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.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, listen to me
At Jerusalem the church had argued over one question: must Gentile believers be circumcised? Peter had spoken, Barnabas and Paul had reported, the room had gone quiet — and into that silence James asks for a hearing.
James does not interrupt. He speaks only once the room has run out of arguments. One writer traces what emptied it:
Peter had made an admirable introduction, and his argument reflected the grace of the Lord Jesus. It was right and fitting for Peter, the apostle to the Jews, to speak this way. He spoke not only from his own experience but from the sovereign choice of God. We can understand the effect: the whole crowd fell silent. No one could doubt Peter's strong Jewish prejudice. And no one could now question his claim that the Gentiles were free from the law. But there was another reason for the silence. They also listened as Barnabas and Paul told what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
One writer keeps to what can be known about him:
It is not certain that he was an apostle. Probably he was not. He was at the head of the Jewish church at Jerusalem. That is why the angel of the Lord, after bringing Peter out of prison, tells him to go and show these things to James and to the brothers (Acts 12:17).
His character was not in dispute. His own letter shows the kind of man the room was listening to:
The disputing is now silenced, and God gives James grace to speak for Him with authority. His letter makes it clear that he was no lax or careless man. The Jews of Jerusalem clearly held him in high regard.
The order of speakers was not accidental. Jewish believers could not dismiss a verdict from the most Jewish man among them:
Either he was the apostle James, son of Alphaeus, or he was not. If he was, he gave his voice as an apostle, and he spoke after the others. He was also the most Jewish of them all — the very leader of Jewish thought and feeling, as Galatians 2:12 shows, and other passages confirm — not to speak of his being the Lord's brother, which it appears he was. Here the Jews were forcing circumcision on the Gentiles. In a case like that his voice counted most, and it would close the question the assembly had been discussing. Peter and Paul had declared God's ways in their active ministry. Now James, the vessel of Jewish thought, brings in the conclusion of the matter.
Some read this moment as proof that James held a chairman's seat or a bishop's office. One writer answers that, and names the real reason James spoke:
James then summed up. Peter was evidently not regarded as president of the gathering. Nor did James pronounce sentence because he was "the first bishop of Jerusalem," as some claim. A single bishop in a city was unknown in those days. Where bishops existed at all, there were several of them in every place (Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5). The truth is that God the Holy Spirit was present in that gathering. He saw a divine fitness in using James, the most intensely Jewish man in the company, to speak the decree that set the Gentiles free.
The heart of his answer is one statement about what God is doing now:
James answers, saying that Simeon (Simon Peter) has told how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name (vv. 13, 14). This is a most important statement in its way. It gives a distinct character to God's present work... It asserts a special gathering out at this present time. It leaves no room for the empty idea that the gospel will bring even one whole nation to confess the Lord, and still less that all nations will be so changed. The truth is that, while Jesus is at God's right hand, God proposes only to take out of them all a people for His name. This is the church of God. It is as distinct from God's ways before the cross as from the ways that will follow the Lord's appearing and reign.
James speaks, but the outcome does not rest on his personal authority:
Jerusalem is the place where the matter is settled, and for a reason. The Jewish yoke is to come off the necks of the Gentiles, finally and forever, and no other hands could do it so well. It is an act of giving up supposed rights, and those who are thought to hold the rights must be the ones to do it. After all, in truth the decision is that God has settled the matter, and they have nothing to do but bow to what He has done.
- Silence. Peter's testimony and the reports of Barnabas and Paul left the assembly with nothing to argue. James speaks into that quiet.
- Speaker. He held the leading place among the believers in Jerusalem. Whether he was an apostle is not certain. His standing and his character were never in question.
- Suitability. The Holy Spirit used the most Jewish man in the room to speak the word that freed the Gentiles — the one voice Jewish believers could not brush aside.
- Substance. His answer defines the age: God is taking out of the nations a people for His name, not converting nations wholesale.
- Settled. The verdict was not James' authority imposing a ruling, but the gathering bowing to what God had already done.
Simon has related how God first visited to take out of [the] nations a people for his name.
God is doing something in this age that He never did before. At the council in Jerusalem, the believers argued over whether Gentile Christians must keep Jewish practice. James answers by pointing to what God is doing among the nations now.
James does not just add an opinion. He gathers the discussion into a verdict.
Then James, who held the first place at Jerusalem (see Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal. 2:12), sums up the judgment of the assembly, and no one opposes it. By the help of the Holy Spirit he gives definite form to the thought of God, expressing His will about the Gentiles.
The "Simeon" he refers to is not a new figure in the story.
This is the name James uses for Simon Peter in Acts 15:14. In 2 Peter 1:1 the Greek also has the name Simeon.
