Acts 15 commentary

ACTS 15 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Council at Jerusalem
1 Certain people came down from Judea to
Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless
you are circumcised, according to the custom
taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "Except ye be circumcised, etc. - 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.
GILL, "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 Gill 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).
HE RY, "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, Act_15:1. 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 (Act_15:5), or perhaps of those priests who were
obedient to the faith, Act_6:7. 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, Act_21:20. 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.”
JAMISO , "Act_15:1-35. Council at Jerusalem to decide on the necessity of
circumcision for the Gentile converts.
certain men — See the description of them in Gal_2:4.
HAWKER 1-5, "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.
PETT, "ntroduction
A Major Crisis - Consultation at Jerusalem
When we came to the end of chapter 14 it described the end of an abundantly
successful mission and we had the impression that all was well. The word was
advancing. All hindrances had been swept aside. But there was one thing missing.
And that is that in Acts Luke always follows up successful activity with a
description of Satan’s riposte. Pentecost was followed by persecution from the
Temple authorities, the renewal of blessing in Acts 4:23-31 was followed by the
failure of Ananias and Sapphira, the success of Stephen was followed by his
martyrdom and the persecution of the church, Paul’s conversion and ministry was
followed by persecution, Philip’s success among the Samaritans was followed by the
behaviour of Simon the sorcerer, the ministry of Peter was followed by his being
called to account, followed by the martyrdom of James and his own imprisonment,
and the ministries of Barnabas and Saul were followed by various tribulations. For
Luke was aware that whenever God moves forward, Satan always seeks to hinder
the work. And this was to be no exception as we will now discover.
Consider the situation. The Good ews has been taken out to Cyprus and
throughout large parts of Asia Minor. ot only have Jews and God-fearers
responded but also out-and-out Gentiles, and the latter even in areas where there
appears to have been no synagogue. There has been regular persecution, but each
time the word has prevailed.
But now return visits have been made and local gatherings have been set up, and
they have returned to Antioch and continued their ministry there, and all is going
smoothly. It appears as though Satan has given up, and as though opposition has

died down, so that the teaching and growth of the churches can go on apace. Luke
therefore now immediately reminds us that this is not true. The teaching is being
established, but it is to be countered by false teaching. Where the truth is being
established, there will always appear those who come to sow lies. For suddenly on
the horizon appear so-called Christians who come with a controversial message,
which will dog Paul for years to come. The question being raised now was as to how
these Gentile converts were to be related to the Old Testament religion from which
Jesus sprang and from which the Apostles also came, and it was to be raised by a
counterattack of Satan.
Looked at from the point of view of that time the issue involved was no easy
question. In fact it was so serious that humanly speaking the success of the spread of
the Good ews and of the word depended on it.
In those early days when most converts to Christianity were Jews, their
continuation in Jewish practises was not even questioned. It was just assumed. All
had been circumcised on the eighth day. All followed Jewish religious practises. The
difference between Christian Jews and their fellow-Jews was not in the customs that
they observed, but in the recognition that they gave to the fact that Jesus, crucified
and risen, was to them both Lord and Messiah, and that they saw salvation as
having come through Him, bringing them under the Kingly Rule of God and having
provided them with full forgiveness for all their sins. ow because they were His
they sought to live according to the Law, especially as interpreted by His teaching,
sharing all things in common with their fellow-believers, but faithful to their Jewish
customs. By that means they hoped to win their fellow-countrymen.
Yet even among the Christian Jews there would be differences (as among the Jews
themselves). There were Judaean Jewish Christians, who interpreted their customs
more strictly, and were under the close eye of the Rabbis, there were Galilean
Jewish Christians whose interpretations of Jewish customs were somewhat less
rigid, there were Hellenistic Jewish Christians who interpreted the Scriptures more
allegorically, and whose more direct contact with the Gentile world resulted in
relaxations of certain customs. Many of the converted Pharisees, for example, would
regularly continue to follow through their Pharisaic ideas as Christians, and would
be more strict in their religious practises than those who had been converted from
among the ‘common folk’, the ‘sinners’, although now, because they were
Christians, each would have more regard to the other. But all would still participate
in Temple ritual and follow Jewish customs in one way or another, and see
themselves still as ‘Jews’.
Then there would be those who had been converted as ‘God-fearers’ and were
uncircumcised. They were welcomed wholeheartedly into the fellowship of believers,
while of course only on the outskirts of synagogue worship, unless the synagogue
was wholly Christian. But these God-fearers would be expected to take account of
Jewish practises, especially when they ate with Jews, and would be expected to
become acquainted with Jewish Law. And just as the Jews bore with God-fearers
but felt that they should become full proselytes, so would many Christian Jews feel

