difficulty, and the First Council of the Church, 1-36.
Act 15:1. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren. The general aspects of this famous controversy are discussed in Excursus A, at the end of the chapter. The certain men are alluded to by St. Paul in the Galatian Epistle, Act 2:4, in the following terms: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. They were probably, for the most part, Pharisees of an extreme sect who had embraced the gospel. Epiphanius and other early writers tell us that the leader of these men was Cerinthus, who excited the believers against Peter when he baptized the Roman centurion (see Act 11:2-3).
Which came down from Judea. This party, which maintained that the Mosaic ceremonial was binding upon all Gentile as well as Jewish Christians, naturally had their headquarters in Jerusalem. In the ancient Hebrew capital it was difficult to separate the Church from the temple. We find most of the Christian leaders, who first taught that the Gentiles were free from the yoke of the Mosaic law, made Antioch, and later Ephesus and Alexandria, their residence.
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. These Jewish teachers proclaimed a certain doctrine in a distinct and formal manner; they did not confine themselves to the expression of certain scruples; they asserted positively that Gentile Christians could not possibly be saved unless they submitted to the various rules and ordinances of the Mosaic law, of which circumcision was the initial ceremony, thus denying the sufficiency of faith in Christ as the condition of pardon and reconciliation. But the hearts of the Antioch teachers were deeply penetrated by the great truth that we are saved not by the law but by grace.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 2. (Act 15:1-35.)
Is the Law to be added to the Gospel?
We have already seen abundantly, and as emphasized in the Cross itself, that it is the men of law who are to be the special opponents of the way of grace. That which God gave for the cure of self-righteousness is that which the perversity of man uses in the interest of it. And this we are to find both outside and inside Christianity, adapting itself in various grades and modifications to what is its mere opposite; as a parasitic growth twines itself round and sustains itself upon that from which it draws the nutritive juices which are its life.
The law was given for the cure of legality; but its mode of dealing with this (perhaps the only, and thus the absolutely necessary way) being that of experiment, it seems at first sight, and on a superficial view, to favor it. God gave the law, say men, and think they need go no further. Would He say, “Do this,” without meaning that you are to do it? That its real purpose should be to stop every one’s mouth, and bring all the world in guilty before God, -that is an intolerable thought. And when, convicted and undone, we must needs cast ourselves upon Christ entirely for the righteousness which in ourselves we cannot find, still, for most of us, if not all, the same weary round must be pursued in the interests of holiness and practical life; conscience goading us on a road which to the most conscientious is most impracticable, until we break down with the despairing groan, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me?” The least conscientious get on best here; and they find provided for them all along the road certain helps for travelers -mere evasions of the truth, or opiates for the conscience -which enable them to tread it with apparent ease, or lead them off unwittingly upon a convenient bye-path. With these inventions we have not as yet to do; we are here at the beginning of the history of Christianity, and things meet us in their first and simplest forms. Here therefore, those of the sect of the Pharisees who believe have only in a straightforward manner to declare that it is needful to circumcise the Gentile converts, and to enjoin them to keep the law of Moses. And by this they mean, not certain moral essentials, but the law as a whole: what a Jew would call that. This question -already settled as it might seem, and indeed really was -comes up nevertheless again for settlement. It cannot be suffered to be decided in default merely of advocates for Moses; it must be taken up distinctly, raised and argued out; and this is accordingly what we find now.
1. Those who are the occasion of the question being raised do not themselves make a question of it. They preach boldly and without a doubt their legal doctrine, as is usual with men of their class. “Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” It need not, one would think, have raised much alarm; for they could quote neither scripture nor apostle for it; but the sheep of Christ are, alas, a timid folk, and a loud voice and a confident tone are apt to dismay, if not to carry them. A commotion thus is easily excited, which even Paul and Barnabas are unable to put an end to. Behind these persons from Judea looms the shadow of Jerusalem and the twelve, the primal seat of authority; and in fact it is of God that this matter shall be settled there, so that there may be no possibility of cavil any more. Jerusalem is to be the place of settlement, just because the Jewish yoke is to be finally and for ever taken off the necks of the Gentiles, and no other hands could do it so well. It is an act of abdication of supposed rights that is to be accomplished, and those must do this who are thought to have the rights. After all, the decision really is that God has settled the matter, and that they have nothing to do but to bow to what He has done.
It is in a very different interest that this first “council” is quoted and appealed to, namely to give sanction to a hierarchical government of the Church. The patriarchate of Jerusalem is thus made to have its beginning from the earliest times, with James as its head and oracle giving sentence, even in the presence of the whole conclave of the apostles themselves! A small foundation indeed, upon which to build the immense system that has been built upon it. The moral suitability of all here is as plain as the unsuitability for the purposes of ecclesiastical pretension which it is made to serve. And this will be more evident as we proceed to consider it.
The discordant voices that have been heard have come from Judea. There is the seat of what may be a growing and fatal heresy. The place for it to be met is there where it has had its origin, and with the full agreement of those who are leaders in the Jewish assemblies. Paul and Barnabas, with others from Antioch, it is arranged, shall go up there; and the assembly, in testimony of their fellowship with them, conduct them on the way. Everywhere, as they pass through Phenicia and Samaria, they carry with them the news of the Gentile work now fairly beginning, and of the wonderful power of God which has shown itself in this: a fitting introduction to bring hearts into accord with Him in the grace He has already manifested, and to make them fear to cloud it by the bringing in of a principle so contradictory to that first free action of the Spirit as that which men would now fain introduce.
So they come to Jerusalem, and in full assembly, before the apostles and elders, announce the same joyful news of the blessing that has been given, -the first-fruits of a great harvest to come in. God has wrought; will they dictate to Him the terms of continuance of that which without condition He has so begun? Here the Pharisees among the disciples echo the voice which has been heard at Antioch, and in the same positive way. We cannot be saved by the law, indeed, but can we he saved without the law? -a question existing today, apart from the crude form in which it is uttered here; and urged with the same heedlessness of the answer of God already fully given, as well as of the imperative needs that lie hid in their souls who ask it.
2. It is noticeable that not the apostles only come to consider the matter. Those set in the place of founders of Christianity -Christ’s special gifts to the Church for that purpose -do not assume on that account to sit in a conclave of their own, and simply let others know the decision they have arrived at. Just so much the more as the Lord has endowed them with special gift, so much the less need have they to fence themselves round with the claim of authority which after all is found in the word they bring, and must have its confirmation in the conscience and heart of those that listen to it. Those whose history we have before us here are evidently men who believe in full light and fresh air, -who allow discussion, and appeal themselves both to Scripture and reason. Reason is not a revelation, and must be subject to revelation; but which will enlighten, not contradict it. The more they were persuaded of the truth they had being indeed from God, the more freely could they take the ground of one of these apostles, “I speak as to wise men” -sensible men, as we speak commonly -“judge ye what I say” (1Co 10:15). The cry against the mind so often made by assumed spirituality is most contrary to God, who has made us altogether for Himself, and claims us altogether. Mind is not a product of the fall, though the fall has darkened and enfeebled it. We need God here as everywhere, to deliver from the power of sin which has enslaved naturally all our faculties; but a man without mind is simply an idiot, and the lack is one which no spiritual work that one ever hears of provides substitute for. Mind is a gift of creation, not of new creation. The new-creative work is spiritual, and not mental, however much the whole man is enlarged and blessed by it.
The naturalness of all here is refreshing. Debate goes on freely with the apostles in presence; the arguments of the law-advocates are allowed to have full hearing, although they are not recorded for us. At last Peter stands up and narrates the story we have listened to before, of how God had settled this matter a good while since, when by his mouth the Gentiles first heard the gospel and believed. God had testified in their behalf, putting the seal of His Spirit on them though uncircumcised, purifying them not by circumcision but by faith. Had He then spoken anything of any supplementary work to be effected in them by Moses? And what did their own experience tell them of the yoke of the law? Would they put that upon these fresh disciples, which they and their fathers too had found no ability to bear? It would be tempting God, not pleasing Him to impose that upon them which He in His ways had conspicuously left aside. And they themselves trusted for salvation, not to legal righteousness, but to the grace of the Lord Jesus.
The clear and sufficient argument goes further than they yet were able or disposed to carry it. Was God indeed freeing the Gentiles, necks from such an intolerable yoke, still to leave the Jewish believers under it? But they keep to the point in hand: God had certainly spoken with sufficient plainness as to it, and the silence following testifies to the effect produced. To have resisted would have been resisting Him. They are silent therefore, while Barnabas and Paul -we see how naturally here at Jerusalem Barnabas, best and longest known, returns to his old precedence -once more relate the signs and wonders with which it had pleased God to confirm their work among the nations. It was in fact Peter’s argument extended and amplified; and thus God had been bearing witness to what was in His heart: who should gainsay Him? It was a different -a strange work compared with anything that the law could show, the heart of God breaking through all barriers with its message of divine reconciliation and peace for all; -God the God of all His creatures once again; sin and its estrangements overcome for all who would have it so!
This story of grace ended, James adds a final word; not, surely, as president of the conference, any more than Patriarch of Jerusalem, but as led of the Spirit, who has the controlling place all through, and therefore just the most suitable person to show the complete harmony that prevailed. It is, no doubt, as commonly understood, not James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus, but James the brother of Jude, the writer of the epistle which we have under his name. Everything that we know of him shows him to have been himself one of the most zealous of the law, which indeed all the thousands of believing Jews could a good while afterwards still be claimed to be (Act 21:20). If James gives his judgment in agreement with Peter, then there is really no more to be said. In that sense his judgment is final; but Peter’s had already settled all. Rather, it was God who had done so; and James continues but his argument by an appeal to Scripture to show that the blessing of the Gentiles as Gentiles had been before announced by God Himself. For this purpose, while he refers generally to the prophets he is content to quote Amo 9:11-12, in proof that there would be nations upon whom God’s Name would be called. He does not at all say that the fulfilment of this was now taking place, or therefore, that the tabernacle of David was now being raised up. It is sufficient for him that such a thing as Gentiles being owned as God’s was in full accord with God’s ways announced. The prophecy clearly looks on to millennial times, and not to Christian; but that which God can do at one time cannot be in itself inconsistent for Him to do at another.*
{*The quotation here of the Septuagint version, where it so decidedly differs from the Hebrew, cannot but impress one. James does not seem the man to favor Hellenism, and the whole character of the proceedings shows the manifest guidance of the Spirit of God. A very slight change of the Hebrew letters would reproduce the text which the Alexandrian translators must have had before them. The meaning thus obtained seems also better than that of the present text.}
James concludes that those are not to be troubled who from the nations are turning to God. Whoever desires to know the law can hear it every sabbath in the synagogues. Let them only abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. And to this the whole assembly agree without further discussion.
