Chapter 15

1 Great dissension ariseth touching circumcision. 6 The apostles consult about it, 22 and send their determination by letters to the churches. 36 Paul and Barnabas, thinking to visit the brethren together, fall at strife, and depart asunder.

The Jerusalem Council Regarding Gentile Conduct, c. A.D. 49

1. Certain men. The emissaries of dissension are not named. They seem to have been Pharisees who had become Christians (see v. 5).

Down from Judaea. That is, from Judea to Antioch. These new teachers came from the center of apostolic authority, but apparently without authorization to teach what they set forth.

Taught the brethren. The church at Antioch was a cosmopolitan body, composed of Jews, Gentile proselytes, and members converted directly from paganism (cf. on ch. 11:19, 20). Furthermore, Paul and Barnabas, the leading spirits in preaching to the Gentiles, were prominent there and had been commissioned by that church. For these reasons, and because the Antiochian church was the one nearest to Judea containing Gentiles in large numbers, the question of how to deal with Gentiles in the church from the point of view of Judaism naturally emerged there.

Be circumcised. See on ch. 7:8. This demand proves what is not elsewhere plainly stated in Scripture, that Paul and Barnabas had not required their Gentile converts to be circumcised. Here opens the account of the first major controversy in the Christian church. It was certain to arise as soon as Christianity spread beyond Palestine. The first converts to Christianity were Jews, but they retained most of the practices and prejudices of the religion in which they had been reared. Therefore they were shocked to see Gentiles come into the Christian church without first having become full proselytes to Judaism. It might have seemed that the conversion of Cornelius, or even that of the Ethiopian, or of the Samaritans, would have settled the question. Those who now set forth objections may have been willing to accept Cornelius and his household into the church. But they probably argued that the leading of the Holy Spirit had brought about an exception in Cornelius’ case that did not vitiate the rule of circumcision. Hence they declared that those who were brought into the church through baptism, under the clear leading of the Holy Spirit, should now be circumcised.

These agitators came to Antioch probably claiming to speak in the name of James, the presiding officer of the church in Jerusalem. But James distinctly denied having authorized them to do this (v. 24). However, inasmuch as he seems to have been a stickler for Judaic ritual and custom in his personal life (cf. Gal. 2:12), they probably felt justified in identifying him with their teaching. They maintained that circumcision was part of the law, and that if it was neglected or refused, the whole law was broken. They were neither prepared nor willing to recognize the true relationship between Christ and the law. The Judaizers brought into prominence at Antioch a question that proved a continuing cause of dissension throughout Paul’s ministry, and left its mark on most of the writings of the NT, and even upon postapostolic Christian literature.

The query may be raised as to why the Lord did not anticipate such questions as this during His ministry on earth. He did not deal with it specifically, but did lay general emphasis upon true religion as being that of the soul, and not of outward observances. Christ laid a broad foundation, and enunciated principles rather than detailed dogmas. The church was to be led step by step into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). This did not mean that the church was to develop an authoritative tradition. But it did indicate that the church was to discover and experience new light. Christianity has had to solve many problems in the face of fresh developments, but this was not to be done by changing the teachings and examples of Scripture (Rom. 15:4). New light, with the solution of unforeseen problems, would come from increasing study of the truths of Scripture, and making applications of scriptural principles to the work of the church.

Manner of Moses. Or, “custom of Moses.” The practice was more than a “manner” in the sense of “fashion.” Circumcision was given to Abraham by God (Gen. 17:10–13), and was confirmed to Moses (Lev. 12:3; cf. John 7:22).

Ye cannot be saved. Here was the heart of the problem. Circumcision could hardly be required of the Gentiles on the grounds of the antiquity of the custom, nor as a condition of church membership. The Judaizers presented it as a necessary step to salvation. However, God had “opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (ch. 14:27), a development that could not but prove that ceremonial rites were no longer needed.

2. Paul and Barnabas. These apostles were at the center of the dispute, for the demands of the Judaizers presented a direct condemnation of the work that these two missionaries had done in Cilicia, in Antioch itself, and on their First Missionary Journey. Such work they could not but interpret as a triumph of God’s grace. They had proclaimed salvation through faith in Christ. Now they could not stand by silently while their converts were told that the acceptance of God’s grace through faith was not sufficient, but that external rites must be performed in order to obtain salvation.

Dissension. Gr. stasis, “status,” “party,” or “faction.” In Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 it is used of the insurrection in which Barabbas had been a ring leader. Here it portrays a vigorous dispute.

Disputation. Gr. zeµteµsis, “a seeking,” and so “a questioning” “a debate.”

They determined. Gr. tassoµ, “to appoint,” “to arrange” (see on ch. 13:48).

Paul and Barnabas. No better representatives of the cause of freedom in the gospel could have been chosen than these two, who had already worked so successfully among the Gentiles.

Certain other. These are not named. They may have been some of the prophets at Antioch (ch. 13:1), or some of the men from Cyprus and Cyrene (ch. 11:20) who had a special interest in the Gentiles. Titus went, probably as a striking example of the kind of work the Holy Spirit had enabled Paul and Barnabas to do (Gal. 2:1).

To Jerusalem. On the question of the identification of this visit to Jerusalem with that of Gal. 2 see Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1.

Apostles and elders. Peter, John, and James, the Lord’s brother, were at Jerusalem (see Gal. 2:9; cf. ch. 1:19). These, with the elders (see on Acts 11:30), and possibly other apostles not specifically named, appear as the guiding group of the youthful church. The fact that the early church referred the vexing question of circumcision to a council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem is a highly significant precedent for church organization. It stands against the theory that a final decision in ecclesiastical matters should be made by one man acting as an autocrat. It is also illustrates the need of counsel and authority on a wider level than that of the local congregation, when affairs affecting the entire church are in question. For the NT church, the apostles and officials of the initial congregation at Jerusalem logically constituted such a board of appeal. At the same time it will be noted later in the chapter (ch. 15:22, 25) that apparently the final decision in the present instance was based on the agreement of all present, including those who had appealed the case as delegates from Antioch, and not merely on a decision of the Jerusalem leaders. By taking their problem to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas, and indeed the whole Antiochian church, demonstrated their confidence in the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the leadership at Jerusalem. Thus Paul declares that he went up to Jerusalem “by revelation” (Gal. 2:2). See AA 96.

3. Brought on their way. This custom is recorded repeatedly in the Acts (chs. 20:38; 21:16). To accompany a guest, and especially a departing teacher for a short distance on his way, was considered by the Jews as an act of hospitality. Thus Abraham had accompanied the angels on their way toward Sodom (Gen. 18:16). An ancient Jewish tradition declares: “A teacher [accompanies] his pupils until the outskirts of a city; one colleague [accompanies] another up to the Sabbath-limit; a pupil [accompanies] his master a distance without limit” (Talmud Sotah 46b, Soncino ed., p. 243). A declaration attributed to Rabbi Meir (c. a.d. 150) says: “Whoever does not escort others or allow himself to be escorted is as though he sheds blood” (ibid., p. 244).