Everything turns on where this people comes from. God takes them out of the nations. He is not bringing whole nations to Himself through preaching.
This is a most important statement in its way. It gives a distinct character to the present work of God. It in no way denies that God had a line of saints in Israel, and before Israel, and, what is more, outside Israel. But it says that God is making a special gathering "out" at this present time. It leaves no room for the empty notion that the gospel will bring even one whole nation to confess the Lord, still less that all nations will be so changed. The truth is that while Jesus is at God's right hand, God's plan is only to take out of all a people for His name. This is the church of God, as distinct from God's ways before the cross as from those that follow the Lord's appearing and reign.
Getting this wrong distorts everything else about the present time.
God does not send the gospel among the nations to convert them as nations, and so make the earth a fit place for Christ to return to. He sends it to convert people one by one, and they are then taken out from the nations to be His special possession. If we are wrong on this point we shall be wrong about the whole character of the period in which we live. The gospel goes out so that a chosen people from both Jews and Gentiles may be called out, and that chosen people is the church of God.
The Greek uses two different words here. God visits the nations and takes out a people.
At the memorable council in Jerusalem, the gathering debated whether to force Jewish practice on Gentile Christians. There James points back to the Apostle Peter, and says that God first visited the Gentiles [Greek, ethnos] to take out of them a people [Greek, laos] for His Name. There is no such thing as a Christian nation [Greek, ethnos] in God's ways. Out of the nations God selects a people [Greek, laos] for Himself.
Those taken out are not left on their own. God gives them His Spirit and joins them to one company.
And all whom the grace of God takes out in this way have the Holy Spirit living in them. They are part of the church which Christ loved and for which He gave Himself.
This verse is only the first step. The verses that follow set out an order of events.
Note in verses 14-18 the four important steps: 1. God visits the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. This is the purpose of the present age. The called people constitute the church, the body of Christ. 2. After this I will return. This means the second Coming of Christ. When the church is complete and all its members are in that body, Christ comes again. 3. The Restoration of Israel follows after His Return. God will build the tabernacle of David again and set it up. 4. Then all the Gentiles will seek after the Lord.
This verse settles what God sends preachers and missionaries to do.
He says, "Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles." For what? To convert them all? The very reverse: "to take from them a people for His name." Nothing can be clearer than this. It sets before us what ought to be the great object of all missionary work. Every missionary whom God sends and teaches will keep this in mind in all his blessed work.
- Visit — God visited the Gentiles. James sums up the council's judgment in one line: this is the purpose of the present age.
- Out — God is not converting nations as nations. He is calling people out of them. Miss this and you misread the whole age.
- A people — He visits the ethnos (nations) and takes out a laos (a people). The Holy Spirit lives in them, and they belong to the church Christ loved.
- For His name — they are His special possession. In God's ways there is no Christian nation, only a people He selects for Himself.
- After this — Christ returns when that people is complete. Then God rebuilds the tabernacle of David, and the nations seek the Lord. So gospel work today aims at taking out, not at fixing the world.
And with this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written
James has just heard Peter, Barnabas and Paul report how God saved Gentiles without making them Jews. Now he turns from their testimony to a written word, and one short sentence about the prophets settles the first great dispute in the church.
James adds the one thing the others had not brought: a written word.
James now clinches the matter by quoting their Old Testament Scriptures. ... He was quoting the prophet Amos, supporting with Scripture authority what had gone before.
A quotation settled the matter in that room. One writer sees a pattern here that reaches beyond a single meeting.
Scripture shows us one of its own statements accepted as final in the great council of the apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 15:15-19). That statement governed not merely one believer (even allowing that he is a "spiritual man"!), but the whole Church of God.
James says the prophets agree. He does not say the prophecy has now come true.
Amos 9:11-12 is quoted in Acts 15, but not to show that the prophecy had then come true. It is quoted to prove that God had always meant to have a people from among the Gentiles. So the language of the prophets agreed with what Simon Peter had been telling them about what God had done in his days. This is not the fulfilment of a prophecy. It is the establishing of a principle by the mouth of the prophets, and also by the word of the Spirit through Simon Peter.
James quotes one prophet, but he speaks of the prophets as a whole. What they lay down is a principle, and it leaves the fallen tent of David where Amos put it.
James quotes the broad fact from the Greek version, and it agrees with the principle the prophets laid down in general: that all the nations should be called by the Lord's name. The Lord has not yet raised up the tent of David, and James's quotation does not hint that He has. Neither he nor any other apostle ever says that the church of God is the same thing as the tent of David. The whole system that identifies them is foreign to Scripture and opposed to it... this error lowers our own dignity, and robs the ancient people of that hope for which God's providence keeps them despite their present unbelief.