We have no difficulty as to the first two things specified here. The last two are connected together, and go back beyond Moses to God’s covenant with Noah and his posterity, -therefore are not simply Jewish, though incorporated in the Jewish law, but apply to the whole present race of men. “The blood is the life,” and life belongs to God: the recognition of this in so open a way as is here enjoined is surely seemly; and in a world of strife and bloodshed such as sin has made this, -where, too, the creatures subjected to man are in danger of ruthless extirpation at his hands, not even limited by his own interest in their preservation, is (or would be, if it were maintained) every way for good. Man has, of course, set it aside, and the world at large has forgotten it; but the good of that which is from God abides, and this it is the duty and privilege of the Church to maintain, -the rights of the Creator, as well as the grace of the Redeemer. Another has said with regard to this decree:
“It is a direction which teaches, not that which is abstractly good or evil, but that which was suitable to the case presented. It was necessary, not ‘righteous before God’, to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not here looked at in that way. There were certain things to which the Gentiles were accustomed, which it was proper they should renounce, in order that the assembly might walk as it ought before God in peace. To the other ordinances of the law they were not to be subjected. Moses had those who preached him. That sufficed, without compelling the Gentiles to submit to his laws, when they joined themselves, not to the Jews, but to the Lord.
“This decree therefore does not pronounce upon the nature of the things forbidden, but upon the opportuneness -the Gentiles having in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. We must observe that they were not things forbidden by the law only. It was that which was contrary to the order established by God as Creator, or to a prohibition given to Noah when he was told to eat flesh. Woman was only to be connected with man in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God. Let Moses teach his own laws; these things were contrary to the intelligent knowledge of the true God. It is not therefore a new law imposed by Christianity, nor an accommodation to the prejudices of the Jews. It has not the same kind of validity as a moral ordinance that is obligatory in itself. It is the expression to Christian intelligence of the terms of man’s true relations with God in the things of nature, given by the goodness of God, through the leaders at Jerusalem, to ignorant Christians setting them free from the law, and enlightening them with regard to the relations between God and man, and to that which was proper to man, -things of which, as idolatrous Gentiles, they had been ignorant. I have said, addressed to Christian intelligence: accordingly there is nothing inconsistent in eating anything that is sold at the shambles; for I acknowledge God who gave it, and not an idol. But if the act implies communion with the idol, even to the conscience of another, it would be provoking God to jealousy; I sin against Him or against my neighbor. I do not know whether an animal is strangled or not, but if people act so as to imply that it is indifferent whether life belongs to God or not, I sin again; I am not defiled by the thing, but I fail in Christian intelligence with regard to the rights of God as Creator.” (Synopsis.)
3. For the publication of the decree, the assembly choose out men from among them to send back as their representatives with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, to confirm all by word of mouth that they were writing, that no suspicion should by any possibility arise; expressing also in their letter, in strong terms their thorough confidence in those who had, been the leaders in this work among the Gentiles. It is striking that in the letter the “elder brethren” (which is generally accepted now as the true reading) are associated with the apostles. It confirms what has been already said as to the character of eldership in the Jewish assemblies, while showing how little jealous as to their prerogatives as such were the genuine apostles. The place they had, and which was given them by the Lord, the Spirit of God maintained in the spiritual power which was theirs -the gift which they used to serve with. In seven out of fourteen of Paul’s epistles we find a similar association of others with himself; and such style is truly apostolic. The men of those days were yet in remembrance of the Lord’s pattern of greatness being a little child, and that He Himself had been among them as one that serveth.
When they say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,” it has to be remembered that the Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his company was indeed to Peter and to those with him the incontrovertible proof of God’s acceptance of men uncircumcised; and that thus we can easily see why they should speak of the Spirit first and apart from themselves. The same seal had everywhere been put upon the Gentile converts; how then could they do otherwise than obediently follow as the Spirit so manifestly led? Their decision had been called for: they declare themselves therefore, as they could not do otherwise, in obedient harmony with what the Spirit Himself, apart from them, had done. The witness of the prophets, to which James had appealed, was also His witness; and the command given to Noah was of course no new enactment, but what Scripture had handed down. Really there was the fullest reason, therefore, for the language which they use, which separates what the Spirit Himself had led in from their own following as thus led of Him.
Nor is it in the least probable that they would have thought it necessary in announcing a decision of this character, to assure men that they were acting by the Spirit in such terms as they use here. That they had the Spirit, no one questioned; their actual guidance would not be better proved by the assertion, if any were disposed to question that. The apostle Paul does indeed, on one occasion, when he had been giving a judgment as to what it would be happier for one to do, remind us that he had the Spirit of God (1Co 7:40). But that is just because he is not speaking authoritatively, but simply tendering advice. He is not, as it were, in this case, the apostle, but the man; and we might need to be reminded that he was yet a man endowed (in how singular a way) with the Spirit of God. But what is before us now is a very different thing from this; and the authority of their decree would not be enhanced by a claim which the fact of its emanation from the apostles of the Lord and Saviour rendered quite unnecessary. On the other hand it would not be out of place to point out, against those who were troubling that the Spirit had already decided the whole matter. The case of Cornelius could not be unknown to them; in which the lack of circumcision had been definitely a question, and at Jerusalem itself. They had been taking up again what had been before sufficiently threshed out. In fact it was the enemy’s work, however overruled of God for blessing; and in other and more subtle forms was to be again and again renewed.
For such need as all this implied, the testimony of Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, would be all-important; and thus in fact we hear of the comforting and establishment of the brethren by their means. Peace and unity were perfectly preserved; and as yet the adversary had gained no advantage. It is noted that, after they had tarried awhile, they are “let go in peace” to those who sent them; while the word of the Lord makes progress still in Antioch, and the number increases of those who labor in it.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

FIRST GENERAL CHURCH COUNCIL
This lesson is one of the most important in the whole historical part of the New Testament. It is the record of the first general council of the church, called to settle the fundamental question as to how a man may be just with God. We have become acquainted with they of the circumcision who, at chapter 2, objected to Peters fellowship with the Gentiles in the case of Cornelius. The party was strong and growing stronger. As Jews of the stricter sort they could not understand how Gentiles could become Christians without in a sense first becoming Jews. Their theory is expressed in Act 15:1. Some of them, who have come to by styled Judaizing teachers, had followed Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and sought to undermine their work there. The immediate result is given in Act 15:3-4. The second of these two verses should be read in connection with Pauls account of this gathering in Galatians 2. The appearance of Peter (Act 15:7-11) is his last in this book, and it is remarkable that as an apostle of the circumcision so-called (Gal 2:8), he should have been used by the Holy Spirit to reprove the error of the Judaizing teachers. He does so by a plain relation of facts, an interrogative argument and a statement of belief. The preciousness of that statement is enhanced by a recurrence to the later dark ages of the church when its momentous truth was obscured by the sacramentalism of the papacy.
But the settlement of this great doctrine is not the only feature marking the value of this Council, since we have in the inspired words of James following (Act 15:13-18), the Divine program for the whole of this age and the following. Here we have the great truth of the dispensations so necessary to the understanding of the Bible, and so little appreciated by many Christian teachers today. How different would be the work of our large denominational gatherings if the facts here alluded to were taken into consideration? Here is the order of events: First, God is now in this Christian age visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His Name. This, in other words, is a time of outgathering of an elect number from the nations to form the church or the body of Christ (see Eph 3:6 in the light of its context). Secondly, After this Christ will return (Act 15:16). The feature of the return of Christ here spoken of is not that for the translation of the church which is his body (1Th 4:16-18), but His visible return in power and glory of which the Old Testament prophets speak. This is that second feature of His second coming to which reference has been made before in these pages. It follows the rapture of the church synchronizing with the threatened judgments on the living Gentile nations and the deliverance of Israel from her great tribulation. Thirdly, following this event will transpire the building again of the tabernacle of David (Act 15:16), in other words the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (compare Luk 1:32-33). Finally, during the Millennial Age the residue of men will seek after the Lord (see Isa 2:2; Isa 11:10; Isa 60:5).
The divine program enunciated by James is followed by his sentence (Act 15:19), which is, in effect, the judgment of the whole assembly now reduced to writing, and to be transmitted to the churches by a committee of the brethren named in Act 15:22. All that the Gentiles are asked to abstain from are those things more or less associated with idolatry (Act 15:20), and which were not distinguished as Mosaic prohibitions, but based on the earlier covenant of Noah (Gen 9:4), binding equally on Gentile and Jew. Nevertheless, Act 15:21, indicates that in the abstinence therefrom they were to show a suitable respect for their Jewish neighbors who were instructed in these things in the Old Testament scriptures, of which the Gentiles until that time were ignorant.
QUESTIONS
1. With what event does this lesson deal?
2. What question, or doctrine, was now settled?
3. What was the contention of the Judaizing teachers?
4. In what epistle does Paul refer to their false teaching?
5. What is the nature of Peters address on this occasion?
6. What other feature gives an outstanding character to this chapter?
7. What is the divine order of the ages as indicated here?
8. What was the final sentence of this Council?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Observe here, 1. How very forward Satan and his instruments were to sow the seeds of discord and dissension amongst the converted Christians at Antioch: he takes the first opportunity to break the church in pieces, before it is well settled.
O the restless malice of an envious devil against the gospel and kingdom of Jesus Christ!
Certain men came down from Judea, no doubt of the devil’s sending, to disquiet the brethern, and distress the church.
Observe, 2. The bone of contention thrown in by the false apostles, to disturb the disciples of Christ; and that was, the urging the necessity of circumcision, and imposing that part of the Mosaic yoke upon the neck of the converted Gentiles, excluding them from all hopes of salvation, unless they were circumcised; although circumcision was not commanded but only to the posterity of Abraham; and as to them also, had received its abolishment at the death of Christ.
Observe, 3. With what warmth of zeal the meek apostle, St. Paul, opposes this anti-Christian design of introducing circumcision into the Christian church: Paul and Barnabas had no small disputation with them; he that could become all things to all men, could not become sin to any man; he therefore enters into the lists with them, and earnestly contends for the faith of the gospel, urging, that by the death of Christ we are freed from the whole ceremonial law: and that if circumcision were retained, for the same reason all the other ceremonies ought to be restored; for the circumcised person was obliged to observe the whole ceremonial law.
Observe, 4. The prudential course which the disciples at Antioch took for the deciding of this controversy; they determined to send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem, where, in a full and free synod of the apostles, the matter is debated, and finally decided.
Learn hence, That the use of synods, or general assemblies of the bishops and pastors of the church, for deciding of controversies, for determining matters of faith, and directing to matters of practice, as it has been of ancient authority in the church of Christ, so it is of singular benefit and advantage both to ministers and people. Here Paul and Barnabas go up to the first synod, or general council at Jeruaslem, to consult the apostles and elders about this question.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

A Great Multitude In Iconium Believed
When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Iconium, they immediately went to the synagogue and seized upon an opportunity to preach. Though no record is left of their exact words, Luke does let us know that the message was powerful enough to move a great multitude, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, to obedient belief. However, those Jews who refused to obey the gospel did all they could to poison the thinking of the Gentile citizens, as well as the authorities very likely, so Paul and Barnabas could have no further impact on the city.
