This chapter begins with the time frame after the first missionary trip that Paul and Barnabas took, during their stay in Antioch “for a long time” (Acts 14:28). There was a very serious question that came up regarding the Jewish nature of the Christian faith, and how the traditions of Judaism applied to new Gentile converts to Christianity. This was no small matter, and the church handled it in an interesting manner. Once that issue was resolved – at least on paper (literally) – Paul and Barnabas disagree over their travel plans and accompaniers, and go separate ways; but we’ll that it’s a blessing. Also, we may need to insert a bit of an aside – Paul’s Galatians 2 public disagreement with Peter. Many scholars believe that episode fits in at this point within the Acts timeline. Let’s take a look.
1) V1-4 – 1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. 4When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from their mission trip through Asia Minor, where they had founded Christian churches among the Gentiles. In their efforts, they were mainly rejected – and even persecuted – by the Jewish non-Christians, and now they faced potential division from within the church at the hands of some of the Jewish Christians.
Syrian Antioch had become a mother church, and the Jerusalem church had mixed feelings about that. Gentiles, unlike Jews, were not generally moral people, so conforming them to Jesus’ teachings would be difficult. Barnabas and Paul continued their evangelical efforts, but Jerusalem leaders could not continue with theirs, as persecution against them had kicked into high gear under Herod Agrippa’s short reign. James, the brother of John, was executed and Peter would have been had he not miraculously escaped prison (Acts 12). Even after Agrippa’s death in 44 AD, Jewish Zealots began persecuting – often by means of terrorism – anyone who was suspected of siding with Romans (and that included Gentile proselytizing, the very bridge-building that was deemed acceptable by the Jewish Christian church leadership).
The simple solution for the Jerusalem church to maintain authority as the true mother church was to demand circumcision from Gentile converts. Theologically, this enforcement would have made the converts more significantly conform to Jewish, and now Christian, moral standards; it would have likely kept any half-hearted converts from making that extensive leap to prove their faith; and perhaps equally important, from a political perspective, it would have appeased the Zealots and saved themselves from their persecution. But what of the already-converted Gentiles in Antioch and Galatia? It came to a head when, around that time, some Jerusalem Jews came to Antioch teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be salvation (Acts 15:1,5). Paul and Barnabas disputed this teaching, and they and other church members went to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with the church leaders (Acts 15; possibly Galatians 2:1-14).
2) V5-21 – 5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ 6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that He accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as He did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for He purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.’ 12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon has described to us how God at first showed His concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for Himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear My name, says the Lord, who does these things’ 18that have been known for ages. 19It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’
There were Jewish Christians who still held to their political parties and cultural customs. It can be a challenge to know what parts of your past you need to let go when you come to faith in Christ. These Pharisee Christians didn’t want to let go of the law, the importance of obedience, and especially the covenantal sign of circumcision. Is obeying God’s law a bad thing? What do you cling to from your past?
Let’s try to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jerusalem church at the Council of Jerusalem (49 AD). Jerusalem had the authority as the mother-church, but after Paul and Barnabas planted churches in Asia Minor, Antioch had become a mother-church too. Jerusalem was glad that Gentiles were coming to faith in Christ; but Gentiles, unlike Jews, were not generally moral people, so conforming them to Jesus’ teachings would be difficult. The simple solution for Jerusalem to maintain authority was to demand circumcision from Gentile converts. Theologically, this enforcement would have made converts more significantly conform to Jewish, and now Christian, moral standards; it would have likely kept any half-hearted converts from making that extensive leap to prove their faith. Politically, it might have eased persecution against the Jerusalem Christians as well. Do you appreciate their stance? What do you make of Peter’s words in Acts 15:7-11, and especially his words in verse 10?
