And certain persons, having come down from Judaea, taught the brethren, If ye shall not have been circumcised according to the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
The church at Antioch was full of new believers who had never been Jews. Then men came down from Judea and attached a condition to salvation, which forced one question: is Christ alone enough to save?
The rite these teachers pressed was not a private matter of conscience. It carried a whole system with it, and it rebuilt something God had taken down.
Circumcision "according to the custom of Moses," that is, according to the law, tied the circumcised person to Judaism. By asking for it, these teachers were trying to rebuild the middle wall of partition which God had broken down. There is no such partition in the church. We who belong to it stand on a completely new basis. Whether Jew or Gentile, we are made one new man… So these men came down and they said in effect, "You will have to make these people a kind of second-rate Jew. You'll have to bring them into our legal system, or they'll never be saved."
Notice what these men did not say. They never attacked the gospel openly — and that, one writer argues, is exactly what made them dangerous.
An addition no one had a right to make endangers the truth of God even more than the open opposition of unbelief. These men did not openly deny the gospel. They did not teach that a religious ceremony by itself could save anyone. But they did insist that circumcision was necessary for salvation. This undermines Christianity, which is not just promise but accomplished work… What does law or circumcision have to do with Him who is at the right hand of God?
Where these men came from mattered. It lent them authority they had not earned, and Paul saw what their message would cost.
These men came from Jerusalem, so they seemed to have the approval of the assembly and of the twelve apostles there. That gave their statements greater weight. Paul and Barnabas saw how serious their error was, and they "had no small dissension and debate with them" — and well they might. To insist that keeping the law of Moses was essential to salvation nullified Paul's gospel. It destroyed the doctrine of grace. It raised the deeds of the law into at least a partly saving grace.
The verse also gives them no title. It says they taught the brothers, but it never calls them brothers.
They are not called "brothers," we notice. In our chapter Paul does not hesitate to call them "false brothers secretly brought in." So even this early, unconverted men were getting in among the saints of God, despite apostolic watchfulness and care!
The form of the error changes; the principle does not. Any condition added to Christ turns the gospel into something else.
They did not say, "You are Christians, and that is fine. But now you also need to be circumcised. You need to keep the law to live a holy life for God." No, they said, "Unless you are circumcised, you cannot be saved." The first view is more subtle, but it is very dangerous. It is an attack of the enemy to corrupt this new testimony of God's grace. The gospel is one hundred percent grace. To put one percent law into it, as these enemies did, corrupts it… Today this happens in many forms. For example, some people say, "I have been baptized, so I am saved."
The teachers had no text and no apostle behind them, yet the disturbance spread anyway — and the trouble was carried to the one place where it could be ended for good.
They preach their legal doctrine boldly and without a doubt, as men of their sort usually do… One would think it need not have caused much alarm, for they could quote neither Scripture nor apostle for it. But the sheep of Christ are, sadly, a timid people. A loud voice and a confident tone tend to dismay them, if not carry them along… Jerusalem is to be the place of settlement, and for this very reason: the Jewish yoke is to be taken off the necks of the Gentiles for ever, and no other hands could do it so well.
- The addition. They did not deny the gospel. They added to it, and that addition endangers the truth even more than open unbelief does.
- The wall. Circumcision "according to the custom of Moses" tied a person to Judaism. Demanding it rebuilt the wall God had taken down.
- The weight. They came from Judea, so they seemed to carry the backing of Jerusalem and the twelve. That is why their words shook people who had nothing to fear.
- The measure. The gospel is one hundred percent grace, and one percent law corrupts it. Today the same error wears newer clothes: "I was baptized, so I am saved."
- The outcome. The question went to Jerusalem. There the very men thought to hold the right to impose the yoke lifted it off the Gentiles for ever.
A commotion therefore having taken place, and no small discussion on the part of Paul and Barnabas against them, they arranged that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others from amongst them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.
Antioch was a mostly Gentile church, and visitors from Judea had just told its converts that circumcision was necessary for salvation. This verse records what Paul and Barnabas did next: they fought back hard, then carried the question up to Jerusalem instead of settling it themselves.
The men from Judea were not adding a small detail to the gospel.
Men from Judea, claiming to know Christ, came to Antioch. They taught the Gentile believers that they had to be circumcised to be saved. Of course, such a mixing of Judaism with Christianity would corrupt the whole character of the gospel of the grace of God. Paul and Barnabas saw this and stood against this effort of the enemy.
Where a teacher comes from can carry more weight with people than what he teaches.
The troublemakers came from Judea, and that would tend to lend weight to their words with the weak and ignorant. Satan is always active to take advantage of this. Human tradition creeps in easily, and just as naturally flatters the flesh… We can never trust human tradition, even among disciples. God is jealous for His word. That word bears constant witness to Christ, and so it witnesses against human pride.
Paul had the authority of an apostle. Writers see God's hand in the fact that he did not use it to close the case.
God did not allow Paul and Barnabas to settle the question at Antioch. Such a decision would not have ended the controversy; it would have made two assemblies. But once the Jewish Christians and the assembly at Jerusalem allowed liberty to the Gentiles, no one could oppose their freedom from the law. The apostles did not settle the point by their apostolic authority, although that authority confirmed the decree.
Why send the question to Jerusalem? Because the trouble had come from there.
