Acts 15:6–29

Jerusalem, sadly, was now the fountain of the evil: this plague spread from the assembly in Jerusalem. Satan's aim was to pollute the doctrine of the grace of God. God let the authority, and even the power, of Paul and Barnabas fail completely to stop the evil. This turned out for good. It was far more important to stem the tide in Jerusalem, and to have the apostles, elders, and all give their verdict fully against these evildoers, than to have only the censure of Paul and Barnabas.

The truth is, the question was whether Judaism would be forced on the Gentiles. In mercy, God did not let it be thrown out at Antioch and win the day at Jerusalem, which would have split the church in two at once. Instead, in His gracious wisdom, under the apostles' guidance, He led the Jewish part of the church to decide that the old ordinances they clung to were not binding on Gentiles.

The apostles and elders (not all the assembly) came together to consider this serious matter: were Gentile believers to be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses? Notice here that Paul did not take a leading part. Yet in Galatians 2:1-5 he makes it clear that he would not give in one inch to these teachers who pressed the law on people.

Does this not teach us something? Some matters, either weighty or special in character, may be better weighed first by the older brothers. Only then are they brought to the whole assembly for approval. In sending chosen men and a letter to Antioch, the whole assembly stands with the apostles and elders in the decision (Acts 15:22, 23).

They allowed free but sober discussion. Both sides stated their case openly. There is no record of anyone trying to score points by stooping to the level lawyers sometimes show in court. There was much discussion, as verse 7 states. The truth is great, and therefore it fears no investigation.

We read of none but apostles and elders; but the letter is addressed from all (verses 6 and 23). The people had been disputing a long time before the apostles said anything. Peter and Paul were wise to let them wear themselves out first.

But did not the council at Jerusalem decide a doctrinal question? But at that time the New Testament was not yet written. The apostles were there, taught by God about the Church, and they spoke with an authority that now belongs only to the Scriptures. Besides, this was not a general council of the Church. It was only a local gathering of the Church of Jerusalem... All the circumstances were exceptional, and cannot possibly be repeated.

There, in conference, they settled the matter and found the mind of the Lord for both Jewish and Gentile believers... United consultation and united action had prevented a split among the assemblies, and the result was joy and comfort.

Verse 7 tells us there was much debate or questioning. No doubt it was sad and humbling that they argued like this, even in front of the apostles. But the fact is plain, and the Holy Spirit records it calmly. That should convince quite a few people how far their idea of church order differs from the earliest history. Even in the apostles' days we see how liberty prevailed, though the flesh took advantage of it. Destroying that liberty because people abuse it would be a cure worse than the disease.

In Acts 15:7 Peter speaks of God choosing him to preach the gospel to the nations from the earliest (or ancient) days. He no doubt means the beginning of the church at Pentecost.

The main use of keys is to open doors. So in Acts 2 God chose Peter to preach the first sermon after the Holy Spirit came down from heaven. Three thousand people were brought to repentance, and baptised at once in the Saviour's name. But these were Jews only. In Acts 10 the same apostle preached Christ for the first time to a Gentile gathering. The happy result: everyone gathered in Cornelius' house believed.

That gives us the particular work of Peter. My aim has been to show how God put honour on that blessed servant of His. It was by his mouth that the Jews, as a whole, heard the gospel in its fullness and received the Holy Spirit... Peter was used to preach to the Gentiles first of all; and Paul, I would note, was used to write to the Jews last of all. Both came at just the right time. This shuts out all thought of independence, since some might have thought Peter was out of his place. He was the apostle of the circumcision. Yes, but for all that, it was by his mouth that the Gentiles first heard the gospel.

The fact was that God had already decided the point in principle by what He did in the case of Cornelius. We can now understand why so much space is given to that case in the Acts; for this is the third time it is brought before us.

How sweet is the grace of God, and what an unexpected blow to the claims of the Pharisees who believed! And this from Peter! If Paul had said it, there would have been less to wonder at. The apostle of the Gentiles (so they were inclined to think) would of course speak up for the Gentiles. But what about Peter? What led the great apostle of the circumcision to speak like this? And to say it in front of the twelve apostles, in Jerusalem itself?