Phenice. That is, Phoenicia. The apostles’ route from Antioch to Jerusalem lay along the coast through Sidon, Tyre, and probably Caesarea, and then through Samaria. They found “brethren,” implying established congregations, along the way. Some of these doubtless had been established by Philip. Regarding the origin of others nothing is known beyond the present brief allusion, which suggests how much of early Christian history had not been preserved.

Conversion of the Gentiles. Inevitably this was Paul’s principal theme. Doubtless he gave the story on numerous occasions in full detail, and stressed, as Peter did with the experience of Cornelius, that the Spirit had put the seal of His approval upon the acceptance of uncircumcised men.

Caused great joy. The form of the verb used here implies that as Paul and Barnabas made their way toward Jerusalem, the news of the conversion of Gentiles was received continually with gladness. This attitude on the part of the churches of Phoenicia and Samaria contrasts strikingly with the narrowness and bitterness of the Pharisees in the church at Jerusalem (v. 5) and the Judaizing party that sought to speak on behalf of it.

Unto all. Compare ch. 11:2–4, 18. The church was happy at the good news Paul and Barnabas brought. Those who insisted on circumcision for the Gentiles were only a group among the Christian Jews, and are described as “certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed” (ch. 15:5). The Pharisees were earnest supporters of the ritual law.

4. Received of the church. Upon first arriving at Jerusalem, the apostles seem to have been welcomed cordially by the church in general. The opposition faction made itself apparent after the apostles stressed publicly their success with Gentiles.

The apostles. See on ch. 1:2.

They declared. Comparison with v. 6 seems to indicate that a preliminary meeting was held at which Paul and Barnabas told the story of their missionary labors. Perhaps this was the meeting held “privately” with “them which were of reputation” to which Paul later refers (Gal. 2:2). Some time must have been consumed in telling the story of the deeds and sufferings, of the signs and wonders, as well as of the purity and love, of the Gentile converts. Such a narrative was the best possible introduction to the question that was later discussed and decided in the council.

5. Rose up. Perhaps this rising up of the Judaizers necessitated the convening of a more formal council meeting.

Sect. Gr. hairesis (see on ch. 5:17). Some from the Pharisees had become Christians. They accepted Jesus as a teacher sent from God (see John 3:2), which had been proved by His resurrection from the dead. Accordingly, they expected Him to become head of the kingdom that was to transmit to mankind a restored, glorified Judaism, with the law and the Temple in their rightful place, and Gentiles admitted as a favor, upon circumcision. It was these who now stood up and protested against what Paul and Barnabas had been doing. Perhaps the general issue was debated in terms of an individual case, that of Titus (see Gal. 2:3), a Gentile who had not gone through the transitional stage of proselytism. Titus’ involvement in the present controversy prepared him later to contend against the Judaizers’ insistence upon the obsolete forms of religion (cf. Titus 1:10, 14, 15).

The law of Moses. See on ch. 6:13. Circumcision was not the only requirement the Judaizers proposed to make of Christians. It was only their entering wedge.

6. Apostles and elders. See on v. 2; ch. 11:30. A comparison with ch. 15:23 implies that in addition to the church officials, “brethren,” known today as laity, also took some part in the council.

7. Disputing. Gr. zeµteµsis (see on v. 2). The human element apparent in the handling of such a crucial question as was decided here strikingly demonstrates the fact that God’s guiding Spirit works with and through human beings and accomplishes His will in spite of their frailties and disagreements.

Peter rose. Peter was in a place of authority, but not of primacy. He did not preside, and although his speech set the keynote of the council’s decision, he did not propose the final resolution. The fact that it was he who had been instrumental in converting the first Gentile, Cornelius, a Roman, and that that conversion had been approved by the church (see ch. 11:1–18), placed him in a particularly favorable position to urge the acceptance of other Gentiles now.

Men and brethren. See on chs. 1:16; 2:37; 13:15.

A good while ago. Literally, “from early days.” Peter alluded to the conversion of Cornelius (ch. 10), which had occurred perhaps a decade or more before. Much that was relevant to the present problem had happened since that time.

By my mouth. Peter was not claiming distinction of position, but put himself forward as a mouthpiece for God.

8. Knoweth the hearts. Literally, “heart-knowing.” This expression is used in the NT elsewhere only in ch. 1:24. God had acted, putting the uncircumcised on the same level as the circumcised, and the church could not but act accordingly.

The Holy Ghost. See on ch. 10:44.

9. No difference. That is, “no distinction.” God had given to the new Gentile converts, without circumcision, the same outpouring of the Spirit as He had first given at Pentecost, making no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. This obviously meant the complete acceptance of Gentiles into the church. See Paul’s later statement of the same principle (Rom. 10:12).

Purifying their hearts. Faith had purified the hearts of Cornelius and his house. The observance of the law of ceremonies was superfluous and meaningless when the heart was clean before God, who alone can judge purity. The ceremonies of the law were for purification, but here was a higher ideal of purity than that upon which the Pharisees insisted. They put the Gentiles under a blanket indictment of impurity because they did not observe the ceremonial law and the traditions of the elders. Peter had learned that no man may be called common or unclean (ch. 10:28), and that purification must be of the heart rather than of the flesh (see Titus 1:15).

10. Why tempt ye God? That is, why experiment with God as to His will in reference to accepting the Gentiles, when He had already manifested what His will was for them? Should man’s resisting will be made stronger than God’s? The Jews had tempted God in the wilderness (Heb. 3:9) when, in the presence of His mighty works for them, they murmured against the leaders He had given them. They had tempted Christ (1 Cor. 10:9), and their disobedience had brought upon them the punishment of the fiery serpents. Ananias and Sapphira had tempted the Spirit of God by seeking to deceive the church concerning their offering (Acts 5:9). Peter warned his hearers against tempting God again in the matter of admitting the Gentiles.

A yoke. The yoke Peter speaks of was the ceremonial law (see AA 194), together with its traditional elaborations, by which the Jews sought to gain salvation. Paul himself could not have spoken sterner words than these. They harked back to Christ’s own language as to the “heavy burdens” of the traditions of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:4), in comparison with His own “easy” yoke (ch. 11:30). They anticipated Paul’s warning to the Galatians not to be “entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1).

Able to bear. As originally intended by God, the ceremonial requirements of the law of Moses were not intolerable. Only because the Jews lost sight of their real import, making them a round of ceremonies by which they sought to gain salvation, did these things become an unbearable yoke. Furthermore, the rabbis had sought to make a hedge about the law, so to fence in its precepts by additional regulations of their own that there would be no chance to break the commandment. As a result, the Jewish ceremonial observance had become an intolerable load.