Paul and Barnabas themselves were unable to settle the dispute. Self-will cannot be beaten, even by apostles… Ending the dispute at Antioch might have been dangerous, however desirable that was in itself. The evil was deep-rooted in principle by its very nature. It would surely have broken out again later, and elsewhere — probably worst of all in Jerusalem itself. So it was true wisdom to take the further discussion of the question back to the source the mischief had come from.
The ESV says Paul and Barnabas "were appointed" to go; the older translation quoted below reads "they determined." Paul's own account in Galatians adds something more.
The whole of Galatians 2 gives us remarkable insight into what was at stake in the discussion, which started at Antioch and ended at Jerusalem: nothing less than the truth and liberty of the gospel. Our chapter says "they determined" that Paul and others should go to Jerusalem. Yet Paul himself went up "by revelation" — the Lord made it clear to him that he was to go… The Galatian letter shows that Paul was fully assured what the mind of God was in this matter, but that God also showed him he should agree to the question going to Jerusalem for settlement there.
The word "elders" was old language long before the church used it.
Elder is a word that has come down from the early family days of Israel (Ex. 3:16). The family was the model of government, and in the family the father, as the elder, had authority. The nation then followed the same pattern, and the heads of households became the heads of the nation… Acts 11:30 gives us the first use of the word for leaders in the Church of God, and it appears often in that sense afterwards.
The way the question travelled has been read as a working model for churches facing disputes that reach beyond one town.
We do not have apostles today, nor a "Jerusalem" as in Acts 15. Yet Acts 15 lays down an important principle for us to act on at all times. Questions that affect the Church as a whole call for representative brothers from the assemblies to weigh them together, seeking the Lord's guidance in prayer and consultation. No assembly and no person has the right to act alone in matters that affect the whole Church.
- The trouble — the demand that Gentiles must be circumcised would have corrupted the whole character of the gospel of grace. It carried the prestige of Judea, and human tradition always flatters the flesh.
- The resistance — Paul and Barnabas stood against it. The fight was for the truth and liberty of the gospel.
- The referral — the question went back to the place the error came from. Settling it at Antioch would have left the root alive, and the evil would have broken out again.
- The restraint — God did not let Paul close the case at Antioch. Such a decision would have made two assemblies instead of one settled church.
- The pattern — the church appointed who should go, and Paul went up "by revelation"; he knew God's mind, yet agreed to the referral. Questions that touch the whole Church still call for seeking the Lord together, not for acting alone.
They therefore, having been set on their way by the assembly, passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of [those of] the nations. And they caused great joy to all the brethren.
Paul and Barnabas leave Antioch for Jerusalem with a question that could split the young church: must Gentile believers be circumcised to be saved? Luke stops to record how they travelled, and what they told believers along the road.
The Greek word behind "sent on their way" turns up in three other places. One commentator asks why it is not translated the same way here — and what the church's act involved.
Is there any good reason why propemphthentes should not be rendered "set forward" here, as in Romans 15:24, 1 Corinthians 16:6 and 3 John 6? No doubt the heart of the saints was with them, not with the legalists. But there was also thoughtful and affectionate care for their needs along the way.
Why go all the way to Jerusalem? One writer explains the plan, and what the send-off showed.
The voices causing trouble have come from Judea. That is where a growing and fatal error may have its seat. The place to meet it is where it started, and with the full agreement of the leaders in the Jewish assemblies. Paul and Barnabas, with others from Antioch, are to go up there. The assembly sets them on their way, as evidence of its fellowship with them.
Luke's word for what happened to the Gentiles is worth defining. It names a real change.
This is from epistrephō, "to turn to." In Scripture it is the actual effect that goes with the new birth — a turning to God. It comes out beautifully in the Thessalonians. They "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Paul and Barnabas were able to make known to the saints the "conversion of the Gentiles" (Acts 15:3).
Notice what they talked about on the road, and what they left out.
But, blessed for ever be the God of all grace, He caused a noble stand to be made against such deadly teaching. When the enemy came in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord raised up a standard against him. … They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing — not the circumcision, but — the conversion of the Gentiles. And they brought great joy to all the brothers.
The two men did not keep the results of their work to themselves. One writer names the secret behind the joy that followed.
There again you have the servants sharing their common joy with the saints, and causing great joy. That is what took place in those early days of freshness and simplicity. I am only telling you what the Lord has recorded, just to stir us all up. … I know the secret of all this fellowship in the effects of the gospel. They had all one heart for Christ. They thought only of the glory of Christ.
The welcome changed with the place.
Paul and Barnabas tell what happened on their journey — the conversion of the Gentiles. The brothers rejoice with great joy. Here the simplest hearts enjoy the grace of God with simplicity. But at Jerusalem they met with greater difficulty.
The route was not wasted time. What they said on the way did its own work on hearts.
Everywhere, as they pass through Phoenicia and Samaria, they carry the news of the Gentile work now properly beginning, and of the wonderful power of God shown in it. This was a fitting introduction. It would bring hearts into accord with Him in the grace He has already shown. And it would make them afraid to cloud that grace by bringing in a principle that flatly contradicts the first free action of the Spirit — the very principle men would now gladly introduce.
after_note: DELETE
One writer notices what Luke does not say about Jerusalem.
The disciples in Phoenicia and Samaria showed great joy as they heard of the conversion of Gentiles. We read of nothing like that from the assembly at Jerusalem. Perhaps the strong party there who pressed the Jewish law made some regard Paul and Barnabas with a degree of suspicion.
- Sent. The church at Antioch set the two men forward on the road and cared for their needs. Its heart was with them, not with the legalists.
- Turning. What they reported was conversion — a real turning to God. The Thessalonians show it: they turned from idols to serve the living and true God.
- Told. They described conversion, not circumcision. They shared the results of their work instead of keeping them private.
- Joy. Simple hearts in Phoenicia and Samaria received the grace of God and rejoiced. They had one heart for Christ.
- Prepared. The news on the road brought hearts into accord with God's grace before the debate. At Jerusalem, Luke records no such joy.
And being arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly, and the apostles, and the elders, and related all that God had wrought with them.
Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem with a question that could split the young church in two. Must Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? Before any debate begins, Acts records a welcome and a report. The church, the apostles and the elders receive the travellers, and the two men tell what God had done.
The trouble started at Antioch, but its source lay elsewhere. So the men who could have settled it on the spot took it up to Jerusalem instead.
Sadly, Jerusalem was now the source of the evil. This disease spread out from the assembly in Jerusalem itself. Satan's aim was to corrupt the doctrine of the grace of God... It was far more important to stop the tide at Jerusalem. The apostles, the elders and everyone had to give their verdict firmly against these wrongdoers. That counted for much more than the censure of Paul and Barnabas on its own. So taking the question to Jerusalem was a very fitting and wise act.
Going there was also a risk, since Jerusalem was where the pressure to keep the law was strongest.
Suppose Paul had tried to settle the matter at Antioch and act on his own apostolic authority. There could easily have been a split between himself and the other apostles. Instead, the decision granted liberty to the Gentile converts. And it came in the very place where the decision would have gone the other way, if God had not controlled things by His Spirit.
The reception was genuine, yet the opposition in the next verse came from inside the same company.
The heart of the church beat truly, but now there were enemies inside as well as outside. This was not yet the conference, only the meetings leading up to it. There the wonderful works of God through the gospel drew out sympathy from some at Jerusalem who bore the Lord's name, and opposition from others. Scripture says plainly that those who at this time resented the liberty of grace had believed.
One detail of the travelling party made the welcome unmistakable. Titus, a Gentile convert, had come along uncircumcised.
Paul took Titus with him as a protest against that teaching which pressed the Jewish law on Gentiles, and as a defence of the truth. Titus was a pure Gentile by birth, and Paul took him up still uncircumcised. So when the believers at Jerusalem welcomed Paul and his company, they welcomed an uncircumcised Christian among them.
Their report is about what God has done, not about themselves.
They came on a painful errand. Yet the pain was not what they poured out first.
Here again they speak of what filled their hearts with joy — and that is important. I am sure of this. Often a servant of the Lord has a painful duty, and his heart gets filled with it. Even when that is right, this very earnest pressure becomes a real hindrance... Meanwhile your heart goes out to what matches His own grace. Then, when you do have to speak about the thing that grieves you, there is so much more power.
Commentators differ here. Kelly reads the reception as hearty. Stuart notices what Acts leaves out, and how the suspicion ended.
The disciples in Phoenicia and Samaria showed great joy as they heard of the conversion of Gentiles. We have no mention, however, of anything like that from the assembly at Jerusalem. Perhaps the strong party there that pressed the Jewish law made people view Paul and Barnabas with some degree of suspicion. It seems reports had reached those at Jerusalem about him and Barnabas that did nothing to improve their reputation as faithful workers and guardians of the truth... All distrust and distance seemed to disappear completely.
The verse names three groups. The last of them, the elders, shows how oversight worked in a local church.
Elders come into view as the fellow workers of the apostles in the church at Jerusalem in Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23. Notice that the text refers to them in the plural. The New Testament gives no support to the idea of one bishop or elder set over a church. It gives still less support to the idea of one bishop overseeing several churches.
- Root, not branch. Paul and Barnabas took the dispute to the place it came from, instead of settling it on their own ground at Antioch.
- Welcomed, Titus included. To receive the party was to receive Titus, still uncircumcised. The welcome answered the question before the debate opened.
- Reported God's work. They told the church all that God had done — the report put the glory on Him, not on the two travellers.
- Joy first, grievance second. They led with grace and kept the painful matter for its proper moment — and spoke with more power for it.
- Tested from within. The heart of the church beat true, but the opponents of grace were believers. So the verdict had to come from the apostles, the elders and the whole church.
And some of those who were of the sect of the Pharisees, who believed, rose up from among [them], saying that they ought to circumcise them and enjoin them to keep the law of Moses.
Paul and Barnabas have just told the church at Jerusalem what God did among the Gentiles. At once some men demand that these converts be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. What makes this moment so serious is who raised it: not outsiders, but men who belonged to the church.
Until now the trouble had come from Jews who rejected Christ. Here the objectors are believers themselves, and that changes the danger.
Notice that this is something new. The trouble is not only the envious Jews who do not believe. It is legalism at work in the Jews who do believe. This is the serious evil that now starts to show itself. They insist that it is "necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." In fact they thought that Christians would be all the better for being good Jews.
Their faith was not in doubt. Many in Jerusalem had trusted Christ without cutting their ties to the old system of Moses and the temple.
No doubt these believers — priests, Pharisees, or eager lovers of the law — were mostly true souls with sincere faith in Christ. Yet nothing they had heard in the gospel had made them feel that any of this was out of place. They saw no clash between faith in Christ and priestly service in the worn-out and empty temple. They saw none between faith in Christ and the ways of the Pharisees, or eager law-keeping. They had heard the tune of the gospel. But the note that would lift them up and out of all these things had not yet sounded clearly in their ears.
Older translations call these men a "sect" of the Pharisees. The Greek term behind it is worth knowing, because it explains how such groups form.
The word translated "sect" comes from a Greek word meaning "to choose." The same word is used of the parties among the Jews, such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees (Acts 5:17; Acts 15:5; Acts 26:5). … The teaching that is held and pressed may be true in itself, but it may be blown out of proportion or taken out of its place. The usual result is that a party or sect is formed. … God has given in His word everything the church needs. So there is no room for man's choice or man's will. He must be a humble receiver.
The whole weight of their claim rests on one word: it is necessary. That word invites a question, and the answer exposes the source of the teaching.
Who made it "necessary"? Not God, surely. In His infinite grace He had opened the door of faith to them without circumcision, and without any command to keep the law of Moses. No; it was "certain men" who dared to call such things necessary — men who have troubled the church of God from that day to this — men "desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions."
This was not a quarrel about custom or preference. One writer names what was really at risk.
The heart of the church beat true, but now there were enemies inside as well as outside. … So the crisis was grace.
Peter answers this demand later in the same chapter. His words reach far past that day.
God did not want to "put a yoke on the neck" of people whose hearts the gospel of peace had set free. … How could we ever accept the idea that God receives people in grace and then rules them by law? Impossible. "We believe," says Peter, "that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." … Those Pharisees were pulling down the very foundations of the Christian faith. And so is everyone who tries to put believers under the law.
- Inside — The attack on grace came from believers, not from unbelieving Jews. Legalism was now at work inside the church.
- Sincere — These were real converts. They had just never heard the note that lifts a believer out of temple, party and law-keeping.
- Chosen — The word for "sect" or "party" means "to choose." Even a true thing, pushed out of its place, forms a party. God's word leaves no room for man's will.
- Necessary — They called circumcision and law necessary. God had already opened the door of faith without either. The word was theirs, not His.
- Grace — The crisis was grace, and the answer is that God does not receive people by grace and then rule them by law.
And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.
Must Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? That question had already split Antioch. Now the apostles and elders in Jerusalem sit down together over it. Two questions follow. Why did this group meet? And how far can churches today copy what they did?
Paul and Barnabas could have fought this out at Antioch. One writer argues that God let their protest there fail on purpose. The answer had to come from the city the trouble came out of.
Jerusalem, sadly, was now the fountain of the evil: this plague spread from the assembly in Jerusalem. Satan's aim was to pollute the doctrine of the grace of God. God let the authority, and even the power, of Paul and Barnabas fail completely to stop the evil. This turned out for good. It was far more important to stem the tide in Jerusalem, and to have the apostles, elders, and all give their verdict fully against these evildoers, than to have only the censure of Paul and Barnabas.
This was not a local disagreement about practice. One writer sees God's mercy in the way the two cities were kept from opposite verdicts.
The truth is, the question was whether Judaism would be forced on the Gentiles. In mercy, God did not let it be thrown out at Antioch and win the day at Jerusalem, which would have split the church in two at once. Instead, in His gracious wisdom, under the apostles' guidance, He led the Jewish part of the church to decide that the old ordinances they clung to were not binding on Gentiles.
The verse names two groups. One writer points out who is not on the list, and who stays in the background.
The apostles and elders (not all the assembly) came together to consider this serious matter: were Gentile believers to be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses? Notice here that Paul did not take a leading part. Yet in Galatians 2:1-5 he makes it clear that he would not give in one inch to these teachers who pressed the law on people.
The wider company is not shut out, though. It appears again when the decision goes out, and one writer draws a working pattern from that order.
Does this not teach us something? Some matters, either weighty or special in character, may be better weighed first by the older brothers. Only then are they brought to the whole assembly for approval. In sending chosen men and a letter to Antioch, the whole assembly stands with the apostles and elders in the decision (Acts 15:22, 23).
The next verse mentions much debate. Writers read that not as a breakdown, but as proof that both sides could speak.
They allowed free but sober discussion. Both sides stated their case openly. There is no record of anyone trying to score points by stooping to the level lawyers sometimes show in court. There was much discussion, as verse 7 states. The truth is great, and therefore it fears no investigation.
One writer sees wisdom in how long the leading men held back.
We read of none but apostles and elders; but the letter is addressed from all (verses 6 and 23). The people had been disputing a long time before the apostles said anything. Peter and Paul were wise to let them wear themselves out first.
Commentators differ here. One points to what made that meeting unlike anything available now.
But did not the council at Jerusalem decide a doctrinal question? But at that time the New Testament was not yet written. The apostles were there, taught by God about the Church, and they spoke with an authority that now belongs only to the Scriptures. Besides, this was not a general council of the Church. It was only a local gathering of the Church of Jerusalem... All the circumstances were exceptional, and cannot possibly be repeated.
Another writer reads the same chapter as an argument against assemblies acting alone.
There, in conference, they settled the matter and found the mind of the Lord for both Jewish and Gentile believers... United consultation and united action had prevented a split among the assemblies, and the result was joy and comfort.