Nonetheless, they stayed on for some time in the city. As they preached, the Lord caused great miracles to be worked by them, thereby confirming the words as being from Him ( Heb 2:3-4 ). The city continued to be divided into two groups, those who obediently believed the preached word and those who demonstrated their lack of belief by refusing to obey. The enemies of preaching conspired to work physical harm on the preachers, even to the point of stoning. So, they moved on and preached the gospel in Lystra and Derbe ( Act 14:1-7 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

The Teachings of Certain Men
The teachings of certain men, who were apparently Pharisees in close association with James, caused a great uproar in the Gentile churches. They were saying that submission to the law of Moses, as demonstrated by circumcision, was required for one to be saved. They also taught that it was improper for a Jewish Christian to eat with Gentile Christians, likely specifically those who had not been circumcised. Their teachings led to Paul and Barnabas raising some serious questions and the apparent division of the church into two distinct camps. Ultimately, even Barnabas participated in the Judaizers’ acts of hypocrisy. Commanded by the Lord and commissioned by the church in Antioch, Paul, Barnabas and some unnamed others went to Jerusalem ( Act 15:1-2 ; Act 15:5 ; Gal 2:2 ; Gal 2:12-13 ).
On their overland journey to Jerusalem, the group reported the conversions which had been occurring in the Gentile world because of the preaching of the gospel. The Christians who heard the report rejoiced because of the things God had accomplished. When they arrived in Jerusalem, they again reported on the good which had been done among the Gentiles. If, as it appears, Gal 2:1-21 is a more detailed account of the events reported by Luke, Paul first reported to a small group of reputable men. In this way, public confrontation between apostles could be avoided. Converts from among the Pharisees still pressed their point by saying that all Gentiles who would go to heaven would have to submit to the law of Moses ( Act 15:3-5 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 15:1. And certain men which came down from Judea Probably such as had been of the Pharisees, (Act 15:5,) or, perhaps, of those priests which were obedient to the faith, Act 6:7. As they came from Judea, it is likely they pretended to be sent by the apostles at Jerusalem, or, at least, to be countenanced by them. Designing to spread their notions among the Gentiles, they came to Antioch, because that city abounded with Gentile converts, and was the headquarters of those that preached to the Gentiles; and if they could but make an impression there, they supposed their leaven would soon be diffused to all the churches of the Gentiles. And said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses That is, Except ye keep the law of Moses, (see Act 15:5; Gal 5:3,) ye cannot be saved Can neither enjoy Gods favour here, nor his kingdom hereafter. Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation They strenuously opposed this doctrine; 1st, Because its direct tendency was to subvert the gospel, which they had preached, and which they knew was of itself sufficient for the salvation of men, without the works of the Mosaic law. And, 2d, Because it was a betraying of the natural rights of mankind, who, by the gospel, are left free, both to obey the good laws of the countries where they live, and enjoy whatever rights accrue to them from those laws. Whereas, by receiving the law of Moses, the Gentiles really made themselves the subjects of a foreign power; for that law included, the civil or political law of Judea; and all who received it actually put themselves under the jurisdiction of the high-priest and council at Jerusalem. Hence Paul and Barnabas, as faithful servants of Christ, could not see his truth betrayed; they knew Christ came to free men from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to take down that wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and unite them both in himself, and therefore would not hear of circumcising the Gentile converts, when their instructions were only to baptize them. And, as spiritual fathers to them, they would not see their liberties encroached on. There being, therefore, much contention upon this account at Antioch, where there were several converts from among the Gentiles, to whom this doctrine could not but be very disagreeable, and, doubtless, many Jewish Christians, who approved of it; and the peace of the church and the unity of its members being in danger of being broken, to prevent this, if possible, it was judged advisable to get the best satisfaction they could, in an affair which affected the liberties and consciences of many. They determined, therefore, that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, should go to Jerusalem, about this question This is the journey to which Paul refers, (Gal 2:1-2,) when he says, he went up by revelation, which is very consistent with this; for the church, in sending them, might be directed by a revelation, made either immediately to Paul, or some other person, relating to so important an affair. Important indeed it was, and necessary that those Jewish impositions should be solemnly opposed in time, because multitudes of converts were still zealous for the law, and ready to contend for the observance of it. Indeed, many of the Christians at Antioch undoubtedly knew that Paul was under an extraordinary divine direction, and therefore would readily have acquiesced in his determination alone; but as others might have prejudices against him, on account of his having been so much concerned with the Gentiles, it was highly expedient to take the concurrent judgment of all the apostles on this occasion; since their authority was supreme in the church, and their decision alone could put an end to the controversy. It appears from Gal 2:1, that Titus was one of those who accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem at this time. Him, it is probable, Paul had converted in the Lesser Asia: and, being a person of great piety and ability, he had taken him as his assistant in the room of John Mark, at Perga, and had brought him to Antioch; and he, being a Gentile, had consequently much interest in the determination of this question. See Doddridge and Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

XV: 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.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Acts Chapter 15
Chapter 15 contains the account of this. Certain persons come from Jerusalem, where all was still going on in connection with the requirements of the law; and they seek to impose these requirements on the Gentiles in this new centre and starting-point of the work which was formed at Antioch. It was the will of God that this matter should be settled, not by the apostolic authority of Paul, or by the action of His Spirit at Antioch only, which might have divided the church, but by means of conference at Jerusalem, so as to maintain union, whatever might be the prejudices of the Jews. The ways of Godin this respect are remarkable, shewing the way in which He has maintained sovereign care in grace over the church. In reading the Epistle to the Galatians, we see that in reality things were in question that touched Christianity to the quick, that affected its very foundations, the deep principles of grace, of the rights of God, of the sinful condition of man-principles on which the whole edifice of mans eternal relations with God is founded. If any one was circumcised, he was under the law; he had given up grace, he had fallen away from Christ. Nevertheless Paul the apostle, Paul full of faith, of energy, of burning zeal, is obliged to go up to Jerusalem, whither he had not desired to go, in order to arrange this matter. Paul had laboured at Antioch; but the work in that city was not his work. He was not the apostle at Antioch as he was that of Iconium, of Lystra, and afterwards of Macedonia and of Greece. He went out from Antioch, from the bosom of the church already formed there. The question was to be settled for the church, apart from the apostolic authority of Paul. The apostle must yield before God and His ways.
Paul disputes with the men from Judea, but the end is not gained. It is determined to send some members of the church to Jerusalem, but with them Paul and Barnabas, so deeply interested in this question. Moreover Paul had a revelation that he should go up. God directed his steps. It is good however to be obliged to submit sometimes, although ever so right or so full of spiritual energy.
The question then is entered upon at Jerusalem. It was already a great thing that the subjecting of the Gentiles to the law should be resisted at Jerusalem, and still more that they should there decide not to do it. We see the wisdom of God in so ordering it, that such a resolution should have its origin at Jerusalem. Had there been no bigotry there, the question would not have been necessary; but alas! good has to be done in despite of all the weakness and all the traditions of men. A resolution made at Antioch would have been a very different thing from a resolution made at Jerusalem. The Jewish church would not have acknowledged the truth, the apostolic authority of the twelve would not have given its sanction to it. The course at Antioch and of the Gentiles would have been a course apart; and a continual struggle would have commenced, having (at least in appearance) the authority of the primitive and apostolic church on the one side, and the energy and liberty of the Spirit with Paul for its representative on the other. The Judaizing tendency of human nature is ever ready to abandon the high energy of the Spirit, and return into the ways and thoughts of the flesh. This tendency, nourished by the traditions of an ancient faith, had already given sorrow and difficulty enough to him who was specially labouring among the Gentiles according to the liberty of the Spirit, without the additional strength of having the course of the apostles and of the church at Jerusalem to countenance it.
After much discussion at Jerusalem, full liberty for which was given, Peter, taking the lead, relates the case of Cornelius. Afterwards Paul and Barnabas declare the wonderful manifestation of God through the power of the Holy Ghost which had taken place among the Gentiles. James then sums up the judgment of the assembly, which is assented to by all, that the Gentiles shall not be obliged to be circumcised, or to obey the law; but only to abstain from blood, from things strangled, from fornication, and from meat offered to idols. We shall do well to consider the nature and stipulations of this decree.
It is a direction which teaches, not that which is abstractedly good or evil, but that which was suitable to the case presented. It was necessary, not righteous before God, to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not here looked at in that way. There were certain things to which the Gentiles were accustomed, which it was proper they should renounce, in order that the assembly might walk as it ought before God in peace. To the other ordinances of the law they were not to be subjected. Moses had those who preached him. That sufficed, without compelling the Gentiles to submit to his laws, when they joined themselves, not to the Jews, but to the Lord.
This decree therefore does not pronounce upon the nature of the things forbidden, but upon the opportuneness-the Gentiles having in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. We must observe that they were not things forbidden by the law only. It was that which was contrary to the order established by God as Creator, or to a prohibition given to Noah when he was told to eat flesh. Woman was only to be connected with man in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God. Let Moses teach his own laws; these things were contrary to the intelligent knowledge of the true God. It is not therefore a new law imposed by Christianity, nor an accommodation to the prejudices of the Jews. It has not the same kind of validity as a moral ordinance that is obligatory in itself. It is the expression to Christian intelligence of the terms of mans true relations with God in the things of nature, given by the goodness of God, through the leaders at Jerusalem, to ignorant Christians, setting them free from the law, and enlightening them with regard to the relations between God and man, and to that which was proper to man-things of which, as idolatrous Gentiles, they had been ignorant. I have said, addressed to Christian intelligence: accordingly there is nothing inconsistent in eating anything that is sold at the shambles; for I acknowledge God who gave it, and not an idol. But if the act implies communion with the idol, even to the conscience of another, it would be provoking God to jealousy; I sin against Him or against my neighbour. I do not know whether an animal is strangled or not, but if people act so as to imply that it is indifferent whether life belongs to God or not, I sin again; I am not defiled by the thing, but I fail in Christian intelligence with regard to the rights of God as Creator. With regard to fornication, this enters into the category of Christian purity, besides being contrary to the order of the Creator; so that it is a direct question of good and evil, and not only of the rights of God revealed to our intelligence. This was important as a general principle, more than in the detail of the things themselves.
In sum the principles established are these: purity by marriage according to Gods original institution; that life belongs to God; and the unity of God as one only true God-Godhead, life, and Gods original ordinance for man. The same thing is true of the foundations laid by the assembly at the basis of their decree, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.