There was much "disputing," or "discussion," and then Peter made a decisive pronouncement, by referring to the case of Cornelius, in which he had himself been involved. He pointed out that the heart-knowing God had borne witness to these Gentile converts by giving them the Holy Spirit — the same gift He had given to the Jewish believers on the Day of Pentecost. God had cleansed these Gentiles, as Peter's vision of the great sheet showed. He purified their hearts by faith, not by any ceremonial washing. In fact God had already settled the point in principle by what He did with Cornelius. We can now see why Acts gives so much space to that case; this is the third time it comes before us.

Ordinarily the Spirit came after faith. It was God who knew the faith of their hearts, bearing witness to them as His by the outward sign. They occupied the same level with the apostles and the saints of Judea.

Our apostle claimed the same grace for the believing Gentiles when he pleaded the cause of their liberty against those who sought to put them under law: "And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving the Holy Spirit just as to us also, and made no difference between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith."

Here again the gift of the Holy Spirit is quoted as the voucher upon which the Jewish Christians acted in their first reception of their Gentile brothers to a recognised position in the new community.

He needed to hear the word of truth, the gospel of his salvation; and that gospel went out once Christ had finished His work. Without this, as the fruit of Christ's work, the Holy Spirit could not be given. But as Cornelius and the rest listened, the heart-knowing God bore them witness; and they received the Holy Spirit as the Jewish saints did at Pentecost.

Peter's vision and the admission of Cornelius only showed that in every nation the one who feared God was acceptable to Him. In a word, the favour of God was not limited to the Jews. There was no need to become a Jew to share the salvation that is in Christ… The Holy Spirit — the seal of Christian blessing among the Jews, the fruit of redemption accomplished by Jesus — was given to Gentiles as to Jews. The Jews might be astonished at it; but there was no resisting God.

It might seem a small matter for Peter to treat the Jewish believers as Jews and the Gentile believers as Gentiles. That was the practice of his nation in past centuries. But in doing so, Peter was actually denying what he himself had established in preaching the gospel — that God now put no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

Peter reminds the assembly how God had chosen him first to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. God had given the Spirit to Cornelius, though he was not circumcised. God Himself had testified to them by the Holy Spirit, just as He had to the believing Jews. He had made no difference between them, purifying their hearts by faith. ... For did not they themselves believe that they had been saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, and not by ordinances?

Peter receives a threefold testimony of God's purifying the Gentiles by faith, instead of separating Israel by circumcision. The cross had changed everything, and put no difference between believers, Jew or Gentile. The Jew had lost his old superiority according to the flesh. Both alike were now open to far better blessings in Christ by faith.

Would the objectors argue that purification by legal ceremonies was necessary? Such things could really only serve to sanctify the flesh. But God looks at the heart. Now He had purified the hearts of those Gentiles by faith... So the ground was being cut away from under their feet — and by the apostle to the Jews.

Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as made known in the gospel produces a moral cleansing in the heart, the seat of the affections, cleansing it from the defilement that belonged to it as inherited from Adam.

Now when God's word enters the soul by faith, it deals with the conscience in a purifying way; it awakens a sense of sin, and produces repentance toward God. That is why Peter speaks of cleansing our hearts by faith (Acts 15:9)... It was God's word which worked in His grace. It was received not as men's word, but as what it truly is — God's word, which also works effectively in those who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).

God Himself had worked to remove the difference between Jewish and Gentile believers. He purified their hearts by faith, not by ordinances. Could they dare to ignore the immense significance of this? If so, they were tempting God. They were opposing what He Himself had done, and putting a yoke on the neck of Gentile believers which Israel had never been able to bear.

Peter thus formally abandoned all special claims for himself and others of his nation. He was from then on content to be numbered with those of foreign race as together sinners saved by grace.