- Source. The false teaching came out of Jerusalem, so the answer had to come from Jerusalem. A verdict from Antioch alone would not reach the root.
- Stakes. The question was whether Gentiles must live under the law. A split answer would have divided the church in two.
- Gathering. Apostles and elders weighed it first. The whole assembly joins the decision only when the letter goes out.
- Freedom. Long, open argument came before the verdict. The leading men let it run before speaking, because truth does not fear examination.
- Limits. Writers differ on how far this meeting can be copied. One says the apostles and the unwritten New Testament made it unrepeatable. Another says it still calls assemblies to consult, not act alone.
And much discussion having taken place, Peter, standing up, said to them, Brethren, *ye* know that from the earliest days God amongst you chose that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the glad tidings and believe.
The church leaders met in Jerusalem over one burning question. Did Gentile believers have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses before God would save them? Peter answers with no opinion of his own, but with something God had already done through him.
Peter stood up only after a long argument. One writer draws a lesson from the fact that the Holy Spirit recorded that argument at all.
Verse 7 tells us there was much debate or questioning. No doubt it was sad and humbling that they argued like this, even in front of the apostles. But the fact is plain, and the Holy Spirit records it calmly. That should convince quite a few people how far their idea of church order differs from the earliest history. Even in the apostles' days we see how liberty prevailed, though the flesh took advantage of it. Destroying that liberty because people abuse it would be a cure worse than the disease.
Peter dates God's choice to a time already well past. One writer pins the phrase to a definite moment.
In Acts 15:7 Peter speaks of God choosing him to preach the gospel to the nations from the earliest (or ancient) days. He no doubt means the beginning of the church at Pentecost.
Peter held keys, and keys are for opening. One writer counts two doors that Peter opened with them.
The main use of keys is to open doors. So in Acts 2 God chose Peter to preach the first sermon after the Holy Spirit came down from heaven. Three thousand people were brought to repentance, and baptised at once in the Saviour's name. But these were Jews only. In Acts 10 the same apostle preached Christ for the first time to a Gentile gathering. The happy result: everyone gathered in Cornelius' house believed.
Peter reminds them of what they already knew. He was the apostle sent to the Jews, yet the first Gentiles heard the gospel from him. One writer reads that as honour God placed on Peter.
That gives us the particular work of Peter. My aim has been to show how God put honour on that blessed servant of His. It was by his mouth that the Jews, as a whole, heard the gospel in its fullness and received the Holy Spirit... Peter was used to preach to the Gentiles first of all; and Paul, I would note, was used to write to the Jews last of all. Both came at just the right time. This shuts out all thought of independence, since some might have thought Peter was out of his place. He was the apostle of the circumcision. Yes, but for all that, it was by his mouth that the Gentiles first heard the gospel.
Peter argues from history, not theory. One writer explains why Acts keeps returning to one Gentile household.
The fact was that God had already decided the point in principle by what He did in the case of Cornelius. We can now understand why so much space is given to that case in the Acts; for this is the third time it is brought before us.
The strict party in the church expected Paul to defend the Gentiles. They did not expect Peter to do it.
How sweet is the grace of God, and what an unexpected blow to the claims of the Pharisees who believed! And this from Peter! If Paul had said it, there would have been less to wonder at. The apostle of the Gentiles (so they were inclined to think) would of course speak up for the Gentiles. But what about Peter? What led the great apostle of the circumcision to speak like this? And to say it in front of the twelve apostles, in Jerusalem itself?
- Chosen — Peter traces the Gentile mission to God's choice, not to any plan or preference of his own.
- Sent — God sent Peter to the Jews, yet his mouth opened the door to the nations too. Acts 2 and Acts 10 are the two openings.
- Heard — the Gentiles heard the word of the gospel from him, and they believed.
- Settled — God had already decided the question in Cornelius' house. That is why Acts tells the story three times.
- Free — the truth came out through open debate; people may abuse that liberty, but destroying it is a cure worse than the disease.
And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving [them] the Holy Spirit as to us also,
A dispute had broken out. Did Gentile believers have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? Peter answered with a fact, not an argument: God Himself had already spoken. The verse turns on what God knows (the heart) and what God gave (the Holy Spirit). Then comes the short phrase that levels everything — "just as He did to us."
Peter did not open a new debate. He pointed back to the house of Cornelius, where Gentiles had received the Spirit years before.
There was much "disputing," or "discussion," and then Peter made a decisive pronouncement, by referring to the case of Cornelius, in which he had himself been involved. He pointed out that the heart-knowing God had borne witness to these Gentile converts by giving them the Holy Spirit — the same gift He had given to the Jewish believers on the Day of Pentecost. God had cleansed these Gentiles, as Peter's vision of the great sheet showed. He purified their hearts by faith, not by any ceremonial washing. In fact God had already settled the point in principle by what He did with Cornelius. We can now see why Acts gives so much space to that case; this is the third time it comes before us.
The title Peter uses for God is the hinge of his case. Men could only judge by what they saw. God knew what was inside these Gentiles, and He said so.
Ordinarily the Spirit came after faith. It was God who knew the faith of their hearts, bearing witness to them as His by the outward sign. They occupied the same level with the apostles and the saints of Judea.
That title carried weight in an argument about freedom, and the following verse names what God had seen there.