The Holy Ghost had manifested Himself in the case of Cornelius and of the conversion of the Gentiles, of which Peter and Paul and Barnabas had given the account. On the other hand the apostles were the depositaries of the authority of Christ, those to whom the government of the assembly as founded in connection with the true Jewish faith had been committed. They represented the authority of Christ ascended on high, even as the power and will of the Holy Ghost had been shewn in the cases I have just mentioned. The authority was exercised in connection with that which, in a certain sense, was the continuation of a Judaism enlarged by fresh revelations, and which had its centre at Jerusalem, acknowledging as Messiah the ascended Jesus rejected by the people. Christ had committed to them the authority necessary to govern the assembly. They had also been sealed on the day of Pentecost in order to perform it.
The spirit of grace and wisdom is truly seen in their way of acting. They give their full sanction to Paul and Barnabas, and they send with them persons of note in the assembly at Jerusalem, who could not be suspected of bringing an answer in support of their own pretensions, as might have been supposed in the case of Paul and Barnabas.
The apostles and elders assemble for deliberation; but the whole flock acts in concert with them.
Thus Jerusalem has decided that the law was not binding on the Gentiles. These, sincere in their desire of walking with Christ, rejoice greatly at their freedom from this yoke. Judas and Silas, being prophets, exhort and confirm them, and afterwards are dismissed in peace. But Silas thinks it good to remain on his own account, influenced by the Spirit. He prefers the work among the Gentiles to Jerusalem. Judas returns from it to Jerusalem.
The work continues at Antioch by means of Paul and Barnabas and others. At Antioch we again see the full liberty of the Holy Ghost.
Paul proposes to Barnabas that they should go and visit the assemblies already formed by their means in Asia Minor. Barnabas consents, but he determines to take John who had formerly forsaken them. Paul wishes for some one who had not drawn back from the work, nor abandoned for his own home the place of a stranger for the works sake. Barnabas insists; and these two precious servants of God separate. Barnabas takes Mark and goes to Cyprus. Now Mark was his kinsman, and Cyprus his own country. Paul takes Silas, who had preferred the work to Jerusalem instead of Jerusalem to the work and departs. From his name we may believe that Silas was a Hellenist.
It is happy to find that, after this, Paul speaks of Barnabas with entire affection, and desires that Mark should come to him, having found him profitable for the ministry.
Moreover Paul is commended by the brethren to the grace of God in his work. The title given to Paul and Barnabas by the apostles shews the difference between the apostolic authority, established by Christ in person, and that which was constituted such by the power of the Holy Ghost-sent by Christ Himself, no doubt, but in point of fact going forth by the direction of the Holy Ghost, and their mission warranted by His power. With the apostles, Paul and Barnabas have no title except their work-men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. They are that which the Holy Ghost has made them. The apostles are the twelve.
The liberty and the power of the Spirit characterise Paul He is that which the Spirit makes him. If Jesus had appeared to him, although Ananias can testify it, he must in reality prove it by the power of his ministry. The effects of this ministry are related as well as its character in chapters 16-20. The action and the liberty of the Holy Ghost are there displayed in a remarkable manner.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

1-8. Peter certifies before the council that this question had been settled by the heavenly vision at Joppa and the descension of the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles at Caesarea, seven years ago, none of whom had ever received any of the Jewish ordinances, thus God Himself clearly confirming his acceptance of them, precisely as He had the Jews on the day of Pentecost.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 15:1. Certain men which came down from Judea. Epiphanius says, Cerinthus the heretic was one of the principals in this dissension. But they were, no doubt, of the devils sending, to disquiet the brethren, and distress the church. See the note on Act 15:5.
Except ye be circumcised. Here we find the jews at issue, and divided in sentiment on the grand point of admission into their religion. Some not only permitted those of other nations, who owned the true God, to live quietly among them, but even to embrace their religion, without circumcision; whilst others would by no means permit them to do so. This controversy continued after they had embraced christianity; some allowing them to embrace christianity without submitting to circumcision and the jewish law, others contending that without circumcision and the observance of the law they could not be saved. These latter were the false apostles which troubled the churches at Corinth, Galatia, and Philippi, and were great enemies to St. Paul, who taught the contrary. It is the same thing to say, they must be circumcised after the manner of Moses, as to say, they must be circumcised and keep the whole law: Act 15:5. They held this doctrine as necessary to salvation; and by it subverted the gentile converts, Act 15:24, causing them to fall from grace. Gal 5:4. This they did, agreeably to their common maxim, that all uncircumcised persons go to hell. These false apostles went out from Judea, and were as men who went out from the apostles: Act 15:24. St. John therefore says, they went out from us, but they were not of us. 1Jn 2:19.
Act 15:2. Dissension and disputation. Observe with what zealous warmth the apostle Paul opposes this antichristian design, of introducing circumcision into the christian church. Paul and Barnabas had no small disputation with them. He that could become all things to all men, could not become sin to any man; he therefore enters the lists with them, and earnestly contends for the faith of the gospel, urging that by the death of Christ we are freed from the whole ceremonial law; and that if circumcision were retained, then for the same reason all the other ceremonies ought to be restored, a circumcised person being obliged to observe the ceremonial law. Condescension and compliance ought never to proceed so far as to weaken the truths of the gospel: not to defend it vigorously on some occasions, is to betray it.
Act 15:3. They passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the grace of God in the conversion of the gentiles to the Lord. (The situation of Phenice may be seen in the Map.) This journey, with Barnabas and Titus, was undertaken fourteen years after Pauls conversion, the three first years spent in Arabia and Cilicia being included. On this point the ablest critics seem agreed. Gal 2:1. This mission was undertaken by revelation from heaven, with special reference to the conversion of multitudes of gentiles; and being all uncircumcised, their admission seriously involved the unity of the church. The thousands of jews in Jerusalem who believed were all zealous of the law.
Act 15:5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the pharisees which believed, and contended in the assembly that it was essential that all gentiles on admission to the communion of the church should be required to be circumcised, and strictly to keep the ceremonial law. A delicate point: the whole weight of the Hebrew ritual and tradition on the one side, and the grace conferred on the uncircumcised by the Holy Ghost on the other.
Act 15:6. The apostles and elders came together, and the multitude, as in Act 15:12; including the whole church, to consider the matter, as in Act 15:22.
Act 15:7. When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and recited what had happened to him in the house of Cornelius. He pleaded, having God on his side, that as the Lord had made them free, they ought not to be entangled with the yoke of bondage. He believed that through the grace of Christ, the gentiles, though uncircumcised, should be saved as well as the jews.
Act 15:12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul. This was a reserve of eloquence, sure to turn the people, as an impetuous tide drives back the streams. Oh how the soul hung upon the ear; how the countenances brightened, while they related their progress from city to city, from province to province; how the word of the Lord had been glorified, and how miracles had been effected by his arm. How princes and nobles, and multitudes of the people had been converted without either number or record; and how the unbelieving jews in all places had stirred up the misguided populace to outrage, imprison, and stone them for the sake of Christ. But in all storms and conflicts, they were more than conquerors through him that loved them. All this was a gentile glory, reflected back on the church of the firstborn.
Act 15:13-14. James answered: being chairman of the assembly, he summed up the argument, and gave the final opinion. He said, Simeon (calling Simon Peter by his Hebrew name, ) hath declared how God at the first did visit the gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. To this idea of the calling of the gentiles a cloud of prophecies agree; particularly the words of the prophet Amo 9:11-12, which he here cites. Of James, cumenius writes, that he was bishop of Jerusalem, and brother of the Lord, being the son of Joseph, the husband of the virgin Mary.
Act 15:16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down. To the comment on that place, Dr. Lightfoot adds here, that Rabbi Nachman said to rabbi Isaac, whence has thou learned when Bar Naphli will come? He said, who is this Bar Naphli? The other replied, he is the Messiah. Dost thou then call Bar Naphli the Messiah? Yes, said he, for it is written, In that day I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down. Vol. 2:694.
Act 15:17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord. The Hebrew reads, That the residue of men may possess the remnant of Edom. The LXX, by a substitution of the word Lord for Edom, evidently understood Amos as speaking of calling the residue of men, or the gentile nations, to seek the Lord, and in the age when the tabernacle of David should rise in Christ.
Act 15:18. Known unto God are all his works. From the beginning of the world he foresaw, and inspired his prophets to say, that the gentiles should thus be converted to the Lord, as Barnabas and Paul had just declared.
Act 15:20. Write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, by not eating of flesh presented to them, nor drinking out of any vessel used in their feasts. The spirit of this is paternal, and the injunctions are precepts anterior to the law of Moses.
And from fornication. But why write this to christians, to whom every species of impurity is prohibited? The bearing of the injunction must be against polygamy, too common both to gentiles and to jews. On this ground St. Paul calls Esau a fornicator. Heb 12:16. This law is enforced by the order of nature, males and females being born in nearly equal numbers.
And from things strangled, and from blood, as stated on Gen 9:4. Lev 17:9. Deu 12:16-23. Maimonides defines the prohibition to extend to blood taken from the veins of slaughtered animals, and not to blood which may be about the flesh. As the precept is connected with cautions against the effusion of human blood, it was wise and good in the Lord, on allowing animals to be killed for food, to show that he was still the arbiter of his creatures lives, by this humane and salutary reservation.
Act 15:39. The contention, literally, the paroxysm, was so sharp, that they parted, and divided the sphere of their labours. The reason assigned is, that Mark had departed from the work in Pamphylia. Therefore Paul would not take him again as a colleague to revisit the churches, and launch out into Galatia, and all the western provinces of Roman Asia. This circumstance proved advantageous, as the work of the Lord required a double mission. Paul went through with his second expedition, especially in Galatia and the northern provinces, where he had great success. Barnabas went to Cyprus, his native place, and seems to have taken the Greek islands for his sphere of labour. Disputes between regenerate men are confined to certain points; they still love as brothers in the Lord. Therefore we find Paul, when at Rome, putting Mark the first of his four fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24; and naming Barnabas to the churches with the highest pastoral honour and respect. 1Co 9:5-6.
REFLECTIONS.
The two former chapters having described the labours of the apostles in planting the gentile churches, we now proceed to consider the care they exercised over them. The ground is delicate, the moment critical. Marvellous, that the christian pharisees should concede the point of circumcision to the gentile converts without a schism! They had the law, and the whole weight of traditions on their side. But they had, on the other hand, the eloquence of Paul, pleading against them the mighty works of the Lord. He rebutted all their arguments, and composed their voices to silence.
On this grand question the apostles among themselves were not divided: they saw the hand of God, and bowed to his decision. While ministers remain united, rents in the church cannot be large. James adduced a most pertinent and cogent passage from the prophet Amos, that the falling tabernacle of David should be raised by the residue of men, Edom, or the gentile world, turning to the Lord. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, when the hosts, the armies of the gentiles, shall surround thy banners. The pastoral letter which James advised, and which was adopted by the council, filled the church of Antioch with joy; for if the motion of the pharisees had been adopted, the work among the gentiles had been destroyed.