Had He said anything about some extra work that Moses had to do in them? And what did their own experience tell them about the yoke of the law? Would they lay on these new disciples what they and their fathers had found impossible to carry? That would be tempting God, not pleasing Him: forcing on them what He had plainly set aside in His ways.

Their prejudice was itself a real disbelief of God's word and acts, and worse still if they held on to it. It put a yoke of law on the neck of the disciples that no one, past or present, could bear: a circumcised man was in debt to keep the whole law. The law was brought in with glory, yet it is a ministry of death and condemnation.

Many years ago I remember seeing the huge South African wagons drawn by twelve or even sixteen oxen yoked in pairs. They were magnificent beasts with mighty horns, but they seemed to groan as they lumbered forward with heads pressed down by the yoke. They looked very uncomfortable — but no more so than many a sinner whose conscience is weighed down under the holy law of God.

To a conscience awakened by the entrance of divine light, what can be more unbearable than the bondage of law? … Paul has told us how the law's own prohibitions stirred up in him the desire it condemned. The commandment was holy, just, and good. Yet when it came to him as it really is, sin came back to life and he "died" (Rom. 7:9). Before that, he had been so little aware of that sin that it seemed dead. This is the powerlessness of law.

He addressed His invitation especially to "all who labor and are heavy laden." He meant those who were sincerely and devoutly trying to keep the law. That law, as Peter said, was "a yoke … that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear." The more sincere they were, the heavier their load under that yoke. … They could now exchange the burdensome yoke of the law for the light and easy yoke of Christ. They would learn from Him things the law could never teach them.

God did not want to put a yoke on the neck of people whose hearts the gospel of peace had set free. He would rather urge them to stand firm in the liberty of Christ, and not be trapped again under a yoke of slavery. … How could we ever admit the thought that those whom God had received in grace He would rule by law? Impossible.

So we see that whether in the days of Peter and Paul or in our own day the yoke is the same; the slavery and the bondage have not changed in the least. We find the same groans of despair both now and 1900 years ago.

Under the law, circumcision tied a person to Judaism. By asking for it, these teachers were trying to put back the dividing wall that God had broken down. There is no such wall in the church. We who belong to the church stand on a completely new basis, because whether Jew or Gentile we are made one new man... So these men came down and said, in effect, "You will have to make these people second-rate Jews. You'll have to bring them into our legal system, or they'll never be saved."

God did not want to "put a yoke on the neck" of people whose hearts the gospel of peace had set free... Could we ever accept the thought that God would receive people in grace and then rule them by law? Impossible. Peter says, "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Both groups were now to be "saved through grace" — the Jews, who had received the law, and the Gentiles, who never had. And they were not only "saved" by grace. They were to "stand" in grace (Rom. 5:2) and to "grow in grace" (2 Peter 3:18). To teach anything else was to put God to the test.

The way verse 11 reads is remarkable. It does not say, "they, the Gentiles, will be saved just as we Jews will," but, "we will be saved just as they will." The Gentiles could be saved on no ground but grace, and the Jew must come in on this ground too.

He does not say, "They will be saved just as we will." No — he says, "We will be saved just as they will": on the same ground, on the same pattern, in the same way. The Jew comes down from his high position of privilege, only too thankful to be saved, just like the poor Gentile, by the precious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

How sweet the grace of God is, and what an unexpected blow to the claims of the Pharisees who believed! And this came from Peter! If Paul had said it, there would have been less to wonder at. The apostle to the Gentiles (so they were inclined to think) would of course speak up for the Gentiles — but Peter? What made the great apostle to the Jews speak like this? And say it in Jerusalem itself, in front of the twelve apostles?

Peter goes further still in verse 11. The attitude of these teachers showed that they were not clear about the principles of their own salvation... Jewish believers would be saved in the same way as Gentiles: only through the grace of the Lord Jesus, not by adding circumcision or law-keeping. Since this is true, no one could ask Gentiles to keep Old Testament laws and ceremonies.

In doing so, they take the same ground as the Gentiles; as Peter says — "We (the Jews) shall be saved, even as they" (Acts 15:11).

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.