the same about Christian God-fearers. Many of the Christian Jews would look on
their fellow-Christians who were not circumcised as not yet completely
‘Christianised’.
Of course when Cornelius and his fellow believers were converted in the unusual
way in which they were, this had caused a problem. Many Jewish Christians had
come to recognise with Peter that God was not calling on all converts themselves to
become a full part of Judaism. They were even recognising that for converted
Gentiles there were to be different demands. Unlike Judaism they were being called
on to accept Christian God-fearers on equal terms. And this had been agreed by the
Enquiry Group of chapter 11.
But there were still many Jewish Christians who did not think like that. one had
felt able to argue openly in that case that God had made a mistake, but there was
almost certainly an uneasy feeling among a number of Jewish Christians that all
was not quite right in the matter of Cornelius, and a hope that it would not happen
too often. It could be coped with because it was not in Jerusalem and they could
after all be treated as God-fearers. And none would doubt that they now
worshipped with fellow-believers in Caesarea (where Philip was ministering) and
were thus in contact with Jewish Christian customs and worship. The hope of these
Jewish Christians was that they would therefore gradually submit to Jewish ways
themselves, and gradually become absorbed into Judaism. Yet they did have to
swallow the fact that Cornelius and his fellow-Christian-Gentiles had not been
required by the Jerusalem church to be circumcised, on the grounds that God had
cleansed them and made them holy without circumcision. They could not argue with
the decision. They could only feel that it was not right, and put their confidence in
the fact that God would sort it out.
Once news had reached Jerusalem of the activities among Gentiles in Syrian
Antioch (in Acts 11:19-26) official action had been immediately taken in despatching
Barnabas to oversee the situation, and there too they would be satisfied that there
was a good nucleus of Jewish Christians in Antioch, so that once again the converts
could be seen as God-fearers attached to a Christian synagogue with the hope that
they would eventually become full proselytes. Furthermore Jewish Christian
prophets had also gone to minister to them.
And indeed it was partly the hope of ensuring this Judaising of the Gentile
Christians that would be responsible for some of their own number from the
circumcision party going to Antioch declaring the need for these believers to be
circumcised (Acts 15:1; compare Galatians 2:4; Galatians 2:12). So the most fervent
Judaisers among the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea still saw Christianity as a
reformed Judaism, and looked eventually for all Christians eventually to be
circumcised and to conform to the ritual Law.
The mission of Paul and Barnabas to Cyprus and Asia Minor would not initially
have caused a problem. Had they continued using synagogues as their base of
operations and sought to bring their Gentile converts within the synagogue, initially