The pressure at Jerusalem was to make Gentile believers take on circumcision and Jewish custom. Amos had already spoken of non-Jews bearing God's name.
The word given through Amos answered directly for James in Acts 15. There the apostle was insisting on the independence of Gentile believers: no one was to require them to be circumcised or to take up the customs of Israel. Amos hints at this, and James quotes him, to show that God would adopt the Gentiles (or have His name called on them acceptably) in a way quite independent of the Jews.
Readers have made the closing words of the quotation — Gentiles called by God's name — prove more than they say.
It is an error to think that these last words refer to the mystery of joining believing Gentiles with faithful Jews in one body, the church. Romans 16:25-26 and Ephesians 3:5-6 do refer to that mystery. Our text does not. It speaks of God's gracious recognition of those among the nations who believe as His own, though they are still Gentiles — whether under the gospel now or in the future kingdom.
Compare Acts 15:16-17 with Amos 9:11-12 and the wording differs. One writer traces that to the version James used.
James quotes from the Greek version of Amos, and not even from that with exactness. But on the point in hand — Gentiles to be called by God's name — he quotes the Greek word for word.
That a short, seldom-read book supplied the decisive line has its own lesson.
So the Spirit used Amos to serve two great occasions in the New Testament history of the Church: Stephen's words in Acts 7 and James' words in Acts 15. We might think of Amos as a distant and unnoticed part of the word of God. But it is beautiful to see in this way that we are to live "by every word of God." We do not know in what obscure corner of the book that Scripture may lie which the Holy Spirit has fitted and destined to stand by the soul in the trying hour.
- Question — A written word, not experience alone, ended the dispute over circumcising Gentile converts. The whole church took it as final.
- Agreement — James claims harmony, not fulfilment. The prophets lay down a principle: God always meant to have a people from the nations.
- Reserve — God has not yet raised the fallen tent of David. Israel's hope stands untouched, and the church is not that tent.
- Scope — Amos secures one thing. Gentiles bear God's name as Gentiles, without becoming Jews. The church as one body is taught elsewhere.
- Source — The deciding line came from a short, rarely read prophet, quoted word for word where it counted. No part of Scripture is spare.
After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen, and will rebuild its ruins, and will set it up,
James is speaking at the council in Jerusalem, where the church was arguing over one question: must Gentile believers take circumcision and keep the law of Moses? James answers by quoting the prophet Amos, and those words look ahead to a rebuilt house of David and to nations that bear God's name.
Why would a prophecy about David's fallen house settle a dispute about circumcision? Because of what it promises the nations.
This is the well-known principle James applied at the council in Jerusalem: under the gospel God has the right to accept Gentiles without circumcising them. His argument is that they do not need to become Jews in all but name to get the blessing of God and to bear His name. To be circumcised is, in practice, to stop being a Gentile and to become a Jew. But now God is really making not Jews but Christians. So forcing circumcision on Gentiles who believed was a complete mistake.
Commentators differ over how much the tent itself carries here. One writer holds that James's point lay in the words that follow it.
In the words James quotes (and he quotes them from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament), the point is this: "all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called." So they were not to trouble the Gentiles. As for "the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down," that has nothing to do with why he quotes the passage.
What exactly had fallen? Older translations, which these writers quote, say "tabernacle" where the ESV says "tent".
The word 'tabernacle' sometimes means a temporary dwelling place, which can be new — see Matthew 17:4. At other times it means a dwelling place in ruins. That is the sense here. The 'house of David' has 'fallen', that is, it has fallen into ruin. David's descendants lived under Roman occupation, they had no king, and so on. But God would rebuild 'its ruins'.
The promise reaches further than repair work. It joins a divided kingdom into one, and it closes every gap the years had opened.
God would not allow Judah and Israel merely to flourish as separate powers. He will reunite them and establish the rights of the united kingdom. He will wall up their breaches, for the breaches were many, some from weakness inside and some from violence outside.
The order of events is part of the message. Verses 14-18 set out what God is doing now and what comes next.
Note in verses 14-18 the four important steps: 1. God visits the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. This is the purpose of the present age. The called people constitute the church, the body of Christ. 2. After this I will return. This means the second Coming of Christ. When the Church is complete and all its members have been added to that body, Christ comes again — first, as later revealed, for His saints, and then with them. 3. The Restoration of Israel follows after His Return. The Tabernacle of David will be built again and will be set up. 4. Then all the Gentiles will seek after the Lord.