After hearing Peter’s opinion, everyone listened to the testimony of Barnabas and Paul regarding God’s work among the Gentiles through them. Consider how your testimony of God’s work can impact the lives of others, as well as the impact that another person’s testimony of God’s work has had in your life. Next, in v13-21, James, the brother of Jesus, restates Peter’s thoughts and shows that the Old Testament agrees with them. And then he, as the leader of the Jerusalem church, issues a negative judgment. Notice his judgment from v19, and consider Paul’s similar declaration in Romans 14:13. In v20-21, James issues a positive judgment and states his reason for doing so. Paraphrasing James, “Gentile Christians should not have to do anything special (like be circumcised), but since Moses (and the Law) is still significant, they should have to avoid doing certain bad things.” The four bad things he mentions are (1) food sacrificed to idols, (2) meat with blood still in it, (3) the meat of strangled animals, and (4) sexual immorality.
Finally, we have mentioned the uncertainty over the timeline of Acts with Galatians. Here Acts 15 seems to fit with Galatians 2, but it is hard to put it together with all the likely coming and going of the leadership between Jerusalem and Antioch. It appears that, after the group came to Antioch preaching circumcision – Paul and Barnabas, along with other believers including Titus, met privately with James, Peter, and John in Jerusalem about incorporating Gentile believers into the Christian faith, specifically addressing, albeit without much concern, circumcision (Galatians 2:4-10). Then the issue was brought before the entire Jerusalem church (Acts 15:6, 12, 22), which determined, even though many Pharisee believers, probably the group that originally came to Antioch, wanted circumcision to be required, that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (Acts 15:19). Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and others then returned to Antioch with the news (Acts 15:22-31).
3) V22-31 – 22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul – 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. 30The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.
Jerusalem decided to send a couple of their leaders with Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch. Why do you think they – with the whole church – decided to do that? The letter from Jerusalem (v23-29) was addressed to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, all places that Paul had labored. What do you make of the way the Holy Spirit is mentioned in v28? Consider how the Gentile believers might have reacted to the letter from Jerusalem. Read the verses below and comment on each of the four specific things they are asked to abstain from: Food sacrificed to idols (Romans 14:14-23; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13); Blood (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26; Deuteronomy 12:16,23; Ezekiel 33:25); The meat of strangled animals (Exodus 22:31; Ezekiel 4:14); Sexual immorality (Leviticus 18; Mark 7:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-20; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Hebrews 12:16; 13:4; Jude 1:7; Revelation 21:8).
In v30-31, the decision of the Jerusalem Council seems to be related more to unity and fellowship between Jew and Gentile Christians than to the doctrinal authority of the Jerusalem church. What, if anything, do you find encouraging about the message of the letter? What, if anything, is concerning about the contents of the letter? How do you think Paul felt about Jerusalem’s decision?
4) V32-41 – 32Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers. 33After spending some time there, they were sent off by the brothers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34But Silas decided to remain there.] 35But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord. 36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.’ 37Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
It appears that cordial fellowship took place between the members of the Jerusalem and Antioch congregations, as a result of the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem. Notice v34, which may be found only in the footnotes of your Bible (since not all manuscripts contain it). Why is it significant that Silas remained in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas?
As mentioned before, there is some question regarding how the timeline of Acts fits within the context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, which was written around the same time as the Council of Jerusalem (49 AD). Read Galatians 2:1-21 (notice especially v13) and comment on Paul’s confrontation with Peter over the Jew / Gentile fellowship issue. The thought is this: Perhaps Peter showed up in Antioch and waffled on the issue of fellowship when the pro-circumcision believers came again continuing to press the circumcision demand. Paul dealt with Peter on this, but notice how Peter’s position is not enviable. He likely agreed with what Paul would later write in Romans 14:13-21, that we should not use our freedom in such a way that causes our brother to stumble. He was in a tight spot, for he would have offended the one he perceived to be his brother no matter what he chose to do. Whatever Peter’s motives in withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentile believers, Paul saw them as negligible in comparison to the progress of the Gentile mission and the well being of the Gentile Christians. Peter’s actions caused Jewish Christians – even Barnabas – to follow suit! The Gentile Christians must have concluded either (1) that they would remain uncircumcised and second-class citizens in the eyes of some Jewish believers or (2) that they would accept circumcision to gain first class status. Either way, the good achieved at the Jerusalem Conference would be undone; the gospel would be compromised. We know Peter stood corrected by Paul, but we don’t know what happened next for his ministry. How can you promote unity and fellowship without sacrificing purity and truth?
Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch for an unknown time period (Acts 15:35-36), during which Paul may have written his letter to the Galatians (49 AD). The importance of this letter for the early church makes it a challenge to see that there is little agreement on its date, either before or after the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. Clearly there were fellowship and authority issues at stake between Jewish (especially Judaizers) and Gentile Christians before and after the council, so it may not matter. At the council, the Jerusalem leaders made the right decision for the gospel and, therefore, for Paul’s ministry.
Moving on to v36-41, it is no surprise that Barnabas, the “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36), wanted to give Mark – his cousin (Colossians 4:10) – another chance to serve in the mission field. But are you surprised that Paul adamantly refused to do the same? Do you think his refusal had anything to do with the episode in Galatians 2:11-13? Instead of one missionary team, Antioch sent out two teams, and both Silas and Mark got to participate in the advancement of God’s kingdom. Have you ever had a “sharp dispute” with a fellow Christian that God worked for good?
In summary, this period must have been challenging for Paul, an intelligent man who found it difficult to understand how others couldn’t see a logical argument as clearly as he saw it, especially when the premises were agreed upon. Acts 15:28 gave essentially two requirements for Gentile Christians, and these primarily for the sake of unity and fellowship (more so than doctrinal authority, as the circumcision mandate would have been): abstaining from sexual sin (fornication), and abstaining from certain foods related to idolatry (bloody, strangled, or sacrificed to idols). Paul’s teaching was inline with the apostolic authority on sexual sin. No argument made by the Gentile converts would sway him to compromise his – and the Lord’s – strict convictions there. But Paul was more open-minded on the food issue; his desire was mutual edification, whatever that required. For Paul, any obedience had to be voluntary, not compulsory, based on charity and not anxiety, disgruntlement, or fear. Paul referred to this attitude for voluntary, mutual edification as following “the law of Christ” or “love.” According to F.F. Bruce, love “cannot be imposed or enforced by external authority. Rather, it is the spontaneous principle of thought and action in a life controlled by the Spirit of Christ… Love is generated spontaneity and cannot be enforced by penal sanctions.”
Though the essence of Paul’s gospel, received by direct revelation from Jesus Christ on the Damascus Road, was unaffected by the conflict over Jew and Gentile Christian relations (circumcision and fellowship questions), his comprehension of the gospel, in terms of practicality, was enriched. Bruce says, “Justification by faith…was implicit in his conversion, but now it became in his hands a fighting doctrine – not only a principle for which to contend but a weapon with which to contend.” Many Christians may have seen faith in Christ and works of obedience as complimentary, but Paul, knowing that concept to be an impossible contradiction, said, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes,” or “that everyone who has faith may be justified” (Romans 10:4). “End” could mean “goal” or “finishing point,” and Paul may mean both. As mentioned earlier, some scholars suggest that, in his early Christian learning, Paul must have recalled a Jewish chronological scheme, recorded in the Mishnah shortly before Paul’s education (and traditionally belonging to Elijah or Moses), claiming a 2000-year period of chaos (roughly creation to Moses), a 2000-year period of law (roughly Moses to Messiah), and a 2000-year period of the Messianic age (Messiah to end), all culminating in an eternity of Sabbath rest. Did Paul know of that scheme, and that easily put the epoch of the law to rest? We don’t know, but Paul, according to Bruce, “raised no objection…if Jewish Christians continued to observe (as he himself occasionally did) various customs prescribed by the law as part of their inherited way of life” (such as Passover; 1 Corinthians 9:20; Acts 16:3; 21:20-26).