11. Grace of the Lord. Peter urged that it was not conformance to the law that brought salvation, but the grace of the Lord. This statement came as his closing argument.

Shall be saved. The salvation God promises is by grace (see Rom. 3:21–26; 5:1, 2; 11:5, 6; Eph. 2:5, 8). The works follow upon the receiving of the gift of salvation by grace (Rom. 8:4; Eph. 2:9, 10; Phil. 2:12, 13).

12. The multitude. That is, the assembled group (see on v. 6).

Kept silence. In response to Peter’s convincing testimony, there were no dissenting voices. Opposition was silenced, even if all minds were not changed. Peter had had his prejudices overcome in the matter of Cornelius; now he had overcome the prejudices of others.

Gave audience. Up to this point Paul and Barnabas apparently had not spoken at length to the assembly. Now Peter’s speech had prepared the audience to listen to them narrate the remarkable events of the First Missionary Journey. The two missionaries repeated publicly what they already had told the apostles and elders (v. 4).

Miracles and wonders. Or, “signs and wonders” (see Vol. V, p. 208). In view of the questionings of some of those present, doubtless Barnabas and Paul stressed the miraculous phase of their work as an attestation of God’s acceptance of the results. Their report showed that miracles had been worked among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews.

13. James. This is probably the brother of the Lord and leader of the church at Jerusalem. See on ch. 12:17.

Men and brethren. See on chs. 1:16; 2:37; 13:15.

Hearken. James’s summary ignores the “much disputing” (v. 7). Peter’s insight (vs. 7–11) accorded with OT prophecy, and upon this fact James based his decision.

14. Simeon. Gr. Sumeoµn, a form of the name “Simon” that reflects more closely the Heb. ShimФon. This form is used for Peter only here and perhaps in 2 Peter 1:1, and was natural for James as a speaker from Galilee.

How God at the first. Rather, “how God did first visit.” That is, what Peter had narrated marked the first acceptance of a Gentile into the church.

Visit. Gr. episkeptomai, “to look upon,” often, as here, having the connotation, with kindness (see Luke 1:68; 7:16; Heb. 2:6).

A people. The Jews believed that they alone were “the people”—God’s people—and that all others were outside the circle of God’s love. But James proclaimed that God was taking to Himself a people from these heathen nations also. Paul recognized this same change (Rom. 9:26). Since “the chosen people” were no longer in Christian eyes to be Jews only, the ceremonial requirements that had marked Jews from Gentiles were now unnecessary.

15. To this agree. That is, to this action on God’s part the OT prophets agree. They had looked forward to the conversion of the Gentiles, which now was taking place.

As it is written. The quotation in vs. 16, 17 is from the LXX of Amos 9:11, 12. The audience, familiar with the OT Scriptures, might recall other like prophecies, as Paul did in Rom. 15:9–12. The fact that James’s quotation is from the LXX, and that the LXX of this passage clinches his argument more strongly than does the alternative reading of the Masoretic text, has raised the question as to whether the council was conducted in Greek. In favor of the idea that it was, is the fact that many Jews, even in Palestine, were bilingual, and that the question at issue here was one that centered about Greek-speaking Christians. Christians from Antioch were present (see Acts 15:2) who may or may not have known Aramaic, and Titus, and uncircumcised Gentile (see Gal. 2:3), who probably did not understand Aramaic, no doubt also was there. For the sake of these, Greek would have been an appropriate language to use.

However, there are good reasons to suppose that James made his speech in Aramaic, probably quoting Scripture in the closely related Hebrew language. James stands, both in the NT and in early Christian literature, as the leader of Jewish Christianity. The issue in question was essentially a Jewish one, and had been raised by the most Jewish of Christian Jews, the Pharisees. In view of this it would seem reasonable to expect that a discussion among the apostles in Jerusalem at this time would probably have been carried on in Aramaic. This does not mean, however, that Luke is in error in quoting the LXX, the Bible version familiar to his Greek readers. The Hebrew of Amos 9:11, 12, as it is in the Masoretic text, would not be inappropriate to his argument, and if he did not use that, he may have quoted from a form of the Hebrew text that was more closely related to the LXX than is the Masoretic. Discoveries at Qumran have shown that such texts existed for at least parts of the OT (see Vol. V, p. 93).

16. I will return. This phrase does not accord with either the Hebrew text or the LXX of Amos 9:11. It is, however, a favorite Hebrew expression for, “I will do such and such again” (see Eccl. 9:11; Hosea 2:9; 11:9). This may be an indication that James quoted the OT in Hebrew.

Tabernacle. Gr. skeµneµ, “a tent,” representing the Hebrew word sukkah, “a booth,” used at the Feast of Booths (or Tabernacles), during which the Hebrews lived for a week in frail and temporary shelters.

17. Residue of men. At this point the Masoretic text of Amos 9:12 reads, sheХerith Хedom, “the remnant of Edom.” However, in the Hebrew alphabet the words Хedom, “Edom,” and Хadam, “man,” are almost identical; the LXX apparently read the latter word, and so translated, “residue of men.” The argument of James is emphasized by the Greek rendering. “The residue of men”—the Gentiles—were to call upon the “name of God.” James recognized the prophecy as a prediction of the conversion of the Gentiles, and thus relevant to the question now under discussion.

Might seek. The Masoretic text differs widely from James’s quotation, as is illustrated by a comparison of this passage in Acts with the KJV of Amos 9:12. The latter portrays the restored people of Israel (under the figure of the tabernacle) as possessors of the remnant of Edom and all the heathen. But as James applies this prophecy, it is declaration of the intention of God that the Gentiles might seek Him. James makes it clear that this seeking “after the Lord” is to be the true upbuilding both of the house of David and of all mankind.

My name is called. The expression “upon whom my name is called” is Semitic, and means, “who are called by my name.” It appears in the Hebrew of Deut. 28:10 and the Greek of James 2:7.

Saith the Lord. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) a reading for the last part of v. 17 and v. 18 that may be translated either (1) “saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old”; or, (2) “saith the Lord, who doeth these things that were known from of old.” Either translation shows that the salvation of Gentiles was no novelty in God’s plan (see Vol. IV, pp. 27–30).

18. Known. That God would accept Gentiles, startled the Jews, but He had revealed it by His prophets. Now He was carrying out what He had known and designed from the beginning (see Eph. 3:2–12).

19. My sentence is. Literally, “I decide.” James’s words imply that he speaks with authority. However, what follows is not a decree, for when finally promulgated it rested upon the authority of the apostles and elders (see ch. 16:4).

Trouble. Gr. parenochleoµ, “to worry,” “to harass,” “to trouble,” by putting obstacles in the way of another. This is the only place in the NT that this verb is used.