Some read this verse as saying the church is the repaired ruins of Israel. Commentators here answer that no such rebuilding has happened yet.
The book of Acts is not a history of the Church as such, but of the change from Judaism into Christianity. James does not quote this scripture to prove that the tabernacle of David had been rebuilt. It certainly is not rebuilt yet. He quotes it to show that Gentiles come within the blessed purposes of God's grace. In other words, this passage says nothing about the Church.
Amos said the tent would be rebuilt "as in the days of old." Those words are missing here, and what is coming is more than a restored past.
The 'tabernacle of David' will be built up to a state far better and higher than 'in the days of old'. This will be under the thousand-year reign of Christ, when He has put down every enemy and reigns in righteousness and peace.
The rebuilt house has a rightful ruler, and He is why any nation is blessed at all.
He quotes Amos 9:11-12, which shows that Gentiles would be blessed by having God's name called on them, and that this goes with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David. Of course, Christ is the true Prince of the house of David, and in Christ alone Gentiles as well as Jews find blessing.
- Ruin. The "tent of David" is the royal house in collapse: no king, foreign rule, rubble where a throne belonged.
- Return. God first takes a people out of the nations for His name. Then He returns.
- Rebuild. Only after that does He raise the fallen house, so the church is not the repaired ruins of Israel.
- Room. Amos speaks of Gentiles who bear God's name, so no Gentile ever had to become a Jew to be blessed.
- Reign. What rises will surpass "the days of old," because the true Prince of David's house will reign in righteousness and peace.
so that the residue of men may seek out the Lord, and all the nations on whom my name is invoked, saith [the] Lord, who does these things
James has just heard Peter, Barnabas and Paul debate one question: must Gentile believers — non-Jews — be circumcised? He answers from the prophets, and his case rests on one phrase: Gentiles who bear God's name.
James quotes Amos from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. The clause that decides the debate is not the rebuilding of David's fallen tent, but the words that follow it.
In James' citation (and he is quoting from the Septuagint), the point is, "all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called"; so they were not to trouble the Gentiles. As for "the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down," this has nothing to do with his object in quoting the passage.
If God's name can rest on nations while they stay nations, then no one has to become a Jew first.
Here is the well-known principle James applied at the council of Jerusalem. He applied it to God's right to recognise Gentiles under the gospel without circumcising them. His argument is that they do not need to become Jews in effect to receive God's blessing and to bear His name. For to be circumcised is in practice to be no longer a Gentile, but to become a Jew. Whereas God is now really making not Jews but Christians. So forcing circumcision on Gentiles who believed was a complete mistake.
This promise attaches God's own name to people outside Israel. That was new.
Before this they had no connection with the name of God — that is, the Jehovah of Israel (Isaiah 63:19). Yet Amos (Amos 9:12) prophesied of Gentiles who would be called by His name. Acts 15:14, 17 shows how that part of the prophecy found a measure of fulfilment when Peter baptised Cornelius and his household.
Some read the verse as a prophecy of Jew and Gentile joined in one body, the church.
It is an error to suppose that these last words allude to the mystery of forming believing Gentiles with faithful Jews into one body, the church. Romans 16:25-26 and Ephesians 3:5-6 do refer to that mystery, but our text does not. It simply speaks of God's gracious recognition of those of the nations who believe as His own, though they are still Gentiles. This is true under the gospel now and in the future kingdom. Union with Christ the Head as His body goes much further, and it is said of Gentiles now as of believing Jews. But no Old Testament prophet reveals it.
The promise looks past the Gentiles believing then. It reaches a day when whole nations bear God's name and stay nations.
James draws from the testimony of the prophets the principle that Gentiles, as Gentiles, have the Lord's name called on them; the one prophet he cites proves it. The nations were so far from having to accept circumcision that the prophet speaks of all the Gentiles. This will be in the days of the kingdom, as no Jew could deny. They will not become Jews any more than the Jews will become Gentiles; both will be blessed of the Lord in their respective positions when the Messiah reigns. It was absurd, therefore, to object to God's grace toward the Gentiles now.
Read with the two verses before it, this verse sits inside an order of events. That order runs from today to the day the nations seek the Lord.
Note in verses 14-18 the four important steps: 1. God visits the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. This is the purpose of the present age. The called people constitute the church, the body of Christ. 2. After this I will return. This means the second Coming of Christ. 3. The Restoration of Israel follows after His Return. The Tabernacle of David will be built again and will be set up. 4. Then all the Gentiles will seek after the Lord.
The Greek wording of this clause is not the same as the Hebrew of Amos.
James quotes a passage whose scope has nothing to say to the matter. The Septuagint reads, "that the residue of men might seek after the Lord." The Hebrew reads, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom."