Our apostle claimed the same grace for the believing Gentiles when he pleaded the cause of their liberty against those who sought to put them under law: "And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving the Holy Spirit just as to us also, and made no difference between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."
"Bore witness" is the language of evidence. Peter names what God put on record.
Here again the gift of the Holy Spirit is quoted as the voucher upon which the Jewish Christians acted in their first reception of their Gentile brothers to a recognised position in the new community.
The witness was not given to good intentions in the abstract. Cornelius was already a God-fearing man, yet something had to be heard and believed before the Spirit came.
He needed to hear the word of truth, the gospel of his salvation; and that gospel went out once Christ had finished His work. Without this, as the fruit of Christ's work, the Holy Spirit could not be given. But as Cornelius and the rest listened, the heart-knowing God bore them witness; and they received the Holy Spirit as the Jewish saints did at Pentecost.
The event did not reveal every truth about the church. It did settle one thing beyond argument.
Peter's vision and the admission of Cornelius only showed that in every nation the one who feared God was acceptable to Him. In a word, the favour of God was not limited to the Jews. There was no need to become a Jew to share the salvation that is in Christ… The Holy Spirit — the seal of Christian blessing among the Jews, the fruit of redemption accomplished by Jesus — was given to Gentiles as to Jews. The Jews might be astonished at it; but there was no resisting God.
Peter stated this truth himself. Later he acted as though the old line still stood.
It might seem a small matter for Peter to treat the Jewish believers as Jews and the Gentile believers as Gentiles. That was the practice of his nation in past centuries. But in doing so, Peter was actually denying what he himself had established in preaching the gospel — that God now put no difference between Jews and Gentiles.
- Witness. God did not send an opinion into the debate. He had already given His verdict at Cornelius's house, and Peter only reported it.
- Heart. Peter calls Him the God who knows the heart: He read faith where men saw only an uncircumcised Gentile.
- Gift. The proof He chose was the Holy Spirit Himself — the voucher the first believers acted on when receiving Gentiles.
- Ground. The gift rested on Christ's finished work and on the gospel heard and believed. Without that, God could not give the Spirit.
- Equality. "Just as He did to us" removes the difference — Peter's own later conduct denied the truth he had established.
and put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.
Peter speaks these words in a heated debate at Jerusalem: do Gentile believers need circumcision and the law of Moses? He answers from what God had already done at Caesarea, and that raises a deeper question — what makes a person clean before God?
The argument was about ordinances. Peter answered by pointing to what God had already done without them.
Peter reminds the assembly how God had chosen him first to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. God had given the Spirit to Cornelius, though he was not circumcised. God Himself had testified to them by the Holy Spirit, just as He had to the believing Jews. He had made no difference between them, purifying their hearts by faith. ... For did not they themselves believe that they had been saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, and not by ordinances?
So what ended the difference? Commentators point back to the cross.
Peter receives a threefold testimony of God's purifying the Gentiles by faith, instead of separating Israel by circumcision. The cross had changed everything, and put no difference between believers, Jew or Gentile. The Jew had lost his old superiority according to the flesh. Both alike were now open to far better blessings in Christ by faith.
Could legal ceremonies have done this work instead?
Would the objectors argue that purification by legal ceremonies was necessary? Such things could really only serve to sanctify the flesh. But God looks at the heart. Now He had purified the hearts of those Gentiles by faith... So the ground was being cut away from under their feet — and by the apostle to the Jews.
So what does this cleansing remove?
Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as made known in the gospel produces a moral cleansing in the heart, the seat of the affections, cleansing it from the defilement that belonged to it as inherited from Adam.
Faith is never empty. It receives something.
Now when God's word enters the soul by faith, it deals with the conscience in a purifying way; it awakens a sense of sin, and produces repentance toward God. That is why Peter speaks of cleansing our hearts by faith (Acts 15:9)... It was God's word which worked in His grace. It was received not as men's word, but as what it truly is — God's word, which also works effectively in those who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).
If God has already done the cleansing, adding legal demands is not caution. It is opposition.
God Himself had worked to remove the difference between Jewish and Gentile believers. He purified their hearts by faith, not by ordinances. Could they dare to ignore the immense significance of this? If so, they were tempting God. They were opposing what He Himself had done, and putting a yoke on the neck of Gentile believers which Israel had never been able to bear.
The speech left Peter with nothing extra to claim for his own nation.
Peter thus formally abandoned all special claims for himself and others of his nation. He was from then on content to be numbered with those of foreign race as together sinners saved by grace.
Yet holding a truth and living it are two things. Peter later drew back from eating with Gentiles. One writer says that in doing so, "Peter was actually denying what he himself had established in preaching the gospel — that God now put no difference between Jews and Gentiles" (William J Hocking).
- Heart — ceremonies could only reach the flesh. God looks at the heart, so He worked where only He can see.
- Faith — His word received by faith did the cleansing. It dealt with the conscience, not with circumcision or law-keeping.
- No difference — the cross changed everything. The Jew's old advantage was gone, and both alike now had far better blessings in Christ.
- No yoke — adding legal demands after God has cleansed tempts God. It loads on a burden Israel itself could never carry.
- No special claims — Peter ends by saying that Jews are saved just as Gentiles are. The same truth must then show in who believers will eat with.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Peter breaks a long, heated debate at Jerusalem with one question: why are you testing God? Some believers wanted non-Jewish converts circumcised and placed under the law of Moses. Peter answers by calling that law a yoke — one his own nation had never managed to carry.
