Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 15

Revised 2014

The climax of Luke’s careful preparation comes in this central chapter. Even though the various accounts are not consistent in detail (Cf Acts 21, Gal 2), the theological import is clear: major issues and conflict within the Church exist and are resolved by discussion, based on experience and scripture, leading to discernment of what God is doing, and followed by promulgation of agreed statements to be received by Christians with joy. Note that all stages - including the last - are required. Such disagreements reveal the true bases for fellowship and the fundamental principles of community identity. In this case the outcome is agreement that circumcision is not required for salvation - indeed that the Jewish Christians also are saved by faith, not by the Law, and the only burdens to be laid on Gentiles, in addition to their faith, are Jewish table practices which many Gentiles already accepted, at least in the regions around Antioch, and which enabled inter-communion of Jewish and Gentile Christians in these areas - at least for the time being. Although one might think this issue had been settled after the conversion of Cornelius, admitting a few Gentiles into an established largely Jewish Church is not the same as accepting into koinonia whole new Gentile Churches. Paul thought of the Gentiles Churches as a “wild olive branch” (Rom 11). The circumcision party may have been more realistic - indeed it became a Gentile church. The Jerusalem conference may have been the most important meeting in the history of Christianity, for it enabled the followers of Jesus to move beyond Judaism to the ends of the earth, but as an expansion of “Israel”, not its replacement. The Torah is not eliminated but fulfilled of its prophetic intention (15:18). The way was now open for Christianity, founded on a Saviour “born under the Law”, to become looked on as a Gentile religion, alien to Judaism, especially to a Judaism for which the Law would become ever more important after the Temple was destroyed.
1 Came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. The issue was stated clearly to be one of salvation, which could not be obtained - allegedly - without circumcision. No salvation without circumcision! A shocking statement after the build-up based on the theme “faith saves”. And circumcision may have been more a symbol of religious commitment, with some doubt whether proselytes were required to be circumcised. And differing opinions among Jews themselves: the covenant of Noah (Gen 9:8-17) applied to all human beings and there was probably a moral code for Jewish sympathisers to follow, and which may have been the model for the Jerusalem Council decision. Do we add unnecessary burdens for believers? Do we make it difficult for non-Christians to come to or take part in our services?
2 Luke says the Antioch Church sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem - Paul’s version differs (Gal 2). But both writers may be partial - we have to look behind the detail for the theological messages. Paul may have disparaged the “so-called pillars of the Church” (Gal 2:9) in Jerusalem, but it is clear they were important to others and that Paul could not ignore them - nor any decision they might make - whether it was an authoritative decision by Jerusalem, or one made collegially with the Antioch church. Denying koinonia to the new Gentile churches would produce a division which would negate the very nature of the whole Church. They have to go to Jerusalem and settle the issue. Did the argument between Paul & Peter in Antioch take place before the Council of Jerusalem, rather than later as usually understood, and so prompting the necessity of settling the issue once and for all? Or did the Jerusalem Council merely open the issue, leading to further disagreement? Luke indicates that Paul was to meet with a small group, only the apostles and elders, as Paul also says. But Luke goes on to emphasise the importance of this meeting by making it more public (v 22). One might have thought the issue was settled after Peter baptised Cornelius (Acts 11). But admitting a few Gentiles into a Jewish Christian community was very different from extending koinonia, table-fellowship, to churches which were wholly Gentile. Paul’s expectation was that Gentile churches would be wild olive branch grafted on to the tree of Israel, and that eventually all Israel would come to faith in Jesus, and be saved (Rom 11:13-26). But the circumcision party were probably more realistic about the likely outcome. Those proposing change are often less realistic than those opposing them - cf use of local languages in the Mass, originally to be allowed for the common parts only, not the Eucharistic Prayers. The “Council of Jerusalem” (AD 49) was probably the most important meeting in the history of Christianity, determining that Christianity would go beyond the confines of Judaism, and become separate. Having 2 accounts (Gal 2) helps, but neither are impartial. Paul was there, but accounts by the main protagonist are rarely reliable. Paul says he will not change the gospel (of grace freely given to the Gentiles) for anyone (Gal 1:8, 11-12), yet he worries that he might “have run in vain” (Gal 2:2). Paul’s vision is of one church, and lack of koinonia would destroy that vision.