Are turned. Rather, “are turning.” The work of conversion was going on among the Gentiles at that very moment. This verb (Gr. epistrephoµ) appears repeatedly in Acts in reference to conversion (see on ch. 3:19). That the Gentiles really were turning to God and that God was accepting them, was evidenced by the report of Paul and Barnabas, and perhaps by the presence of Titus, a Gentile Christian (see Gal. 2:1; cf. Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 1). This was the basic reason for the decision taken. Gentiles were being converted; God was accepting them. How then could the church refuse to accept them?

The church did not yet see clearly that the ceremonial laws pointing to Christ were fulfilled in Him, and that the ethnic symbols characterizing the Jews as Jews (such as circumcision) were likewise no longer meaningful. For decades Jewish Christians, in general, continued to identify themselves with the Temple rituals, and even Paul joined in them when he was at Jerusalem (Acts 20:16; 21:18–26; cf. ch. 18:19). But later it was revealed, especially to Paul, that there was a theological reason for not requiring the observance of the Mosaic rituals. Many of these were “shadows” pointing to Christ and His work; once His mission was finished, they were no longer meaningful (Col. 2:11–20; Heb. 9:1–12). Others were characteristic symbols of Judaism that ceased to be significant when all men might equally find salvation in Jesus Christ without having to become identified with the Jewish people (see Rom. 10:11, 12; Col. 3:10, 11). Paul saw clearly that the spirit of legalism encouraged by these rituals had become a barrier between Jew and Gentile that had no place among men who were one in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:13–16).

20. Write. Gr. epistelloµ, “to send a message,” “to write a letter” (see Heb. 13:22). The messengers sent by the apostles took with them the written decision of the council (see Acts 15:23).

That they abstain. The decision was essentially a practical one (see on v. 19). With the coming of greater theological insight, the question of eating meat offered to idols was later viewed in a somewhat different light (see below on “pollutions of idols”). But under the conditions of the moment, this decision was as far as the church felt it expedient to go. The Gentiles could not but be gratified, since no extreme burden was imposed upon them, and those of a Pharisaic tendency could not deny that Gentiles had truly been converted. The requirements stipulated seemed to be especially acceptable to Christian Jews.

Pollutions of idols. In view of the fact that the official written pronouncement of the Jerusalem Council declared against “meats offered to idols” (Gr. eidoµlothuta, “[things] offered to idols”; v. 29), it is probably best to understand “pollutions of idols” here in the specific sense of food (and drink) that had been offered to heathen deities. In Greek and Roman religion food was routinely presented to the deities in the temples. However, only a small portion of it was put upon the altar. The rest was either consumed by those living in connection with the temple, or sent to the market for sale. In the eyes of strict Jews, such food was polluted. Thus a judgment attributed to Rabbi Akiba (c. a.d. 100) declares: “Meat which is being brought in to a place of idols is permitted [to derive some benefit therefrom], but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is [regarded] as sacrifices of the dead” (Mishnah ФAbodah Zarah 2. 3, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 145). Similarly another regulation from the Mishnah (codified c. a.d. 200) declares regarding wine offered to an idol, “Yen nesek (libation-wine) is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [disqualifies] by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. This is the general rule: with the same species [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour” (ibid. 5. 8, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 349). Consequently a strict Jew never bought meat in the open market, but only of a Jewish butcher. When he traveled, it was with his kophinos, or basket, on his back; he carried his food with him (see on Mark 6:43). Juvenal refers to “Jews, who possess a basket and a truss of hay for all their furnishings” (Satires iii. 13, 14; Loeb ed., p. 33).

In view of this strong Jewish feeling, the council saw fit to ask Gentile Christians to abstain from meat offered to idols. This would entail no small denial of self. The convert must refuse invitations to many festive affairs, or if present, refuse to eat. A man of careful conscience also would refuse to eat food set before him in a private house, unless he was satisfied it had not been offered in a temple. At the same time, this restriction had the practical value of safeguarding Gentile Christians against the temptation to engage in pagan rituals, where tasting the sacrificial food and wine was an essential part of worship. If nothing offered to an idol was to be eaten, the conscientious Christian could clearly understand that even the perfunctory ritual of tasting food and drink at an emperor’s altar was forbidden. This seems especially to have been an issue at the time of the writing of the Revelation (see on Rev. 2:14).

A few years after the Jerusalem Council, this restriction met with some resistance. At Corinth men claimed the right to eat what they chose, and Paul conceded the right in the abstract, to the extent that they might buy food in the market places without regard to whether it had been offered previously in a temple, since “an idol is nothing.” But he supported the restriction on the ground of brotherly love and respect to others’ scruples (1 Cor. 8–10; see on Rom. 14).

From fornication. It may be surprising at first to find a moral rule placed along with restrictions that seem purely ceremonial. But the first item in the decree was moral also in so far as it was based on the second commandment of the Decalogue. In regard to fornication, the Levitical law against every form of unchastity was rightly strict (Lev. 18; 20:10–21).

The sin of fornication, involving the lack of any real respect for the purity of womanhood, was so widespread an evil in the ancient world that it can be considered almost a characteristic of Greco-Roman life. Idolatry and fornication sometimes were related in the pagan cults. As with the harlot-priestesses of Aphrodite at Corinth and Paphos, prostitution was often a part of idolatry. The man who indulged himself in the temple thereby expressed his supposed faith in the goddess thus worshipped. The sin of fornication was a permissible and even routine thing to the pagan. For this reason the Jewish Christian would want to know that Gentile converts had entered into purity of life (see 1 Cor. 6:15; Rev. 2:14). Therefore at the Jerusalem Council Christianity took its first public step toward holding aloft high moral standards, not only by its general teaching, but by a specific rule laid down for its members to follow.

Things strangled. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of the words, “and from things strangled.” There is no clear prohibition in the OT against the eating of “things strangled.” However, the principle involved appears to be the same as that of the next prohibition, abstaining from eating blood. Animals strangled would not normally be bled, and so their flesh would not be bled, and so their flesh would not be acceptable for food (see Lev. 17:13, 14). James’s declaration may also have been based on the Mosaic restrictions against the flesh of animals that had died of themselves or that had been killed by another beast (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21). Such restrictions were observed by the early church, as is testified by Tertullian (died c. a.d. 230), who, writing to pagans, declares: “Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera” (Apology 9; ANF, vol. 3, p. 25). Similarly, an ancient rule in the Eastern Church ordains: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or indeed any one of the sacerdotal catalogue, eats flesh with the blood of its life, or that which is torn by beast, or which died of itself, let him be deprived; for this the law has forbidden. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended” (Apostolic Canon 63; ANF, vol. 7, p. 504). Ancient Jewish tradition declared that when the neck of an animal was broken the blood flowed into the limbs in such a way that it could not be brought out, even with the use of salt (Talmud Hullin 113a, Soncino ed., pp. 621, 622).

