Acts 15:19–29

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 are called "leading men among the brothers," and "prophets," who exhorted the brothers and strengthened them.

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.

The most ancient authorities open with a reading that almost all critics now accept. It gives a sense further from church tradition than the ordinary text. That ordinary text separates "the elders" sharply from "the brethren" that follow. "The elder brethren," however, is a phrase that exactly fits the state of things at Jerusalem. No doubt they were "the elders" there, as we find them called in Acts 11:30, and in Acts 15:2, 6. They were the local authorities. But it seems no apostle formally chose them, directly or indirectly, as certainly happened with the elders in the Gentile assemblies. They seem instead to have acted from their experience and moral weight, as was usual among the Jews. This fits remarkably with the unusual phrase used here, "the elder brethren," and it matches the tone of Peter's words in 1 Peter 5:1-4.

It is striking that the letter joins the "elder brethren" (now generally accepted as the true reading) with the apostles. This confirms the earlier point about the character of eldership in the Jewish assemblies. It also shows how little the genuine apostles guarded their own rights. In seven of Paul's fourteen letters we find others named with him in the same way. That style is truly apostolic. The men of those days still remembered the Lord's picture of greatness: a little child. They remembered too that He Himself had been among them as one who serves.

The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. The apostles and elders met together to examine the question, but all the brethren joined with them in the letter sent to the Gentiles. So it was not the Gentiles who defended their own rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was the assembly at Jerusalem that acknowledged the liberty of the Gentiles from the law. And so unity held.

There was, notice, no claim of the rights and primacy of a central bishop's seat whose occupant could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might, which had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from others not counted among the apostles, who issued a decree. It was brethren writing to brethren. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.

The question raised was vital for doctrine, and vital for fellowship too. If the troublers had been right, the fellowship of Gentile converts with those at Jerusalem depended on the Gentiles submitting to all the ordinances of the law. So they might well want to know on what terms Christian fellowship could continue. It was for those at Jerusalem to make that plain. This they did. Hence their letter.

He writes, as we saw, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and sends them greeting. It is not the salutation that the letters of Paul and the other apostles have made so familiar to us, but exactly the form of greeting used in the famous letter of Acts 15 from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, who wrote to the Gentile assemblies to guard them from giving in to legalism. And since he was the person who gave the verdict, it is worth seeing the link between what was written that day and what James writes here.

There were clearly Gentile believers there, for Cilicia is mentioned in the letter from Jerusalem about the exemption of the Gentiles from keeping the law.

What we have here is that the apostle and the Jewish assembly, by which God had begun the work, set the Gentiles free from the law, and unity is kept... The letter declares that those who had disturbed the Gentiles and subverted their souls had no commission at all.

You will see how constantly, how widely, and how bitterly these Jewish teachers opposed Paul and his teaching of pure grace... They were teaching the Christians this: the Gentiles had left idol worship and pagan religion, and had been baptized, so joining themselves to the Christian assembly. Even so, they now had to be circumcised and keep the law, or else they could not be saved. See Acts 15:1 and 24.

If we put devotedness in service, or the best of good works, as supplementary to the work of Christ, it is no gospel at all... These teachers said, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." The gospel does not depend on such "ifs" and "excepts." Bring them in, and they overturn the gospel of the grace of God. James, in this chapter of Acts, teaches the same truth that Paul teaches in his own letter. To add anything to the finished work of Christ, as the ground of acceptance with God, is to "trouble the brothers" and to "subvert their souls."

This letter from Jewish believers to Gentile believers breathes a spirit of love, fellowship and unity throughout. To put the Gentiles under the law would have had the effect of "subverting" their souls.

The question raised, a vital one as to doctrine, was also vital as to fellowship. For if these troublers had been correct, Gentile converts could only have fellowship with those at Jerusalem by submitting to all the rules of the law... Notice that no one claimed the rights and leading place of a chief city church, whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might... It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.

Notice that they could still say "with one accord," even though some had opposed. Their opposition had been shown to be against God, so it fell silent, and the brothers kept their unity in the face of it.

Many dangers surround the path of the young or simple Christian. The worst of them all is false or anti-Christian teaching... Such teaching nearly always looks harmless. It is only a matter of taking in certain ideas. There is nothing about it disgusting or immoral. Yet its effect is to subvert the soul and, in practice, put it under the rule of Satan, the god of this world.

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 from Jerusalem. The apostles and elders assembled together to examine the question, but all the brothers joined with them in the letter they sent to the Gentiles. So the Gentiles did not hold their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was that assembly which acknowledged the freedom of the Gentiles from the law. This is what preserved unity.