3 Their 300 mile route is the reverse of that by which Christianity reached Antioch, taking the opportunity to give news of their success with the Gentiles in Asia. This news is received with joy, strengthening the apostles’ case.
4 They were welcomed by almost all the Jerusalem Church - Luke signposts the outcome. Note the emphasis that it is “what God has done with them”, not “what they have done” - it is all God’s work.
5 One can perhaps understand the Pharisees’ argument: from their point of view Jesus is completing the covenant promises to those who show their membership of the chosen people by accepting its rules. Admitting Gentiles without requiring them to observe the Law is seen as contradicting the covenant with Israel. Jesus was the Messiah for faithful children of Abraham and followers of Moses. The Pharisees therefore state that circumcision is “necessary”, as part of God’s plan, not a desirable option. Josephus tells us of an occasion in which Jews attempted to force circumcision on inhabitants “as a condition of residence among them”, and another in which some Gentiles willingly accepted it.
6 Not clear who is present: here it appears to be leaders only, but 15:4 & 15:12 imply the whole assembly. Paul had brought Titus with him (Gal 2:3), an uncircumcised Gentile - a shrewd move - it is always more difficult to say face to face “You are not a Christian”. Paul also laid out his arguments privately first (in Gal 2:2, but not mentioned by Luke) - always a wise step, before positions become entrenched in public.
7 Peter witnesses - for 3rd time! - to his experience with Cornelius. His role is as a witness to what happened to Cornelius, not as Prince of the Apostles. The Gentiles, ie Cornelius and his household, glorified God by “hearing and believing”. The Greek could also mean that the it was the Gentiles who were chosen, rather than Peter: Peter’s words could be translated as “God chose the Gentiles to hear the message of the good news from my mouth and to believe” - subtly different!
8 Though uncircumcised their hearts were cleansed by faith and were given God’s Spirit. So no longer unclean or unfit to enter God’s presence in worship. God saw into their hearts and testified to their faith by giving them the Holy Spirit.
9 Peter fully accepts that God tells him to make no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles’ hearts were cleansed by faith - they had no need of circumcision, etc. They are clean enough to enter God’s presence in worship. “Things cleansed by God, you stop making common” (10:15). Peter was told not to discriminate because God makes no distinction between peoples.
10 Why, therefore are they challenging God (not humans)? Peter charges the Pharisees with putting God to the test (as Satan did to Jesus) and placing a burden on the Gentiles which has been difficult for Jews to bear: since we have often broken these rules, how can we impose them on others? Here termed “an unsupportable yoke” (cf Gal 5:1, Matt 23:4). Cf the challenge by Ananias and Sapphira (5:9).
11 Peter, in support of Paul, states fundamental doctrine: he extends to the Jews also the fundamental principle and meaning of the gospel: we are invited to be saved by grace, ie faith in the power of Jesus Christ - “the gift that is the Lord Jesus”. It would not be grace if it was simply a matter of taking on an ethnic identity. God has changed the rules: salvation is to be offered to all (it was originally, but Jews kept it to themselves). A better translation of an awkward sentence might be: “We are believing in order to be saved”. God uses the salvation of the Gentiles to reveal to Jewish believers the true ground of their salvation - reversing the allegation that circumcision is necessary for salvation.
12 Paul and Barnabas then describe what God has done among the Gentiles through them, as he had through Moses in the Exodus - again the emphasis is on God’s actions, an argument from experience, as was Peter’s. The report of their witness is sandwiched between those of Peter and James, indicating some tension - what would James - the brother of the Lord, and therefore steeped in Judaism - say? His decision would carry the Jerusalem church. So James is listed first in Gal 2:9. Most deafening is the lack of argument from Jesus: noone says “This what Jesus said we must do”. Because he never said this - indeed he said the opposite, and he several times tried to refuse help Gentiles (eg Syro-Phoenician woman). More likely that the circumcision party would have said “Jesus never said to do it”.