From blood. The prohibition against the use of blood as food was made as soon as animal food was permitted for men (Gen. 9:4), and it was frequently reiterated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10; 19:26). To eat blood was counted a sin against the Lord in the days of Saul (1 Sam. 14:33). Food prepared with blood was common on the tables of both Greeks and Romans. For instance this is found in Homer:

“Here at the fire are goats’ paunches lying, which we set there for supper, when we had filled them with fat and blood. Now whichever of the two wins and proves himself the better man, let him rise and choose for himself which one of these he will”

(Odyssey xvii. 44–49; Loeb ed., vol. 2, pp. 199, 201).

The heathen were accustomed, at their sacrifices, to drink blood mingled with wine. Josephus, speaking from the standpoint of the Jews of the 1st century a.d., recorded that “blood of any description he [Moses] has forbidden to be used for food, regarding it as the soul and spirit” (Antiquities iii. 11. 2 [260]; Loeb ed., vol. 4, p. 443). The attitude of the Jews toward this prohibition may be seen from a statement attributed to Rabbi ShimФon ben ФAzzai (c. a.d. 110): “In the Torah there are 365 prohibitions, and among all the laws there is none like this … if the Scriptures admonish you thus regarding the prohibition of blood [Deut. 12:23], in comparison with which there is no easier one among all the commandments, how much the more does this apply to all the rest of the commandments!” (Sifre Deuteromony 12:23; quoted in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 2, p. 734). That the prohibition of blood might be considered the most easily observed of all the commandments helps to make understandable the feeling of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem that Gentile converts should abide by it. For several centuries, in some areas at least, the early Christian church appears to have held to this rule (see above on “things strangled”). At the same time, particularly in the West, an attempt seems to have been made to present the restrictions of the Jerusalem Council as purely moral prohibitions. Thus Irenaeus (c. a.d. 185) quotes the present passage as follows: “‘That it be enjoined them, that they do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others’” (Against Heresies iii. 12. 14; ANF, vol. 1, pp. 435, 436). That from such a standpoint “blood” was interpreted as the shedding of human blood, that is, murder, is clear from Tertullian (died c. a.d. 230), who explains, “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood” (On Modesty 12; ANF, vol. 4, p. 86). See on Gen. 9:4.

21. Of old time. Rather, “from ancient generations.” James apparently had no other thought than that the Jewish Christians would retain all that the Judaism had given them, and that they would not separate from the Jewish synagogue.

In the synagogues. On the program of the synagogue worship, see Vol. V, pp. 56–58. Jewish Christians were still in attendance at the synagogue were still in attendance at the synagogue services. The connection of this verse with the preceding may be understood in various ways. Some take it as meaning that the Jewish Christians need not fear that Gentile freedom would encroach on their observance of the Mosaic laws, for they and their children would continue to be admonished in the law every Sabbath as they attended the synagogue. Others understand this verse as a basis for James’s prohibitions in this sense, that inasmuch as Moses is read in the synagogue, the Gentiles should at least abstain from the things he enumerates. Still others see it as meaning that the Gentile Christians would certainly not find James’s prohibitions difficult, since they already were familiar with them from their contacts with the synagogues, where the law was regularly read.

22. Pleased it. Gr. dokeoµ, “to seem fitting,” or, as the word was used in an official sense, the passage here may be translated, “it was ordered,” “it was voted.”

The whole church. This shows the important position occupied by the members of the church. They concurred in the commissioning of the representatives sent with the letter. In later centuries the laity was largely excluded from official church councils.

With Paul and Barnabas. The men chosen were sent along with Paul and Barnabas, in order that the confirmation of the decrees adopted might come from lips other than those of these two men, who were so personally involved in the question. Thus there would be no chance of some recalcitrant Judaizer charging Paul and Barnabas with forgery.

Judas surnamed Barsabas. The name Barsabas was also borne by Joseph, “who was surnamed Justus” (see on ch. 1:23). If Barsabas is considered a family name, this Judas and Joseph were possibly brothers. Joseph at least had been one of the personal followers of Jesus. In ch. 15:32 Judas is called a prophet.

Silas. This may be an Aramaic name, or a contraction of the Roman Silvanus. Like Judas, he was a prophet (v. 32). He became the companion of Paul on the Second Missionary Journey (v. 40), and is probably the Silvanus mentioned in 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12.

Chief men. Or, “leading men,” “authorities.” Their position may have arisen from the fact that they were prophets (see v. 32). If they had been followers of Jesus, this also would have caused them to be greatly respected by the brethren.

23. Wrote letters. What follows in this chapter is doubtless the transcript of the document sent, the first of a long series of decrees and canons of councils that appear in the history of the church. Probably this letter was written in Greek. Its format is Greek; the Gentiles most concerned in the decisions contained in it were largely Greek speaking, as was doubtless the church of Antioch to which it was dispatched.

By them. Literally, “by their hand,” perhaps a Hebraism. This does not mean that the letter was written by these men, but that it was sent by them.

Apostles and elders and brethren. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading, “The apostles and the elders, brethren.” Thus the leaders at Jerusalem assured the Christians to whom they wrote that they were all brethren in Christ.

Send greeting. Gr. chairein (see on Rom. 1:7). This word is a usual salutation in Greek letters, but is not used in the NT except here, in Acts 23:26, and James 1:1.

Gentiles. As indicated in v. 20, the letter of the council was addressed to the Gentiles, and not to the Jewish Christians.

Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. In Antioch the dispute over requirements laid upon the Gentiles had come to a head. The churches in the surrounding regions of Syria were undoubtedly involved. The mention of Cilicia suggests that Paul had done important work in his native province, prior to laboring with Barnabas at Antioch (see ch. 11:25).

24. Which went out. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 10) between retaining or omitting these words. From v. 1 it is clear that they were from Judea. Their lack of authority contrasts with the authority given Judas and Silas by the council (v. 27).

Subverting. Gr. anaskeuazoµ, “to unsettle.” The Judaizers had unsettled the faith of Gentile converts, for their contentions had struck at the very basis of Christian experience and belief-the fact that salvation is not gained by outward observances or by being identified with a certain group of people.

Saying. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of the words, “saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law.”

Gave no such commandment. Rather, “gave no orders.” This is a complete disavowal that any authority had been given to the Judaizers. The passage is also important in evaluating the claims set up by the same group later (Gal. 2:12).

25. It seemed good. Gr. dokeoµ, see on v. 22. If the words are taken in their official sense, the first part of this verse may be translated, “We have voted unanimously to send.” An alternative translation is, “Having come to agreement, we have decided to send.”

Chosen men. That is, Judas Barsabas and Silas.

Beloved. Gr. agapeµtos, an adjective that in the NT is particularly applied to those who are united in faith and love. The whole letter does intentional honor to Paul and Barnabas, and the expression “beloved” illuminates Paul’s statement that the “pillars” of the church at Jerusalem gave to him and Barnabas the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). Peter speaks of Paul with this term (2 Peter 3:15).