Cerinthus is said in this council to have resisted Peter, and opposed Paul and Barnabas. He afterwards became altogether a heretic, affirming that Christ was simply a man, and denied the necessity of baptism. Iren. lib. Act 1:25. Epiph. heres. 28. Augustine reproaches him with being extravagant in his notions, as a chiliast or millenarian, contending for a temporal kingdom of Christ for a thousand years after the resurrection. Irenus reports also, lib. 3. cap. 3, that when St. John went to bathe at Ephesus, he found Cerinthus in the baths, and said, Let us go out quickly, lest the baths should fall, and we be crushed under the ruins.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Act 15:1-5. The Question of Circumcision at Antioch and at Jerusalem.If. The custom of Moses (cf. Act 6:14) is the law of Moses as practised. Circumcision was no doubt the most important question to be settled; to exact it would have prevented the spread of the Church among the Gentiles; but there were other points.
Act 15:2. After with them Codex D reads: for Paul said that they should remain as they were when they believed, and was vehement to this effect, but those who had come from Jerusalem enjoined them, Paul and Barnabas and some others, to go up. The church at any rate resolved that this should be done.
Act 15:3 speaks of a leisurely and indirect journey, as if the envoys had no urgent commission to discharge at the capital, and the reception on the way of their tidings of the conversion of the Gentiles does not point to any urgency. The same is the case at Jerusalem, where their report of their successes is in the same words as are used in Act 14:27. But this peaceful state of matters is interrupted by certain Pharisees, who raise the question of circumcision and adherence to the Law, as if it had not been raised before. In Galatians 2 Paul says he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem by revelation, taking Titus with them, who is not mentioned here, and the false brethren (Gal 2:4*) may well be the Pharisees of our passage.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

However, here at Antioch a matter arose of deeply serious significance, and it was clearly God’s wisdom to have Paul and Barnabas there at the time. Men from Judea, professing the knowledge of Christ, came to Antioch, teaching the Gentile saints that they must be circumcised in order to be saved. Of course, such mixing of Judaism with Christianity would corrupt the whole character of the gospel of the grace of God, and Paul and Barnabas, discerning this, withstood this effort of the enemy.
Since the men came from Judea, then Jerusalem was the place that this matter should be faced, and the brethren purposed that Paul and Barnabas and others with them should go there to consult with the apostles and elders as to this question. Paul was not merely sent by the brethren, however. In Galations 2:1-2 he speaks of his going up “by revelation.” This was God’s clear leading, though on a later occasion God warned him by the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem (Chapter 21:4).
On their way they passed through Phenice and Samaria, reporting to the assemblies the work of God in the conversion of Gentiles, which caused great joy to the brethren. Would they want such joy as this dampened by the introduction of Jewish ritual?
Though Paul was known only by report in Judea (Galations 1:22-23), the assembly in Jerusalem received him and Barnabas as did the apostles and elders. Here they reported also the working of God among the Gentiles, but no great joy in this is recorded on the part of some believing Pharisees. They, in common with the others who had gone to Antioch, demanded that the Gentile converts should be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses.
The apostles and elders (not all the assembly) came together to consider this serious matter of whether Gentile believers should be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses. It will be observed here that Paul did not take a prominent part, though in Galations 2:1-5 he makes it clear that he would not in the least give in to these Judaizing teachers. But the matter must be settled by those in Jerusalem, since the protested doctrine had issued from there.
At first there was much disputing, for men’s reasoning minds like to take the platform. Then Peter speaks, and the perspective of the meeting is turned in the right direction when he reminds them (not that men’s preferences had anything to do with it, but) that some time before God who knew men’s hearts, had given Gentiles (Cornelius and others with him–Ch.10:44) the Holy Spirit. This in fact was altogether without their being circumcised, and even before they were baptized.
God Himself had wrought in such a way as to eliminate the difference between Jewish and Gentile believers, purifying their hearts by faith (not by ordinances). Could they dare to ignore the immense significance of this? If so, this was tempting God, opposing what He Himself had done, and putting a yoke on the neck of Gentile believers which Israel had not been able to bear, either in the past or in the time then present. The yoke of law was intolerable, altogether contrary to the yoke of the Lord Jesus which is easy, and His burden light (Mat 11:30).
Peter goes further still in verse 11, for the attitude of these Judaisers indicated that they were not clear as the principles of their own salvation. He tells them, “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they.” Jewish believers therefore would be saved in the same way as Gentiles, exclusively through the grace of the Lord Jesus, not by the addition of circumcision or of law-keeping. This being true, certainly Gentiles could not be expected to conform to Old Testament laws and ordinances.
Peter’s words quietened the audience, so that the way was opened for Barnabas and Paul to declare the marvels of God’s work among the Gentiles through them. Notice that Barnabas is mentioned first in this case. Paul, though fully capable of taking the foremost part, did not do so. They do not take up the doctrinal questions, to refute the arguments of the judaizing party, but leave that to Peter and James, who were resident at Jerusalem. Still, the Jews must not be allowed to treat lightly the reality of God’s work in Gentiles, so that they rightly emphasize this.
The disputing now being silenced, James is given grace to speak authoritatively for God. His epistle makes it clear that he had no lax, careless character, and he was evidently highly respected by the Jews of Jerusalem. He refers back to the words of Simeon (Simon Peter) in rehearsing the facts of God’s intervention in visiting the Gentiles to take from among them a people for His name. Then he brings scripture (the Old Testament) to bear in this matter, quoting from Amo 9:11-12, which shows that Gentiles would be blessed in having God’s name called upon them, in connection with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. Of course, Christ is the true Prince of the house of David, and in Christ alone Gentiles as well as Jews find blessing.
This scripture will have its complete fulfilment in the age to come, the millennium, yet God’s dealing now with Gentiles is perfectly consistent with this great prospect, so that the Spirit of God moves James in this consistent use of the prophecy.
Verse 18 is used in a pointed way to back up the significance of all this, “Known unto God are all His works from eternity.” God was not taken by surprise, but had ordered these matters in this way in eternity past. Of course, mankind did not know anything of this until God revealed it, but when He sees fit to change His dispensational dealings, people should be gladly willing to submit to this.
James then pronounces the decision that the Jewish saints must not trouble Gentiles who have turned to God, by introducing Jewish religion. Though James pronounces this, it is manifestly God’s decision, not the decision of James, nor even of the gathered brethren. Certainly there was to be unity among Jewish and Gentile believers, but Gentiles were not to be made Jews, no more than Jews were made Gentiles: they were united on a basis far above that of human relationships.
In pronouncing his sentence that Gentile believers are not to be put under Jewish law in any way, James does, however, suggest that the brethren write to Gentiles of three things connected with God’s creatorial rights that were too commonly abused among the Gentile nations. They would ask them, first, to abstain from pollutions of idols. To recognize an idol in any way was a direct insult to God, for the idol usurps God’s place. Secondly, fornication must be avoided, for this is a serious violation of those relationships God has established for the blessing of mankind. Thirdly, they must not eat things strangled, nor blood, for God requires that the blood of an animal must be shed before the flesh may be eaten. The blood is the life, and we must show this respect for God’s rights as the life-giver. Disregard of this is despising God. These things were not merely Jewish laws but were basic in creation from the beginning.
If some were envious for Moses’ sake, James adds that there were those who preached Moses in every city (In Israel at least, and many among the Gentiles), so there was no lack of the law being proclaimed. But how much higher is Christ than Moses.’ Let Christians devote themselves fully to Christ, not to the law. This is the only effective way of producing real fruit in people’s lives for God’s glory.
How thankful may we all be for a clear decision being made at this time on the part of the apostles and elders, together with the whole assembly, to send chosen men to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, bearing a plainly worded letter that would fully relieve the saints in reference to the false teachings of the men who had previously come from Judea. Of course, it is likely that some individuals were not happy about the outcome of the meeting, but these had been silenced by the power of the Spirit of God, and the decision was a true assembly decision, directed of God.
The letter was addressed to the brethren who were of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, who had been troubled by those who had come from Judea, teaching that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law. The letter adds, “to whom we gave no such commandment.” In view of this, it seemed good to them, being gathered with one accord, to send chosen men with Barnabas and Paul. Notice, it can be rightly said “with one accord,” even though some had opposed; for their opposition had been shown to be against God, and the unity of the brethren was maintained in the face of this, the opposition silenced. Their appreciation of Barnabas and Paul is good to witness, as they speak of them as men who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. They express their confidence also in Judas and Silas to tell them the same things by word of mouth.
Verse 28 considers the matter as being of greatest importance in that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit (first), then “and to us.” No slightest question can remain as to the definite leading of the Spirit of God in this matter, and that the apostles and elders were acquiescent in this leading. No greater burden was to be laid on the Gentiles than things that were necessary, which we have seen are an acknowledgment of God’s creatorial rights.
Coming to Antioch, these brethren gather the assembly together to hear the reading of the letter sent to them, which is such a consolation as to make them rejoice. Judas and Silas also became of great encouragement to them, in contrast to others who had before come from Judea, for they confirmed the message of grace sent in the letter, while exhorting and strengthening the disciples by the ministry of the Word.
After remaining there for a time, however, Judas and Silas were let go from the brethren back to the apostles in Jerusalem. Verse 34 in the KJV is said to be not included in the most reliable Greek manuscripts. It may have been added by copyists who thought this was the way to account for the presence of Silas at Antioch in verse 40. But is it not easily possible that after his returning to Jerusalem he had decided to come back to Antioch? This would be specially understandable if his contact with Gentile believers had awakened a vital concern within him for the blessing of Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas remained some time in Antioch, teaching and preaching along with many others, for the large interest awakened among Gentiles required establishing teaching.
After some time in Antioch, Paul proposed to Barnabas another visit to the brethren in the cities where they had previously preached the Word. Barnabas expressed himself as determined to take John Mark with them again. However, Paul considered this not good in view of Mark’s having before drawn back, leaving the work soon after starting Out. Perhaps Barnabas felt that his nephew might be strengthened if he came on this second occasion, but evidently Paul did not think that he was ready at this time. Later Paul speaks of Mark as being profitable to him for the ministry (2Ti 4:11), but at this time he had a different opinion. Barnabas was not willing to accede to Paul’s exercise in this, and so decidedly disagreed with Paul that he refused to go with him, but took Mark and left for Cyprus, his own previous home (Act 4:36). It is sad that we read no more of his history following this, though we do read of Mark. Paul, choosing Silas to accompany him, was recommended by the brethren to the grace of God. This is not said concerning Barnabas, who apparently did not go, as Paul did, to revisit the assemblies they had established in Syria and Cilicia.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1
Came down from Judea; to Antioch.–Except ye be, circumcised; referring to the Gentile converts. Their meaning was, that they must become Jews as well as Christians, and conform to the Mosaic institutions. They regarded Christianity as only the end and consummation of Judaism,–the exclusive inheritance of those who had been, or who were willing to become, a part of the great family of Abraham.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

15:1 And {1} {a} certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
(1) The Church is at length troubled with dissension within itself, and the trouble rises from the proud and stubborn intellects of certain evil men. The first strife was concerning the office of Christ, whether we are saved only by his righteousness apprehended by faith, or if we also have need to observe the Law.