13 With no voices raised in dissent, James, now portrayed clearly as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, after Peter left Jerusalem (12:17), now sums up, clinching the argument by drawing on scriptures. If Luke can show that James approves, the “people from James (Gal 2:12)” are shown to be unauthorised. James agrees with doctrine stated by Peter, but adds pastoral requirements to enable doctrine to work in practice. [This was cancelled by Council of Florence 1442 as temporary only for the then ethnic reasons]. Note that - most tellingly - noone attempted to use Jesus’ teachings as an argument - Jesus spoke on this topic, because he never met this problem. The Church must depend on the Holy Spirit. This may have been the first of many occasions when people used as an argument “Jesus never did/said this”.
14 Symeon is Aramaic for Simon = Peter. Luke has to show that James approves, because it was people from James’ community who objected to the practices at Antioch (Gal 2:12). James immediately shows he agrees with Peter by saying that it has been God at work in the Gentile conversion. By having God choose “a people for his name” (laos) from among the Gentiles, Luke suggests both an extension of the meaning of “Israel”, the “people of God”, and a claim that the Gentile mission continues biblical history. The chosen people, Israel (laos) has hitherto been contrasted with “the nations” (ethne) or Gentiles. (Cf Eph 2:19).
15 Notice that what is now seen as God’s work enables James to interpret the prophet Amos (9:11-12) as having anticipated that after the restoration of Israel (Acts 1-6) the rest of mankind would be converted to the Lord (Acts 11-15). In the Greek construction of 15:15, James says “the words of the prophets agree with this”, not “this agrees with the prophets” (as in NRSV): God’s action shows how we should understand the scripture texts.
16 The primary sense of this passage - in the Greek version quoted by James - is the re-establishment of the Davidic kingdom and then the conversion of the rest of the human race to Jesus as Lord. All is now happening according to God’s plan. The Hebrew version makes a different point - about converting Edom: the translators into Greek misread Edom as Adam = all peoples. Perhaps by using the Aramaic form of Peter’s name and quoting Greek scripture James is seeking to reconcile different groups within the Jerusalem Church.
17 The restoration of David’s kingdom functions as an invitation to the rest of the nations to join “the people of God”. Amos 9:12: the Lord will raise up the house of David again & rebuild it so it will conquer Edom and “all the nations (ie Gentiles) that shall bear my name (ie have heard/received my word)” will stream to Zion.
18 Not clear whether or not this is part of the quotation - it is not in Amos. It could also mean “says the Lord as he does these things, which known for a long time”.
19 James speaks with authority - “I have reached a decision” - and sums their agreement as a decision that they should stop troubling the Gentile Christians by additional rules. “Troubling” or “bothering” ie “annoy” as in 1Macc 10:34-35 - implies some degree of harassment has been occurring, which is to be stopped. This is a potentially costly decision for the Jewish Christians, who may become subject to persecution - and ultimately expulsion - by other Jews.
20 He proposes that a formal letter be sent with this decision, the only such decree in Acts, adding some disciplinary rules which were probably no burden for Gentiles who were already associating with Jews in Syria/Cilicia and Antioch, although they might be for the churches Paul has founded. James is freeing Gentiles from Jewish rituals, but insisting they abstain from pagan practices, such as idolatry. These rules are now determined by the Church, but can later be varied, as distinct from the fundamental principle that only faith is necessary for salvation - although faith is invisible unless demonstrated in good works. But history is often more complicated: Paul appears not to be aware of these requirements when he writes to the Galatians, where the only requirement is to care for the poor (Gal 2:10-11), until James tells him later (21:25), but it appears to be in effect when Luke is writing. Perhaps there were two meetings: agreeing that Peter would mission to the circumcised and Paul to the Gentiles failed to resolve the problems in mixed communities, so additional rules were imposed.. These were already required of non-Jews living among Jews (Lev 17-18). Avoiding meat sacrificed to idols is understandable out of charity towards Jewish Christians. The meat of strangled animals contains blood, which the Jews were forbidden to eat, and unlawful marriage probably refers to marriage within close degrees of kindred (Lev 17). [Adultery, etc in Lev 18]. Overall these restrictions protected the community and the family. In effect the decision is realistic: no needful circumcision, but no needless offence.