as God-fearers, (with the hope of their eventually becoming full proselytes) this
would simply have extended the pattern. But once the news came through from
some of those synagogues of Paul’s blatant large-scale activity among Gentiles who
were not attaching themselves to the synagogue, (the synagogues would not point
out that it was partly due to their own obstructionism), that stirred up Christian
Judaists in Judaea to feel that it was time that they did something about it. They
must put a stop to these aberrations and ensure that all were on the path to
Judaism. They themselves must go and teach them what was required of them.
As Luke depicts it, working in the other direction was God. And in this regard we
have already had three incidents which have illuminated God’s mind on the matter.
1) The Ethiopian High Official (Acts 8:26-39). Strictly speaking we are not
certain that this man had not been circumcised, although the impression that most
gain from the narrative is that he had not and that he was a God-fearer. But
certainly it was God Who sent Philip to him, and it was in accordance with what
God showed Philip that he was baptised without the question apparently ever being
asked as to whether he was circumcised. However, that conversion might well not
have been widely known about, and besides he had disappeared into Ethiopia.
2) Cornelius and His Friends and Family (Acts 10:1 to Acts 11:18). Here we can
say that Cornelius was unquestionably no more than at the most a God-fearer,
otherwise the question of ‘cleanness’, which was so important in this case, would not
have arisen. Had he been a full proselyte Peter’s vision would have been redundant,
for a full proselyte was religiously the equivalent of a trueborn Jew. But the whole
point of Peter’s vision was that God was telling Peter thathowever unclean
something might appear to be ritually, once God had cleansed it, it had become holy.
Even though before God cleansed it, it had been unclean, His act of cleansing made
it holy. o man therefore had any right to turn round and make common or unclean
what God had cleansed, what God had ‘made holy’. And this included people.
It was on the basis of this that Peter had entered Cornelius’ house and had
proclaimed to him the Good ews. And it was then that he had seen the Holy Spirit
come on all those Gentiles gathered there in the same way as on Christian Jews
earlier, along with clear outward signs that made it unquestionable that He had
done so And he had recognised that if God’s ‘HOLY’ Spirit had entered a man and
had indwelt him then that man must be holy, and therefore, following the lesson of
his vision, could not be treated as ‘common’. That being so he felt that he could not
refuse baptism to what God had made holy. It was not a question as to whether such
a person was circumcised or not. It was a question as to whether God had made that
person holy. And in that case He clearly had. ( ote that baptism is not therefore the
same as circumcision. Baptism is an acceptance of the fact that a person has been
made holy. Circumcision was, prior to this, seen as a necessity in order that a man
might become holy.
Furthermore the basic assumption of the whole process of proselysation was that the
unholy needed to be made holy. That was what the proselyte bath indicated. They
were being washed from all past ritual uncleanness. They were having the taint of
the Gentile world removed. So to give a proselyte bath to someone whom God had
already indwelt by His Holy Spirit and who was therefore already holy would, in the

light of Peter’s vision, have been to declare as common or unclean what God had
made holy. It would be contradictory. It would be almost blasphemous. Thus the
only conclusion could be that for such people the procedures for becoming a full
proselyte were not required. God had received them without that and made them
holy. Furthermore the purpose of the rite of circumcision was in order to set apart a
person as one of God’s holy people, it was to render him holy. But these new
converts had already been made holy. How then could circumcision be required
from someone who had already been indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit and was
therefore already holy? They were already accepted by God and holy with no
condition of circumcision having been attached. To do any more would be to cast
doubt on what God had done. (This again emphasises that baptism was not seen as
cleansing or making holy, otherwise on the same terms it could not have applied to
those who had been already made holy).
3) The Gentiles Whom God Had Brought To Hear The Word of God But
Whom the Synagogue Would Have one Of (Acts 13:44-49). Paul had recognised a
similar situation when huge crowds of Gentiles had come together to hear the word
of God and the synagogue had wanted to turn them away. He had been faced with
the choice of going into the synagogue and turning his back on them, or of speaking
to them of Christ at a time when the synagogue, and therefore Judaism, was
refusing them, and would not accept them into the synagogue. Indeed matters had
been made worse. The truth was that while these Gentiles had come desirous to
respond to Christ, it was the Jews in the synagogue who were blaspheming against
Him (Acts 13:45). It was the Jews who were attacking Christ. It had thus become
clear that if Christ was to be accepted by anyone it would be by these Gentiles who
were being excluded from the synagogue, not by these blaspheming Jews. The
synagogue may not want these Gentiles but God’s activity among them appeared to
indicate that He did, especially as He had approved it with signs and wonders
following. Thus it was clear that these Gentiles must be baptised outside the
synagogue and its requirements.
Combined with what God had previously demonstrated to Peter in regard to
Cornelius, which Paul would know about, this necessarily followed, for it had been
made openly apparent that these men also were all ‘filled with joy and with the Holy
Spirit’ (Acts 13:52). Their acceptance by God without circumcision was therefore
not in doubt. And Paul had from then on accepted and baptised Gentile converts
without circumcision, even in places where there was no synagogue for them to
attach themselves to, once he was satisfied that they had received the Holy Spirit.
Indeed he had set them up in their own ‘synagogue’ groups with their own elders
led by the Spirit of God.
But now inevitably came Satan’s expected counterattack. It would, however, as with
all Satan’s counterattacks (how exasperated he must have been), turn out to be for
the good of the advance of the word, for it would mean the church deciding as a
whole exactly how it should in future look at the ministry among the Gentiles, and it
would finally take away any doubt among Gentile converts of their acceptability in
Christ without their having to become Jews.
Verse 1
‘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 (Acts
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 - Galatians 3:1-5; Galatians 4:9-11;
Galatians 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 ew
Testament makes clear that He has in a number of places (e.g. John 1:29; 1
Corinthians 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 (Colossians 2:11). We are
already circumcised in Christ. We have therefore been made alive, and have been
forgiven, without the need for further circumcision (Colossians 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.
Verses 1-3
The Demand that All Believers in Christ Be Circumcised And Its Consequence
(15:1-3).