Notice that "with one accord" is rightly said, even though some had opposed. Their opposition had proved to be against God, and it fell silent. The unity of the believers held firm through it.

Three things were before them. First, Peter's testimony about what God had done with Cornelius. Second, the account Barnabas and Paul gave of God's actions during their missionary journey. Third, the voice of Scripture, as quoted by James. What God had said agreed with what God had done. They had come together to seek His mind. By His word and His actions they saw it clearly, and all were of one accord. So they settled a difficult question that might have divided the whole church, and it ended by drawing them together. When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, it was as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."

Notice that in the letter of the council the order is "Barnabas and Paul" (v. 25), as in verse 12. Earlier in the chapter, in verse 2, and later in verse 35 and after that, it is "Paul and Barnabas". The believers in Jerusalem felt it the first way, as believers elsewhere did in the early days of the great apostle's testimony… The reader of the Old Testament may find a similar principle in Exodus 6:13, 20, 26 and 27. In the order of nature it is "Aaron and Moses"; in sovereign grace it becomes "Moses and Aaron".

Their way of acting truly shows the spirit of grace and wisdom. They give their full backing to Paul and Barnabas, and they send with them men of note from the assembly at Jerusalem. No one could suspect these men of bringing an answer that supported their own claims, as people might have supposed in the case of Paul and Barnabas.

It was important to have the presence of men who were themselves competent witnesses of what had been debated and decided at Jerusalem. 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, and they knew the feeling of the apostles and of the church at large.

The assembly is the place where the inspired Word of God rules and directs. In Acts 15:13-29 we read, "Simon has related… with this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written… therefore I judge… it seemed good to us, having arrived at a common judgment." In the assembly, God's will as expressed in His Word is the only thing that counts. So it is never permissible to enforce a discipline that is more rigorous than Scripture directs.

When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, they went as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."

Notice that the account rightly says "with one accord," even though some had opposed. It had become clear that their opposition was against God, so the unity of the believers held firm in the face of it, and the opposition fell silent. It is good to see how they valued Barnabas and Paul. They speak of them as men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They were also spoken of as "men who have hazarded [or delivered up] their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." To hazard your life is to risk it, the way a gambler risks his money on a throw of the dice. To deliver up your life is to accept death as a certainty, not just a risk. Anyone who gives up his life in this way should be counted beloved in the church of God.

If you turn to another translation you will find an even stronger wording: "Men who have yielded up their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus." There was no gamble about it at all. They did not have an even chance. The outcome was settled in advance. They were men who would step into the gap and lay down their lives.

The ministry of Christ in those early days called for courage. Armchair soldiers were no use then! "Men who risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" were needed, and thank God, such men came forward. That was the credential for the field in days when the fire burned, the sword struck, and the lion roared!

We can well understand why such a letter cheered the hearts of the believers. It was sent by such apostles and brothers, and carried by them — men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 26). Leading men among the believers stood behind it too (verse 22). So we read that the crowd gathered together "rejoiced because of its encouragement" (verse 31).

Even in our own day some have "risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:26). But it is open to each one of us, moved by the love of Christ, to give our whole life to His interests. We can be sure that blessing will be the result.

Judas and Silas were sent as the clearest possible witnesses of the decision at Jerusalem. This gave Barnabas and Paul support that no one could question. The power of divine grace had worked in truth and righteousness for the name of Jesus, and there was a great calm.

Some from Jerusalem had troubled the assembly at Antioch by pressing the Jewish law on them. Judas and Silas were to 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 disturbed the converts among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas could and would certainly say so. Confirmation of it would then be available from the witnesses, who would back up what the other two said.

The assembly did not vote. Everyone consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been said. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men were to confirm by word of mouth the account given by Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried from Jerusalem. So the Gentiles were not defending their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, the assembly at Jerusalem itself acknowledged that the Gentiles were free from the law. And so unity held.

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 elder brothers either. The council chose them for their fitness to visit Antioch… They seem to have been connected with the ministry of the word rather than with oversight or presiding, as the elders were. This fact, once recognised, gives us clear insight. The early church had far greater freedom and variety of gift than the narrowness of modern Christendom.

Notice that no one claimed the rights and first place of a chief city whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might have — it had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from the others who were not apostles, issuing a decree. It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.

For the need that all this trouble created, the testimony of Judas and Silas would be all-important. They were prophets themselves. And so in fact we hear how they comforted and strengthened the brothers. Peace and unity were kept perfectly, and so far the enemy had gained no advantage.