21 These basic requirements of Moses are proclaimed widely in Jewish towns, and so are known to Gentiles in these regions, and widely prescribed for aliens living among Jews (Gen 9:4, Lev 17:7-10). So would not seem to be a problem for Gentile Christians. By Luke’s time the problem of table fellowship had disappeared, and with it the food laws, as most churches were predominantly Gentile.
22 With the letter two representatives of the Jerusalem Church are sent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas to carry, authenticate and explain the letter. James does not decide alone: it is necessary for the apostles and elders and the whole church to agree. And further for the decision to be received by the Antioch community and accepted with joy, sending emissaries back “in peace”. The whole process, with prophets to preach, console and explain, is necessary. The result is neither abject submission to a divine but incomprehensible judgement, nor manipulation by politically motivated religious leaders, but is portrayed - somewhat idealistically - as a carefully argued synergism of God’s actions and human faith.
23 The letter is in standard Greek form. Antioch is the capital of the double province Syria-Cilicia, in which Paul has worked (Gal 1:21, Acts 15:41). But in James’ reminder (21:25) there is no geographical restriction: the letter was intended for “the Gentiles who have believed”. But Paul made no mention of this decree in 1Corinthians, so did the decree apply only to the areas mentioned in it (Antioch, Syria, Cilicia) and not in Achaia? Is this why Paul went further? Or was their no decree about conditions for table fellowship, just an agreement to divide the mission between Peter & Paul (Gal 2:7-8), plus a collection (Gal 2:10)? We can agree that there was an important meeting about the Gentile mission - its legitimacy and manner, and its religious basis was not in dispute: the mission was a matter of God’s gift, & Peter & Paul were equally doing God’s work. How these issues were resolved by jointly seeking to discern God’s actions is an essential aspect of Luke’s narrative. Priority is given to narratives of personal experience. Peter , Paul & Barnabas are not pleading a case, but witnessing to what they have seen and the insights they obtained from these events. These open up new ways of seeing God working, and new understandings of Scripture (eg James seeing Amos in a new way).
24 This is the closest Luke comes to Paul’s version that the trouble started with “certain men come from James”. They came “from us” but “were not authorised by us”.
25 The decision is unanimous - koinonia can be maintained. The only use of “beloved” in Acts; in Luke’s Gospel it is used only to refer to Jesus. “Beloved” here implies Paul is one of us, not to be marginalised.
26 Warm supportive words about Paul and Barnabas “who have dedicated their lives to the Lord”.
28 The Holy Spirit is lead author of the decision - it all God’s work. Literally: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”. Not equal partners: the Church’s decision has caught up with and confirmed a decision already made by God. Luke provides a model for future decision-making in the Church. It may be idealised, but Luke’s sense of how it should have happened strongly influences how it happens in future. Luke’s skill shows in how he has shaped the fundamental issues at stake: the “people of God” is re-defined as based on messianic faith, not ethnic origin or ritual observance; the Church’s responsibility is to discern God’s action, not dictate them, and to open the scriptures to further interpretation, not to close them; and that the Church is equally open to all nations, since God does not discriminate. The “necessities” here are clearly not necessary for salvation, but required pastorally for communion between Jew and Gentile believers. Formal church documents used abstract language from the beginning!!