ews 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).
CALVI , "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, ( 2 Corinthians 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., ( Ephesians 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, ( 1 Corinthians 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.
evertheless, 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, ( 2 Corinthians 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. −

“ − 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.
“ − 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.
“ Per rivos,” by streams.
“ Communis regulae praejudicium,” be not prejudged as a common rule.
“ Apostolis nihil minus esse in animo,” that the very last thing the apostles meant
was.
“ Ad rem ipsam quaerendam accedere,” to enter upon the investigation.
BE SO , "Acts 15:1. And certain men which came down from Judea — Probably
such as had been of the Pharisees, (Acts 15:5,) or, perhaps, of those priests which
were obedient to the faith, Acts 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 Acts 15:5; Galatians 5:3,) ye cannot be saved
— Can neither enjoy God’s 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, (Galatians 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 Galatians 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.
COFFMA , "The first thirty-five verses of this chapter (Acts 15:1-35) relate the
event which has been called The Jerusalem Council, where, it has been alleged, the
mother church convened a formal session to pass on the preaching of the apostle
Paul, especially with regard to the relationship between the law of Moses and the
Christian gospel. However, this so-called council can never be understood without
reference to another report of it in Galatians 2:1ff, delivered in that epistle by the
apostle Paul himself. The widespread disagreement among scholars, many of them
denying that the two reports are of one event, is due to false assumptions regarding
the nature of this event in Jerusalem.
It is rather a complicated question; but the strong feeling expressed here is that
there is but one event, Paul's Galatian letter being therefore supplementary
information to what Luke gives in this chapter.
First of all, the purpose of the meeting in Jerusalem was that of correcting the
religious position of the majority in that church, including, it may be presumed,
most if not all of the apostles, as well as James the Lord's brother. The notion that
Paul needed their approval in any manner is wrong, except in the limited sense of
his hoping to retain the unity of the Christian movement. Paul did not need the
"council"; they needed him.
THE JERUSALEM COU CIL
This event in Acts 15 is the same as that in Galatians 2 for the following reasons:

(1) Paul was converted in 37 A.D. (see under Acts 9:2); and, if Luke's placement of
this event is assumed to be chronological, then the date of it must be in the vicinity
of 50 A.D. This corresponds exactly with the "fourteen years" following Paul's
conversion (Galatians 2:1), especially if the inclusive reckoning followed by ew
Testament writers is taken into account, giving a net thirteen years after the year 37.
(2) The variations in the accounts, which are somewhat startling, derive from Paul's
reporting in Galatians some conversations which took place in Jerusalem between
himself and James, Cephas and John, evidently before the formal meeting was
convened. As far as Paul was concerned, the issue had already been decided before
they had the "council"! It should also be noted that Paul's withstanding Peter to the
face was an event that took place "in Antioch" (Galatians 2:11), and does not belong
to the narrative of what took place in Jerusalem.
(3) The objection that Paul did not report the finding of the council to the Galatians
or any other of the churches addressed in his epistles is due to a misunderstanding
of what happened in that council. The sectarian idea that this was a General
Council of the Church, convened to settle true Christian doctrine, misses the point
altogether. The council was in error, not the apostle Paul. Although the brethren
appointed Paul to go up to Jerusalem, it was God who sent him there (Galatians
2:2), not to permit the council to pass on Paul's preaching, but in order to correct
the shameful failure of the apostles and elders in that city to admit the Gentiles,
without any restrictions, into the Christian fellowship. In Galatians, Paul flatly
affirmed that:
They ... imparted nothing to me; but contrariwise ... when they perceived the grace
that was given unto me ... gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship
(Galatians 2:6-9).
Paul had fully as much authority as anyone in the Jerusalem church; and it would
have been shameful for the great apostle who for years had already been preaching
God's will regarding circumcision and the law of Moses, both of which had been
nailed to the cross of Christ and totally abrogated, - it would have been a shame for
him to have submitted the issue to the Jewish party in Jerusalem, bolstered as it was
by James and the apostles. o! Paul never did any such thing; but through God's
revelation, he went up there to correct them and to bring conciliation, and to bring
them into line with the will of God, not the other way around.
The idea of the Jerusalem church having jurisdiction over what Paul delivered, as
gospel, to the elders at Lystra and Derbe is foreign to the ew Testament. The
Roman Church makes the event in this chapter the first Ecumenical Council of the
Church; but there is absolutely nothing of this notion in the ew Testament. All the
objections, therefore, about Paul's not reporting the decision of the "mother
church" to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians fail to get Paul's point, namely,
that "The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother"! (Galatians 4:26).
Paul was the instrument by which the Holy Spirit guided the apostles (the Twelve)
into all truth, as Jesus had promised, especially on the question of the relationship

between Judaism and the church of Christ.
(4) The book of Galatians was Paul's first epistle, written almost immediately after
the meeting in Jerusalem, hence his saying to them, "I marvel that ye are so soon
(quickly) removed from him (Christ)" (Galatians 1:6). This would give the epistle a
date of 50 A.D. That Galatians was addressed to Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra
and Derbe as "Galatian churches" is supported by the mention of Barnabas
(Galatians 2:1), his mention of "marks of Jesus in his body" (a reference to his
stoning at Lystra), and the impetuous, almost indignant tone of the letter. The
churches mentioned in Acts 13-14 are the only churches Barnabas helped Paul to
establish (as, far as ew Testament information reaches).
(5) The objection that Paul assumes for himself the sole credit for converting the
Galatians, "elbowing Barnabas" out of his share of their conversion, overlooks the
fact that Paul was "the spokesman," and as such could truthfully say he had
converted them without denying credit to anyone. It was Paul who appointed the
elders; it was Paul who was stoned; it was Paul alone, of the entire apostolic world
at that time, who was preaching the true gospel (on the Gentile question); and,
besides all this, Barnabas had been carried off into dissimulation with Peter and
others of that conviction, this alone being sufficient grounds for not injecting
Barnabas' name as one who had "converted" them. Paul's Galatian letter carried
the sad news of Barnabas' dissimulation, which, at that time, had not yet been
corrected, the same being another strong argument for the early date of Galatians.
Of course, the date of Galatians is a question that properly belongs in another
volume; but the bearing of this chapter on the question almost compels notice of it
here.
(6) The alleged reference of Paul in Galatians (Galatians 1:9; 5:3; 4:13f) to more
than one missionary trip is uncertain. In fact, Macknight said: "There is nothing
said in the epistle to the Galatians, of Paul's having been in Galatia more than
once."[1] A reading of those passages cited above supports Macknight's view of this.
E D OTE:
[1] James Macknight, On the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), Vol. III,
p. 84.
And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except
ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)
Certain men came down ... These were the same persons mentioned by Paul in
Galatians 2:12 who came "from James." As Bruce said, "The Epistle to the
Galatians enables us to fill out the brief summary here provided by Luke."[2]
Ye cannot be saved ... It appears at this point that the greatest doctrinal threat in its
whole history here confronted the young faith. James was the equivalent of the