(a) Epiphanius is of the opinion that this was Cerinthus.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

5. The Jerusalem Council 15:1-35
The increasing number of Gentiles who were becoming Christians raised a problem within the church. What was the relationship of the church to Judaism? Some Christians, especially the more conservative Jewish believers, argued that Christianity was a party within Judaism, the party of true believers. They assumed that Gentile Christians, therefore, needed to become Jewish proselytes, which involved being circumcised and obeying the Mosaic Law.
"In truth, there was no law to prevent the spread of Judaism [within the Roman Empire at this time]. Excepting the brief period when Tiberius (19 A.D.) banished the Jews from Rome and sent 4,000 of their number to fight the banditti in Sardinia, the Jews enjoyed not only perfect liberty, but exceptional privileges." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:71.]
Other Christians, the more broad-minded Jewish believers and the Gentile converts, saw no need for these restrictions. They viewed the church not as a party within Judaism but as a distinct group separate from Judaism that incorporated both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. This difference of viewpoint led to the meeting Luke recorded in this section. He described it at length to explain the issues involved and to clarify their importance. Therefore not a few students of Acts believe that chapter 15 is the most crucial chaper in the entire book. [Note: E.g., H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, p. 121; and Witherington, p. 439.] It is both structurally and theologically at the center of Acts. [Note: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 242.]
"Throughout this commentary [i.e., Witherington’s commentary] we have noted the signs that Luke was following ancient historiographical conventions in the way he presents his material, in particular his penchant for dealing with matters from an ethnographic and region-by-region perspective. With these concerns the extended treatment in Acts 15 comes as no surprise. Here the matter must be resolved as to what constitutes the people of God, and how the major ethnic division in the church (Jew/Gentile) shall be dealt with so that both groups may be included in God’s people on equal footing, fellowship may continue, and the church remain one. Luke is eager to demonstrate that ethnic divisions could be and were overcome, despite the objection of very conservative Pharisaic Christians." [Note: Witherington, p. 439.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul and Barnabas’ return to Jerusalem 15:1-5
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The men from Judea who came down to Antioch appear to have been Jewish Christians who took the former view of Christianity described above. They believed a person could not become a Christian without first becoming a Jew, which included circumcision. Perhaps they based their theology on texts such as Gen 17:14 and Exo 12:48-49. Their claim was essentially a denial of the sufficiency of faith in Christ for salvation. They evidently claimed that James, the Lord’s half brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church, endorsed their position (cf. Act 15:24; Gal 2:12). Peter, who was in Antioch at this time, compromised with these men by withdrawing from eating with the Gentile Christians there. Barnabas also inclined to do so. Paul, however, saw the inconsistency and danger in this practice and rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11; Gal 2:13-14).
This situation posed the fourth crisis in the history of the early church. The first was selfishness (Ananias and Sapphira, ch. 5), and the second was murmuring (over the treatment of the Hellenistic widows, ch. 6). The third was simony (Simon Magus, ch. 8), and now doctrinal controversy raised its ugly head (the "Galatian heresy," ch. 15). This was the most serious problem thus far both in terms of the issue itself and its potential consequences. It involved the conditions for becoming a Christian and therefore the gospel message.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 10
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN COUNCIL.
Act 15:1-2; Act 15:6; Act 15:19
I HAVE headed this chapter, which treats of Act 15:1-41 and its incidents, the First Christian Council, and that of set purpose and following eminent ecclesiastical example. People often hear the canons of the great Councils quoted, the canons of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, those great assemblies which threshed out the controversies concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ and determined with marvellous precision the methods of expressing the true doctrine on these points, and they wonder where or how such ancient documents have been preserved. Well, the answer is simple enough. If any reader, curious about the doings of these ancient assemblies, desires to study the decrees which proceeded from them, and even the debates which occurred in them, he need only ask in any great library for a history of the Councils, edited either by Hardouin or Labbe and Cossart, or, best and latest of all, by Mansi. They are not externally very attractive volumes, being vast folios; nor are they light or interesting reading. The industrious student will learn much from them, however; and he will find that they all begin the history of the Christian Councils by placing at the very head and forefront thereof the history and acts of the Council of Jerusalem held about the year 48 or 49 A.D., wherein we find a typical example of a Church synod which set a fashion perpetuated throughout the ages in councils, conferences, and congresses down to the present time. Let us inquire then into the origin, the procedure, and the results of this Assembly, sure that a council conducted under such auspices, reported by such a divinely guided historian, and dealing with such burning questions, must have important lessons for the Church of every age.
I. The question, however, naturally meets us at the very threshold of our inquiry as to the date of this assembly, and the position which it holds in the process of development through which the Christian Church was passing. The decision of this Synod at Jerusalem did not finally settle the questions about the law and its obligatory character. The relations between the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church continued in some places, especially in the East, more or less unsettled well into the second century; for the Jews found it very hard indeed to surrender all their cherished privileges and ancient national distinctions. But the decree of the Jerusalem Assembly, though only partial settlement, “mere articles of peace,” as it has been well called, to tide over a pressing local controversy, formed in St. Pauls hands a powerful weapon whereby the freedom, the unity, and the catholicity of the Church were finally achieved. Where, then, do we locate this Synod in the story of St. Pauls labours?
The narrative of the Acts clearly enough places it between the first and second missionary tours in Asia Minor undertaken by that apostle. Paul and Barnabas laboured for the first time in Asia Minor probably from the autumn of 44 till the spring or summer of 46. Their work at that time must have extended over at least eighteen months or more. Their journeys on foot must alone have taken up no small time. They traversed from Perge, where they landed, to Derbe, whence they turned back upon their work, a space of at least two hundred and fifty miles. They made lengthened sojourns in large cities like Antioch and Iconium. They doubtless visited other places of which we are told nothing. Then, having completed their aggressive work, they retraced their steps along the same route, and began their work of consolidation and Church organisation, which must have occupied on their return journey almost as much, if not more, time than they had spent in aggressive labour upon their earlier journey. When we consider all this, and strive to realise the conditions of life and travel in Asia Minor at that time, eighteen months will not appear too long for the work which the apostles actually performed. After their return to Antioch they took up their abode in that city for a considerable period. “They tarried no little time with the disciples” are the exact words of St. Luke telling of their stay at Antioch. Then comes the tale of Jewish intrigues and insinuations, followed by debates, strife, and oppositions concerning the universally binding character of the Jewish law, terminating with the formal deputation from Antioch to Jerusalem. These latter events at Antioch may have happened in a few weeks or months, or they may have extended over a couple of years. But then, on the other hand, we note that St. Pauls second missionary journey began soon after the Synod of Jerusalem. That journey was very lengthened. It led St. Paul right through Asia Minor, and thence into Europe, where he must have made a stay of at least two years. He was at Corinth for eighteen months when Gallio arrived as proconsul about the middle of the year 53, and previously to that he had worked his way through Macedonia and Greece. St. Paul on his second tour must have been then at least four years absent from Antioch, which he must therefore have left about the year 49 or 50. The Synod of Jerusalem must therefore be assigned to the year 48 A.D. or thereabouts; or, in other words, not quite twenty years after the Crucifixion.
II. And now this leads us to consider the occasion of the Synod. The time was not, as we have said, quite twenty years after the Crucifixion, yet that brief space had been quite sufficient to raise questions undreamt of in earlier days. The Church was at first completely homogeneous, its members being all Jews; but the admission of the Gentiles and the action of St. Peter in the matter of Cornelius had destroyed this characteristic so dear to the Jewish heart. The Divine revelation at Joppa to St. Peter and the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius had for a time quenched the opposition to the admission of the Gentiles to baptism; but, as we have already said, the extreme Jewish party were only silenced for a time, they were not destroyed. They took up a new position. The case of Cornelius merely decided that a man might be baptised without having been previously circumcised; but it decided nothing in their opinion about the subsequent necessity for circumcision and admission into the ranks of the Jewish nation. Their view, in fact, was the same as of old. Salvation belonged exclusively to the Jewish nation, and therefore if the converted Gentiles were to be saved it must be by incorporation into that body to which salvation alone belonged. The strict Jewish section of the Church insisted the more upon this point, because they saw rising up in the Church of Antioch, and elsewhere among the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, a grave social danger threatening the existence of their nation as a separate people. There were just then two classes of disciples in these Churches. There were disciples who lived after the Jewish fashion., -abstaining from unlawful foods, using food slain by Jewish butchers, and scrupulous in washings and lustrations; and there were Gentiles who lived after the Gentile fashion, and in especial ate pork and things strangled. The strict Jews knew right well the tendency of a majority to swallow up a minority, specially when they were all members of the same religious community, enjoying the same privileges and partakers of the same hope. A majority does not indeed necessarily absorb a minority. Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority in Ireland and France; yet it has not absorbed the small Protestant minority. The adherents of Judaism were scattered in St. Pauls day all over the world, yet Paganism had not swallowed them up. In these cases, however, the minority have been completely separated from the majority by a middle wall, a barrier of rigid discipline, and of strong, yea even violent religious repugnance. But the prospect now before the strict Jewish party was quite different. In the Syrian Church as they beheld it growing up Jew and Gentile would be closely linked together, professing the same faith, saying the same prayers, joining in the same sacraments, worshipping in the same buildings. All the advantages, too, would be on the side of the Gentile. He was freed from the troublesome restrictions-the more troublesome because so petty and minute-of the Levitical Law. He could eat what he liked, and join in social converse and general life without hesitation or fear. In a short time a Jewish disciple would come to ask himself, What do I gain by all these observances, this yoke of ordinances, which neither we nor our fathers have been able perfectly to bear? If a Gentile disciple can be saved without them, why should I trouble myself with. them? The Jewish party saw clearly enough that toleration of the presence of the Gentiles in the Church and their admission to full communion and complete Christian privileges simply involved the certain overthrow of Jewish customs, Jewish privileges, and Jewish national expectations. They saw that it was a case of war to the death, one party or the other must conquer, and therefore in self-defence they raised the cry, “Unless the Gentile converts be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved.”
Antioch was recognised at Jerusalem as the centre of Gentile Christianity. Certain, therefore, of the zealous, Judaising disciples of Jerusalem repaired to Antioch, joined the Church, and secretly proceeded to organise opposition to the dominant practice, using for that purpose all the authority connected with the name of James the Lords brother, who presided over the Mother Church of the Holy City.