29 Cf Gal 2:11 - the situation was probably rather more complex than Luke indicates. It may be that initially the Antioch Church is free of even the food laws, with even Peter participating in this free practice, until a further visit by men from James leads to Peter retracting, much to Paul’s anger. But Paul’s churches remain free from the food laws - perhaps James’ writ only covered Antioch, Syria ans Cilicia. Koinonia was preserved about the essential: Gentiles do not have to become Jews. But that does not mean uniformity of lifestyle. Paul calls freedom from the food laws “an issue of gospel truth”: others did not agree. “You will do well” - ie both morally right and fitting, and help us avoid problems. But not “you won’t be saved”!
31 The decree was received at Antioch with delight: Church decisions have to be accepted to be effective.
32 There is little indication in NT about the role of prophets, so this verse is important in describing a major function as encouraging and strengthening the community, exhorting = preaching? (Cf 1 Cor 14). It may be that Judas & Silas not only conveyed the decision but also - as prophets - showed at some length how this decision fulfilled the scriptures.
33 Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem - in peace, so reconciliation has been achieved. Attacks may still come from outside, but the Church is internally unified, as it expands to include ever more Gentiles. This issue has been resolved, and a process established for resolving future issues. Luke can now turn fully to the mission to the Gentiles.
34 But to get over the problem that Silas later goes with Paul from Antioch, later copyists inserted words to the effect that Silas stayed behind. But we don’t know the timescale.
35 Paul and Barnabas appear to be rooted in the Antioch community, continuing proclaiming to unbelievers and teaching believers there for some time.
36 Perhaps prompted by the later disagreement with Peter, and lack of support from Barnabas (Gal 2:11ff), Paul decides to make a pastoral visit - of oversight/inspection - to the young churches in Asia, starting a second phase of mission, 2 journeys extending over AD 50-58 (AD 50-52, 54-58), which also includes the major step of ranging much further and crossing over into Greece, where some of the most important Pauline churches would be founded. And most of Paul’s undisputed letters would be written during this period. The following chapters are essentially “the acts of Paul”, a new phase in the Christian mission, based on the Antioch community, and independent of Jerusalem.
37 Barnabas assumes it will be the same team as before.
38 But Paul was clearly upset at John Mark’s desertion earlier - the Greek words imply some emotion. He almost seems to have seen it as John Mark failing to carry out the task God had given him - Paul was a driven fanatic, unwilling to give a second chance, as he was given. Luke appears to share Paul’s disapproval of John Mark’s desertion - in the sense of apostasy -emphasising “that one”.
39 After a sharp disagreement (or huge row - paroxysmos), Barnabas leaves with John Mark for Cyprus, his home island. We are told that John Mark was Barnabas’ cousin (Col 4:10) so there may be family ties/support. Barnabas, “son of encouragement”, may have thought Mark had matured and needed another chance. And although Luke does not mention Barnabas again, the break appears not to be permanent because both Barnabas and Mark are later described by Paul as co-workers (Gal 2:9, 1 Cor 9:6, Phlm 24). But Luke’s language seems to indicate something more than personal preference. He may be using the disagreement about Mark to avoid highlighting the more inflammatory disagreement with Barnabas over table fellowship. Perhaps Barnabas had been involved more deeply in the circumcision issue, and had not supported Paul, but even siding with Peter (Gal 2:13). This concern is further complicated by Paul’s decision that Timothy should be circumcised (16:3), of which more later.
40 Paul takes Silas, who is almost certainly the Silvanus referred to later (2 Cor 1:19, 1 Thess 1:1). As an important leader of the Jerusalem Church, Silas provides a link to Jerusalem, indicating that Church’s approval for his work with the Gentiles. He was also a Roman citizen, like Paul. About AD 50. God works even through disagreements - now there are 2 missionary teams! Later breach appears healed: Paul seeks Barnabas’ support (1 Cor 9:6), calls him co-leader to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9) and mentions Mark as a co-worker (Phlm 24).
41 2nd journey about 3 years, AD 50-52.