Barnabas and Paul. Probably the name of Barnabas is put first here because he had been formerly a special messenger sent from the church in Jerusalem to Antioch (ch. 11:22).

26. Hazarded. Gr. paradidoµmi, “to give over,” “to commit.” This passage may be understood in either of two ways. It may mean that they were men who had shown themselves willing to give up their lives for Christ’s sake—which certainly was true (see chs. 13:50; 14:5, 19)—or it may mean more generally that they had committed their lives to the cause of Christ.

For the name. Here as before “name” signifies the Messianic dignity and divine authority of Jesus. The missionaries had been preaching Jesus as the Christ. See on ch. 3:16.

27. By mouth. Literally, “by word.” Compare the expression, “by word of mouth.”

28. Seemed good. The Greek verb is the same here as in v. 25. Jesus had promised that the Spirit of truth would guide His disciples into all truth (John 16:13), and Luke often speaks of them as filled with the Spirit. Hence the men of the council unhesitatingly claimed that their Guide was the Spirit of God. Under the direction of the Spirit of God. Under the direction of the Spirit of the Jewish Christians were laying aside their prejudice of long standing against fellowship with Gentiles. How much better it would have been for the church had it always been honestly able to say that it was under the control and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No greater burden. The Jews themselves felt this burden in their load of legal observances (see on Acts 15:10; Rev. 2:24).

29. Meats offered to idols. This wording gives sharper definition to James’s warning against “pollutions of idols” (see on v. 20).

And from things strangled. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of these words as in v. 20. For discussion of these prohibitions see on v. 20.

Do well. Gr. eu prassoµ. This expression may mean either “to get along well” or “to do right.” Although the former meaning is more common, Christian literature from the 2d century supports the latter, and it seems to be more fitting in the present context. Evidence from the papyri shows that eu prassoµ was a term used in epistles of the Koine period to express a courteous request, and the present passage might even be translated, “from which please keep yourselves.”

Fare ye well. A form of the Greek verb rhoµnnumi, “to be strong,” “to prosper,” that is a common closing salutation in Greek letters. This letter follows standard Greek style at both its beginning and its end (see on v. 23).

30. Came to Antioch. It is natural to suppose that the envoys from the council returned north through Samaria and Phoenicia. Doubtless there was rejoicing among the Gentiles in the Christian congregations at the news of the freedom they received.

Multitude. Gr. pleµthos, a word used repeatedly in Acts for gatherings of believers (chs. 4:32; 5:14; 6:2; 15:12). Here it refers to the Christian congregation at Antioch.

Delivered the epistle. There must have been eager excitement as the letter was solemnly opened and read aloud, with perhaps murmuring on the one side, and applause on the other, as sentence after sentence repudiated the teachings of the Judaizers and confirmed the stand taken by Paul and Barnabas. To the Gentile believers at Antioch this epistle was a charter of freedom, won after a real struggle.

31. Consolation. Barnabas, “the son of consolation” (see on ch. 4:36), was a worthy member of such an embassy. Consolation would be felt by both Jews and Gentiles; by the former because they would now know on what basis they could receive the Gentile converts as fellow Christians; by the latter, because they were now free from the yoke of ceremonies and rituals. See Additional Notes at end of chapter, Note 2.

32. Judas and Silas, being prophets. See on ch. 13:1. “Prophet” is used here, not of one who necessarily foretells the future, but of one who, being filled with the Spirit, speaks forth for God with unique authority. Judas and Silas were therefore qualified both to exhort and to strengthen the disciples. Exhortation would be needed by the Gentiles. This was the sort of work to which Peter was bidden by his Lord (Luke 22:32), and it was now to be done under the same terms Peter had learned to employ in his dealing with Cornelius.

33. In peace. This is the translation of the normal Hebrew salutation of farewell. It does not signify that the men were allowed to go away quietly, but rather that the church’s prayers for their peace accompanied them. Compare Mark 5:34.

Unto the apostles. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “to those who had sent them.”

34. Notwithstanding. Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 10) for the omission of this verse. However, since Paul shortly afterward chose Silas for his companion on his next missionary journey (v. 40; cf. v. 36), Silas must have remained in Antioch after Judas had gone, or have returned there soon after.

35. Preaching. A form of the Greek verb euaggelizoµ (see on ch. 13:32). Both teaching and preaching had to be done to set forth Jesus as the Saviour, and to instruct in the way of life for God; doubtless this was especially essential for Gentiles, who, it was becoming clear, were now partakers of the new covenant under the gospel.

36. Some days after. See on ch. 16:1.

Let us go again. This proposal was characteristic of Paul. His heart was ever full of “the care of all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28), which he was always mentioning in his prayers (Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:16; Phil. 1:3). Judging from his concern for Timothy, revealed in Paul’s epistles to him, Paul would be as much concerned about the spiritual growth of individual members who were his children in the faith as he was for the general condition of the churches he had founded. Paul proposed the journey as an opportunity for revisiting the churches founded on the first tour, but he branched out when constrained by the Spirit to go to Europe, in answer to the Macedonian call.

Paul’s Second Missionary Tour, c. A.D. 49 to 52

Diagram of Central Athens

37. Determined. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 10) the reading “was minded,” or “desired.” Undoubtedly it was Barnabas’ family relationship with John Mark that led him to wish to take the young man once more on a missionary tour, to give him an opportunity to show his fitness for service (see Col. 4:10). Doubtless he recognized, as Paul did not, circumstances that at least in part excused John’s former turning back from an arduous task (see on Acts 13:13). To Paul, the earnest and courageous warrior for Christ, anyone who had so acted seemed, in the Lord’s own words, not “fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62), and was in need of discipline, of rejection at least for a time, to fit himself for further work.

Surname. Literally, “who is called.”

38. Departed from them. See on ch. 13:13. John Mark had turned back to Jerusalem from Perga.

Went not. These words suggest that Paul’s complaint against Mark was that in returning to Jerusalem he had shirked his share of the burdens of the tour.

39. Contention. Gr. paroxusmos, “irritation,” “sharp anger.” From this word comes the English “paroxysm,” which may intimate a temporary, although severe, division, rather than a long-lasting one. The warmth of a long-standing friendship sealed by Barnabas’ help to Paul when he stood most in need of a human friend (see on ch. 9:27), as well as the mutual prosecution of a great work, and the successful securing of a great decision, made the breach between Barnabas and Paul the more painful. This is the last mention in Acts of either Barnabas or Mark. For the church, the result was that two missionary journeys were undertaken instead of one. Though the apostles differed as to who was worthy to join in such work, there was no division between them as to what work ought to be done in the gospel. Barnabas’ name occurs in Paul’s epistles in 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; and Col. 4:10. In writing to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:6), the apostle named Barnabas as setting the same noble example as he, in laboring with his own hands and receiving no support from the churches where he labored in the gospel. Col. 4:10 reveals that Paul once more received John Mark as a fellow worker (Philemon 24), and Paul learned to recognize in John Mark one who was “profitable” to him “for the ministry” (2 Tim. 4:11). After working with Barnabas in Cyprus, Mark apparently returned to Peter, and was with him in Rome (1 Peter 5:13). It may have been in connection with this stay at Rome that Mark labored once more with Paul.

