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.