(The older translation reads "the residue of men"; the ESV has "the remnant of mankind.")
- Name. The heart of the verse is the phrase "called by my name." God's name rests on Gentiles. That is the one thing James had to prove.
- Not Jews. The name can rest on nations as nations. So no believer has to become a Jew first. God is now making Christians.
- Not the church. God here owns believing Gentiles as His own. This is not the union of Jew and Gentile in one body. No prophet revealed that.
- Not yet. "All the Gentiles" reaches forward to the kingdom. Then Jew and Gentile are each blessed in their own place under the reigning Messiah.
- In order. A people gathered now. Then His return. Then Israel restored. Then the nations seeking the Lord. Four steps, in that order.
known from eternity.
James stands up at the end of a sharp dispute in Jerusalem — must Gentile believers be circumcised? — and settles it by quoting the prophets. He ends with this line about God's works and His knowledge of them. The verse is short. But it carries the whole argument: what God is doing among the nations is no last-minute plan.
James was not claiming that these events fulfilled the prophets. He was showing that the prophets and the apostles agree.
So we see what was in James's mind. What Peter and Paul and Barnabas had pressed was in line with what the prophets declared. It was not in conflict with them, but in agreement. He does not say more than this. He does not mean that this was their fulfilment... The prophets teach that the Lord's name should be called on the Gentiles, not when they become Jews. So their blessing and recognition agreed with prophecy. God owned Gentiles as Gentiles. They did not have to be circumcised and become practical Jews. Yet the name of the Lord was called on them.
The force lands on one word in the quotation — all.
They of the nations did not have to accept circumcision at all: the prophet speaks of all the Gentiles. This will happen in the days of the kingdom, as no Jew could deny. They will not become Jews, any more than the Jews will become Gentiles. When the Messiah reigns, the Lord will bless both in their own places.
Older versions read "from the beginning of the world." The ESV reads "known from of old." The Greek word behind this is aion, which usually means "age." Here that meaning breaks down.
"Known unto God are all His works from aion" (Acts 15:18), where we cannot say "from the age."... "From the beginning of the world" might suit the context, but it would be no translation. And what lies outside that beginning of the world? Surely, eternity. In this sense then "from eternity" would suit, and all the occurrences would be in harmony.
Commentators differ on how to construe the sentence. One notes that "the reading in verse 18 is somewhat doubtful, and even the version, which may mean 'Who does these things known from the beginning of the world.' The general sense is plain enough."
If God's works are known to Him from eternity, then nothing He does is a reaction.
God has never adopted any remedies. He has arranged all His works according to the counsel of His own wisdom. True, to our short sight His works may look like remedies. That is because He will let the creature fail under the highest possible advantages, and so show that His purpose alone can stand. But there is a fulness of time when what is in His mind unfolds, and His own eternal counsel is what appears last. God planned and secured all the blessing and glory in Christ Jesus before the world began.
Deciding in advance says something about God's character.
What is worthy of God to do is worthy of God — and worthy of Him alone — to determine beforehand, or from eternity. Deciding beforehand, or predestination, does not change what He does at its appointed time. It only clears it of the mark of an afterthought, which would imply weakness and change in Him.
Readers often stretch the passage to cover more than it holds. Bearing God's name is not the same as union with Christ as His body.
It is a mistake to suppose that these last words refer to the mystery of forming believing Gentiles with faithful Jews into one body, the church. Romans 16:25-26 and Ephesians 3:5-6 do refer to that mystery, but not our text, which simply speaks of God's gracious recognition of those of the nations who believe as His own, though still Gentiles — whether under the gospel now or in the future kingdom. Union with Christ as Head, as His body, goes much further, and no Old Testament prophet reveals it.
This line is why the council could change its practice without fear.
Verse 18 is used in a pointed way to back up the significance of all this... God was not taken by surprise, but had ordered these matters in this way in eternity past. Of course, mankind knew nothing of this until God revealed it. But when He sees fit to change the way He deals with people, they should be gladly willing to submit.
The same truth is what holds the Bible together from end to end — the close of the Old Testament links to the opening of the New, and these connections "display something of the moral glory of the Book."
- Known — The works are God's, and so is the knowledge of them, from eternity. The Greek aion here cannot mean a mere age. What lies outside the world's beginning is eternity itself.
- Planned — Because God knows His works, they are not remedies. He makes no repairs. He secured all the blessing and glory in Christ before the world began.
- Worthy — Deciding beforehand suits God. It changes nothing about the act when its time comes. It only removes the afterthought that would imply weakness in Him.