Sailed unto Cyprus. This was the homeland of Barnabas. It was natural for him and Mark to begin their labors here.

40. Paul chose Silas. See on v. 34. This shows the interest of Silas in evangelism among the Gentiles, and doubtless he was as well fitted as was Barnabas, for he had the gift of prophecy. Silas could now claim the title of apostle, in its broader sense of “missionary,” as he was sent forth by the church of Antioch.

Recommended. See on ch. 14:26.

41. He went. Although the pronoun refers only to Paul, the narrative shows that Silas accompanied the more experienced apostle. Thus the sense of the passage is, “they went” (cf. ch. 16:1, 6).

Syria and Cilicia. As Paul had not visited his home province of Cilicia on the first journey, it is probable that the churches there were founded by him during his years at Tarsus following his conversion (see chs. 9:30; 11:25). But the Judaizers had been active in the two provinces named, and the presence of Paul, with Silas as one of the emissaries from the council, must have helped to allay any doubts or questionings in the minds of either Jews or Gentiles in the churches they now visited.

Confirming. See on ch. 14:22.

additional notes on chapter 15

Note 1

One of the knottiest problems in the book of Acts is that which grows out of the comparison of Luke’s record of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem with the apostle’s own narrative in Gal. 1; 2. Thus far Luke records three such visits (Acts 9:26–30; 11:27–30; 12:25; 15:1–29), whereas Paul recounts only two (Gal. 1:18, 19; 2:1–10). Of these visits, those in Acts 9:26–30 and Gal. 1:18, 19 are clearly the same. The question arises, however, in regard to the relationship of the second and third visits recorded in Acts with the second visit in Galatians. Which of the visits recorded by Luke in Acts is that mentioned by Paul in Galatians?

In general, scholars have proposed three approaches to this problem. Some equate the “famine visit” of Acts 11:27–30; 12:25 with the journey of Gal. 2:1–10. Many others hold that it is the journey of Acts 15, involving the Jerusalem Council, that Paul records in Gal. 2. Still others, seeing difficulties in both of these identifications, have concluded that the accounts of Luke and Paul can be harmonized only by a radical reconstruction. One such solution suggests that the “famine visit” (Acts 11; 12) and the “council visit” (Acts 15) are really one journey, which is also that recorded by Paul in Galatians. This view holds that Luke took the two accounts in Acts from different sources, and that although they concerned the same journey, he mistakenly understood them to be two visits. Another radically critical view would place this “famine visit” at the end of Paul’s Third Missionary Journey before his first imprisonment, making it identical with his trip to Jerusalem recorded in Acts 21, when he took an offering from churches in Macedonia and Achaia (see Rom. 15:25, 26). The prophet Agabus is mentioned in Acts 21 as well as in ch. 11, and on both occasions he uttered a prophecy.

In evaluating these views, it may be said first that the third type of approach, which necessitates radical reconstructions of Luke’s narrative, seems to take too little account of the knowledge he must have had regarding this phase of Paul’s career, and of the inspiration that illuminated his mind. A man as interested in Paul’s biography as Luke was, and who had as intimate personal contact with him as Luke did, could hardly have been in such ignorance of Paul’s relationships with the church at Jerusalem regarding the Gentile problem as not to know at what point in Paul’s career the Jerusalem Council had taken place, nor does it seem reasonable that Luke would have confused so badly the facts in the story of Agabus. From the point of view of this commentary such radical reconstruction is unwarranted.

Certain evidence may be presented in favor of equating the “famine visit” of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:27–30; 12:25) with the journey Paul records in Gal. 2:1–10:

1. Paul declares that he “went up by revelation” (Gal. 2:2) to Jerusalem; Luke seems to parallel this by portraying the “famine visit” as the direct result of a prophecy by Agabus that a famine was coming (Acts 11:28).

2. In Gal. 1; 2, Paul argues that he did not learn his view of the gospel from men, and certainly not from the Judaizing elements of the Jerusalem church, but from Christ alone. He then sketches his life since his conversion, putting special emphasis on his contacts with the leaders at Jerusalem to illustrate that his relationships with them had been comparatively meager and consistently against the Judaizing spirit. If the second visit to Jerusalem that Paul mentions here (Gal. 2:1–10) is equated with that in Acts 15, then the apostle plainly omitted one visit (that of Acts 11) from his narrative in Galatians—which would have made him immediately liable to the accusation that he purposely had minimized his contacts with Jerusalem for the sake of his argument. This, Paul was hardly naive enough to do. But if, in Gal. 2, he refers to the “famine visit,” and if he is writing before the Council of Jerusalem took place, as many scholars hold (see p. 104), he then has recorded all his contacts with Jerusalem up to the time of his writing, and cannot be accused of having withheld evidence for the sake of his argument.

3. Paul declares that during the years between his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18, 19) and the visit in question, he “was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea” (ch. 1:22). This statement would hardly seem to be in agreement with his having taken famine aid there (Acts 11:27–30), if that journey occurred between the two visits narrated in Gal. 1; 2.

4. In Galatians, where Paul is largely concerned with the relation of Christian Gentiles to Judaism, he makes no mention of the official action taken by the leaders at Jerusalem regarding this very problem. This seems strange unless the second journey to Jerusalem that he records in Galatians is that of Acts 11:27–30 and the Jerusalem Council had not yet occurred.

5. If the journeys of Acts 11 and Gal. 2 are the same, Peter and Barnabas’ dissimulation at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–13) would have occurred before the Jerusalem Council and the First Missionary Journey. This is more easily understood than if they are seen to have given way to Jewish pressure after Barnabas’ experiences with the Gentiles on the first journey, and after both Barnabas and Peter had placed themselves publicly in the vanguard of the decision at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:7–12). If Peter and Barnabas were fearless to speak at Jerusalem, why should they later dissemble at Antioch?

Such arguments as these have led many scholars to conclude that it is the famine visit (Acts 11) rather than the council visit (Acts 15), that Paul records in Gal. 2.

However, most of the older commentators have identified the visit of Gal. 2 with that of Acts 15, and there remains much to be said in favor of this view:

1. Acts 11:27–30; 12:25 give no indication that the Gentile problem arose at the time of the famine visit. On the other hand, this problem is plainly the issue in both Acts 15 and Gal. 2. Furthermore, the First Missionary Journey (Acts 13; 14) provides a logical background for the problem presented in Gal. 2.

2. In both Acts 15 and Gal. 2 the point at issue was raised by intruders; Luke speaks of them as “certain of the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5), but Paul refers to them more vigorously as “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4). There is no hint of any such persons given in the account of the “famine visit.”

