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.