- Widened — The plan reaches "all the Gentiles." God owns them as Gentiles, not as converts to Jewish custom. Yet this is His recognition of believing nations, not the mystery of one body.
- Yielded — The verse ends in submission. When God changes how He deals with people, His people can welcome the change.
Wherefore *I* judge, not to trouble those who from the nations turn to God;
The apostles and elders meet at Jerusalem over one burning question. Must Gentile believers keep the law of Moses, circumcision included, before God will save them? Peter, Barnabas and Paul speak first. Then James sums up and gives the verdict.
James speaks last, and his word ends the matter. One writer explains why his voice carried that weight:
When the question was whether Jews could compel Gentiles to be circumcised, James's voice was all-important, and it would naturally close the discussion the assembly had been having. Peter and Paul had declared God's ways in their active ministry, and now James, the vessel of Jewish thought, brings in the conclusion of the matter.
James has just quoted the prophets, and his "therefore" rests on what he read. One writer shows how far that reaches:
It shows us a statement of Scripture accepted as final in the great apostolic council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:15-19). So Scripture governs not merely a believer (even allowing that he is a "spiritual man"!), but the whole Church of God.
The phrase "my judgment" could sound like one man's opinion carrying the day. Commentators read it the other way — the words are James's, but the verdict is not his to invent:
James then announces the decision: the Jewish believers must not trouble Gentiles who have turned to God by bringing in Jewish religion. Though James announces it, it is clearly God's decision, not the decision of James, nor even of the gathered believers. There was certainly to be unity among Jewish and Gentile believers. But Gentiles were not to become Jews, any more than Jews became Gentiles. Their unity rested on a basis far above human relationships.
The trouble in view is not persecution from outside. It is pressure from fellow believers to take up a burden God never laid on them. Two voices at the council stood out on this, and they agreed:
Here, then, we have this great question settled once for all, by the Holy Spirit, the twelve apostles, and the whole church. None spoke more emphatically or more decidedly at this council than Peter and James. Both these eminent apostles were clear and decided in their judgement that the Gentile converts were not to be "troubled" or burdened with the law. They proved, in their powerful addresses, that to place the Gentile Christians under law was directly contrary to the word, the will, and the ways of God.
James calls them people who turn to God. He does not call them half-converted. One writer takes those words as a definition of conversion itself:
Scripture teaches us that a soul is converted when it is truly turned to God. The change may show itself very feebly, and be mixed with much that hinders it. But when it is real, conversion has taken place. The soul has a new life and new desires. Acts 11:21; Acts 15:19
It is worth noting that some render the words as a continuing action — those "who are turning to God" — a stream of people still coming in as James speaks.
The council's ruling was not just a fix for one moment. One writer says it is ignored today, and that the same word James used still applies:
The council of Jerusalem might as well never have been held, for all the notice that is taken of its decrees today. No one can deny it. All through Gentile Christendom Moses' law is sounded out in people's ears to this hour, with all the curses that come with it. This hides the infinite grace of God revealed in the Gospel. So believers are deprived of the light and liberty that Christ died to win for them, and darkness and bondage take over their souls instead. To put Gentile Christians under law in any shape or form is to "trouble" them.
- Scripture decides. James's "therefore" rests on the prophets he has just quoted. The council bowed to Scripture, not to rank or numbers.
- God judges. The words are James's, but the verdict is God's. The assembly only recognised what God had already decided.
- No trouble. Putting Gentile believers under law does not help them. It runs against the word, the will, and the ways of God, commentators say.
- Turned is enough. Conversion is a soul turned to God. The change may look weak at first, but when it is real, new life and new desires are already there.
- Still binding. Put believers under law today in any form, and you cause the same "trouble" the council forbade.
but to write to them to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.
James has just settled the crisis that split the church in Antioch. Must Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? He frees them from that yoke, yet still names things they must refuse. Why these, and on what authority?
James sets the law aside for these converts. In its place he names a few matters they had treated lightly.
His "sentence," or "judgment," was that the yoke of the law should not be placed on the neck of Gentile Christians. They should simply be told to keep certain restrictions, in matters where they were well known to be careless. Idolatry and fornication were known to be evil even before the law was given. The same was true of eating blood, as Genesis 9:4 shows.
These rules are older than the law of Moses. They go back to God's dealings with the whole human race after the flood, and that is how Gentile freedom is kept.
So this went back to God's ways with Noah, rather than enforcing the law of Moses. Noah was a sort of head of the whole human race after the flood. In this way Gentile liberty was secured. Idolatry could not be tolerated, and neither could fornication, however widespread both were among the nations. Abstaining from things strangled and from blood brought in the recognition that God takes account of man as fallen. God forbade both. He did not forbid man to use the creature, but He did forbid meddling with the special signs of death. Life belongs to God, and it was forfeited through sin.