Now let us see what position St. Paul took up with respect to these “false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out the liberty he enjoyed in Christ Jesus.” Paul and Barnabas both set themselves undauntedly to fight against such teaching. They had seen and known the spiritual life which flourished free from all Jewish observances in the Church of the Gentiles. They had seen the gospel bringing forth the fruits of purity and faith, of joy and peace in the Holy Ghost; they knew that these things prepare the soul for the beatific vision of God, and confer a present salvation here below; and they could not tolerate the idea that a Jewish ceremony was necessary over and above the life which Christ confers if men are to gain final salvation.
Here, perhaps, is the proper place to set forth St. Pauls view of circumcision and of all external Jewish ordinances, as we gather it from a broad review of his writings. St. Paul vigorously opposed all those who taught the necessity of Jewish rites so far as salvation is concerned. This is evident from this chapter and from the Epistle to the Galatians. But on the other hand St. Paul had not the slightest objection to men observing the law and submitting to circumcision, if they only realised that these things were mere national customs and observed them as national customs, and even as religious rites, but not as necessary religious rites. If men took a right view of circumcision, St. Paul had not the slightest objection to it. It was not to circumcision St. Paul objected, but to the extreme stress laid upon it, the intolerant views connected with it. Circumcision as a voluntary practice, an interesting historical relic of ancient ideas and customs, he never rejected, -nay, further, he even practised it, as we shall see in the case of Timothy; circumcision as a compulsory practice binding upon all men St. Paul utterly abhorred. We may, perhaps, draw an illustration from a modern Church in this respect. The Coptic and Abyssinian Churches retain the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. These Churches date back to the earliest Christian times, and retain doubtless in this respect the practice of the primitive Christian Church. The Copts circumcise their children on the eighth day and before they are baptised; but they regard this rite as a mere national custom, and treat it as absolutely devoid of any religious meaning, significance, or necessity. St. Paul would have had no objection to circumcision in this aspect any more than he would have objected to a Turk for wearing a fez, or a Chinaman for wearing a pigtail, or a Hindoo for wearing a turban. National customs as such were things absolutely indifferent in his view. But if Turkish or Chinese Christians were to insist upon all men wearing their peculiar dress and observing their peculiar national customs as being things absolutely necessary to salvation, St. Paul, were he alive, would denounce and oppose them as vigorously as he did the Judaisers of his own day.
This is the explanation of St. Pauls own conduct. Some have regarded him as at times inconsistent with his own principles with regard to the law of Moses. And yet if men will but look closer and think more deeply., they will see that St. Paul never violated the rules which he had imposed upon himself. He refused to circumcise Titus, for instance, because the Judaising party at Jerusalem were insisting upon the absolute necessity of circumcising the Gentiles if they were to be saved. Had St. Paul consented to the circumcision of Titus, he would have been yielding assent, or seeming to yield assent, to their contention. {see Gal 2:3} He circumcised Timothy at Lystra because of the Jews in that neighbourhood; not indeed because they thought it necessary to salvation that an uncircumcised man should be so treated, but because they knew that his mother was a Jewess, and the principle of the Jewish law, and of the Roman law too, was that a mans nationality and status followed that of his mother, not that of his father, so that the son of a Jewess must be incorporated with Israel. Timothy was circumcised in obedience to national law and custom, not upon any compromise of religious principle. St. Paul himself made a vow and cut off his hair and offered sacrifices in the Temple, as being the national customs of a Jew. These were things in themselves utterly meaningless and indifferent; but they pleased other people. They cost him a little time and trouble; but they helped on the great work he had in hand, and tended to make his opponents more willing to listen to him. St. Paul, therefore, with his great large mind, willing to please others for their good to edification, gratified them by doing what they thought became a Jew with a true national spirit beating within his breast. Mere externals mattered nothing in St. Pauls estimation. He would wear any vestments, or take any position, or use any ceremony, esteeming them all things indifferent, provided only they conciliated human prejudices and cleared difficulties out of the way of the truth. But if men insisted upon them as things necessary, then he opposed with all his might. This is the golden thread which will rule our footsteps wandering amid the mazes of this earliest Christian controversy. It will amply vindicate St. Pauls consistency, and show that he never violated the principles he had laid down for his own guidance. Had the spirit of St. Paul animated the Church of succeeding ages, how many a controversy and division would have been thereby escaped!
III. Now let us turn our attention to the actual history of the controversy and strife which raged at Antioch and Jerusalem, and endeavour to read the lessons the sacred narrative teaches. What a striking picture of early Church life is here presented! How full of teaching, of comfort, and of warning! How corrective of the false notions we are apt to cherish of the state of the primitive Church! There we behold the Church of Antioch rejoicing one day in the tidings of a gospel free to the world, and on the next day torn with dissension as to the points and qualifications necessary to salvation. For we must observe that the discussion started at Antioch touched no secondary question, and dealt with no mere point of ritual. It was a fundamental question which troubled the Church. And yet that Church had apostles and teachers abiding in it who could work miracles and speak with tongues, and who received from time to time direct revelations from heaven, and were endowed with the extraordinary presence of the Holy Ghost. Yet there it was that controversy with all its troubles raised its head and “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension” with their opponents. What a necessary warning for every age, and specially for our own, we behold in this narrative! Has not this sacred Book a message in this passage specially applicable to our own time? A great Romeward movement has within the last seventy years, more powerful in the earlier portion of that period than in the latter, extended itself over Europe. English people think that they have themselves been the only persons who have experienced it. But this is a great mistake. Germany forty and fifty years ago felt it also to a large extent. And what was the great predisposing cause of that tendency? Men had simply become tired of the perpetual controversies which raged within the churches and communions outside the sway of Rome. They longed for the perpetual peace and rest which seemed to them to exist within the Papal domains, and they therefore flung themselves headlong into the arms of a Church which promised them relief from the exercise of that private judgment and personal responsibility which had become for them a crushing burden too heavy to be borne. And yet they forgot several things, the sudden discovery of which has sent many of these intellectual and spiritual cowards in various directions, some back to their original homes, some far away into the regions of scepticism and spiritual darkness. They forgot, for instance, to inquire how far the charmer who was alluring them from the land of their nativity by specious promises could satisfy the hopes she was raising. They hoped to get rid of dissension and controversy; but did they? When they had left their childhoods home and their fathers house and sought the house of the stranger, did they find there halcyon peace? Nay, rather, did they not find there as bitter strife, nay, far more bitter strife, on questions like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, than ever raged at home? Did they not find, and do they not find still, that no man and no society can put a hook in the jaws of that Leviathan the right of private judgment, which none can tame or restrain, and which asserts itself still in the Roman Communion as vigorously as ever, even now when the decree of Papal infallibility has elevated that dogma into the rank of those necessary to salvation? Else whence come those dissensions and discussions between minimisers and maximisers of that decree? How is it that no two doctors or theologians will give precisely the same explanation of it, and that, as we in Ireland have seen, every curate fresh from Maynooth claims to be able to express his own private judgment and determination whether any special Papal decree or bull is binding or not? This is one important point forgotten by those who have sought the Roman Communion because of its promises of freedom from controversy. They forgot to ask, Can these promises be fulfilled? And many of them, in the perpetual unrest and strife in which they have found themselves involved as much in their new home as in their old, have proved the specious hopes held out to be the veriest mirage of the Sahara desert. But this was not the only omission of which such persons were guilty. They forgot that, suppose the Roman Church. could fulfil its promises and prove a religious home of perfect peace and freedom from diverging opinions, it would in that case have been very unlike the primitive Church. The Church of Antioch or of Jerusalem, enjoying the ministry of Peter and John and James and Paul, -these pillar-men, as St. Paul calls some of them, -was much more like the Church of England of fifty years ago than any society which offered perfect freedom from theological strife; for the Churches of ancient times in their earliest and purest days were swept by the winds of controversy and tossed by the tempests of intellectual and religious inquiry just like the Church of England, and they took exactly the same measures for the safety of the souls entrusted to them as she did. They depended upon the power of free debate, of unlimited discussion, of earnest prayer, of Christian charity to carry them on till they reached that haven of rest where every doubt and question shall be perfectly solved in the light of the unveiled vision of God.
Then, again, we learn another important lesson from a consideration of the persons who raised the trouble at Antioch. The opening words of the fifteenth chapter thus describes the authors of it: “Certain men came down from Judaea.” It is just the same with the persons who a short time after compelled St. Peter to stagger in his course at the same Antioch: “When certain came from James, then St. Peter separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision.” {Gal 2:12} Certain bigots, that is, of the Jewish party, came, pretending to teach with the authority of the Mother Church, and secretly disturbing weak minds. But they were only pretenders, as the apostolic Epistle expressly tells us: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your-souls; to whom we gave no such commandment.” These religious agitators, with their narrow views about life and ritual, displayed the characteristics of like-minded men ever since. They secretly crept into the Church. There was a want of manly honesty about them. Their pettiness of vision and of thought affected their whole nature, their entire conduct. They loved the by-ways of intrigue and fraud, and therefore they hesitated not to claim an authority which they had never received, invoking apostolic names on behalf of a doctrine which the apostles had never sanctioned. The characteristics thus displayed by these Judaisers have ever been seen in their legitimate descendants in every church and society, East and West alike. Narrowness of mind, pettiness and intolerance in thought, have ever brought their own penalty with them and have ever been connected with the same want of moral uprightness. The miserable conception, the wretched fragment of truth upon which such men seize, elevating it out of its due place and rank, seems to destroy their sense of proportion, and leads them to think it worth any lie which they may tell, any breach of Christian charity of which they may be guilty, any sacrifice of truth and honesty which they may make on behalf of their beloved idol. The Judaisers misrepresented religious truth, and in doing so they misrepresented themselves, and sacrificed the great interests of moral truth in order that they might gain their ends.