Verse 28 treats the matter as being of the greatest importance: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit first, and then "to us." No question at all can remain about the definite leading of the Spirit of God here. The apostles and elders went along with that leading.

The Spirit coming on Cornelius and his company was, to Peter and those with him, undeniable proof that God accepts uncircumcised men. That is why they speak of the Spirit first and apart from themselves. The same seal had been put everywhere on the Gentile converts. How then could they do anything but obediently follow as the Spirit so plainly led? The prophets James had appealed to were also His witness; and the command given to Noah was no new law, but what Scripture had handed down.

The Holy Spirit is always present to guide the assembly. This fact is the foundation of how the church is put together on earth… In chapter 13 He guides the assembly at Antioch in the same way: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." They went out, sent by Him. When the assembly at Jerusalem had to settle a question of great importance, it again recognised the presence of the Holy Spirit — "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

The Galatian Christians were very eager to take up the burden of the law. Peter said this burden was one which "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." No, says the apostle, I will show you a better burden to bear than that. Bear one another's burdens… The burden of law, which most Christians today are loading onto themselves, is not for us; we are free from the law — free, so that we may take up one another's burdens.

It is a direction that teaches, not what is right or wrong in the abstract, but what suited the case in front of them. It was "necessary," not "righteous before God," to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not looked at that way here. There were certain things the Gentiles were used to. It was proper for them to give these up, so that the assembly might walk as it should before God in peace.

It surprises many that keeping clear of idols and personal purity should be set alongside not eating blood or things strangled. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer… These four carry the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things." God stated them for Gentiles who believe, in pointed contrast to the rules of Israel's law. What can cancel them? God's honour cannot be touched, and neither can His sanction of marriage, not of fornication. God insists that life belongs to Himself; so, while He gives flesh to eat, He reserves the blood.

This was the only council entitled to say, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." If others have imitated the language, it is mere profanity. Yet it was not a worldwide assembly at all. It was the assembly at Jerusalem, where the apostles and local elders met to consider the matter… It is of the greatest importance that the way, as well as the end, be of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the word of God.

When it says, "And to us," did this not refer to men having some direct authority? Could any gathering, convinced that a doctrine is presented in the word, send a decree to other gatherings? No! There was then an authority and a capacity which no longer exist.

God did not allow Paul and Barnabas to settle the question at Antioch. Such a decision would not have ended the dispute. It would have made two separate churches. But the moment the Jewish Christians and the church at Jerusalem granted freedom to the Gentiles, no one could oppose their release from the law... Judaism itself had granted the Gentiles freedom from the Jewish yoke.

So this decree does not rule on the nature of the things forbidden. It rules on what was fitting at the time, since the Gentiles had in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. Note that the law was not the only thing that forbade them. They went against the order God set up as Creator, or against the prohibition God gave Noah when He told him to eat meat. A woman was to be joined to a man only in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God... So this is not a new law that Christianity imposes, and it is not a concession to Jewish prejudice.

There should be no question about what "blood" means. It is blood drawn out of the animal for cooking. That is clearly different from "strangled", where the aim is to keep the blood from flowing. Both are forbidden; for God demands that man shall, by abstaining, own that life belongs to Him. If any are so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them own their ignorance and obey. It is not a Jewish or Mosaic statute only, but for man since Noah and the flood (Gen. 9:4)... The apostles were content here to decide that none of these things is an open question for Gentile converts, and that, if they abstain from all these necessary things, they will do well.

Why is sexual immorality put here with the other things? Because it offends the church of God, as blood would offend the Jews, or things offered to idols would offend the Gentiles. The church has the character of a chaste virgin for Christ... So when you keep away from things offered to idols, you do it for someone else's conscience, not your own (1 Cor. 10). But when you keep away from sexual immorality, even in its slightest degree, you do it for your own conscience in the fullest possible sense.

In sum the principles established are these: purity by marriage according to God's original institution; that life belongs to God; and the unity of God as the one only true God — Godhead, life, and God's original ordinance for man.

The apostles and elders gave this instruction to Gentile believers in Acts 15:20 and 29. They were not imposing on them something that was merely an item of the law of Moses. It was a prohibition that applies to all people. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25.

In Acts 15 three commands still bind a Christian now: keep away from blood, from things offered to idols, and from sexual immorality. They are not from law, but from Noah. Not that I should think, if I had eaten blood, that I was defiled by it, for it is not the things that go in that defile... To me these three principles are the expression of man as belonging to God, and not to his own lusts. As to blood, it is the life, and clearly belongs to God, but I leave every man's conscience to himself.