3. In regard to the fact that if Gal. 2 is equated with Acts 15, a visit is missing from Paul’s account in Gal. 1; 2, it has been suggested that at the time of the “famine visit,” Paul had no contact with any apostle. Luke says only that he and Barnabas took gifts “to the elders” (Acts 11:30) at Jerusalem. Thus, in recounting his contacts with the apostles, Paul may not have considered the “famine visit” as significant enough to mention.

4. There is no necessary contradiction between Luke’s statement that the “relief” was sent “to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (ch. 11:30) and the declaration of Paul that he was “unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea” (Gal. 1:22). Luke’s brief account would indicate that there was nothing more connected with that trip than the carrying of the collected alms to the elders, a mission that they might have fulfilled quickly and then returned immediately to their pressing work at Antioch. (For a discussion of “elders” see on Acts 11:30.) Thus this trip may have been omitted by Paul in Galatians as not being of sufficient consequence to bring into his statement to the Galatian churches.

5. Although it is easier to see the dissimulation of Barnabas and Peter as occurring before the Jerusalem Council, it is not impossible to understand them as having weakened afterward under Jewish pressure. Paul clearly indicates that they acted against their own better knowledge (Gal. 2:12, 13).

6. Luke’s record of the “famine visit” gives no indication that anyone accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. But Luke says specifically that when they went to Jerusalem for the council, “certain other of them” also went along (Acts 15:2). This would find a parallel in the statement of Paul that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the visit recorded in Galatians (ch. 2:1).

For such reasons as the foregoing, many scholars have preferred to equate the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in Acts 15 with the visit recorded in Gal. 2. The tentative chronology followed in this commentary equates the journey of Gal. 2 with the “council visit” of Acts 15 (see p. 100).

Note 2

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem. Four particulars were named, but the general provision, “no greater burden,” was the vital one. By the whole church, in an official action, the Gentiles were declared free from ritualistic performances. This was a proclamation of emancipation.

The entrance into the church of the Ethiopian, the Samaritans, Cornelius and his household, and especially the starkly heathen Greeks in Antioch, was significant and had a cumulative effect upon the thinking of the Jewish element in the church. But at Jerusalem the church came together in council and took definitive action. Circumcision, the offering of sacrifices, washings, and the whole round of performances which were a part of, or had grown up around, the practice of the Jewish religion, were not to be required of Gentiles baptized into the Christian church.

In view of the importance of this decision, the naming of specific things to be expected of the Gentiles was perhaps less important, but nevertheless necessary to complete the picture. The real crux of the decision lay in a general statement as to what should not be laid upon the Gentiles. With it was a brief, specific statement as to what would be expected. The points selected emphasized, evidently, the things concerning which a Gentile might err or be indifferent.

The vacillation of Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14), the stubborn insistence of the die-hard Judaizers in Galatia (ch. 3:1, 2), and the later rise of the Judaizing Nazarene and Ebionite sects (see pp. 53, 54) all show how essential it was for the church to come to a clear-cut decision on the question of Judaizing. Otherwise the church would have had to look to ancient forms and ceremonies, honorable but typical, the blessed Antitype of which had come and accomplished His work. It would have felt always the pull of a center, Jerusalem, even after that place had been destroyed. Worse yet, it would have been a national, racial church, Jewish at its core. Doubtless, Gentiles would have been made increasingly to think that they were admitted, not by the grace of God, but by the favor of men of the “chosen” race. Such an introversion, such a racial complexioning, such a centering upon men, would have been stultifying and fatal in its effect upon the life, program, and progress of the church.

Such a situation would have stamped the church as subject to forms and rituals as expressive of its nature. But the true nature of Christianity is not in forms and ceremonies. The genius of Christianity is its spirituality, its worshiping of God in spirit and in truth. It was intended that Christianity should be freed as far as possible from forms and rituals and ceremonies. Had the full meaning of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem been thoroughly applied in the church’s later experience, much of error and apostasy would have been avoided.

The question may be asked as to why the Jerusalem Council did not specify, as binding, all the commands of the Decalogue. The answer is that the council was not dealing with the ten-commandment law as such. Worship of God, keeping of the Sabbath, honoring one’s parents, allowing one’s neighbors to live and enjoy life, being honest and content, were so much in the warp and woof of the basic morality of Christianity that they were not mentioned. More importantly, these were not points in debate at this council. As already pointed out, the prohibitions pertained to things concerning which Gentiles, even after conversion, need especially to guard against, either to avoid gross sin or to avoid practices that might bring discord into the church. Eating of blood, and of meat from which the blood had not been properly removed, becoming involved in idolatry, and fornication—these were all common practices among the Gentiles, with no thought given to the fact that they were injurious either to body or to spirit or to both. Therefore, against these things the Gentiles must be warned, and from their practice, restrained.

As to the specific stipulations themselves, it is natural to ask regarding the status of these in the later life of the church. As an agreement between the contending Gentiles and Jews in the church it was in some respects a compromise, or at least a ground for common life (see on v. 19). The time had not come for the proclaiming of the full meaning of Paul’s teaching (Gal. 2:2), and Paul, who had accepted the decision of the council as a satisfactory settlement of the matter in debate, never referred later to its stipulations. Even when discussing one of the chief points the decision dealt with, that of the use of food offered to idols, he did not apply the council’s decree (1 Cor. 8; 10). Indeed, his counsel in respect to eating food would hardly be considered in full harmony with the council’s decision, though certainly not contrary to the spirit and intent of the council. He argues that it was not necessarily wrong to eat things offered to idols, because the gods themselves represented by the idols did not exist. The wrong would be in failing to appreciate the scruples of another Christian, who would not eat such things, and would be troubled when his neighbor did so. This provision would tend to avoid unnecessary friction between Jewish and Gentile Christians in their social contacts.

When Paul dealt with the matter of sexual impurity, as he did again and again in his epistles, he did not do so with reference to the Council of Jerusalem, but with reference to the basic scriptural principle on which the council action itself rested. In other words he deals with this problem on the basis of the fact that the Christian belongs to God, and his whole person has become a temple inhabited by the Holy Spirit. In such a divine presence impurity must not be.

Consequently, the importance of the council was not to be seen primarily in the effect upon the church of its specific prohibitions. Its importance lies rather in the liberation of the Gentile Christian church from religious performances for their own sake.

Ellen G. White comments

1 AA 189

1–41AA 188–202, 400, 401; SR 304–309

2, 3 AA 190

4–6AA 191

5 AA 188

7 AA 192

8 AA 196

8–10AA 193; SR 307

12, 13 AA 194

14 COL 79

18 MH 433; 8T 282

19 AA 194; SR 307

20 AA 195

22, 23 AA 196

25–29AA 195

32, 35 AA 197

36 AA 201

36–40AA 170

37–41AA 202

39 4T 12