The last two items are not the same thing twice. One is blood drained on purpose for cooking. The other is a way of killing that traps the blood inside. Both guard the same thing, which is why some writers count the list as three.
There ought to be no question that "blood" means what is drawn out of the animal on purpose for cooking. That is plainly different from "strangled," where the aim is to keep the blood from flowing out. God forbids both. He demands that man, by abstaining, should own that life belongs to Him. If anyone is so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them admit their ignorance and obey.
Many find it strange that a sexual sin stands next to rules about food. The three hold together because each one touches something that belongs to God.
The above three things are special. One is life, and it belongs to God. Then idols are the giving up of the true God altogether. And fornication is the giving up of the purity of man… To me these three principles express that man belongs to God, and not to his own lusts.
The rule does not rest on what people happen to feel is right:
The apostles did not reason on the ground of man's conscience. Conscience gives serious warning, yet public opinion and habits could darken it at any time. Among Gentiles those habits made as little of idolatry and personal purity as of using blood and strangled things for food. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer.
The wording of the decree matters. It answers one situation, and its aim is peace among believers.
It is a direction which teaches, not what is good or evil in itself, but what suited the case in hand. It was "necessary," not "righteous before God," to avoid certain things. The things might be truly evil, but that is not how they are looked at here. The Gentiles were used to certain things. It was right for them to give these up, so that the assembly might walk as it should before God, in peace.
So does the decree still bind believers? One writer points to the authority behind it:
They have the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things." What can cancel this? It was stated expressly for the Gentiles who believe, and in pointed contrast with Levitical ordinances. God's honour stands untouched, and so does His approval of marriage, not of fornication.
Another keeps the command, without the extreme caution that once went with it:
The apostles and elders gave this instruction to Gentile believers, as Acts 15:20 and 29 record. They were not imposing on them a mere item of the law of Moses. They were giving a prohibition that applies to mankind generally. We do well to keep it. But we do not need to keep the extreme scruples of the Jews, as the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25 shows.
- Freed — James's judgment lifts the law's yoke off Gentile believers. They need not become Jews to be Christians.
- Older — the things forbidden here do not come from Moses. They come from God's dealings with Noah, and they bind mankind generally.
- God's — each item guards something that belongs to God: His place (idols), man's purity (fornication), and life, which is His (blood).
- Distinct — "blood" is blood drained for food. "Strangled" is meat killed so the blood stays in. God forbids both.
- Necessary — the decree names what was needed for peace among believers. It is not a new list of what makes a person righteous before God.
For Moses, from generations of old, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.
James ends his ruling with a reason, and it sounds strange: he has just freed Gentile believers from the law, and now he points to the weekly reading of Moses in every city. What is that meant to prove — does it explain the four things Gentiles were asked to avoid, or does it show that the church had no need to defend Moses for him?
One commentator reads the clause as settling what the church did not need to do. The four things James asked for fitted the case in front of them; they did not put believers under a code.
It is a direction which teaches, not what is good or evil in itself, but what suited the case before them. It was "necessary," not "righteous before God," to avoid certain things. The Gentiles were used to certain things, and it was proper for them to give these up. Then the assembly could walk as it should before God, in peace. No one was to put them under the other ordinances of the law. Moses had those who preached him. That was enough. There was no need to force the Gentiles to submit to his laws, for they had joined themselves not to the Jews but to the Lord... Let Moses teach his own laws; these things went against a right knowledge of the true God.
The items James named are older than the law, so pointing to Moses' preachers costs the ruling nothing.
So it was going back to God's ways with Noah, rather than enforcing the law of Moses. Noah was a kind of head of the whole human race after the flood, and this secured Gentile liberty. Idolatry was intolerable, and so was fornication, however widespread both were among the nations. Abstaining from things strangled and from blood recognised that God takes account of man as fallen... Life belongs to God, and sin forfeited it. As for the law, there was no reason why the church should busy itself in that direction. The synagogues at least had the law read there every Sabbath. From now on the Gentiles might well rejoice in the gospel.
Commentators differ on what the weekly reading supplies. One takes it as the source of the four requirements.
James names these: pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood. His reason is that "from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." All could learn from the Pentateuch God's mind for men. So all must conform to that as worshippers of the one true God and sharers in divine grace.
Another reads it as an answer to jealousy for Moses: no one was neglecting him, so no one needed to press him on Gentile converts.
If some were jealous for Moses' sake, James adds that there were those who preached Moses in every city, so there was no lack of the law being proclaimed. But how much higher is Christ than Moses! Let Christians devote themselves fully to Christ, not to the law.