Peter does not argue about details. He asks what their own experience had already taught them. One writer sets out his questions.
Had He said anything about some extra work that Moses had to do in them? And what did their own experience tell them about the yoke of the law? Would they lay on these new disciples what they and their fathers had found impossible to carry? That would be tempting God, not pleasing Him: forcing on them what He had plainly set aside in His ways.
The demand looked small: one ceremony. In fact it bound a man to the whole legal system. That system came in with glory, but it brought condemnation, not rescue.
Their prejudice was itself a real disbelief of God's word and acts, and worse still if they held on to it. It put a yoke of law on the neck of the disciples that no one, past or present, could bear: a circumcised man was in debt to keep the whole law. The law was brought in with glory, yet it is a ministry of death and condemnation.
The word Peter chose was a farming picture, and one writer had watched the reality of it.
Many years ago I remember seeing the huge South African wagons drawn by twelve or even sixteen oxen yoked in pairs. They were magnificent beasts with mighty horns, but they seemed to groan as they lumbered forward with heads pressed down by the yoke. They looked very uncomfortable — but no more so than many a sinner whose conscience is weighed down under the holy law of God.
The fault was never in the law itself. One writer points to what happens when the law meets the human heart.
To a conscience awakened by the entrance of divine light, what can be more unbearable than the bondage of law? … Paul has told us how the law's own prohibitions stirred up in him the desire it condemned. The commandment was holy, just, and good. Yet when it came to him as it really is, sin came back to life and he "died" (Rom. 7:9). Before that, he had been so little aware of that sin that it seemed dead. This is the powerlessness of law.
Jesus had already invited the people that this weight was crushing. Sincerity made the load heavier, not lighter.
He addressed His invitation especially to "all who labor and are heavy laden." He meant those who were sincerely and devoutly trying to keep the law. That law, as Peter said, was "a yoke … that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear." The more sincere they were, the heavier their load under that yoke. … They could now exchange the burdensome yoke of the law for the light and easy yoke of Christ. They would learn from Him things the law could never teach them.
This is not only ancient history. One writer asks what God Himself wanted for people the gospel had already freed.
God did not want to put a yoke on the neck of people whose hearts the gospel of peace had set free. He would rather urge them to stand firm in the liberty of Christ, and not be trapped again under a yoke of slavery. … How could we ever admit the thought that those whom God had received in grace He would rule by law? Impossible.
And the burden has not lightened with the centuries:
So we see that whether in the days of Peter and Paul or in our own day the yoke is the same; the slavery and the bondage have not changed in the least. We find the same groans of despair both now and 1900 years ago.
- Tested — Laying the law on people God had already accepted is not zeal. It is tempting God, by forcing back what He had set aside.
- Yoked — One ceremony put a man in debt to keep the whole law. That system is a ministry of death and condemnation.
- Unbearable — The law is good. The weakness shows when it meets the human heart, where its own bans stir up what they forbid.
- Exchanged — Christ does more than lift the heavy yoke. He offers His own, light and easy, and teaches what the law never could.
- Repeated — The same mistake returns wherever believers received in grace are then ruled by law. The groans have not changed in 1900 years.
But we believe that we shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they also.
At the Jerusalem council the young church faced a question that could have split it in two: did Gentile believers have to become Jews to be saved? Peter's closing sentence reversed the question and put Jew and Gentile on the same footing.
Some teachers were telling Gentile converts they must be circumcised, as the law of Moses required. One writer shows what that demand really meant.
Under the law, circumcision tied a person to Judaism. By asking for it, these teachers were trying to put back the dividing wall that God had broken down. There is no such wall in the church. We who belong to the church stand on a completely new basis, because whether Jew or Gentile we are made one new man... So these men came down and said, in effect, "You will have to make these people second-rate Jews. You'll have to bring them into our legal system, or they'll never be saved."
Before speaking of grace, Peter appealed to Jewish experience of the law itself — a yoke their fathers could not bear. Loading it onto Gentile necks was not merely unwise; it was testing God.
God did not want to "put a yoke on the neck" of people whose hearts the gospel of peace had set free... Could we ever accept the thought that God would receive people in grace and then rule them by law? Impossible. Peter says, "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Both groups were now to be "saved through grace" — the Jews, who had received the law, and the Gentiles, who never had. And they were not only "saved" by grace. They were to "stand" in grace (Rom. 5:2) and to "grow in grace" (2 Peter 3:18). To teach anything else was to put God to the test.
The striking thing is the direction of Peter's comparison. He does not measure the Gentiles by the Jews; he measures the Jews by the Gentiles.
The way verse 11 reads is remarkable. It does not say, "they, the Gentiles, will be saved just as we Jews will," but, "we will be saved just as they will." The Gentiles could be saved on no ground but grace, and the Jew must come in on this ground too.
That reversal costs the Jewish believer his position of privilege. He is only too glad to lose it.
He does not say, "They will be saved just as we will." No — he says, "We will be saved just as they will": on the same ground, on the same pattern, in the same way. The Jew comes down from his high position of privilege, only too thankful to be saved, just like the poor Gentile, by the precious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who said this matters. Peter was the apostle sent to the Jews, and so the last man the law party expected to argue against them.