"leading elder" in Jerusalem, especially influential as the brother of the Lord; and,
presumably, he was supported, or at least not opposed, by the apostles. Bruce
thought that these men from James exceeded their commission by thus making
observance of the Mosaic law mandatory for all Christians; and James declared that
"no such commandment" was given them (Acts 15:24). He seems, however, to have
tolerated their views until this crisis.
In any case, if God had not corrected the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, the entire
Christian religion would have been frustrated and perverted. At best, it could
thenceforth have been nothing but a Jewish sect, preaching the resurrection of
Christ, of course, but nevertheless relying on the law of Moses for salvation. A large
company of Pharisees who had become Christians would soon have dominated and
destroyed it.
E D OTE:
[2] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
Publishers, 1954), p. 303
COKE, "Acts 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.
CO STABLE, "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
Genesis 17:14 and Exodus 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. Acts 15:24; Galatians 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 (Galatians 2:11;
Galatians 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.
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." [ ote:
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. [ ote: 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. [ ote: 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." [ ote: Witherington, p.
439.]
BARCLAY, "THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM (Acts 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. Acts 15:1-41 tells of the Council of Jerusalem whose decisions
were the charter of freedom for the Gentiles.
A PROBLEM BECOMES ACUTE (Acts 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.
ELLICOTT, "(1) And certain men which came down from Judæa.—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 (Acts 11:18). It would seem, however,
that those who had raised objections to Peter’s 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” (Genesis 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
(Acts 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” (James 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 conclusion—as mediaeval dogmatism did in the case
of baptism—and excluded the uncircumcised from all hope of salvation. (Comp. the
account of Ananias and Izates given in the ote on Acts 9:10.)
PULPIT, "
Came down … and taught for which came down … taught, A.V.; saying for and
said, A.V.; custom ( ἔθος) 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 Romans 2:25, etc.; 4.; Galatians 5:2-6; Galatians 6:12-
15, etc.) The expression, τινὲς κατέλθοντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἰουδαίας, is so like that in
Galatians 2:11, πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ ἰακώβου as to suggest very strongly the
consideration whether Peter was not at Antioch at this time, and whether the scene

related in Galatians 2:11, etc., did not precede, and in fact cause, the Council of
Jerusalem. In this case the "dissension and disputation" spoken of in Galatians 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 Galatians 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 (Acts
18:22, Acts 18:23). o absolute certainty can be arrived at, but see note to verse 35.
Custom (see Acts 16:21); τὰ ἔθη is the technical term for the Mosaic institutions,
used by Josephus and Philo (see too Acts 6:14; Acts 21:21, note).
PULPIT, "Acts 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
ew 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
(Galatians 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 (Galatians 2:2; Acts 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.
PULPIT, "Acts 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" (Galatians 2:4), when they came to
invade its liberty; or if—a much greater peril—the 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" (Acts 15:1) were members of the Pharisaic party "which believed"
(Acts 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. I WHAT U I VITI G LABORS FIDELITY MAY I VOLVE 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" (Acts 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 E COURAGE THE FAITHFUL I THE HOUR OF THEIR
A XIETY. Those who constituted the deputation were "brought on their way by
the Church" (Acts 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. o "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 I TO CO SULTATIO
OUR BRETHRE I A HIGHER POSITIO . 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" (Acts 15:4, Acts 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 TEACHI G OF GOD'S PROVIDE CE. (Acts 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 (Acts 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 BURDE SOME IMPOSTS.
(Acts 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 (Matthew 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 ESSE CE OF THE ORDI A CE. 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 (Acts 15:11) had the very essence and substance of which the
old Jewish rite Was but the sign and symbol (Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:28, Romans
2:29).—C.
PULPIT, "Acts 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. MA 'S HIGHEST EED CO CEIVED AS SALVATIO . ot 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 MEA S OF SALVATIO . 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 EWER IDEA OF THE MEA S OF SALVATIO AS REVEALED TO
THE APOSTLES. ot 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 AGAI 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.
2. On what grounds the resistance could be made.
MACLARE , "THE BREAKING OUT OF DISCORD
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.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 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 Paul’s 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.

Acts 15 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Acts 15 commentary

Similar to Acts 15 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Acts 15 commentary