Here "Moses" means a book that can be opened and read aloud. That is why these words serve as evidence of who wrote the first five books of the Bible.
James says in the same way, "Moses is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21). Paul says (Rom. 10:5), "Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law," referring to Lev. 18:5. It is clear, then, that our Lord and His apostles regarded the Pentateuch as the law of Moses, and the book of Moses as the writings of Moses.
The synagogue gave that reading its home.
Jewish law authorised a synagogue wherever ten people could come together to form a congregation. Their service always included the public reading of the Word of God and exhortation.
The words reach past their own moment. Wherever people are told that their own doing is the ground of their standing with God, Moses still has a pulpit.
What Acts 15:21 says is as true as ever: "Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him." That is, there are people everywhere who preach works as the ground of blessing before God. Men's confidence in Moses is really confidence in themselves. They cling to the idea that there is some good in human nature, if only it gets a fair chance.
- Reason. Moses already had preachers everywhere, so the church did not have to take up his cause.
- Freedom. Gentile believers had joined themselves to the Lord, not to the Jews, so the law's ordinances did not bind them.
- Floor. The four things named reach back past Sinai to God's ways with Noah: idolatry and fornication were intolerable, and life belongs to God.
- Pulpit. Synagogues read Moses aloud every Sabbath. The words also show that Jesus and His apostles treated the Pentateuch as Moses' own writing.
- Rivalry. Commentators differ: the clause may give the source of the four requirements, or answer jealousy for Moses. Either way, the choice it leaves is Moses or Christ, works or grace.
Then it seemed good to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men from among them with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called Barsabas and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
Jerusalem had just settled a dispute: Gentile believers would not have to keep the law of Moses. This verse shows how that decision travelled — not by letter alone, but by chosen men who went back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Commentators are careful about how the church reached that agreement. Nobody counted hands.
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men would confirm by word of mouth the account of Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried with them from Jerusalem. The apostles and elders met together to examine the question, but all the brothers joined them in the letter sent to the Gentiles. So it was not the Gentiles who held on to their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was the assembly at Jerusalem itself that acknowledged the liberty of the Gentiles from the law. In this way unity was preserved.
Some had opposed it earlier, yet the record still says the whole church acted as one.
Notice, it can rightly be said "with one accord," even though some had opposed. Their opposition had been shown to be against God. The unity of the brothers held in the face of it, and the opposition was silenced.
The phrase used of Judas and Silas is not the name of an office.
Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, described as "leading men among the brothers." They were not apostles. They were not elders or senior brothers either. The council chose them for their fitness to visit Antioch. The same expression appears three times in Hebrews 13... They are not called elders. They seem to have been marked out by the ministry of the word, not by oversight or leading like the elders. Once we recognize this, it gives us clear insight into the far greater liberty, and the far wider variety of gift, at work in the church of the apostles compared with the narrowness of modern Christendom.
What gave such men their weight, then, was not a position but the word they carried.
There is moral authority in a gift. Official authority is another thing. If I have the word in power, I shall have authority in the consciences of those to whom it is addressed.
A letter on its own was not enough. These two men had sat through the debate themselves.
It was important to have men present who were themselves competent witnesses of what Jerusalem had debated and decided. This was far more than being the mere and cold bearers of a letter. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake. They also knew how the apostles and the whole church felt.
Troublemakers had unsettled the Gentile believers at Antioch. The letter and the witnesses answered them.
Judas and Silas should go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. That statement was this: those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had unsettled the Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas could and would surely declare that. The witnesses would then confirm it, backing up what the other two said.
Judas and Silas were more than couriers.
Judas and Silas are called "leading men among the brothers," and "prophets," who exhorted the brothers and strengthened them.
The place of the decision mattered as much as the decision. The trouble had started at Jerusalem.
This was the only council entitled to say, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." If others have copied the language, it is only profanity... The decision was most rightly taken there, where the evil had sprung up, and where the apostles were... Everything depends on the way, as well as the end, being of the Holy Spirit and in line with the word of God. So it was with this council.
- Agreed — nobody voted. Apostles, elders and the whole church consented together, and earlier opposition did not break that accord.
- Chosen — the council picked Judas and Silas for their fitness, not their rank. "Leading men" marks their standing, not an office they held.
- Sent — living witnesses went with the letter. They had heard the debate and knew what drove the opponents.
- Confirmed — both men were prophets. They exhorted the believers and strengthened them, so the decision came as ministry, not just a verdict.
- Settled — the way mattered as much as the outcome. Jerusalem itself acknowledged the Gentiles' liberty, and unity held.