We left Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, encouraging all the believers by telling them what God had done through them and how God had opened a door for them to preach to the Gentiles, Acts 14:26-27.
If there is one thing we know as Christians, it is that there are and there will always be questions that need to be answered. And when those questions come, we need to go out of our way to answer them. And that’s what Luke tells us happens next here.
Luke tells us that certain men who were apparently Pharisees and were in close association with James caused a great uproar in the Gentile churches, Acts 15:1 / Galatians 2:12.
Bruce, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The Epistle to the Galatians enables us to fill out the brief summary here provided by Luke.’
What they were teaching was submission to the Law of Moses, as demonstrated by circumcision, which was required for a person to be saved, Acts 15:1 / Exodus 12:48-49 / Isaiah 56:6 / Acts 13:39 / Acts 15:24.
They also taught that it was improper for a Jewish Christian to eat with Gentile Christians, especially those who had not been circumcised, Galatians 2:11-13. Their teaching didn’t go unnoticed; their teachings led to Paul and Barnabas raising some serious questions with each other, Acts 15:2.
And now, the united church has split into two distinct camps, circumcised and uncircumcised. And it appears from the text that Barnabas was taking part in the Judaizers’ acts of hypocrisy, Acts 15:2 / Galatians 2:12-13.
Williams, in his commentary, says the following.
‘It was one thing to accept the occasional God-fearer into the church, someone already in sympathy with Jewish ways; it was quite another to welcome large numbers of Gentiles who had no regard for the law and no intention of keeping it.’
Commanded by the Lord and commissioned by the church in Antioch, Paul, Barnabas, and some unnamed others went to Jerusalem to get answers to those questions, Acts 15:3.
The other men would include Titus, Galatians 2:1 and Galatians 2:2, says that Paul went up ‘by revelation’. Remember, the church is still in its infancy, and already we’re beginning to see a division within the Lord’s church between the circumcised and uncircumcised.
Notice a very important point in the very here. When Paul and Barnabas were on their journey, they didn’t stop everywhere and tell everyone they met about the problems the church in Antioch was having. Instead, the group reported the conversions which had been occurring in the Gentile world because of the preaching of the Gospel, Acts 15:3.
Notice also that they didn’t rejoice in the things which Paul and Barnabas had accomplished; they rejoiced because of the things that God had accomplished, Acts 15:3. Paul and Barnabas didn’t speak to anyone about the problems in Antioch until they got to the people they wanted to ask the questions to.
The point I’m trying to make is that what we talk to others about is our choice. If all we focus on is problems, we’re going to miss out on the things which God is accomplishing in front of our eyes, Proverbs 10:19-21. News travels fast these days, especially with the internet and telephones, but it never ceases to amaze me how news travelled fast during Biblical times.
Luke tells us that when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, they again reported on the good which had been done among the Gentiles, Acts 15:4. It appears from Galatians 2 that Paul first reported to a small group of reputable men. Why did he do that? Why didn’t he gather everyone together? Simply because he didn’t want to cause even more division within the Lord’s church.
Paul spoke to a small group of men first because by doing that, he could avoid a public confrontation between the apostles. Luke says that converts from among the Pharisees still pressed their point by saying that all Gentiles who wanted to go to heaven would have to submit to the Law of Moses, Acts 15:5.
Marshall, in his commentary, says the following.
‘It is possible that nationalist pressure (against Rome) was increasing in Judea, and that (Jewish) Christians were having to tread carefully to avoid being thought of as disloyal to their Jewish heritage.’
Constable, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The Old Testament taught that Gentiles would share in the promises made to Israel, Genesis 22:18 / Genesis 26:4 / Genesis 28:14 / Isaiah 49:6 / Isaiah 55:5-7 / Zephaniah 3:9-10 / Zechariah 8:22. The Old Testament prophets also spoke of Gentile salvation as happening in the last days, Isaiah 2:2 / Isaiah 11:10 / Isaiah 25:8-9 / Zechariah 8:23, through the witness of a restored Israel, Isaiah 2:3 / Isaiah 60:2-3 / Zechariah 8:23.’
What we see happening here in Acts is a perfect example of a grace plus Gospel, where people say we need to obey the Gospel of Christ, but we also need to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved.
Legalism is nothing new; in fact, it’s still very popular within certain religious groups, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. There are too many legalistic Christians in the world who are quick to condemn some people because of something they don’t agree with.
There are too many Christians who make huge issues out of things like what translation of the Bible we all must use. We can only use the favourite hymns from the church hymnbook for singing. We can only worship in a building that doesn’t have a kitchen in it.
We don’t rely on anything we do for salvation, but we totally rely on what Christ has done for our salvation, Ephesians 2:8-9. In other words, we don’t try to be faithful to live the Christian life for our salvation; we try to live the Christian life faithfully because of our salvation.
We need to keep away from the Jesus plus plan of salvation because all that does is create a legalistic attitude among the saints, where some saints think they are better than others, Romans 14:1 / 2 Corinthians 10:12-13. Paul and Barnabas have some questions from the saints in Antioch and these other circumcised believers in Jerusalem which need to be answered.
Luke says that the questions which needed to be answered were placed before the apostles and elders, and it appears as though quite a discussion followed, Acts 15:6. And I think that this too is an important point to raise here.
Luke says, ‘after much discussion,’ Peter addressed the rest of them. Acts 15:7. A discussion involves more than one person, and the reason I believe this is important is that we need to have many resources to get our answers.
We shouldn’t just settle for an answer from one person; we need to look at our resources and ask as many people as we can. And that’s what these people did, and then Peter addressed the rest of those gathered, Acts 15:7.
Although Peter’s actions were not always commendable, as when he dissembled in Antioch, it is clear that the apostle knew the truth. He insisted that God intended for the Gentiles to receive salvation through Jesus, and such was the rule of authority for the church, Acts 15:7 / Acts 10:28.
He reminded them that God had sent him to the house of Cornelius to preach the Gospel, and they were accepted on the basis of the same obedient faith demonstrated by the Jews on Pentecost, Acts 15:7-9 / Romans 3:22.
He asked why they would burden them with a law that neither they nor their fathers had been able to keep? Acts 15:10 / Matthew 23:4 / Galatians 3:2-3 / Galatians 5:1.
In fact, Peter said placing such a requirement on the Gentiles would tempt God. Instead of meriting salvation through perfect law-keeping, all would be saved by the grace of God, Acts 15:11 / Galatians 2:11-14.
Coffman, in his commentary, says the following concerning everyone becoming silent, Acts 15:12.
‘This thunderbolt just delivered by Peter completely silenced the Pharisaical Christian party, leaving the vast body of the Jerusalem church, assembled for the occasion, silent and ready to give full attention to the report of Barnabas and Paul.’
Luke tells us that the stage was now set for Paul and Barnabas’ dramatic report of the miracles God had worked through them among the Gentiles, Acts 15:12.
Luke tells us that James, the Lord’s brother, Matthew 13:55, Jude 1:1 / James 1:1, asked the group to listen to him as he reminded them of Simon Peter’s work with Cornelius, Acts 15:13-14.
It was God who first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles, Acts 15:14 / Galatians 3:7 / Galatians 3:29 / Romans 2:28-29. And he went on to quote from Amos 9:11-12, which he saw as referring prophetically to the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s people, Acts 15:15-18.
Robertson, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The passage in Amos refers primarily to the restoration of the Davidic empire, but also the Messiah’s Kingdom (the throne of David, his father,’ Luke 1:32).’
Notice James also quotes Isaiah 45:21 in Acts 15:18 to reinforce his argument.
Marshall, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The thought that the church was the divinely intended replacement for the temple is probably to be seen in Acts 15:16-18.’
James says this has always been God’s plan from the very beginning, that all those who weren’t Jews would be welcomed into God’s kingdom. And so James said that he judged that they should not place legalistic requirements on the Gentiles which God had not placed on them, Acts 15:19 / Galatians 1:7.
Clarke, in his commentary, says the following.
‘The rest either argued on the subject, or gave their opinion; James alone pronounced the definitive sentence.’
All legalists do is throw us into confusion, but they will pay the penalty for doing so, Galatians 5:10. However, here, instead of the church in Antioch going into confusion, they went somewhere else for another opinion on the matter. And so James goes on to list four simple rules for the Gentile Christians to follow.
James advised that the council write to churches and basically tell them they were not to eat of things polluted by idol worship or participate in sexual immorality, which was sometimes associated with idol worship, Acts 15:20. They also were not to eat meat from an animal that died by strangulation or the blood of animals, Acts 15:20.
These last two rules actually predated the Law of Moses, Acts 15:21. They were first essentially given to Noah just after the flood. Just after the flood, God said to Noah, ‘But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it’, Genesis 9:4. But since the Law of Moses was still being read in the synagogues, this served as a good means of maintaining fellowship, 1 Corinthians 8:13.
Constable, in his commentary, says the following.
‘James was not putting Gentile converts under the Mosaic Law by imposing these restrictions. He was urging them to limit their exercise of Christian liberty to make their witness to unsaved Jews more effective and their fellowship with saved Jews more harmonious, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.’
The group decided to send Paul and Barnabas back to the Gentiles along with some men closely associated with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, Acts 15:22. Judas Barnabas and Silas were specially selected to go help deliver a letter that explained the thinking of the assembled group, Acts 15:22-23.
Why did the church choose these men to deliver the letter? No one is sure, but one commentator suggests that these men might have been sent because they had not been associated with converting the Gentiles and would be ‘above suspicion and of undue partiality toward them’.
He went on to suggest that they ‘might use their influence with the Jewish brethren to encourage them to accept the teaching of the letter’. The reason why they sent these men isn’t vital to our understanding of this passage; what’s important is the content of the letter itself.
Notice the letter was written specifically to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, Acts 15:24. We must remember that there would have been Jews within these churches too.
The false teachings on circumcision which certain people brought to them were obviously causing a lot of confusion within these churches, which was deeply troubling them, Acts 15:24 / Acts 15:1 / 1 Corinthians 4:6.
Men were chosen to send the letter, including Barnabas and Paul, who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 15:25-26. Judas and Silas were sent to confirm what had been said and the decision which came from the meeting with the council, Acts 15:27.
It seemed good not only to the Holy Spirit but also to the council in Jerusalem that the churches shouldn’t be burdened any longer over the question of circumcision, Acts 15:28 / Acts 15:19 / 1 Corinthians 4:6.
Pierson, in his commentary, says the following.
‘They boldly treat the Holy Spirit as one of their number, a fellow-counsellor, who unites with them in the announcement of a joint conclusion; as though he, the Spirit of God, had sat with them in their deliberations.’
The letter contained four requirements for the Gentiles, which they were encouraged to avoid, Acts 15:29. We’ve already established that this chapter demonstrates that the Law of Moses was not to be bound on Gentiles for their salvation.
James’ conclusion concerning those Gentiles who were turning to God was not to trouble them except to inform them to avoid the following four things.
1. Things polluted by idols.
In other words, things associated with the worship of idols, like various kinds of meats. The apostle Paul made it clear that there was nothing sinful in eating meat that had been offered to idols, 1 Corinthians 8:1-6. However, some Christians with Jewish backgrounds at that time thought it was sinful to eat such meat, 1 Corinthians 8:7.
Remember that the Lord’s church is still in its infancy at this point, but can you see the danger here? This was a barrier endangering the fellowship between these two groups in this infant stage of the church. Therefore, the Christian thing to do was to avoid eating such meat if it would cause a brother to stumble, 1 Corinthians 8:9-13.
My point is, James was saying that Christian love on the part of those Gentile converts should motivate them to avoid such things associated with the worship of idols. In fact, James says that it was ‘necessary’ to do that.
2. They were to avoid fornication.
3. They were to avoid the eating of things strangled.
Why strangled food? Simply because the blood had not been drained from the animal.
4. They were to stay clear of the eating of blood.
Now, common sense tells us that other things were sinful and forbidden by God, whether one was of a Gentile or Jewish background. But why were these four things specified by James?
It appears these four things were specified because they were sins that were very common among the Gentiles. In fact, these were things that most Gentiles did not think were sinful, and now we see why this special emphasis was needed.
These four things also caused a very large barrier to social and religious unity among the Christians with Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. But I also think it is important for us to note that these things were not just forbidden by the Law of Moses.
In other words, even Noah was told about the sinfulness of eating blood, and that was ‘before’ God gave the Law through Moses, Genesis 9:3-4. Do these restrictions still apply to Christians today? Let us look at those four restrictions again.
First, things polluted by idols. There is absolutely no doubt that any form of idolatry is forbidden by God, Galatians 5:20. However, the eating of meats offered to idols is acceptable as long as it does not wound the conscience of a beloved brother or sister in Christ, 1 Corinthians 8.
The second restriction is fornication. Fornication is another work of the flesh, which is sinful and will keep us from heaven if we do not repent of it, Galatians 5:19-21.
The third restriction was eating things strangled. I believe that the context of this chapter shows us that every effort was being made to accommodate the new Gentile converts by not placing unnecessary burdens upon them. They have been accepted by God based on the death of Jesus.
However, since the church embraces both Gentiles and Jews, a courteous concession needs to be made on behalf of the Jewish believers. Nothing must be done by the Gentiles to cause needless offence to Jewish brethren. The Gentiles, ‘out of a spirit of love’, must make some adjustments to their menu and their moral behaviour.
Remember that immorality was viewed as a terrible sin by the Jews, whereas the Gentiles would not have been as offended by such behaviour, even though it was wrong.
I don’t think that the decision of the council is applicable today. Why? Because they were dealing with a specific problem that does not confront us today, at least in this country. Yes, the principle remains in force, but nothing more.
But the fourth restriction was eating the blood. Can we eat meat with blood in it today? It is important to recognise that the law prohibiting the use of blood for food does not come from the Mosaic Law. It preceded the law and existed in the Patriarchal Age, Genesis 9. This is the first indication of the importance that God attached to blood.
The Covenant with Noah was after the flood had subsided and Noah and his family had emerged from the Ark that God spoke about the Covenant, which was to be made, not merely with Noah but with ‘every living creature of all flesh’.
Notice the terms that God used in speaking about the covenant, because they are both important and significant, Genesis 9:9-17. Notice what God says, He says in Genesis 9:9, ‘I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you.’
He calls it ‘My covenant’ in Genesis 9:11. He says that ‘the covenant is for all perpetual generations’ in Genesis 9:12. In Genesis 9:13, He says it’s ‘a covenant between Me and the earth.’
In Genesis 9:15, He says, ‘I will remember My covenant’. And in Genesis 9:16, he says it’s an ‘everlasting covenant between God and every living creature’. And finally, in Genesis 9:17, He says it’s a ‘covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.’
Remember that this law was not given to Hebrews, Israelites, or Jews alone, because the passage makes clear that the Covenant that God made was made with all mankind, as an ‘everlasting covenant’, the sign of which remains with us even today, the Rainbow!
As so to answer the question, can we eat meat with blood in it today? Not according to what God said to Noah, yes, the Law of Moses isn’t binding anymore. But this isn’t dealing with the law of Moses; the issue of blood here is dealing with an ongoing covenant.
The trip that Paul and Barnabas made between Antioch, Acts 11:30, and Jerusalem and back consisted of about five hundred and sixty miles, Acts 12:25 / Galatians 2:1-10.
Luke says that they got to Antioch, where a multitude of believers assembled to hear the letter from the apostles and elders, Acts 15:30. After they heard they were to be accepted into the church without submitting to the Law of Moses, there was great rejoicing, Acts 15:31.
Further words of encouragement were delivered by Judas and Silas, who Luke says were prophets, Acts 15:32 / Acts 14:22. The brethren told them they could return to Jerusalem after they had spent an unspecified amount of time with them, Acts 15:33. Note that some manuscripts tell us that Silas apparently chose to remain in Antioch, Acts 15:34.
Instead of division, there was love. Instead of using a spirit of anger, they used a spirit of love. Instead of getting into all the rights and wrongs, they approached the matter sensitively and created great joy and peace within the Lord’s church, Matthew 5:11-12 / Romans 12:18.
The apostle Paul knew the importance of continued teaching and encouragement for young churches. He understood what it was like to be a baby, and so to avoid leaving these young converts to look after themselves, Paul approached Barnabas, Acts 4:36 / Acts 9:26-27, who was John Mark’s cousin, Colossians 4:10, about visiting the brethren in all the cities in which they had previously preached, Acts 15:36.
If there is one lesson the church can learn from this, it’s this: young converts need teaching and encouragement, Acts 2:42. Jesus says to teach them, baptise them and teach them again, Matthew 28:19-20. That’s one of the reasons why Paul wanted to go back to these young converts, Acts 15:36.
It appears from our text that Barnabas had a strong desire to take his cousin, John Mark, on the journey, but for some reason, Paul did not want to go with John Mark, Acts 15:37-38.
Luke tells us that John Mark had earlier left Paul and his companions to return to Jerusalem, Acts 15:38 / Acts 13:13. But both Paul and Barnabas were so firm in their opinions, even to the point of being provoked to anger, that they had to separate, Acts 15:39.
We must note that although they had a big dispute, they couldn’t agree with one another, even though they separated under the cloud of anger. This did not stop them from focusing on the good things about each other.
Paul chose to remember the good about Barnabas. In fact, Paul later used Barnabas as a good example of one who worked to support himself while preaching the Gospel, 1 Corinthians 9:6.
Paul also chose to remember the good about John Mark, Philemon 4:24. He described John Mark as one who was useful in ministry, 2 Timothy 4:11. The point is that despite this early dispute between them, neither of them allowed the dispute to hinder the work of God.
Luke tells us that God used the disagreement between these two great men of faith to produce two teams to go in different directions with the Gospel. And so Barnabas went with John Mark to Cyprus, which was his homeland, Acts 4:36.
It seems as though Paul took Silas, one of the leading men among the brethren at Jerusalem, with him, Acts 15:40 / Acts 15:22. And it appears he had to return from Jerusalem, but Luke doesn’t give us the details of how he and Paul got together. But as Barnabas and John Mark were heading off in one direction with the Gospel, Paul and Silas were moving in another direction.
From Acts 15-18, we read about Paul’s second missionary journey, sometime late in 50 A.D. or early in 51 A.D. He travelled to Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Troas, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Caesarea. Paul’s second missionary journey ended in Jerusalem.
Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia to southern Galatia, and along the way, they strengthened the churches, Acts 15:41. And its whilst they are on this journey that we are introduced to a young man named Timothy in the next chapter.