How sweet the grace of God is, and what an unexpected blow to the claims of the Pharisees who believed! And this came from Peter! If Paul had said it, there would have been less to wonder at. The apostle to the Gentiles (so they were inclined to think) would of course speak up for the Gentiles — but Peter? What made the great apostle to the Jews speak like this? And say it in Jerusalem itself, in front of the twelve apostles?
Peter's words expose a confusion in the people pressing the law. They were unclear about their own salvation, not just about the Gentiles'.
Peter goes further still in verse 11. The attitude of these teachers showed that they were not clear about the principles of their own salvation... Jewish believers would be saved in the same way as Gentiles: only through the grace of the Lord Jesus, not by adding circumcision or law-keeping. Since this is true, no one could ask Gentiles to keep Old Testament laws and ceremonies.
The principle still holds wherever a Jewish person believes today. Commentators point out that the entrance is the same one:
In doing so, they take the same ground as the Gentiles; as Peter says — "We (the Jews) shall be saved, even as they" (Acts 15:11).
- Yoke. God had set these hearts free by the gospel. He does not then rule by law those He has received in grace, and teaching otherwise puts God to the test.
- Grace. Salvation comes through the grace of the Lord Jesus. Believers then stand and grow in that same grace. It is never a starting point that rules take over later.
- Reversal. Peter does not say Gentiles are saved like Jews. He says Jews are saved like Gentiles — same ground, same way.
- Speaker. Peter was the apostle sent to the Jews. He said this in Jerusalem, and it left the law party with nothing to stand on.
- Result. The dividing wall is gone. Jew and Gentile come in by one door. Adding circumcision or law-keeping to that door only shows confusion about your own salvation.
And all the multitude kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating all the signs and wonders which God had wrought among the nations by them.
The church in Jerusalem was split over one question: did Gentile believers have to keep the law of Moses and take on circumcision? Peter has just answered it, and now two men answer it again — not with arguments, but with facts.
The hush is not a pause for breath. It is the sound of an argument giving way — nobody had an answer left.
They stick to the point at hand. God had spoken plainly enough about it, and the silence that follows shows the effect. To have resisted would have been resisting Him. So they stay silent, while Barnabas and Paul tell again the signs and wonders God was pleased to give to confirm their work among the nations.
Barnabas and Paul do not answer the arguments. They bring evidence instead. God had put His own power behind a work that left Jewish rites aside.
No one rose to support what we might call the opposition; for the whole crowd kept silent, to let Barnabas and Paul give proofs of the real work of God among the Gentiles. Barnabas spoke first, Paul next. The main thrust of their speeches was to make known what miracles and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. This mattered, because it proved beyond doubt that God Himself owned the work among the Gentiles. He was working, and had worked, especially through those who refused to bring Jewish rites in among the converts in Gentile lands, or to put them under law.
The wording is careful. The signs and wonders are God's; the two men are the means He used. Kelly reads an older wording here: "all the multitude." He marks who was in the room, then compares the phrasing with verse 4.
There should be no hesitation here: "all the multitude" must take in not only the apostles and the elders but the whole church. It is worth noting how the signs and wonders are described: God worked them through Barnabas and Paul. In verse 4, by contrast, the more general work of the Lord is all that God worked with them. The signs and wonders were more outward, and the two men are viewed as mere instruments. "With them" implies more of fellowship and divine association than the exercise of mere power.
Here Barnabas is named before Paul. Commentators differ on why. One suggests he carried the larger share of the telling:
Here, at Jerusalem, Barnabas is always mentioned first. He probably spoke more than Paul, telling what had been done. Paul had worked harder than anyone else. But at Jerusalem it was natural for Barnabas to take the lead.
Another reads it as a mark of Barnabas's freedom of spirit, and sees the two speeches as one combined witness:
Barnabas is now mentioned first. Free from any jealousy or envy, he could evidently speak more openly of what had been done, mostly through Paul. Their testimony was this: what God had done in practice through them matched what He had settled in principle through Peter.
Scripture records that they spoke, but none of what they said. Peter's speech and James's it gives in full. The gap is deliberate.
The inspiring Spirit has not thought good to tell us what Paul and Barnabas said on this memorable occasion. We can see His wisdom in this. His aim is to give prominence to Peter and James. Their words were bound to carry more weight with the teachers of the law than the words of the apostle to the Gentiles and his companion.
May a servant of Christ speak about the fruit of his own work? Hole says yes, but with a caution.
We are not saying that the servant of Christ should never speak of what the Lord may have done through him in the way of blessing. There are times when he may usefully do so, as we see by reading Acts 14:27 and Acts 15:12. But we do say this. When the question is one of credentials — of producing facts that prove beyond all doubt that a man is a genuine servant of Christ — then the record of what he has suffered is far more convincing. A power other than the Spirit of God can produce signs and wonders.
- Silence. The room goes quiet because God had spoken plainly by what He had done. To argue on would have meant resisting Him.
- Evidence. Barnabas and Paul add no arguments. They supply proof that God owned the work among the Gentiles.
- Instruments. God worked the signs through them, and they were only His tools. In verse 4, "with them" speaks more of fellowship than of bare power.
- Humility. At Jerusalem, Barnabas is named first. Perhaps he did more of the telling. Perhaps he was a man free from envy, speaking of work done mostly through Paul.
- Restraint. Their words go unrecorded, so Peter and James carry the weight with the teachers of the law. Results alone never prove a servant genuine, since signs can come from another power.