In the end, the law may be deemed to have a threefold purpose – as a means of preservation (restraining sin), as a summons to repentance (showing us the sinfulness of sin and driving us to Christ), as guidance for the church (revealing God’s holy character) – but for Paul, the law of love, guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit, is all that mattered. The great question for Paul, which he explored in Romans 6-7, was, according to Bruce, this: “How can one who exists temporally ‘in the present evil age’ nevertheless enjoy deliverance from it and live here and now the life of the age to come? [The answer:] By the aid of the indwelling Spirit.” The Spirit generates love in us, and preaching the law of love borders on antinomianism, rather than legalism. Paul was, as Bruce declared, “the supreme libertarian, the great herald of Christian freedom, insisting that man in Christ…must no longer be confined to the leading-strings of infancy (the law) but enjoy the birthright of the freeborn sons of God (love by the Spirit). Here…Luther entered into the mind of Paul: ‘A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant, subject to all.’ ‘Subject to none’ in respect of his liberty; ‘subject to all’ in respect of his charity. This for Paul, is the law of Christ because this was the way of Christ. And in this way, for Paul, the divine purpose underlying Moses’ law is vindicated and accomplished.” Bruce concludes, “The purpose of the law, that men should be holy as God is holy (Leviticus 11:44) is thus (according to Paul) realized in the gospel.”
Even with this law of love working by the Spirit in the apostle Paul and throughout the young Christian churches, conflict was inescapable. While serving in Antioch, an argument arose between Barnabas and Paul over the issue of including or excluding John Mark from the planned trip to revisit the young churches founded during their first mission trip. Of course, John Mark “abandoned” them on the first trip (Acts 13:13), and so Paul wanted to exclude him. But Barnabas, being an encourager, and also being John Mark’s cousin or uncle (the word in Colossians 4:10 translated “cousin” could be “nephew” as well), wanted to take him on the journey. There is reason to believe that things weren’t the same between Paul and Barnabas even before this argument, after the confrontation with Peter over his refusal to eat with Gentile Christians while the Judaizers were in town. Paul says in Galatians 2:13 that even Barnabas was led astray in the hypocrisy, and a deep wound likely formed in their friendship from then on. Paul no doubt still held Barnabas in high esteem, but the rift made it impossible to work together. Their disagreement caused a split, which God worked for good; the church of Antioch was now sending two missionary teams to share the gospel instead of one.
There is no doubt that both parties (Barnabas with Mark, and Paul with Silas) benefited from this arrangement. Mark, who would later pen the gospel by his name and work with the apostle Peter (Acts 12:12; 1 Peter 5:13), grew in spiritual maturity under the encouragement of his relative, and Paul would later attest to his value in ministry (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11). Silas was a great fit as Paul’s partner; he was like Paul in many ways: a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem who could vouch for the results of the Jerusalem Council should an inquiry arise; he, like Paul, had two names (Silas as his Jewish name, and Silvanus in Greek); he was a prophet and leader in the church, and even a Roman citizen with civic privileges, like Paul (as implied in Acts 16:36-37). He came to Antioch as one of two messengers bearing the letter declaring the results of Council at Jerusalem and remained there (Acts 15:34) until going with Paul on his second missionary journey. So Barnabas and John Mark went to Cyprus (Acts 15:36-41), and Paul journeyed with Silas through Asia Minor and eventually on to Greece. We know nothing of the trip to Cyprus, and Luke never again mentions Barnabas. Tradition holds that Barnabas remained a faithful evangelist and church builder, preaching in Alexandria and even Rome but cherishing his home island country, until his martyrdom at the hands of angry Jews in Cyprus in 61 AD. However, the journey of Paul and Silas is well documented.
Footnotes
- 15:14 Greek Simeon, a variant of Simon; that is, Peter
- 15:17 Amos 9:11,12
- 15:17,18 Some manuscripts things'-- / 18 known to the Lord for ages is his work
- 15:33 Some manuscripts them, 34 but Silas decided to remain there
Bible text from Gospelcom.net. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.