IV. The distractions and controversies of Antioch were overruled, however, by the Divine providence to the greater glory of God. As the Judaisers continually appealed to the authority of the Church of Jerusalem, the brethren at Antioch determined to send to that body and ask the opinions of the apostles and eiders upon this question. They therefore despatched “Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them,” among whom was Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile convert, as a deputation to represent their own views. When they came to Jerusalem the Antiochene deputies held a series of private conferences with the leading men of Jerusalem. This we learn, not from the Acts of the Apostles, but from St. Pauls independent narrative in Gal 2:1-21, identifying as we do the visit there recorded with the visit narrated in Act 15:1-41. St. Paul here exhibits all that tact and prudence we ever trace in his character. He did not depend solely upon his own authority, his reputation, his success. He felt within himself the conscious guidance of the Divine Spirit aiding and guiding a singularly clear and powerful mind. Yet he disdained no legitimate precaution. He knew that the presence and guidance of the Spirit does not absolve a man anxious for the truth from using all the means in his power to ensure its success. He recognised that the truth, though it must finally triumph, might be eclipsed or defeated for a time through mans neglect and carelessness; and therefore he engaged in a series of private conferences, explaining difficulties, conciliating the support, and gaining the assistance of the most influential members of the Church, including, of course, “James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
Is there not something very modern in the glimpse thus given us of the negotiations and private meetings which preceded the formal meeting of the Apostolic Council? Some persons may think that the presence and power of the Holy Ghost must have superseded all such human arrangements and forethought. But the simple testimony of the Bible dispels at once. all such objections, and shows us that as the primitive Church was just like the modern Church, torn with dissension, swept with the winds and storms of controversy, so too the divinely guided and inspired leaders of the Church then took precisely the same human means to attain their ends and carry out their views of truth as now find place in the meetings of synods and convocations and parliaments of the present time. The presence of the Holy Ghost did not dispense with the necessity of human exertions in the days of the apostles; and surely we may, on the other hand, believe that similar human exertions in our time may be quite consonant with the presence of the Spirit in our modern assemblies, overruling and guiding human plans and intrigues to the honour of God and the blessing of man. After these private conferences the apostles and elders came together to consider the difficult subject laid before them. And now many questions rise up which we can only very briefly consider. The composition of this Synod is one important point. Who sat in it, and who debated there? It is quite clear, from the text of the Acts, as to the persons who were present at this Synod. The sixth verse says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter”; the twelfth verse tells us that “all the multitude kept silence, and hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them”; – in the twenty-second verse we read, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to choose men out of their company, and to send them to Antioch”; while, finally, in the twenty-third verse. we read the superscription of the final decree of the Council, which ran thus, “The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” It seems to me that any plain man reading these verses would come to the conclusion that the whole multitude, the great body of the Church in Jerusalem, were present and took part in this assembly. A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorised Version of the twenty-third verse, “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,” which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the “and” between elders and brethren has formed the battle-ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils.
Upon a broad review of the whole affair this Apostolic Assembly seems to me to have an important bearing upon this point. There are various views involved. Some persons think that none but bishops should take part in Church synods; others think that none but clergymen, spiritual persons, in the technical and legal sense of the word “spiritual,” should enter these assemblies, specially when treating of questions touching doctrine and discipline. Looking at the subject from the standpoint of the Apostolic Council, we cannot agree with either party. We are certainly told of the speeches of four individuals merely, – Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James – to whom may be conceded the position of bishops, and even more. But, then, it is evident that the whole multitude of the Church was present at this Synod, and took an active part in it. We are expressly told (Act 15:4-5): “When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church and the apostles and the elders” “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them.” This indeed happened at the first meeting of the Church held to receive the Antiochene deputation when they arrived. But there does not seem to have been any difference between the constitution and authority of the first and second meetings. Both were what we should call Ecclesiastical Assemblies. Laymen joined in the discussions of the first, and doubtless laymen joined in the discussions and much questioning of the second.
There is not indeed a hint which would lead us to conclude that the Pharisees, who rose up and argued on behalf of the binding character of the law of Moses, held any spiritual office whatsoever. So far as the sacred text puts it, they may have been laymen pure and simple, such as were the ordinary Pharisees. I cannot, indeed, see how any member of the Church of England can consistently maintain either from Holy Scripture, ancient ecclesiastical history, or the history of his own Church, that laymen are quite shut out from councils debating questions touching Christian faith, and that their consideration must be limited to bishops, or at least clergymen alone. The Apostolic Church seems to have admitted the freest discussion. The General Councils most certainly tolerated very considerable lay interference. The Emperor Constantine, though not even baptised, obtruded much of his presence and exercised much of his influence upon the great Nicene Council. Why, even down to the sixteenth century, till the Tridentine Council, the ambassadors of the great Christian Powers of Europe sat in Church synods as representing the laity; and it was only in the Council of the Vatican, which met in 1870, that even the Roman Catholic Church formally denied the right of the people to exercise a certain influence in the determination of questions touching faith and discipline by the expulsion of the ambassadors who had in every previous council held a certain defined place. While again, when we come to the history of the Church of England, we find that the celebrated Hooker, the vindicator of its Church polity, expressly defended the royal supremacy as exercised within that Church on the ground that the king represented by delegation the vast body of the laity, who through him exercised a real influence upon all questions, whether of doctrine or discipline. I feel a personal interest in this question, because one of the charges most freely hurled against the Church of Ireland is this, that she has admitted laymen to discussions and votes concerning such questions. I cannot see how, consistently with her past history as an established Church, she could have done otherwise. I cannot see how the Church of England, if she comes in the future to be disestablished, can do otherwise. That Church has always admitted a vast amount of lay interference, even prior to the Reformation, and still more since that. important event. Extreme men may scoff at those branches of their own Communion which have admitted laymen to vote in Church synods upon all questions whatsoever; but they forget when doing so that statements and decrees most dear to themselves bear manifest traces of far more extreme lay intervention. The Ornaments Rubric, standing before the order for Morning Prayer, is a striking evidence of this. It is dear to the hearts of many, because it orders the use of eucharistic vestments and the preservation of the chancels in the ancient style; but on what grounds does it do so? Let the precise words of the rubric be the answer: “Here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Objections to the determinations, rules, and canons of the Irish Church Synod might have some weight did they profess, as this rubric does, to have been ordained and imposed by the order of laymen alone. But when the bishops of a. Church have an independent vote, the clergy an independent vote, the free and independent vote of the laity is totally powerless by itself to introduce any novelty, and is only powerful to prevent change in the ancient order. I do not feel bound to defend some ill-judged expressions and foolish speeches which some lay representatives may have made in the Irish Church Synod, as again no member of the Church of England need trouble himself to defend some rash speeches made in Parliament on Church topics. In the first moments of unaccustomed freedom Irish laymen did and said some rash things, and, overawing the clergy by their fierce expressions, may have caused the introduction of some hasty and ill-advised measures. But sure I am that every sincere member of the Church to which I belong will agree that the admission of the lay representatives to a free discussion and free vote upon every topic has had a marvellous influence in broadening their conceptions of Scripture truth and deepening their affections and attachment to their Mother Church which has treated and trusted them thus generously.
V. The proceedings of the Apostolic Synod next demand our attention. The account which has been handed down is doubtless a mere outline of what actually happened. We are not told anything concerning the opening of the Assembly or how the discussion was begun. St. Luke was intent merely on setting forth the main gist of affairs, and therefore he reports but two speeches and tells of two others. Some Christian Pharisee having put forward his objections to the position occupied by the Gentile converts, St. Peter arose, as was natural, he having been the person through whose action the present trouble and discussion had originated. St. Peters speech is marked on this occasion by the same want of assumption of any higher authority than belonged to his brethren which we have noted before when objections were taken to his dealings with Cornelius. His speech claims nothing for himself, does not even quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but simply repeats in a concise shape the story of the conversion of Cornelius, points out that God put no difference between Jew and Gentile, suggesting that if God had put no difference between them why should man dare to do so, and then ends with proclaiming the great doctrine of grace that men, whether Jews or Gentiles, are saved through faith in Christ alone, which purifies their hearts and lives. After Peters speech there arose James the Lords brother, who from ancient times has been regarded as the first bishop of Jerusalem, and who most certainly, from the various references to him both here and elsewhere in the Act 12:17; Act 21:18 and in the Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have occupied the supreme place in that Church. James was a striking figure. There is a long account of him left us by Hegesippus, a very ancient Church historian, who bordered on apostolic times, and now preserved tot us in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius, 2:23. There he is described as an ascetic and a Nazarite, like John the Baptist, from his earliest childhood. “He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used the bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camels, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed on account of his exceeding great piety he was called the Just and Oblias, which signifies the Rampart of the People.” This description is the explanation of the power and authority of James the Just in the Apostolic Assembly. He was a strict legalist himself. He desired no freedom for his own share, but rejoiced in observances and restrictions far beyond the common lot of the Jews. When such a man pronounced against the attempt made to impose circumcision and the law as a necessary condition of salvation, the Judaisers must have felt that their cause was lost. St. James expressed his views in no uncertain terms. He begins by referring to St. Peters speech and the conversion of Cornelius. He then proceeds to show how the prophets foretold the ingathering of the Gentiles, quoting a passage {Amo 9:11-12} which the Jewish expositors themselves applied to the Messiah. His method of Scriptural interpretation is exactly the same as that of St. Paul and St. Peter. It is very different from ours, but it was the universal method of his day; and when we wish to arrive at the meaning of the Scriptures, or for that matter of any work, we ought to strive and place ourselves at the standpoint and amid the circumstances of the writers and actors. The prophet Amos speaks of the tabernacle of David as fallen down. The rebuilding of it is then foretold, and James sees in the conversion of the Gentiles this predicted rebuilding. He then pronounces in the most decided language against “troubling those who from among the Gentiles are turned to God” in the matter of legal observances, laying down at the same time the concessions which should be demanded from the Gentiles so as not to cause offence to their Jewish brethren. The sentence thus authoritatively pronounced by the strictest Jewish Christian was naturally adopted by the Apostolic Synod, and they wrote a letter to the disciples in Syria and Cilicia, embodying their decision, which for a time settled the controversy which had been raised. This epistle begins by disclaiming utterly and at once the agitators who had gone forth to Antioch and had raised the disturbances. It declared that circumcision was unnecessary for the Gentile converts. This was the great point upon which St. Paul was most anxious. He had no objection, as we have already said, to the Jews observing their legal rites and ceremonies, but he was totally opposed to the Gentiles coming under any such rule as a thing necessary to salvation. The epistle then proceeds to lay down certain concessions which the Gentiles should in turn make. They should abstain from meats offered in sacrifice unto idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication; all of them points upon which the public opinion of the Gentiles laid no stress, but which were most abhorrent to a true Jew. The decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, as the inspired historian expressly terms them in Act 16:4, were mere temporary expedients. They determined indeed one important question, that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles-that Judaism, in fact, was not in and by itself a saving dispensation; but left unsolved many other questions, even touching this very subject of circumcision and the Jewish law, which had afterwards to be debated and threshed out, as St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians proves. But, turning our eyes from the obsolete controversy which evoked the Apostolic Epistle, and viewing the subject from a wider and a modern standpoint, we may say that the decrees of this primitive Synod narrated in this typical history bestow their sanction upon the great principles of prudence, wisdom, and growth in the Divine life and in Church work. It was with the apostles themselves as with the Church ever since. Apostles even must not make haste, but must be contented to wait upon the developments of Gods providence. Perfection is an excellent thing, but then perfection cannot be attained at once. Here a little and there a little is the Divine law under the New as under the Old Dispensation. Truth is the fairest and most excellent of all possessions, but the advocates of truth must not expect it to be grasped in all its bearings by all sorts and conditions of men at one and the same time. They must be content, as St. Paul was, if one step be taken at a time; if progress be in the right and not in the wrong direction; and must be willing to concede much to the feelings and long-descended prejudices of short-sighted human nature.
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles