Acts 15 - InDepth Bible Commentaries by Dr. David Darnell

PAUL, PETER AND JACOB ("JAMES")
UNITE ON THE NECESSITY FOR MISSION TO THE NATIONS
FREED FROM ALL LEGALISTIC REQUIREMENTS
Acts 15:1-35
15.1 Êáß ôéíåò êáôåëèüíôåò ð ôò Éïõäáßáò äßäáóêïí ôïò äåëöïò ôé, Åí ì
ðåñéôìçèôå ô èåé ô ÌùûóÝùò, ï äýíáóèå óùèíáé. 15.2 ãåíïìÝíçò ä óôÜóåùò êá
æçôÞóåùò ïê ëßãçò ô Ðáýë êá ô Âáñíáâ ðñò áôïò ôáîáí íáâáßíåéí Ðáëïí êá
Âáñíáâí êáß ôéíáò ëëïõò î áôí ðñò ôïò ðïóôüëïõò êá ðñåóâõôÝñïõò åò
Éåñïõóáëì ðåñ ôï æçôÞìáôïò ôïýôïõ.
(1) And certain people, having come down from Judea, were teaching the brothers that
"Unless you people are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved!" (2)
Then when much strife and controversy had arisen by Paul and Barnabas against them, [the
brothers] determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others from among them should go
up to the Ambassadors and Official Leaders in Jerusalem, concerning this controversy.
15.3 Ï ìí ïí ðñïðåìöèÝíôåò ð ôò êêëçóßáò äéÞñ÷ïíôï ôÞí ôå Öïéíßêçí êá
áìÜñåéáí êäéçãïýìåíïé ôí ðéóôñïöí ôí èíí êá ðïßïõí ÷áñí ìåãÜëçí ðóéí ôïò
äåëöïò.
(3) Therefore, having been helped on their journey by the church, they went through
both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the non-Jewish peoples;
and they caused great joy in all the brothers.
15.4 ðáñáãåíüìåíïé ä åò Éåñïõóáëì ðáñåäÝ÷èçóáí ð ôò êêëçóßáò êá ôí
ðïóôüëùí êá ôí ðñåóâõôÝñùí, íÞããåéëÜí ôå óá èåò ðïßçóåí ìåô áôí. 15.5
îáíÝóôçóáí äÝ ôéíåò ôí ð ôò áñÝóåùò ôí Öáñéóáßùí ðåðéóôåõêüôåò ëÝãïíôåò ôé äå
ðåñéôÝìíåéí áôïò ðáñáããÝëëåéí ôå ôçñåí ôí íüìïí ÌùûóÝùò.
(4) Then, having arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the
Ambassadors, and by the Official Leaders; and they reported everything God had done
through them. (5) Then certain ones arose out of them, from among those of the school of
the Separatists,who had believed, saying that "It is necessary to command them to be
circumcised, and to keep the teaching of Moses!"
15.6 õíÞ÷èçóÜí ôå ï ðüóôïëïé êá ï ðñåóâýôåñïé äåí ðåñ ôï ëüãïõ ôïýôïõ.
15.7 ðïëëò ä æçôÞóåùò ãåíïìÝíçò íáóôò ÐÝôñïò åðåí ðñò áôïýò, Áíäñåò äåëöïß,
ìåò ðßóôáóèå ôé ö ìåñí ñ÷áßùí í ìí îåëÝîáôï èåò äé ôï óôüìáôüò ìïõ
êïóáé ô èíç ôí ëüãïí ôï åáããåëßïõ êá ðéóôåóáé 15.8 êá êáñäéïãíþóôçò èåò
ìáñôýñçóåí áôïò äïò ô ðíåìá ô ãéïí êáèò êá ìí 15.9 êá ïèí äéÝêñéíåí ìåôáî
ìí ôå êá áôí, ô ðßóôåé êáèáñßóáò ôò êáñäßáò áôí. 15.10 íí ïí ôß ðåéñÜæåôå ôí
èåüí ðéèåíáé æõãí ð ôí ôñÜ÷çëïí ôí ìáèçôí í ïôå ï ðáôÝñåò ìí ïôå ìåò
ó÷ýóáìåí âáóôÜóáé 15.11 ëë äé ôò ÷Üñéôïò ôï êõñßïõ Éçóï ðéóôåýïìåí óùèíáé
êáè í ôñüðïí êêåíïé.
(6) Both the Ambassadors and the Official Leaders gathered together to see concerning
this matter. (7) Then extensive controversy having occurred, Peter, having stood up, said
to them, "Men, brothers, you know that a long time ago God chose from among you, that
through my mouth the non-Jewish peoples should hear the Word of the Good News and
641

elieve. (8) And God who knows hearts bore testimony to them, having given the Set-apart
Spirit to them just as he also did to us. (9) And he made no distinction between us and them,
having cleansed their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore, why are you testing God, by placing
a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we [ourselves] were strong
enough to carry? (11) But we believe that we are being saved through the gracious gift of the
Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are!"
15.12 Åóßãçóåí ä ðí ô ðëèïò, êá êïõïí Âáñíáâ êá Ðáýëïõ îçãïõìÝíùí
óá ðïßçóåí èåò óçìåá êá ôÝñáôá í ôïò èíåóéí äé áôí. 15.13 Ìåô ä ô óéãóáé
áôïò ðåêñßèç ÉÜêùâïò ëÝãùí, Áíäñåò äåëöïß, êïýóáôÝ ìïõ. 15.14 õìåí
îçãÞóáôï êáèò ðñôïí èåò ðåóêÝøáôï ëáâåí î èíí ëáí ô íüìáôé áôï. 15.15
êá ôïýô óõìöùíïóéí ï ëüãïé ôí ðñïöçôí, êáèò ãÝãñáðôáé, 15.16 Ìåô ôáôá
íáóôñÝøù êá íïéêïäïìÞóù ôí óêçíí Äáõä ôí ðåðôùêõáí êá ô êáôåóêáììÝíá áôò
íïéêïäïìÞóù êá íïñèþóù áôÞí, 15.17 ðùò í êæçôÞóùóéí ï êáôÜëïéðïé ôí
íèñþðùí ôí êýñéïí êá ðÜíôá ô èíç ö ïò ðéêÝêëçôáé ô íïìÜ ìïõ ð áôïýò,
ëÝãåé êýñéïò ðïéí ôáôá 15.18 ãíùóô ð áíïò.
(12) Then all the crowd became silent; and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul
explaining everything God had done through them--signs and wonders among the non-Jewish
nations. (13) Then after they were silent, Jacob responded, saying, "Men, brothers, listen to
me. (14) Symeon has explained how God first visited the non-Jewish nations, to take out
from them a people for his name. (15) And to this the words of the Spokespersons are in
harmony, even as it has been written: (16) "'After these things I will return, and I will build up
again the tent of David which has fallen; and its ruins I will build up again, and I will restore it,
(17) so that the remaining people will seek out the Lord, and all the non-Jewish nations, upon
whom my name has been called!'--says [the] Lord, who is doing these things'--(18) known
from ancient times.
15.19 äé ã êñßíù ì ðáñåíï÷ëåí ôïò ð ôí èíí ðéóôñÝöïõóéí ð ôí èåüí,
15.20 ëë ðéóôåëáé áôïò ôï ðÝ÷åóèáé ôí ëéóãçìÜôùí ôí åäþëùí êá ôò ðïñíåßáò
êá ôï ðíéêôï êá ôï áìáôïò. 15.21 Ìùûóò ãñ ê ãåíåí ñ÷áßùí êáô ðüëéí ôïò
êçñýóóïíôáò áôí ÷åé í ôáò óõíáãùãáò êáô ðí óÜââáôïí íáãéíùóêüìåíïò.
(19) "Wherefore I, I give [my] judgment, not to trouble those turning to God from the
non-Jewish nations. (20) But rather, to write to them, that they should abstain from the
pollutions of idols--even from sexual immorality, and from strangled animals, and from blood.
(21) For Moses from generations long past has those proclaiming him in every city, being
read in the synagogues every Day of Rest."
15.22 Ôüôå äïîå ôïò ðïóôüëïéò êá ôïò ðñåóâõôÝñïéò óí ë ô êêëçóß
êëåîáìÝíïõò íäñáò î áôí ðÝìøáé åò Áíôéü÷åéáí óí ô Ðáýë êá Âáñíáâ, Éïýäáí
ôí êáëïýìåíïí Âáñóáââí êá éëí, íäñáò ãïõìÝíïõò í ôïò äåëöïò, 15.23
ãñÜøáíôåò äé ÷åéñò áôí,
Ï ðüóôïëïé êá ï ðñåóâýôåñïé äåëöï ôïò êáô ôí Áíôéü÷åéáí êá õñßáí êá
Êéëéêßáí äåëöïò ôïò î èíí ÷áßñåéí. 15.24 Åðåéä êïýóáìåí ôé ôéíò î ìí
[îåëèüíôåò] ôÜñáîáí ìò ëüãïéò íáóêåõÜæïíôåò ôò øõ÷ò ìí ïò ï äéåóôåéëÜìåèá,
15.25 äïîåí ìí ãåíïìÝíïéò ìïèõìáäí êëåîáìÝíïéò íäñáò ðÝìøáé ðñò ìò óí ôïò
ãáðçôïò ìí Âáñíáâ êá Ðáýë, 15.26 íèñþðïéò ðáñáäåäùêüóé ôò øõ÷ò áôí
ðñ ôï íüìáôïò ôï êõñßïõ ìí Éçóï ×ñéóôï. 15.27 ðåóôÜëêáìåí ïí Éïýäáí êá
642

éëí êá áôïò äé ëüãïõ ðáããÝëëïíôáò ô áôÜ. 15.28 äïîåí ãñ ô ðíåýìáôé ô ãß
êá ìí ìçäí ðëÝïí ðéôßèåóèáé ìí âÜñïò ðëí ôïýôùí ôí ðÜíáãêåò, 15.29 ðÝ÷åóèáé
åäùëïèýôùí êá áìáôïò êá ðíéêôí êá ðïñíåßáò, î í äéáôçñïíôåò áõôïò å ðñÜîåôå.
Åññùóèå.
(22) Then it seemed best to the Ambassadors, and to the Official Leaders, together
with all the church, [that] having chosen men from among them, they should send [them] to
Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas: Judah, the one called "Barsabbas," and Silas--leading
men among the brothers--(23) having written by their hand [as follows]:
"The Ambassadors and the Official Leaders, [and the] brothers, to the brothers in
Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, those from the non-Jewish nations, greetings! (24) "Since we
have heard that certain ones [having gone out] from among us, troubled you people with
words, unsettling your innermost beings, to whom we did not give orders--(25) it seemed best
to us, having come to one mind, (and) having chosen men, to send [them] to you along with
our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) men who have given their innermost beings on behalf of
the name of our Lord Jesus, Anointed King. (27) Therefore we have officially sent Judah and
Silas; and they are announcing by speech the same things. (28) For it seemed best to the
Set-apart Spirit, and to us, to lay no more burden upon you than these necessary things: (29)
to abstain from things sacrificed to idols--even from blood, and strangled [animals], and from
sexual immorality--from which, protecting yourselves, you do well! Farewell!"
15.30 Ï ìí ïí ðïëõèÝíôåò êáôëèïí åò Áíôéü÷åéáí, êá óõíáãáãüíôåò ô ðëèïò
ðÝäùêáí ôí ðéóôïëÞí. 15.31 íáãíüíôåò ä ÷Üñçóáí ð ô ðáñáêëÞóåé. 15.32 Éïýäáò
ôå êá éëò êá áôï ðñïöôáé íôåò äé ëüãïõ ðïëëï ðáñåêÜëåóáí ôïò äåëöïò êá
ðåóôÞñéîáí, 15.33 ðïéÞóáíôåò ä ÷ñüíïí ðåëýèçóáí ìåô åñÞíçò ð ôí äåëöí ðñò
ôïò ðïóôåßëáíôáò áôïýò. 15.35 Ðáëïò ä êá Âáñíáâò äéÝôñéâïí í Áíôéï÷åß
äéäÜóêïíôåò êá åáããåëéæüìåíïé ìåô êá ôÝñùí ðïëëí ôí ëüãïí ôï êõñßïõ.
(30) So then they, having been sent away, went down to Antioch, and gathering
together the crowd, delivered the letter. (31) Then having read [it], they rejoiced over the
exhortation. (32) Both Judah and Silas, being themselves also spokespersons, exhorted the
brothers with much speaking, and strengthened [them]. (33) After some time they were sent
away with [wishes of] peace from the brothers to those who had authoritatively sent them.
(35) Then Paul and Barnabas spent time in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming the Word of the
Lord as Good News, along with many others.
Text with Commentary 1
1
There can be little doubt that Acts 15 plays a very central and pivotal role in the Book
of Acts. Haenchen states that "Chapter 15 is the turning-point, 'centerpiece' and 'watershed'
of the book, the episode which rounds off and justifies the past developments, and makes
those to come intrinsically possible..." (p. 461) Conzelmann notes that "It is not by chance that
the Apostolic Council occupies the middle of the book. It is the great turning point, the transition
from the primitive church to the 'contemporary' church. From this point on the apostles
disappear, even in Jerusalem itself (compare 21:15-26, etc.). In Jerusalem continuity is represented
by James, in the Gentile Christian church by Paul." (p. 115)
(continued...)
643

2 3
(1) And certain people, having come down from Judea, were teaching the brothers
1
(...continued)
McGarvey rejected the very idea that this was an “Apostolic Council,” agreeing with
Farrar in his claim that “The so-called Council of Jerusalem in no way resembled the general
councils of the church, either in its history, its constitution, or its object. It was not a convention
of ordained delegates, but a meeting of the entire church of Jerusalem to receive a
deputation from the church at Antioch.” (quoting his Life of Paul, p. 243, 2, p. 70). McGarvey’s
own view was that “...This procedure was not an appeal from the decision of a church to
some higher tribunal: for in fact no decision had been rendered. Neither was it an overture
from a congregation to a representative body, asking for instruction; for the body applied to
was composed of the elders of another single congregation, together with such apostles as
might be found there...In these two essential particulars the step taken by the Antioch church
differs from all modern appeals from lower to higher ecclesiastical courts, and it furnishes no
precedent for the latter.” (2, p. 56)
But these fine distinctions only serve to blur the issue. The question is whether or not
to call this meeting in Jerusalem a “church council.” Undoubtedly it had many differences from
later, much larger “general councils,” and from the “ecclesiastical courts” to which McGarvey
was referring. But it certainly was a meeting of church leaders from Jerusalem, Judea, Antioch
of Syria, and the missionaries Paul and Barnabas from the newly founded churches of
Asia Minor; and they were meeting to resolve a very important, disputed doctrinal and practical
matter. Decisions were taken as a result of discussion and a full airing of the various viewpoints
represented, and the results were written up in a letter sent to inform everyone involved.
It is purely arbitrary and unreasonable to refuse to call this a “council”!
But we agree with McGarvey in his further statement: “At this point our historian makes
a sudden transition from the conflicts of the disciples with Jews and Gentiles [i.e., what we
have called the “two fronts”], to one of momentous importance among themselves. One
phase of this controversy had taken its origin from the baptism of uncircumcised Gentiles in
the house of Cornelius. The question then was whether such persons should be baptized;
and by the evidence of the divine will which had been presented to Peter, and which he
presented to the brethren, it was settled, definitely and finally (11:18)...The question now
raised in Antioch was a different one. Without controverting the propriety of baptizing Gentiles
...the disputants took the position that after being baptized, and receiving forgiveness of sins,
they must be circumcised as a condition of their final salvation.” (2, p. 53; see also p. 56)
Indeed, the question was of ultimate importance for the future of the Christian Church.
Was the Christian movement to become simply another “Jewish sect,” not content with
spreading the Good News of a new Kingdom of grace, forgiveness, and following Jesus as
Lord, under the guidance of the Spirit, but rather, demand of people all around the world that
they become Jews, following all of the large body of Jewish traditions and customs? Such a
decision would have caused the growing Christian movement to miscarry at its very beginning!
2
Luke describes the opponents of Paul and Barnabas in this very general and ambiguous
way, as "certain people." But later in verse five he identifies them as members of the
church in Jerusalem who were “from the school of the "Separatists" ("Pharisees"). Having
(continued...)
644

2
(...continued)
now accepted Jesus as risen from among the dead, and as Lord and King, they still clung to
their traditional Jewish practices, insisting that such Jewish rituals as circumcision, and
"kosher" food laws must be observed. They would argue that Jesus had not come to destroy
the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it, just as Matthew 5:17-20 records Jesus himself as teaching:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the [Jewish] legislation or the [teaching of the]
Spokespersons! I have not come to abolish, but rather to fulfill! For truly I say to you, 'Until
the heaven and the earth pass away, one smallest letter, or (even) one smallest part of a
letter, will not pass away from the [Jewish] legislation, until everything has been done!' Whoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach people in this
way, shall be called 'least' in the Kingdom of the Heavens! But whoever shall practice (them),
and teach (them), this person shall be called 'great' in the Kingdom of the Heavens! For I say
to you that, 'Unless your right relationships greatly surpass (those) of the religious scholars
and Separatists, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens!'"
We can hear those "Separatist believers" saying something like, "It is fine that these
non-Jewish people have been welcomed into the Church of Jesus--but now let's go the rest of
the way, teaching them to respect and keep the traditions handed down to us by Moses!
Jesus hasn't taught us to break the laws of Moses, but to fulfill them, to be much better
'Separatists' than we were before we accepted him as our Savior!"
McGarvey held that these people were none other than those referred to by Paul in
Galatians 2:4, as “...false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom
which we have in Anointed King Jesus, so that they might enslave us.” He stated, “They found
it no longer possible to resist the evidence in favor of Jesus, and had therefore been baptized
into his name; but they still clung tenaciously to some of their former ideas...When they despaired
of destroying the church by persecution from without, they deliberately confessed Christ
and came into the church for the purpose of controlling it from within. It was their design to
keep the church under the bondage of the law, and thus prevent it from very seriously modifying
the state of things among the Jews in which the Pharisees were the predominant party.
Partisan zeal, the bane of their former life, was still their controlling passion. It is highly probable
that among them Paul recognized some of his old acquaintances, who had once been his
helpers in persecution, and had more recently been of the number who sought to put him to
death. He knew them through and through.” (2, pp. 58-59)
It has been a common experience in the history of the Christian Church, that when
followers of Jesus learn Hebrew, and begin to take the Jewish Bible with deep seriousness
and concern, similar rumblings are heard. Why shouldn't Christians keep the seventh-day of
rest? What are the distinctions between "clean and unclean" for, anyway? Can we violate
them with impunity? How can we say we love and want to embody the teachings of the Jewish
Bible, if we do not even practice circumcision? On and on it goes, and it has troubled
almost every church movement in the history of Christianity. McGarvey stated that “Paul
defeated the attempt to fasten circumcision on the church, but later Judaizers succeeded in
perpetuating it under the form of infant immersion, and afterward of infant sprinkling. That
which the Pharisees failed to accomplish openly was thus accomplished under a thin disguise.
(continued...)
645

4 5
that "Unless you people are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved!"
2
(...continued)
The Pharisees failed to consolidate the law and the gospel; but their imitators have largely
succeeded in teaching men that the church of Christ originated in the family of Abraham, and
that the Jewish tribe and the Christian congregations constitute one identical church. The
Roman apostasy perpetuates the daily sacrifices and pompous ritual of the temple; religious
zealots have slaughtered Canaanites in the persons of modern heretics; professed Christians
go to war under the old battle-cry of the ‘sword of the Lord and of Gideon’; the ‘Latter-day
Saints’ emulate Solomon in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions authority is
found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel.” (2, pp. 59-60) [While we understand McGarvey’s
point, we wonder where he found infant immersion in the Mosaic laws!]
That's the problem that Luke pictures as being faced by the first century Church in this
fifteenth chapter of Acts--it is an on-going concern that we will find discussed time and again
in the writings of Paul. It is a deep-seated, on-going theological problem--and while there are
many of McGarvey’s statements that seem extreme and unjustified in the criticism of other religious
groups, his overall assertion is well-founded. The problem of the relationship between
law and gospel, between the traditions of Moses and the Good News of Jesus, has continued
to trouble the church ever since the first century! It is a problem within the Hebrew Bible itself,
where the Spokespersons of Israel do battle with the proponents of legalistic, ritualistic religion,
in the name of the God of justice and right relationships who is much greater than any
temple or its ritual!
3
Psi, Minuscule 614 and a few other Greek manuscripts, along with the Harclean Syriac
margin have the following interpolation: ton pepisteukoton apo tes haireseos ton Pharisaion,
“of those who had believed from the school of the Separatists.” This is truly an addition
to the original text, which says nothing here concerning the identity of those who came
down from Judea. Verse 5 is probably the source of this early (and, we think, correct) commentary-like
addition to the text. See Metzger, pp. 426-28, where he discusses the many differences
between the Bezae-type text and the Vaticanus-type text in Acts 15:1-5. Metzger
believes that the Vaticanus-text “reflects the point of view of Paul, whereas the Bezae-text is
more sympathetic to the local tradition of the church at Jerusalem.” (p. 427) We would say
that the original form of the text reflects a more “congregational,” “democratic” understanding
of the early Christian movement, while the later variant text reflect a more “high church,” authoritarian
point of view.
Surely if these "certain people" who had come down to Antioch of Syria from Judea
were representatives of the assembly in Jerusalem, Luke would have described them as
having come down "from Jerusalem," and not just "from Judea." We sense that Luke, by so
describing them, wants to avoid giving the immediate impression that the Jerusalem church
had officially sent them. Later, however, in verse 5, Luke further describes them as being
among those gathered with the assembly in Jerusalem, and being "from among the school of
the Separatists." Evidently then, we must think of a group within the church, who still considered
themselves "Pharisees" or "Separatists" (just as Paul himself had been before his conversion),
and who continued in their Separatist convictions--only having accepted the Good
News of Jesus as the long hoped-for Anointed King.
646

6 7 8 9
(2) Then when much strife and controversy had arisen by Paul and Barnabas against
4
Bezae, the Harclean Syriac margin, the Sahidic version of the Coptic, and the Middle
Egyptian version read instead of the phrase ô èåé ô ÌùûóÝùò, to ethei to Mouseos, “by
the custom, the one belonging to Moses,” the phrase kai to ethei Mouseos peripatete, “and
should walk (2nd person plural, present subjunctive, conforming to Luke’s earlier use of the
subjunctive verb Åí ì ðåñéôìçèôå, Ean me peritmethete, ‘unless you should be circumised’)
by the custom of Moses.” This change is an attempt by the copyist and translators to
clarify a difficult phrase in the original text, rewording it in simpler, fuller style. It makes the
contention much stronger than simply being limited to circumcision, but includes the entire
teaching of Moses--meaning both circumcision, and the entire Mosaic legislation, both written
and oral. We understand this longer, later reading to be an early form of commentary on the
original text, making explicit what is genuinely implicit in that text. The later copyist and
translators do not feel themselves confined to the exact words found in the original being
copied and translated, but rather feels free to add to that text, only taking pains not to change
the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
5
It is an absolute, dogmatic claim. There can be no “salvation,” no “deliverance,” no
“being made whole” for those who do not follow the customs attributed by the Jews to Moses.
And if this claim is true, and wins the day in the life of the early Church, the Christian Church
will be bound throughout its history to being a sub-group of the Jewish religion, with the only
difference being that of recognizing Jesus as Anointed King--but living by the written Torah
and the Mishnaic traditional way of life which was also attributed to Moses!
We can easily understand the basis upon which this teaching was given to the non-
Jewish believers. "You people have done well to believe in Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise
to Abraham, and as the 'New David.' He is indeed just that. But he himself was circumcised
as a little child, like any other good Jew; and the fact is that the Bible of the Jews and of
Jesus, teaches that if people are to be in covenant relationship with God, they must circumcise
all their males, as a covenant-sign in their flesh (‘Just look at Genesis 17:1-14!’). And so, it is
good that you have become believers, and that you have claimed Jesus as your Lord and
Savior. Now, you must complete your obedience, by entering into the Abrahamic (and Mosaic)
covenant of circumcision, or else you cannot truly be 'saved' or 'delivered'!" Compare
footnote 5.
McGarvey commented that “They could not conceive, as yet, that this divinely given
law, which had been in existence so long, and for the preservation of which their fathers had
suffered so much, could be disregarded by any who would be heirs of eternal life. When they
thought of the apostolic commission, they must have included circumcision and the keeping of
the law among the things referred to in the words, ‘teaching them [the baptized] to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:20).” (2, p. 54) Here, we contend, is
a real theological problem--one with which believers in our own day must seriously struggle!
6
The participle de, “then,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Bezae, L (020), Psi, Minuscules 36, 81, 453, 945, 1175, 1739 plus other Greek manuscripts,
and the Old Latin manuscripts gig and p. The word oun, “therefore,” is read by P74, Alexandrinus,
E (Laudianus), Uncial 0294, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin manuscripts d, l, the
Vulgate, and the Harclean Syriac. This manuscript evidence is fairly evenly balanced, and
(continued...)
647

6
(...continued)
either word is appropriate. Neither reading makes any difference in the understanding of the
passage as a whole; but oun, “therefore,” makes it more explicit that the controversy was
rooted directly in that teaching of the people coming down from Judea. Later copyists and
translators obviously felt themselves free to make such substitutions of synonyms as they
copied the original text of Acts--only, taking care not to change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
7
Here Luke uses the figure of speech called by grammarians "litotes," emphasizing
what he is saying by denying its opposite. We are tempted to simply translate the litotes,
""Then when no little strife and controversy had arisen..."
8
The noun óôÜóåùò, staseos means “uprising,” “riot,” “revolt,” “rebellion,” or sometimes
in a milder sense, “strife,” “discord,” “disunion,” or “dispute.” It is important for Luke’s
apologetic purpose to point out that the only kind of “rebellion” or “strife” that is engendered by
the fol-lowers of Jesus is totally non-political in nature, and is only a question of whether or not
Jew-ish religious customs and traditions are binding upon Christian believers. This noun is
found at Matthew 15:7 and Hebrews 9:8 (in a completely different sense). Otherwise, the
noun is peculiar to Luke’s writings: Luke 23:19, 25; Acts 15:2 (here); 19:40; 23:7, 10, and
24:5.
9
The phrase êá æçôÞóåùò, kai zeteseos, “and controversy,” is omitted by P74, E
(Laudianus), the Vulgate and the Bohairic. We suspect that this variant reading is the result
of “haplography,” in which the eye of the copyist skipped from the end of the first noun to the
end of the second noun--from the end of óôÜóåùò to the end of æçôÞóåùò. However, even if
only one of the words is read, there is no change in meaning of the text.
The kind of zeteseos, "seeking" that is meant here is that of an "investigation," or a
"controversial question," a "controversy"; it is used to mean "discussion," or "debate." Such a
divisive event occurred in the first-century Church, and Luke wants his readers to know that
Paul and Barnabas were responsible for it! They refused to accept this teaching that had
been brought into the assembly at Antioch by these people from Judea--and they entered into
sharp conflict and debate with them! They were not "gracious hosts," who refused to point out
actual differences! They didn't easily agree, saying "It doesn't make any real difference what
you teach or practice"!
Throughout the centuries this scene has been repeated in thousands of similar instances
of strife, discord, division, and heated debate over doctrinal matters. Many of the debates
and divisions have been centered in, or closely related to, this matter of the relationship
of the Christian Church to the Bible of the Jews--just as the debate being described by Luke in
Antioch and Jerusalem was. Never is such religious confrontation and debate welcome, or
easily gone through. Division is obviously a terrible thing, so much so that Jesus taught his
followers to pray that they might all always be one, and that division might not ever happen in
their midst (see especially John 17, the Lord's great prayer for unity among his followers).
See also the Pauline warnings found in 1 Timothy 1:4; 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:23, and Titus 3:9.
However, we also remember the words of Jesus concerning how he and his Message
(continued...)
648

10 11
them, [the brothers] determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others from among
9
(...continued)
would bring division rather than peace--see Luke 12:51-53, and Matthew 10:34, "Do not think
that I came to bring peace upon the earth; I did not come to bring peace but rather, a sword!
For I came to divide a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies (will be) his own familymembers!"
We remember the sharp controversy between Paul and Peter as related by Paul
in Galatians 2:11! The fact of religious experience is that Jesus and the Good News that
proclaims him as Lord and King is divisive, and is intended to be so. It demands an ultimate
allegiance to him, and means that all other loyalties must be broken, if need be, in order to
form that new relationship that will admit of no rivals. Such a claim is a divine claim, such as is
made by YHWH in the commandment, "You shall have no other gods besides me!" So it is
with Jesus, whose very name means "YHWH's Salvation." To turn away from one's past, in
order to enter into a life-long, exclusive loyalty to him, means breaking away from all former
relationships that stand in the way or hinder that new allegiance. We must insist that when
ultimate loyalties are decided, lesser loyalties have to be broken, and divisions necessarily
result. Such divisions are difficult and painful--but necessary in such situations! That’s the
nature of ultimate truth!
In fact, it is irresponsible to refuse to discuss, or take a stand for the Truth of God,
because of the danger of friction or division. The Ambassadors of the Anointed King have to
stand against all that goes against the Message that they have been commissioned to proclaim.
The Word of God that they have been given teaches certain truths, and demands a
definite life-style. In so doing, it sharply challenges and rejects many common beliefs and
traditional ways of living--even many that can be plausibly based on the teaching of the Bible
and religious history--certainly this was true for the Jewish believers with Pharisaic backgrounds
in the first century! This, we take it, is the theological task of the church at all times!
If we believe that the Word of God revealed in Jesus is true, we must denounce whatever
denies that Word, and we must strongly oppose any way of life that is contrary to its
teaching, or that is offered as a substitute for it! In our study of Genesis 3, we have concluded
that the Creator God, YHWH, purposely wanted his human creatures to be tested, by
the placing of the two trees in the midst of the Garden of Eden, with the prohibition of their
eating from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." We emphasized there that God
must love the necessity for choice, and the necessity for decision as to whether or not to be
true to his command. He evidently wants his human creatures to have to choose whether or
not to listen to his voice, or to substitute for it the voice of his creatures. It is of course true,
that such testing is not always passed successfully, and oftentimes brings in its wake suffering,
alienation, and death. But God is willing to take that risk!
We should conclude from the Book of Acts that the great Creator of the Church wants
his Church to be tested, as to whether or not it will accept and live by the divine self-revelation
in Jesus (the “Word / Event” that is the “Word of God,” the divine Torah!), or will seek to follow
some other pathway, substituting for this present Word, some other word out of the past, or
some present word from some other source. At the very least, the student of Christian history
knows that the followers of Jesus have always been confronted by this test! Acts 15 contains
one of the earliest examples of such a test!
649

10
The phrase ô Âáñíáâ ðñò áôïò, to Barnaba pros autous, literally, “...by the
(Paul and by the) Barnabas against them,” is changed by Bezae to read (by the Paul) kai
Barnabas sun autois, “(by the Paul) and Barnabas with them.” We think that Bezae uses
sun, “with,” in the sense “dispute with,” thinking this would make better sense than pros,
which ordinarily means “towards,” but which in fact sometimes means “against” in terms of
hostile relationships. We understand the variant as a copyist’s attempt to define a word found
in the original by using a synonym that will be better understood by readers. The copyist does
not feel bound to a literal, word-for-word reproduction of the exact words found in the document
being copied; rather, he feels free to change that text slightly, in an attempt to enhance
it, making it clearer--but not changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
Again we emphasize that, according to Luke's account, this strife and debate was
originated by Paul and Barnabas, "against" or “towards” these teachers who insisted on the
necessity of circumcision of non-Jewish believers. We will find, in reading the letters of Paul,
this great missionary to the non-Jewish world, that he was not by any means afraid of
controversy and debate (as are some church leaders today). The Gospels make it very clear
that Jesus himself was constantly engaged in sharp conflict and debate with his Jewish
adversaries. The same thing was true for Paul and Barnabas--there was for them, a "battle for
truth," a "good fight of faith," which they willingly engaged in. To stand silent in the face of
subversive error that can lead believers away from the truth of God, and refuse to denounce
such teaching, is a terrible crime, according to this viewpoint! We have to ask ourselves,
"Have we, in the modern Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the descendants of Alexander
Campbell, who vigorously entered into debate with all comers, lost our desire to "do battle for
truth"?
McGarvey, and other legalists, holding the view that any word spoken by an inspired
“Apostle” should finally solve any problem that can arise in the Church’s life, felt constrained to
ask why the believers at Antioch should want to send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem to
enter into such a discussion. It is like modern people who affirm, “The Bible (or Paul) says it, I
believe it, that settles it!” There is no room for discussion; we already have all the truth! But
the early Church, as depicted by Luke, drew no such simplistic conclusions. McGarvey stated
that “If the brethren at Antioch had properly estimated the authority of an inspired apostle, they
would have accepted implicitly Paul’s decision without this mission to Jerusalem; but their
familiarity with the person of the apostle, like that of the Nazarenes with the person of Jesus,
made them slow to realize that he spoke with divine authority; and the fact that he was not one
of the original twelve caused them to think his utterances less authoritative than theirs. They
learned, as the result of the mission, what they should have realized at first; and it is not
probable that they ever doubted Paul’s teaching again.” (2, p. 55)
McGarvey’s view is inadequate. Paul’s utterances were respected by the early Church,
but they were not taken as final authority without room for the utterances of others (see, for
example, the questioning attitude towards Paul’s writings expressed at 2 Peter 3:15-16), or
without the judgment that a council such as this meeting in Jerusalem would make. They
believed that the Spirit was guiding all of them, in all of their utterances and decisions; but the
picture depicted by Luke is far from the dogmatic view of McGarvey and many others
concerning the infallibility of Paul or Peter, or any other Ambassador (“Apostle”). This is the
mistake which we are seeking to deal with in this commentary, as we demonstrate Luke’s
(continued...)
650

12 13 14
them should go up to the Ambassadors and Official Leaders in Jerusalem, concerning this
10
(...continued)
distinction between “the Word of God,” and the words of human beings, even inspired human
beings such as Paul! Paul (and Barnabas) spoke at the meeting in Jerusalem; but the
decision was taken by the group as a whole, and it was not made on the basis of any one
individual’s authoritative statement!
11
The reason for placing "the brothers" in brackets is that these words are not in the
Greek text. In fact, the verb has no subject, leaving the reader to find the subject from the
context. This is another example of Luke’s “ambiguous statements,” which call for alteration
and change by later copyists (see footnote 12). The most likely subject in the context for the
verb ôáîáí, etaksan, “they determined,” or “they ordered,” is either "the brothers" in the
church at Antioch, who were being taught by these recently arrived teachers that they had to
be circumcised, or these Separatist teachers themselves. A third possibility is that Paul and
Barnabas are meant as having given the order--but this means that they ordered themselves,
which seems unlikely. Luke’s language is in fact ambiguous, and the subject of the verb can
be fairly understood either as tous adelphous, “the brothers,” in verse 1, or as autous,
“them,” in verse 2, referring to the “certain people” who had come down from Jerusalem.
Lake and Cadbury held that the subject of this verb is "obscure," but instead of taking
this “obscurity” seriously, concluded that "The representatives of Jerusalem were in control:
Paul and Barnabas obeyed their orders, and went to be judged at Jerusalem." (p. 169) But, if
the subject of the verb is truly “obscure” (as it is), how can this certain of a conclusion be
drawn from the statement? This is the kind of reading of the text that characterized the later
Catholic Church, with its desire to insist on a centralized "authority" to which all other congregations
were subject, and who could therefore send representatives to other congregations,
giving orders such as this. But all of this is being read into this ambiguous text, and it is just as
possible that the original text means "the brothers" gave the order, meaning the leaders of the
congregation in Antioch.
With Lake and Cadbury's understanding, Luke's story in Acts is thrown into unnecessary
conflict with Paul's own strong assertion in Galatians 2:2ff., where he claims that he went
up to Jerusalem by divine revelation, and not under any compulsion by the leaders in Jerusalem.
We need not be afraid of seeing the actual differences that exist between Paul's account
in Galatians and Luke's account in Acts 15--but we need not so read these accounts as to
create additional, unnecessary conflicts between them!
12
The lengthy phrase ôáîáí íáâáßíåéí Ðáëïí êá Âáñíáâí êáß ôéíáò ëëïõò î
áôí, etaksan anabainein Paulon kai Barnaban kai tinas allous eks auton, “they (unnamed
plural subject--see footnote 11) determined (or ‘ordered’) that Paul and Barnabas and
certain others from among them (should) go up,” is changed by Bezae, the Old Latin manuscripts
gig (see) and w (see), along with the Harclean Syriac margin (see), plus the Middle
Egyptian version (see), to the much lengthier reading, elegen gar ho Paulos menein houtos
kathos episteusan diischurizomenos; hoi de eleluthotes apo Hierousalem pareggeilan
autois to Paulo kai Barnaba kai tisin allois anabainein, “For Paul said, maintaining firmly
(for them) to remain in this way, just as they believed; but those having come from Jerusalem
announced to (or “commanded”) them, Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, to come up
(continued...)
651

12
(...continued)
(the phrase, “to Jerusalem,” is added by some witnesses).” This variant reading is in fact a
real addition to Luke’s text, supplying information not in the original text. The original manuscript
says nothing about Paul’s telling the believers in Antioch to continue just as they were
when they believed. Nor does it say anything about Paul’s maintaining that view strongly (diischurizomai).
All of this is added by these later copyists and translators, who considered the
text being copied inadequate and confusing, and therefore in need of supplementary information--which
they supplied by these additions. First, he changed the verb from tassein to
paraggelein, a synonym, perhaps somewhat stronger, meaning “command” or “announce
authoritatively,” and then supplied the missing subject for the verb--it was “those having come
from Jerusalem.” The people they gave orders to were Paul and Barnabas and certain others
(just as the original text had said); and the order was that they were to “go up” to Jerusalem
(same as the original text).
Thus a text that was very ambiguous, and perhaps meant that a congregational decision
was made at Antioch for Paul and Barnabas and certain others out of their number to go
up to Jerusalem, is changed into a text that has the people who had come down to Antioch
from Jerusalem giving the orders for these same persons to go up to Jerusalem. That is the
reason why we can agree with Metzger in his statement that the Vaticanus-text “reflects the
point of view of Paul, whereas the Bezae-text is more sympathetic to the local tradition of the
church at Jerusalem.” (p. 427) We think that the older, original text reflects more sympathy to
the tradition of congregational autonomy, while the later “Western” text reflects more sympathy
for the “high church” tradition of authority above and beyond the local congregation. Once
again we insist that “Luke is no legalist.” He is not concerned for exact statements, and leaves
his wording open to various interpretations by later legalistic interpreters. Haenchen comments
that "Those who wish may find here a place for Titus (Galatians 2:1, 3), about whom
Acts is consistently silent. But Luke merely wants to describe a formal delegation, which
cannot consist of two men only when it is a question of so important a matter." (p. 443) This
is, we think, obviously the same meeting referred to by Paul in Galatians 2.
13
Or, as English speaking students are accustomed to reading this passage, "The Apostles
and Elders..." The Greek noun presbuteros means literally "older man," but serves as a
title for "official." It is impressive that these "lay-leaders" who have evidently been chosen to
serve as "officials" in the church at Jerusalem (if the same procedure was followed there as
Luke has described at Acts 14:23), stand side-by-side with the "Apostles" or "Ambassadors,"
as having an equal voice with them (compare 15:4, 6, 22-23; 16:4, and 11:30). It is very easy
to read this entire text as an open, "democratic" style public meeting, where all present have a
voice, in which outstanding leaders play a prominent role, and following which a decision is
taken, the notice of which is sent to all involved--without any "authoritative" element of "superiors"
issuing commands to "subordinates."
14
The first corrector of Bezae interpolates the phrase, hopos krithosin ep’ autois, “so
that they might be judged before (? literally ‘upon’) them.” This interpolation turns the meeting
in Jerusalem from a meeting designed for open discussion and mutual decision, into a trial
before an authoritative church court, thereby justifying the view that the Western text is sympathetic
to the high-church point of view. At the very least, the original text is ambiguous at this
(continued...)
652

15
controversy.
16
(3) Therefore, having been helped on their journey by the church, they went through
17 18 19 20
both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the non-Jewish
14
(...continued)
point, and says nothing concerning the meeting being a “trial.”
15
If the text is understood to mean that a congregational decision was taken at Antioch
to send these people up to Jerusalem, it seems that the decision of the church at Antioch was
a very wise and "brotherly" thing to do. "Since these people, whose coming has occasioned
all this controversy with our leaders, have come from Judea, and are members of the church
in Jerusalem, let us send our finest leaders to meet with their leaders--and hammer out this
problem! Let's confront this matter head-on, and see what the out-come is! Are these people,
with their insistence on the necessity for circumcision of the non-Jewish Christians, truly representative
of the church in Jerusalem? Have we been misled to think that circumcision is not
necessary? Or, are they holding a view that is not held to by their leaders? Let's find out,
before going any further!" It is a very honest, proper reaction to such a problem! They are not
willing to "sweep the matter under the rug," or pretend that the strong differences do not exist.
They want to deal with the matter, and deal with it in a decisive, open manner! Contrast this
attitude with that expressed by McGarvey in footnote 10.
If the text is understood in “high church” terms, as we understand Bezae’s interpolation,
we think it is likewise a very wise course of action. Responsible Christian leaders, who hear of
strange things happening in sister congregations, need to take responsibility for going to them,
finding out the truth of what is happening, and then offer their best advice in the midst of free
and open discussion of the issues involved, letting all other believers know the outcome of
their discussion. Either way the text is understood, it depicts the early Christian community as
exercising great mutual responsibility for what is done by fellow believers, and open willingness
to enter into discussion with the aim of resolving those conflicts.
16
What does Luke mean by saying they were "helped on their journey by the church"?
Surely we are to think of the gathering together of provisions such as food and money for their
expenses.
17
The particle te, “both,” is omitted by P74, Alexandrinus, E (Laudianus), Uncial 0294,
Minuscules 33, 1739, and the “Majority Text.” It is read by P45, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 36, 81, 453, 1175, and a few other Greek manuscripts.
Whether the particle is read or not makes no difference for the meaning of the text, and
later copyists felt the freedom to omit it.
18
Luke's language lets the reader know that much more missionary work has been done
than that which Luke himself has chosen to describe. Already the Church exists in Phoenicia,
although Luke has given no information concerning its founding.
19
We have heard Luke's description of the earlier mission to Samaria in which Phillip
played a leading role--see Acts 8:4-25, and 11:19. It is a temptation in studying the Book of
(continued...)
653

peoples; and they caused great joy in all the brothers. 21
19
(...continued)
Acts to think that Luke has given an exhaustive report on the growth of the first-century church
--but this is a very mistaken conclusion. The fact is, Luke only tells the story of a small portion
of the great waves of missionary outreach that went out in all directions from Jerusalem. He
tells of the work of Peter (and John), Stephen, and Phillip. But beginning with chapter nine,
he begins to center in on the mission of Saul \ Paul, picturing his conversion and early preaching
in Damascus and Jerusalem. Luke again pictures the work of Peter, especially in conjunction
with Cornelius, and then in the central coastal region of Israel. But he returns his focus to
Saul \ Paul, telling of his coming to Antioch of Syria, and then describing in great detail the
story of his mission together with Barnabas, as the missionaries proclaimed the Good News
from Antioch into Cyprus and Asia Minor, then into Greece, and finally all the way to Rome.
That's Luke's story--a great, and most important story, for which we are deeply grateful!
We assume that there were missionary journeys by others--to Phoenicia, Syria, Mesopotamia,
Arabia, India, Africa, Caucasus, Central Europe, England, perhaps even as far as
China. Later church traditions remembered all of those missions, and recounted the stories of
the travels of the other "Ambassadors" to the varied parts of the earth. In a typical "western"
way of looking at church history, it has been held that these traditional stories of the advance
of the church into Northern Europe, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere are "non-historical," and
based solely on unfounded later tradition. This is little more than a "western prejudice" to fail
to acknowledge the evidences for "global" missions on the part of the early Christians.
In fact, the Book of Acts is in a way the first (and perhaps the greatest) "Western
Church History." But still, we must guard against thinking that it deals with the whole story,
which would have demanded a much larger document than our present Book of Acts, if Luke
had attempted to tell the story of the other directions in which the Christian mission spread!
We believe that Luke was not attempting to give such a description--but only wanted to tell the
story of the advance of the Christian movement from Jerusalem to Rome, in such a way as to
inform governmental authorities of the true nature of the movement, thereby gaining favor with
Rome, and avoiding persecution against the Church and its leaders such as Paul in particular.
20
The word translated "conversion" is ðéóôñïöí, epistrophen, "turning around,” the
only place in the Greek New Testament where this noun occurs. But its related verb occurs on
a number of occasions, especially in Luke-Acts--see Luke 1:16, 17; 2:39; 8:55; 17:4, 31; 22:
32; Acts 3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15, here; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; and 28:27. We
have been influenced by McGarvey to use the phrase “cases of conversion”--but must note
that this is not a phrase to be found in the Book of Acts!
21
Luke evidently describes here a trip on foot, stopping in those cities and villages
where there were already churches that had been planted by others. Paul and Barnabas
excitedly related to their Christian brothers and sisters the details of how God had used them
in this initial missionary effort to the people of Asia Minor, including the non-Jews, so many of
whom had become believers. Luke is glad to tell his readers that those believing Jews who
heard of this missionary advance among the non-Jews gave a joyful, enthusiastic, positive
response! Compare Acts 10:45. We are reminded of Barnabas' response on his first going to
Antioch, and observing what had happened there, as so many people of various cultures and
(continued...)
654

22 23 24
(4) Then, having arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by
25 26
the Ambassadors, and by the Official Leaders; and they reported everything God had done
21
(...continued)
backgrounds had come into the Church of King Jesus. As Haenchen points out, according to
this statement, "The mission to the Gentiles is gladly welcomed by Christians everywhere.
The opposition to it can thus come only from a small minority." (p. 444)
22
Instead of the spelling Éåñïõóáëì, Ierousalem, which is found in Sinaiticus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscule 1739, and the “Majority Text,” the following
witnesses read ´Éåñïóüëõìá, Ierosoluma: P45, P74, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Psi,
Minuscules 81, 614, 1175, 1505, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin manuscript
gig, and the Vulgate. The latter spelling is the Hellenized (“Greek”) pronunciation; the former
spelling is much closer to the Hebrew pronunciation. The copyists and translators felt the
freedom to spell the name of the city in accordance with the manner customary among their
readers; they did not feel bound to the exact spelling of the original manuscript.
23
P45 (see), P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Psi, Minuscules 81, 326,
1175, and a few other Greek manuscripts read ðáñåäÝ÷èçóáí, paredechthesan, “they were
received.” E (Laudianus), Minuscule 1739, and the “Majority Text” read apedechthesan, a
synonym also meaning “they were received.” Minuscules 36, 453, and a few other Greek
manuscripts read hupedechthesan, which is another synonym for “they were received.” Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Minuscules 6, 614, 1704 and a few other Greek manuscripts plus the Harclean
Syriac (with markings to show the reading was not present in the exemplar being copied)
and the Sahidic Coptic read apedechthesan megalos, literally “they were received greatly,” or
we would say, “warmly.” The initial writer of Bezae (see) reads paredechthesan megalos, a
synonym meaning the same thing, “they were received greatly,” or “warmly.” All of these variants
are simply matters of grammatical “taste,” and do not change the meaning of the original
at all. They demonstrate the freedom of later copyists and translators to re-word the text, as
long as they do not change its meaning.
24
The Greek preposition is ð, apo, which normally means “from,” but obviously
means “by” here at Acts 15:4, perhaps as denoting those who originated the action of receiving--see
A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 88, column 2, V. 6. It is read by Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Minuscules 36, 453, 1175, and a few other Greek manuscripts. Probably
because of this rather unusual meaning, there is the variant reading hupo, which means “by,”
indicating the agent or cause of an action. It is found in P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, and the “Majority Text.” This variant is an
example of later copyists attempting to clarify a difficult reading in the original text--but it adds
nothing to that text.
25
Compare footnote 13. The entire membership of the church in Jerusalem is meant,
with its leaders--including both the Ambassadors of Jesus (those from among the "Twelve"),
the "Elders" (presbuteroi), or "Official Leaders," and in addition, "the church." In verse 4 it is
stated that the people from Antioch were sent up to Jerusalem to confer with "the Ambassadors
and Official Leaders." "The church" is included in welcoming them, but Luke doesn't
give any estimate of the number of persons involved, or the location of their gathering. Haen-
(continued...)
655

27 28 29
through them. (5) Then certain ones arose out of them, from among those of the
25
(...continued)
chen comments that "According to the statements about the size of the Jerusalem congregation,
such a gathering was of course no longer possible. But in reality Luke always imagines
this congregation only so large that it can assemble in a sizeable hall." (p. 444) This seems
like “hyper-criticism.” Cannot Luke only mean "representatives" of the entire church in Jerusalem?
Or should we think of the large majority of the church as having been dispersed, and
no longer present in Jerusalem?
26
The phrase èåò ðïßçóåí, ho theos epoiesen, literally “the God did,” is read
ðïß-çóåí èåò, epoiesen ho theos, by P45, Bezae, Minuscules 614, 945, a few other
Greek manuscripts, and the Old Latin manuscript gig. This variant is simply a matter of “taste”
with reference to how the Greek sentence should be worded--and adds nothing to the original
text. It demonstrates again how the later copyists and translators did not feel themselves
bound to repeating exactly the word-order of the original text, but rather felt the freedom to
change the order of its words--as long as they did not change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
27
The language is very similar to that in Acts 14:27. Paul and Barnabas (with the
others accompanying them) would have told the same thing that they had related in Phoenicia
and Samaria--the story of the growth of the church in Antioch, its sending them out to Cyprus
and into Asia Minor, and of all the converts that had been welcomed there, from both Jews
and non-Jews. They would have included their experiences of "signs and wonders" that had
accompanied that mission, as evidence of the divine approval of their work among the non-
Jewish peoples. None of this had been done "on their own"--but the guidance of the Spirit had
been manifest throughout the mission, and it obviously had been a "work of God" through
them! They would have insisted on that! Compare footnote 61.
28
Compare footnote 2. Luke’s language here identifies these “certain ones” as being
from the “school of the Separatists.”
29
The phrase îáíÝóôçóáí äÝ ôéíåò ôí, eksanestesan de tines ton, “Then certain
ones arose out of them,” is read differently by Bezae and the Harclean Syriac margin (see):
hoi de paraggeilantes autois anabainein pros tous presbuterous eksanestesan legontes
tines, “Then they, who had commanded them to go up to the Official Leaders, stood up, certain
ones saying...” The variant takes pains to identify these people in Jerusalem with those
who had come to Antioch, and according to Bezae (see footnote 12) had ordered the meeting
in Jerusalem. The later copyist and translators felt free to supply such additional information
to the original text, but information which does not significantly change the meaning of Luke’s
narrative.
Metzger continues his comments on the variations between Vaticanus and Bezae in
verses 1-5 as follows: “The Western [Bezae] form of text is obviously written from a different
point of view from the Vaticanus-text...In the Bezae-text...the envoys from Jerusalem ‘ordered’
(pareggeilan) Paul and others to go up to Jerusalem in order to give an account of
themselves to the apostles and elders (hopos krithosin ep’ autois). One cannot say, however,
that the Western paraphrast [an author who paraphrases in translation] was anti-Pauline,
for not only does he describe the Jerusalem church’s welcome to the apostles as hearty
(continued...)
656

30 31 32
school of the Separatists, who had believed, saying that "It is necessary to command
them to be circumcised, and to keep the teaching of Moses!" 33
34 35
(6) Both the Ambassadors and the Official Leaders gathered together to see
29
(...continued)
(verse 4), but he displays no trace whatever of the animus against Paul that is so apparent in
the circles represented by the later Clementine Homilies, where Paul appears as echthros
anthropos [enemy of humanity].” (p. 427)
30
Luke uses the Greek noun áñÝóåùò, haireseos, which means "(of the) sect," or (of
the) "party," or "(of the philosophical) school." The word came to mean "dogma," or "opinion,"
or "way of thinking." It is difficult to know exactly how Luke intends it here, but we understand
the text to mean “school.”
31
Or, "Pharisees." We call this “school” “the Separatists,” believing that the noun is
derived from the root parash in Hebrew, and should bear some such connotation as this. The
derivation is contested, but is apparently the most probable explanation of the name. Luke is
careful to describe these Separatists as “having believed,” identifying them as “Christian Separatists.”
For Luke, it is obvious that becoming a believer in Jesus did not mean necessarily
leaving the School of the Separatists. We will see much more concerning this in chapter 21.
32
The participle ëÝãïíôåò, legontes, “saying,” is omitted by Bezae and the Harclean
Syriac margin (see). The text is much more difficult to read without the participle, and we wonder
if this is simply an oversight on the part of the copyist of Bezae, or possibly reflects an original
reading in which Luke omits the verb--compare footnotes 161 on Acts 2:38, and 38 on
5:9.
33
Compare footnotes 2 and 3. These are the same people as are referred to in Acts
11:2-3.
34
Instead of te, “and,” or “both,” read by P74, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Psi,
Minuscules 33, 81, 1175, 1505, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate, the particle
de, “then,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscule 1739, the
“Majority Text,” the Old Latin manuscript gig, and the Syriac tradition. The variant makes no
difference for the meaning of the original text, and is most probably a matter of the copyists
and translators hearing the exemplar being read, and not being able to distinguish between
these two words.
35
The phrase sun to plethei, “with the multitude,” is interpolated by Minuscule 614 a
few other Greek manuscripts, and the Harclean Syriac. This variant reading by later copyists
and translators emphasizes the “democratic” nature of the meeting, evidently seeking to make
explicit what is implicit in the original text. Although Luke’s original text has not pictured the
presence of the multitude at this point, in verse 12 their presence is made explicit, and verse
4 had included “the assembly” as receiving the people from Antioch. Compare verse 22.
657

36 37 38
concerning this matter. (7) Then extensive controversy having occurred, Peter, having
36
Instead of the reading ëüãïõ, logou, “word,” or “matter” (in the genitive) E (Laudianus)
Minuscule 614, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin manuscript gig, and the
Harclean Syriac read zetematos, “controversial question” (also in the genitive), thereby
making the somewhat ambiguous original text much more specific. The later copyists and
translators felt free to “enhance” the original text by making explicit what is only implicit in it,
but not changing its meaning. This noun zetema is found only in Acts in the Greek New
Testament--see 15:2; 18:15; 23:29; 25:19, and 26:3.
It seems clear in reading this statement that Luke means there was a separate gathering
of only the Ambassadors and Official Leaders of the church in Jerusalem, in which they
could discuss this highly controversial matter in private, apart from the entire congregation and
visitors (McGarvey agreed with this, 2, p. 60). Haenchen disagrees with this conclusion, stating
that "Verse 6 does not depict a separate session of the governing body: verse 12 shows
that the...whole congregation is present...Luke merely wants to show that at the protest of the
former Pharisees the Apostles and elders immediately take charge of the situation." (p. 444)
However, this is probably asking too much of Luke in telling his story, to expect that every
detail of what happened, including private sessions, should be precisely described! Undoubtedly
there would have had to be some private meetings, and other, more open meetings, in
dealing with such a controversial question. We take it that Luke has lumped them all together,
and has not attempted to give exact "minutes" of everything that transpired!
37
P45 (see--this is the 3rd century Chester Beatty papyrus manuscript) interpolates similar
words to those found in the later “Western” text of Acts 15:2: to Paulo kai to Barnaba
pros au[tous etaksan anabain]ein Paulon kai Barnaban kai tinas [allous eks auton] pros
tous apostolous kai presbuterous gen[omenes], “(Then much controversy having occurred)
by Paul and Barnabas against them, th[ey ordered] that Paul and Barnabas and certain
[others from among them] should [go up to] the Ambassadors and Official Leaders in Jerusalem,
concerning this controversy.” This interpolation shows that the so-called “Western
Text” which we assume to be later (Bezae is from the 5th century) may preserve readings
much earlier in origin! The variant reading gives additional information, not found in the original
text--but does not significantly change its meaning, unless the original text is understood
as attempting to define exactly the details of how the meeting at Jerusalem was caused.
We think that Luke’s original narrative was not concerned with this, and makes ambiguous
statements that can be interpreted in different senses.
The noun zetesis means “investigation,” “controversial question,” “controversy,” “discussion”
or “debate” (see footnote 9). McGarvey commented that “Men who are in error can
never be convinced that they are wrong by denying them freedom of speech. Not till they
have been allowed to express themselves to the last word are they capable of listening dispassionately
to the other side. The apostles, knowing this, or at least acting on it, permitted
the Judaizers in the church to say all that they wished to say before any reply was made to
their positions and arguments. Then, when they had completely emptied themselves, the
apostles, one by one, and in a succession apparently prearranged, gave utterance to facts
and judgments which compelled assent.” (2, p. 62)
658
(continued...)

39 40 41 42
stood up, said to them, "Men, brothers, you know that a long time ago God chose from
37
(...continued)
McGarvey seems to have meant by this that there was in fact no real “debate,” with the
decision resting on the outcome--that the Ambassadors simply allowed the opposing view to
be fully expressed, and then resolved everything by their infallible, authoritative decision. But
this is not what appears from simply reading the text of Acts 15 without McGarvey’s assumptions.
Rather, Luke appears to be presenting a very live, real debate, in which the decision
rests on the truth presented--not on authoritative decisions by inspired Ambassadors which
compel assent. In fact, if that is really what Luke means, there was no reason for any discussion
at all, just as McGarvey maintained (see footnote 10).
38
This is the last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts. He has previously been mentioned
fifty-five times in chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9,10, 11, and 12; now, finally this one time in
chapter 15, and then not another mention in the Book of Acts. See Galatians 2:7 and 8 for
Paul's references to Peter in conjunction with this matter of the relationship of Jewish Christians
to non-Jewish Christians. We sense in these statistics how the center of attention in the
Book of Acts moves from Peter and Jerusalem to Paul and the expanding mission to the non-
Jews in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy.
39
Instead of the phrase íáóôò ÐÝôñïò, anastas Petros, the first writer of Bezae,
Minuscule 614 (see) and Harclean Syrian margin (see) read anestesen en pneumati Petros
kai..., “Peter stood up in Spirit and...” This reading can be understood as supporting the “inspiration”
of Peter, much in the way that McGarvey viewed the matter. But we will see in
verse 28 that the guidance of the Spirit was shared in by all of the participants in the conference.
The later copyists and translators felt the freedom to make such an addition to the
original text, which does not change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
Luke describes the participants as seated--perhaps on benches surrounding the outside
walls of the meeting-place (like a synagogue). There has been extended argument, with
varying points of view presented. Now, Peter, by standing up, signals that he has something
important to say. And, according to Luke's description, he was highly successful, "carrying the
day" with his argument. Haenchen comments that "Now, when excitement and conflict have
reached their peak, Peter intervenes and with one stroke clarifies the situation in his address
..." (p. 445)
McGarvey held dogmatically that with Peter’s standing up, a new and second public
meeting began. He stated that “The second public meeting of the whole church was called,
not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement between the apostles, but for the purpose
of enabling the apostles to bring the whole church into agreement with themselves. In this
light we must study the proceedings, or we shall totally misconstrue them.” (2, p. 62) That is,
unless we follow McGarvey’s assumptions concerning a second meeting and its purpose,
which are not at all made explicit by Luke, we cannot understand what happened. We think
this shows a great uneasiness on McGarvey’s part, with simply reading the text and letting it
speak its own message, without making assumptions concerning the agenda of the meeting!
40
With these initial words, "Men, brothers...", compare Peter's speech in Acts 1:16, and
2:29. Stephen's language is similar at 7:2, as is Paul's at 13:15, 16, 26, and 38. Compare the
(continued...)
659

43
among you, that through my mouth the non-Jewish peoples should hear the Word of the
40
(...continued)
same expression later by Jacob ("James") at Acts 15:13, and then by Paul at 22:1; 23:1, 6;
and 28:17.
41
Peter's argument begins with an appeal to common knowledge--this is something that
they all know, if they will but recall it to their memory! There is nothing about Peter’s “apostolic
authority”--only an appeal to common knowledge!
42
The phrase in Greek is ö ìåñí ñ÷áßùí, aph' hemeron archaion, literally,
"from days of old," or "from ancient days." Haenchen translates this "From the earliest days,"
and holds that Peter could not have considered the events surrounding Cornelius as having
been so long ago. He states, "We ought quietly to admit that the expression exaggerates, but
was chosen to show that the matter was decided long ago." (p. 145) But surely this is "hypercriticism"!
How long is ten years, or twenty years? Only a short while, when viewed from eternity,
or from a long life-time, looking back--yes. But for those involved, at a time when much is
happening daily, and a new religious movement is being formed that is reaching out like the
nascent Church was, ten years can "seem an eternity"!
43
The phrase í ìí îåëÝîáôï èåò, en humin ekseleksato ho theos, “God chose
from among you,” is read by P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Uncial 0294, Minuscules 33, 36, 81, 945, 1175, 1739, some other Greek manuscripts,
the Bohairic Coptic, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.--see). E (Laudianus),
Psi (in a different order--see), the “Majority Text,” the Vulgate, some manuscripts of the
Old Latin (see), and the Harclean Syriac read èåò í ìí îåëÝîáôï, ho theos en hemin
ekseleksato ( + en, “among,” read by a corrector of Bezae), “God chose among us.” Bezae,
Minuscule 614 and a few other Greek manuscripts read hemin ho theos ekseleksato, “from
among us God chose.” Minuscule 189, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Peshitta Syriac,
and the Sahidic Coptic read ho theos ekseleksato, “God chose,” omitting any pronoun. Such
an abundance of variants in the later Western text probably points to a problem in the earliest
manuscript containing the variant; but the textual evidence points to the use of “among you” in
the original text of Acts.
Metzger holds that “The change to the first person pronoun...seems to reflect the
consideration that it was more in accord with ecclesiastical propriety for Peter to describe
God’s choice as made from ‘us [the apostles]’ than from ‘you [the whole church]’.” (p. 428)
Again, the evidence seems to point to a more “democratic” procedure being described in the
original text, with a more “high church,” authoritarian procedure being described in the variants
made by later copyists and translators.
But whatever reading we decide was original, the point is that this matter of reaching
out to the non-Jews had been God's choice, not something that Peter or some other leaders
had decided upon! There can be no doubt that the “authority” being appealed to is not that of
an “Apostolic Commission,” or the possession by certain leaders of “Infallible Authority,” but
rather, the appeal is to God, and what God has done in history! The infallible authority of the
Church is not the Bible of the Jews, or the words of the Ambassadors of Jesus--but the God
660
(continued...)

44 45 46
Good News and believe. (8) And God who knows hearts bore testimony to them, having
43
(...continued)
who acts, the Word / Event of the God of the Bible! Peter appears here, not as an authoritative,
infallible source of truth, but rather as an humble witness to the divine Word / Event!
44
The phrase in Greek is ôí ëüãïí ôï åáããåëßïõ, ton logon tou euaggeliou, "the
Word of the Good News," which we capitalize as we have done earlier in chapter 13, because
in these places Luke is giving his definition of "the Word of God." We emphasize that the
"Word of God" is not identified by Luke with a "New Testament" containing 27 separate books,
nor does he call the “epistle” written by the Ambassadors, Official Leaders and the Church of
Jerusalem the “Word of God.” Rather, the Word of God is the "Good News," the Story of what
God has done in Jesus of Nazareth, in offering life to the nations. That's the "Word"--all else
is commentary, and human commentary (even if "inspired"!) at that! How helpful this distinction
is for the understanding of Biblical Theology!
45
Haenchen comments that "In this way Peter reminds his audience of the conversion of
Cornelius (10:1-11:18), through which God caused the Gentile mission to begin." (p. 445)
Dibelius had commented that "...This allusion to Acts 10:1ff. cannot be understood by Peter's
hearers, though it can by readers of the book. For the latter the Cornelius story has a normative
significance...and this is the work of the writer Luke, for he can be shown to have expanded
the story of Cornelius and endowed it with fundamental importance." (Quoted by Haenchen,
p. 445) But this means that until the early Church had the Book of Acts to read, they
wouldn't have known of its salient points--which is highly debatable--especially if Luke is
recording actual events, and not writing a romantic fiction!
Undoubtedly many of those present in the meeting in Jerusalem knew quite well what
had happened to Peter and Cornelius--as, according to Acts 11, it had been publicly expounded
in Jerusalem, and the church at Jerusalem had given its acknowledgment that "God had
granted turning around unto life to the non-Jewish peoples!" (Acts 11:18) It seems clear that
what had happened to Cornelius had already become a matter of widespread knowledge and
importance, even if its memory and significance was now far back in the past. Peter's point is
that God himself had made the choice--not the Ambassadors, or the Official Leaders of the
Church in Jerusalem--but God himself! The divine choice was that the non-Jewish nations of
the earth should "hear the Word of the Good News and believe (or, have faith)!" The last verb
in this phrase is pisteusai, which means the act of believing or having faith. Compare the
further statement at the end of verse 9, "having cleansed their hearts by faith," where ô ðßóôåé,
te pistei, “by the faith,” is the equivalent of ðéóôåóáé, pisteusai, “to believe,” here in
verse 7. It means receiving the Word of the Good News in the human heart, and placing confidence
in that Word as true, with all that entails.
46
Peter describes God as the "Heart-Knower," êáñäéïãíþóôçò èåò, ho kardiognostes
theos. Compare Acts 1:24, where the same word is used (the only other place it occurs
in the New Testament documents) on the lips of the earliest disciples gathered together in
Jerusalem. Haenchen comments that "As the knower of hearts God knows the inner worthiness
of persons...The expression corresponds to 10:34: God is not [a shower of favoritism on
the basis of external considerations] prosopolemptes. He does not inquire concerning what
661
(continued...)

47 48 49
given the Set-apart Spirit to them just as he also did to us. (9) And he made no distinc-
50 51 52
tion between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore, why
46
(...continued)
people a man belongs to (that would be consideration of a merely superficial characteristic)
but whether he is worthy in his heart." (p. 445) Compare Romans 10:12.
47
P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Minuscules 33, 81, 1175 and a few
other Greek manuscripts read simply äïò, dous, “having given.” Ephraemi Rescriptus, E
(Laudianus), Uncial 0294, Minuscule 1739, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin manuscript l,
the Syriac tradition, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.) interpolate the word
autois, “to them.” Bezae, and in a different order of words, Psi, read ep’ autous, “upon
them.” The variant readings are simply making explicit what is implicit in the original text, as
later copyists and translators felt the freedom to make these additions which do not change
the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
48
Peter wants the church in Jerusalem to know that just as God had borne witness to
them on the Day of Pentecost, sending the Spirit upon them, "immersing" them in the Spirit, so
he had borne the identical witness to the non-Jewish peoples of the household of Cornelius,
sending the same Spirit upon them, "immersing" them in the Spirit! It was not something Peter
himself, or any other human being had done--it was God's own self-manifestation of pleasure
in what was happening as the Word of the Good News was proclaimed to non-Jewish people,
and they were welcomed into the Church! Compare the story as told In Acts 10:44-47, and in
chapter 11 (especially 11:17) as what happened to Cornelius and his household is identified
as both the "immersion" in, and the "gift of" the Set-apart Spirit.
49
The word ïèí, outhen, “nothing,” is read by Vaticanus, H (014, Modena), L (020),
P (025), Uncial 0294, Minuscules 323, 1241, 1505 and other Greek manuscripts. Oäí,
Ouden, “nothing,” is read by P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae,
E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, and the “Majority Text.” These are only two different
ways of spelling the same word, and reflect the history of orthographic changes in the
Greek language--see J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, II, pp. 111-12.
The later copyists / editors feel free to change the spelling found in the original text to the
spelling they are more accustomed to--which of course makes no difference for the meaning
of Luke’s narrative.
50
The verb äéÝêñéíåí, diekrinen, “he made [no] distinction,” is changed to diekrinamen,
“we made [no] distinction” by P74. This variant reading seems to be a mistake, as it
does not make sense in the sentence, which is speaking about what God has done, not what
“we” the Ambassadors, have done.
51
In our study of the Jewish Bible, we have concluded that "When you learn what YH-
WH God does and likes, you have thereby learned what his people ought to do and like." That
is, the basis for ethics and morality is founded on God--on his actions and desires--the only
sure foundation for ethics that can be found! Peter is arguing on just this biblical basis--we
learn what we ought to do by observing what God has done in our midst! If God has chosen
(continued...)
662

53
are you testing God, by placing a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our
54 55
fathers nor we [ourselves] were strong enough to carry? (11) But we believe
51
(...continued)
to send his Good News to the non-Jewish people, and if he has bestowed his Spirit upon
them, making no distinction between Jew and non-Jew, then we know what we ought to do.
We ought to make no distinctions either; and if God has received them into his family, we too
ought to receive them without restriction! It is a most important lesson, one that the modern
churches need to meditate upon and act upon!
52
The phrase is literally, "by the faith having cleansed the hearts of theirs," te pistei
katharisas tas kardias auton. Haenchen states, "...The continuation, 'in that he cleansed
their hearts by the faith' (which he gave them) introduces a new thought: however impure the
Gentile may be as such in Jewish eyes, God has now created in him an inward purity..." (pp.
445-46) This means that, according to Peter, the only thing necessary for receiving the divine
gift of "purity of heart" is the faith that says "yes!" to the Good News. In having the Good News
proclaimed to the non-Jews, inviting their response of faith, it is obvious that God has welcomed
them on that basis! They do not have to present "pedigrees," or lists of accomplishments,
showing the fulfillment of 613 commandments--all they have to do is to believe the
Good News! This is what Paul maintains in the Book of Galatians!
53
One of the major themes of Exodus and Numbers is that of "Testing in the Wilderness,"
in which the story is told of how Israel, having been delivered from Egyptian captivity,
doubted and questioned and complained against God's goodness, claiming it would have
been better to have died in Egypt with full stomachs, than to perish in the desert from hunger
and thirst! See especially Numbers 14 and Exodus 17, where the names Massah and Meribah,
"Testing" and "Quarreling" are emphasized as embodying this theme. YHWH God had
acted powerfully for their salvation, and was actively leading them through the wilderness to
the Promised Land. But, instead of trusting themselves to the divine leadership and provision,
they began to complain and rebel, "testing God." See especially Exodus 17:2, where Moses
asks Israel the same question that Peter here asks. Peter’s question implies that to question
what God is doing in giving his Spirit to the non-Jewish peoples simply on the basis of faith, is
to be guilty of that same kind of "tempting God"!
Indeed, here is another major motif of the Jewish Bible which is finding fulfillment in
Jesus and the Christian movement! Once again, as promised, YHWH God has spoken his
powerful Word / Event in Jesus. Once again, a “new Exodus” has occurred, and the Spirit is
leading through dangers and trials into the promised future. But the very people nearest to
that Word / Event, instead of hearing this new “Torah,” this powerful Word / Event, turn away,
complaining and rebelling against the divine leading and direction! Compare Paul’s use of this
same motif in 1 Corinthians 10, and also compare Hebrews 3:1-4:13.
54
The description of the Mosaic traditional teachings as "a yoke upon the neck" was one
easily understood by the first-century Jews. They used the phrase, not in a bad sense, of a
burdensome, impossible load (as it is used here; compare Matthew 23:4 and Galatians 5:1)--
but rather, in a good sense, of an obligation willingly and joyfully undertaken. It meant to bow
humbly and gladly before the Law of God, committing oneself to the obligation of carrying its
(continued...)
663

54
(...continued)
load. As can be easily seen from Psalms 19 and 119, this wonderful gift of YHWH God's "guidance"
and "teaching" was not considered a "heavy, unbearable load," but rather was considered
a "beloved delight," a "light to the feet," a "source of life," given to God's wayward people
as a gift of grace, to keep them from falling and being destroyed, and preserving their freedom.
That is why Haenchen comments that "This statement [concerning the divine law being
'an intolerable yoke'] corresponds neither to Jewish nor to Pauline theology. The Jewish [people]
saw in the law a privilege and a help: the idea of 'the yoke (of the law)' denoted the religious
duties and contained no complaint that the law was hard or intolerable...[Paul] saw the
law as a means by which man sought to attain his own glory, and which therefore turned him
away from God. Here [in Acts 15] however we have the law seen through Hellenistic Gentile
Christian eyes, as a mass of commandments and prohibitions which no man can fulfill. Luke
here is obviously speaking for himself and transmitting the view of his age and milieu." (p.
446; compare similar statements on p. 459)
But there is a very important biblical motif which can help us to understand this matter
of the nature of the law of God which was given by Moses from Mount Sinai. In the Book of
Exodus, the People of Israel proudly proclaim that "All YHWH has spoken we will do!" (19:8)
But no sooner have they been given the divine Torah, than they build the golden calf and
grievously violate its central teaching! The story is told in Exodus 32-34. Its conclusion is that
the only way in which Israel can ever fulfill its proud claim of being able to keep the divinely
given Torah [i.e., to carry its yoke], is through the merciful grace and willingness of YHWH
God to forgive a sinful people, and enter into covenant with them in spite of their weakness
and inability to fulfill that Torah! It is only the nature of YHWH as a God of infinite grace and
forgiveness that enables the covenant with Israel to exist in the first place!
We must add to that powerful theology of Exodus 32-34 the additional teaching of Exodus
19--that the Torah of Moses was never given to save the people, or to enable them to
save themselves--they were saved by the mighty acts of YHWH God who came to the helpless
slaves in Egypt, and brought them out by his strong arm, apart from any ability or power
of their own. It was to an "already saved people," a "ransomed, delivered people," that the
divine Torah was given through Moses--not in order to give them a code of rules by which they
could save themselves, but in order to given them guidance, and keep them from harm as
God's chosen people!
If that is true--as the Book of Exodus makes clear--then how could the Jews hold that
the non-Jews had to accomplish what they themselves had been unable to accomplish, in
order to be saved? No, the Torah ("Teaching," "Laws") of Moses is nothing other than a gift of
divine grace to a saved people who cannot possibly save themselves; it is by no means a
legalistic code to enable them to save themselves! Peter has understood that biblical teaching
well!
If it is claimed that while this is true of the teaching of the Book of Exodus, it is not true
in later times, when a more mature and chastened Israel became able to bear that "yoke,” it
(continued...)
664

56 57
that we are being saved through the gracious gift of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as
they are!" 58
54
(...continued)
must be replied, "Then listen to the witness of Israel’s Spokespersons and Psalmists!" For the
Spokespersons come to historical Israel, proclaiming Israel's breaking of the covenant, charging
Israel with being worse than "Sodom and Gomorrah," calling Israel to "turning around"--
never congratulating Israel as being a people who have successfully fulfilled the Torah of her
God! The Book of Psalms is replete with songs \ prayers that repeat the History of Israel as a
history of apostasy, and her constant need for grace--never as the story of a people who can
save themselves by their own covenant-keeping, apart from infinite divine grace and mercy!
No, we must agree with Peter, that neither the Jews of the first century, nor their fathers, were
ever strong enough to successfully carry that yoke, and save themselves by their successful
obedience!
55
Luke uses the present active tense of the verb--ðéóôåýïìåí, pisteuomen.
56
It is the infinitive of the verb sozein, óùèíáé, sothenai, which would be literally
translated, "(we are believing) to be saved (or, to be made whole)..." Many translators turn
this into a future tense ("we shall be saved"), but this is not clear in the Greek, which can be
translated just as accurately (if not more so), "For our belief is that we are saved in the same
way as they are: by the grace of the Lord Jesus." (Revised English Bible and New Jerusalem
Bible)
57
The word Christou, “Anointed King,” is interpolated by Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae,
Psi, Minuscules 33 (see), 36, 453, 945, 1175, 1739, a few other Greek manuscripts, the majority
of Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, five or more Bohairic Coptic manuscripts, plus
the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.). It is not found in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, E (Laudianus), the “Majority Text,” the Vulgata Stuttgartiensis, the Harclean
Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic, and five or more Bohairic Coptic manuscripts. This is a typical
addition made by later copyists and translators, seeking to express their love and loyalty to
Jesus, by using the language they had grown accustomed to in their religious tradition.
58
Peter's statement is an humble and honest confession by a Jewish Christian. Like our
fathers before us, as demonstrated so clearly in the Book of Exodus, we know that we are
unable to save ourselves by perfectly keeping any covenant, even YHWH God's own covenant
given through Moses. Our only hope under that covenant was God's grace and mercy--the
same grace and mercy that our God is now extending to us and to the non-Jewish peoples in
Jesus, the Anointed King! Compare Galatians 2:15-16, and Ephesians 2:5, 8, for similar
expressions.
Haenchen comments that Luke "...is making evident the conformity of the Jerusalem
congregation with the premises of the Pauline mission as he sees it." (p. 446) But we affirm
that this simple Christian confession is common to all strands of theology found in the New
Testament and the first-century Church! It is the confession that God has acted in saving
power for the salvation of all humanity in Jesus of Nazareth--and that to be a "Christian" at all,
is to be a person who trusts in that divine action for salvation! If Peter hadn't believed that, he
(continued...)
665

59
(12) Then all the crowd became silent; and they were listening to Barnabas and
58
(...continued)
certainly would not have continued in his role as an Ambassador for the risen Lord Jesus, nor
would he have preached as pictured in the earlier chapters of Acts! This is the irreducible
"ground-rock" of Christianity! Luke is not contriving speeches to try and get Peter and Paul in
agreement--the fact is, they were basically and fundamentally in agreement, even though they
had disagreements on some of the consequences of what the divine Word meant for their
actions--see Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians!
McGarvey commented that Peter concluded “...both Jews and Gentiles were to be
saved through grace, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ...[and this] implies necessarily that
they were not to be saved by keeping the law. In affirming that the law was a yoke that the
Jews had not been able to bear, he meant that they had not been able so to keep it as to be
saved by the perfection of their obedience to it. This speech, it would seem, should have been
enough to end the whole controversy...” (2, p. 64; and compare footnote 10) Yes--if Luke
considered Peter’s word the absolute, final authority. But obviously, Luke does not so consider
it, and thinks that further testimony and decisions need to be made, under the guidance of
the Spirit!
59
The phrase Åóßãçóåí ä, Esigesen de, “Then it was silent...” is replaced in Bezae,
the Old Latin manuscript l (see), and the Harclean Syriac (with markings to show the reading
was not found in the exemplar being copied--see), by the words, sugkatatithemenon de ton
presbuteron tois hupo tou Petrou eiremenois esigesen, “Then the officials, having agreed
to the things spoken by Peter were silent...” This variant reading is making explicit what is
implicit in the original text, and demonstrates the translators’ sense of freedom to add such
materials to the original text, without changing its meaning.
Luke obviously means that Peter's argument was compelling, overwhelming any
objections in the minds of those hearing. Because of this compelling evidence, the controversy
and arguing came to an end; everyone was silent, in witness to the compelling power of
Peter's brief address. We agree with Haenchen's comment that "Peter's speech puts an end
to all conflict within the plethos [crowd, throng]--the assembly holds its peace..." (p. 447) But
we also insist that in spite of the power of Peter’s testimony, it was not the fact that Peter
made the argument--it was the divine actions to which Peter bore witness that compelled the
unanimous decision! And even following Peter’s conclusive testimony, there is still more to be
said. Supporters of “High Church” views, in which high church officials have the final say,
have taken this to mean that the "lay people" became silent, and listened to the authoritative
voice of the "clergy." But surely this is reading a great deal into the text!
666

60 61
Paul explaining everything God had done through them --signs and wonders among the
62 63 64 65 66
non-Jewish nations. (13) Then after they were silent, Jacob responded, saying, "Men,
60
We assume that out on the mission field, in Asia Minor, Paul obviously took the lead,
and therefore Luke used the phrase "Paul and Barnabas" in his narrative concerning that
work. But now, having returned to Jerusalem, where Barnabas would be by far the better
known of the two, Luke returns to the former "Barnabas and Paul" (verses 12, 25; but compare
verses 2, 22, and 35 where Paul is still mentioned first).
61
There are four passages in Acts with very similar language, where Paul (and his companions)
explains "what things God has done (through him, or, them)"--see 14:27; 15:4, 12
(here), and 21:19. There is no sign of egotistical pride in Paul, as if his accomplishments were
his own. He humbly tells of what "God has done"! Again we emphasize that the “final authority”
is not the “inspired Ambassadors,” but rather, the actions of Gods in human history! Compare
in the Apocrypha Judith 8:26. As has been pointed out again and again, this is part of a
constant theme in Luke’s “apology”--the Christian movement is not humanly contrived; it is a
divinely given and guided movement that serves only the purposes of heaven!
62
Here, what Barnabas and Paul explain has to do with the "signs and wonders" that
God had done among the non-Jewish peoples. Compare Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 8:
6, 13; 14:3, and here, 15:12. The same God who worked wonders in Jerusalem on the Day of
Pentecost has been active throughout the various stages of the church's growth, working similar
signs and wonders throughout the course of the Christian movement beyond the confines
of Israel! Of course, the reader of the Book of Acts does not need any details concerning
those "signs and wonders," because they have just read concerning them in chapters 13 and
14! We agree with McGarvey in his statement that “As the miracle of giving the Holy Spirit in
the case of Cornelius and his friends gave proof of God’s approval in that case, so the ‘signs
and wonders’ which he wrought by the hands of Barnabas and Paul while they were bringing
in the Gentiles and organizing them as congregations without circumcision, and without requiring
them to keep the law, gave proof of his approbation in these cases also.” (2, p. 64)
63
Compare verse 12, with its footnote 59, where Luke tells how the crowd became
silent. The meaning is different here; Luke only means that Barnabas and Paul finished their
presentation.
64
This "Jacob" has been introduced by Luke earlier in Acts at 12:17 (see its footnote
63). He is mentioned here as playing a leading, decisive role in leadership of the assembly in
Jerusalem. He will be mentioned one other time at Acts 21:18, where he obviously plays the
leading role in the church in Jerusalem. We take this Jacob to be the oldest of Jesus' four
younger brothers (see Mark 6:3). A large literature grew up in the early centuries of the Chrisian
Church concerning this brother, and the role he played as a sort of "Bishop" of the Church
in Jerusalem. McGarvey rejected any such view of Jacob’s role, stating that “The fact that
James [”Jacob”] introduces the decision which he proposes with the words, ‘Wherefore my
judgment is,’ has been construed by many as evidence that he was president of the conference,
and as such rendered a decision which the others were bound to accept. But there is
no evidence whatever that he acted in this capacity, or that his judgment in the case was more
authoritative than that of Peter, or of John, who also was present.” (2, p. 66)
(continued...)
667

67 68 69 70 71
brothers, listen to me. (14) Symeon has explained how God first visited the non-
64
(...continued)
It was most probably McGarvey’s fervent belief in “congregational autonomy” that led
him to such a view, and his deep concern to avoid any church organization that would invest
power in individual leaders such as Jacob obviously plays according to Luke in the Jerusalem
assembly. The fact is that Luke does picture Jacob as playing such a leading role, and those
who seek to respect biblical teaching should not attempt to down-play this fact! Once again
we observe that Luke is no “legalist,” seeking to write a document describing or “authorizing”
certain forms of church government. That is why his statements can be taken in support of
both very democratic, and at the same time, authoritarian forms of church organization. But
this is unfair to Luke’s writing, which was not at all intended for such a purpose!
65
Or, "answered..." It seems that Jacob ("James") already plays a pivotal role in the
assembly in Jerusalem, as he sums up the meaning of what has been said in the meeting of
the church and its leaders. He is at the very least playing the role of "spokesperson" for the
meeting, and it appears that since he is in concurrence with what has been said heretofore, by
Peter and Barnabas and Paul, his speech embodies the final decision of the meeting. This
does not appear to be a matter of an “authoritarian decision,” but rather, a matter of “consensus,”
of those present coming to agreement on the basis of what has been said by all of the
participants concerned. Jacob does not give the “ex cathedra” pronouncement of a bishop,
but rather announces the agreement, what we might call “the sense of the assembly.”
66
Instead of the phrase ðåêñßèç ÉÜêùâïò ëÝãùí, apekrithe Iakobos legon, “Jacob
answered, saying,” Bezae and the Peshitta Syriac read anastas Iakobos eipen, “Jacob
having stood up said...” This variant reading adds little to the original text, and is probably
rooted in the earlier statement in verse 7 concerning Peter’s “standing up,” signaling the
opening of his speech. But the variant demonstrates once again the freedom felt by later
copyist and translator to make such minor changes in the text being copied and translated,
without changing its meaning.
67
Compare footnote 40.
68
Compare identical language in James ("Jacob") 2:5, êïýóáôÝ, “listen,” and nowhere
else in the Greek New Testament.
69
The name "Symeon" for Simon [Peter] is a Semitic name, Shime(on, which, if pronounced
in Greek is Simon. The use of the more "Semitic" sounding pronunciation fits well
with the character of Jacob ("James") as a native Galilean, and as leader of the Jewish Christian
Church. Haenchen holds that this shows Luke wants to identify Jacob as a Semiticspeaking
Galilean. But the words that follow are sophisticated Greek, and the quotation from
Amos 9 is made from the Greek translation--not an Aramaic one. Modern Biblical scholars
are no longer as confident as was an earlier generation, when it was easily assumed that the
Galileans were unlearned, mono-lingual peasants. Today we know that Galilee, especially
around the Sea of Galilee, was highly cosmopolitan in make-up, with Greek, Latin, and Syriac
(Estrangelo) being commonly spoken and written there. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed
a much more multi-lingual society even in that isolated area of Israel (Qumran) than was
668
(continued...)

72 73
Jewish nations, to take out from them a people for his name. (15) And to this the words of
69
(...continued)
earlier believed. Jerusalem, with its constant influx of foreigners from all over the world, may
well have been multi-lingual!
70
Jacob is obviously referring to the speech of Peter referred to in verses 7-9.
71
The Greek verb used here is ðåóêÝøáôï, episkepsato, from episkeptomai, which
means "to look at, examine, inspect," "go to see, visit," and is commonly used in the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible for God's gracious "visitation" in bringing salvation to his people.
It is used to translate the Hebrew verb paqadh, meaning "pay attention to, observe with
practical care and interest." YHWH God is the one who "visits" his people in this way, inspecting
their condition, reproving and correcting what is wrong, and supplying what is lacking.
Jacob is using a very "Semitic" way of describing what God has done through reaching out to
the non-Jewish peoples. It wasn't something that Peter dreamed up, or did on his own--not at
all! It was God at work, "visiting" the non-Jewish people with gracious salvation! Compare
Luke 1:68.
72
It may seem like a strange way to describe what Peter has just told about going to the
household of Cornelius, and witnessing God's gift of the Spirit to the non-Jewish people there
in Caesarea. Why would Jacob use this particular language, "to take out from them a people
for his name"? Our answer is that Jacob means that God, in this action of reaching out to the
non-Jewish peoples, is creating for himself a "new people of God," who will bear his name,
and who will witness to him throughout the earth, becoming God’s chosen “people” just like
Israel as described in Deuteronomy 14:2.
In the Jewish Bible we learn that YHWH God made his name known to Moses, and to
the children of Israel, in order that they might proudly wear his name--as the people of YHWH-
-who through their worship and life-style would make his name known among the nations.
This is one of the primary teachings of the Book of Exodus. YHWH, having revealed himself
to Israel, intended that the nation would be a "Kingdom of Priests, and a set-apart Nation"--i.e.,
they would make YHWH known to the nations, and would serve as his means of bringing the
nations into his worship.
In ancient Israel, to be an orphan without parents meant to be a child without a name.
But then, to be taken up in the arms of a great father, claimed as his own, being given his
name, meant to find a home, to "become someone." Compare Isaiah 43:1, "...Fear not, for I
have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine!" What could be greater
than to be claimed by the God of the universe as his children, to be given his great name to
wear, and to be called upon to make that divine name known throughout the world? What an
honor! What a marvelous gift of grace! What a life-long task! This is what YHWH God had
done to Israel, and was now doing to the non-Jewish peoples through Jesus and the Christian
movement!
73
Instead of ôïýô, touto, “to this,” the first writer of Bezae, the Old Latin manuscript
gig, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.) read ïôùò,
houtos, “in this manner.” This variant makes no improvement on the original text, but instead,
(continued...)
669

74 75 76
the Spokespersons are in harmony, even as it has been written: (16) "'After these
73
(...continued)
is much more difficult to construe. Sometimes the copyist and translators, feeling their freedom
to substitute words for those found in the original text, made poor selections, and did not
succeed in making the text easier to read. Nonetheless, the variant does not change the
meaning of Luke’s narrative.
74
Jacob uses the plural, "the Spokespersons," not the singular "the Spokesperson." He
then goes ahead to quote from Amos 9--but it may well be that Jacob has in mind a theme
which is discussed in many more passages than simply this one that he quotes. Lake and
Cadbury held that this plural refers to the Scroll of the Twelve ("Minor Prophets")--but this is
not at all obvious, and we think that the reference is much more likely to all the Spokespersons
of the Jewish Bible.
75
Jacob obviously means that the calling of the non-Jewish peoples by the Word of the
Good News is a divine action that has been predicted in the Spokespersons of Israel. This
claim is not at all exaggerated. There are a number of passages that predict the eventual
calling of the non-Jewish nations into the Kingdom of God! See, for example, the following:
(1) The basic promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--that all the nations of the
earth would eventually "be blessed through them" (Genesis 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; etc.).
(2) It is the task of Israel to declare YHWH's glorious radiance among the nations, so
that the nations may know the reign of YHWH (1 Chronicles 16:24, 31 and Psalm 18:49).
(3) The king of Israel, being crowned, is promised "the nations" as his heritage (Psalm
2; 72:8-11; Isaiah 11:10-12; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 55:4-5; 60:3-5, 10-11; 61:6, 9, 11; 62:2; 66:12,
18-20; Jeremiah 3:17; 16:19-21; 33:9; Ezekiel 38:16, 23; 39:7, and Daniel 7:14).
(4) One day, all the families of the nations will turn to YHWH, and bow before him in
joyful praise, acknowledging his gracious rule over all the earth (Psalm 22:27-28; compare
Psalm 46:10; 47:7-8; 57:9-11; 67:2-7; 82:8; 86:9; 96:3, 7-13; 102:15; 108:3-5; 117:1-2;
Isaiah 2:2-4; 12:4-5; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 2:11; 8:22-23, and 9:10.
It is obvious from reading all of these passages that Jacob is exactly right: the Spokespersons
of Israel give the great promise that one day all the nations of the earth will be
blessed by YHWH through Israel, and the nations will enter with joy into the worship of YHWH,
taking up his name upon their lips, and being claimed by YHWH as his own! Jacob means
that what is happening through Paul and Barnabas, and the world-wide spread of the Christian
movement, is nothing less than a magnificent fulfillment of that ancient divine promise!
76
The passage which Jacob quotes is from Amos 9:11-12, and is evidently quoted in
the language of the Greek translation. Haenchen states that "Nearly every expositor concedes
that the Jewish Christian James would not in Jerusalem have used a Septuagint
[Greek] text, differing from the Hebrew original, as scriptural proof...It is not James but Luke
who is speaking here.” We disagree with Haenchen, not with regard to Luke’s speaking here,
670
(continued...)

77 78 79
things I will return, and I will build up again the tent of David which has fallen; and its ruins
(...continued)
but with regard to the possibility of much more usage of Greek in Jerusalem in the first century
than Haenchen thinks.
There are difficulties in understanding exactly how the Greek translators understood the
Hebrew text of Amos 9:11-12. But Jacob's main point, that the nations are called by YHWH's
name, is without doubt--in both the Hebrew text and in the Greek translation. The Hebrew
reads, "and all the nations whom, my name is called over them"; the Greek reads, "and all the
nations, upon whom my name has been called upon them." If the nations are called by YH-
WH's name, and he intends to include them among his people (as both the Hebrew and the
Greek texts say, in slightly differing ways), then Jacob’s use of this text is absolutely correct.
In our study of Amos, we have entitled the passage 9:7-15 "Hope in the Aftermath of
Judgment." It is a powerful passage, unique in many ways for the entire Jewish Bible. Amos
claims that Israel is no better in YHWH's eyes than is Ethiopia, and that YHWH has also been
active in the history of the hated Syrians and Palestinians as he has been in the history of
Israel! Study of this passage is an essential for anybody who proudly thinks himself (or his
religion, or his nation) better than others!
77
"After these things" refers to the terrible judgment of destruction that Amos has foretold
as shortly coming upon the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That predicted destruction came
in 721 B.C., just a short while following Amos' preaching, when the Assyrians swept over
Israel, carrying the nation away into the east, into captivity, replacing most of the former citizens
of Israel with Assyrian colonists. It has been claimed that the first line of this quotation
comes, not from Amos, but from Jeremiah 12:15; however, this is not at all certain (only two
of the words, meta and epistrepso occur there, and not together), and it may well be that the
phrase Ìåô ôáôá íáóôñÝøù, Meta tauta anastrepso, “After these things I will return,”
are Jacob’s / Luke’s words, introducing the quotation.
78
Instead of the original text’s íáóôñÝøù, anastrepso, “I will return,” Bezae reads the
verb epistrepso, also meaning ”I will return,” but also the verb commonly used for “turning
around” (i.e., penitence). The variant reading means the same thing, and adds nothing to the
original text. The later copyist feels free to substitute a synonym for the language found in the
original text--but without changing its meaning.
79
The perfect passive participle êáôåóêáììÝíá, kateskammena, from kataskapto, “to
tear down,” means “the things having been torn down.” It is read by P74, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Bezae, Minuscule 1739, and the “Majority Text.” Sinaiticus, Vaticanus
(see), Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339 / 340 A.D.; see), Psi, Minuscules 33, 326, and a few
other Greek manuscripts read the perfect passive participle katestrammena, from katastronnumi,
“to lay low, “to kill, meaning ”the things that have been laid low.” E (Laudianus) reads
aneskammena, the perfect passive participle of anaskapto, “to dig up,” “to raze,” “to extirpate,”
meaning “the things having been destroyed.” Metzger notes that “The Septuagint text of
Amos 9:11-12, which is quoted here, also presents a variant reading involving the same word
[katestrammena].” (p. 429) The later copyists do not feel themselves found to reproduce the
exact words found in the original being copied; they exhibit the freedom to use synonyms,
(continued...)
671

80
I will build up again, and I will restore it, (17) so that the remaining people will seek out the
81
Lord, and all the non-Jewish nations, upon whom my name has been called!' --says [the]
82 83
Lord, who is doing these things'--(18) known from ancient times.
79
(...continued)
especially those found in the LXX tradition. But they do not change the meaning of Luke’s
narrative.
80
Or, “I will rebuild it.” Amos' message is a terrifying one--predicting the divine judgment
of captivity and destruction upon Northern Israel. But doom and destruction were not the final
word for Amos. Rather, the final word was one of hope--joyful hope in the aftermath of judgment.
After the judgment, Amos powerfully proclaimed, would come the divine rebuilding of
Israel--the raising up of the fallen "tent of David," and the rebuilding of Israel's ruins. The center
of Israel's worship and divine self-revelation would be restored. YHWH had a wonderful
future in store for his people! We may see Jacob's understanding of this prediction in terms of
the Church of the Nations becoming a center of worship for all the earth, serving the world just
as the Tabernacle of David served ancient Israel!
81
Jacob's point is correct (compare footnote 75). Haenchen holds that "The Hebrew
text would be useless for James' argument, and would even contradict it." (p. 448) But this is
incorrect. Even if the Hebrew means that the future Israel will conquer all the nations, it still
states that they will become a part of the restored Israel, and that they bear YHWH's name.
Lake and Cadbury in similar fashion stated that "The important point is that the argument
depends on variants found in the Greek and apparently based on misreading of the original
Hebrew...producing a prophecy of the conversion of the heathen out of a promise that Israel
should possess their lands." (p. 176) We cannot agree with them at this point!
82
The present active participle ðïéí, poion, “doing,” is read by P74, the first writer of
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Psi, and a few other Greek manuscripts. The reading ho poion, “the
one doing,” is found in a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a
corrector of Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscule 33, 1739, the “Majority Text,” the Harclean
Syriac, and Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339-40 A.D.). The first writer of Bezae reads poiesei,
“he will do.” These variant readings are simply grammatical changes, and do not alter the
meaning of the original text. But they demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and
translators to make such grammatical “corrections” to the original text, without changing its
meaning.
83
The phrase, ôáôá ãíùóô ð áíïò, tauta gnosta ap’ aionos, “these things
known from ancient times,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Psi,
Minuscules 33, 81, 323, 1175, 1505, 1739 (see), a few other Greek manuscripts, the Coptic
tradition, and Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339-40 A.D.). But there are variant readings. Ta (+
panta, the “Majority Text,” Harclean Syriac, and in reverse order, E [Laudianus]) gnoston
(gnosta, E [Laudianus],the “Majority Text,” and Harclean Syriac) ap’ aionos estin (the verb
estin is omitted by P74 and Alexandrinus) to kurio (theo is read by E [Laudianus], the
“Majority Text,” the Harclean Syriac, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus) to ergon (panta ta
erga E [Laudianus], the “Majority Text,” and Harclean Syriac) autou, “Everything (+ all) is
(continued...)
672

84 85 86 87
(19) "Wherefore I, I give [my] judgment, not to trouble those turning to God from
(...continued)
known (both singular and plural) from ancient times by (the) Lord (or God), the work (or all
works) by him.” Minuscule 945 and a few other Greek manuscripts read ta panta ha estin
gnosta auto ap’ aionos, “all the things that are known to him from ancient times.” Minuscule
2127 reads panta ta erga autou, “all his works.” The phrase is ambiguous in the original text,
and the variant readings represent attempts by later copyists and translators to give the difficult,
ambiguous phrase clearer, more specific meaning, but without changing the meaning of
Luke’s narrative.
We take this last phrase, "known from ancient times," to be Jacob's comment, added
onto the end of the quotation from Amos--and meaning that this prediction of the coming and
seeking of the nations, upon whom YHWH's name is called, is something that has been
known and proclaimed in Israel since ancient times. That is, it is a common-place in the
Jewish Bible--as is demonstrated in footnote 75. Here again, it has been claimed that this
closing line, legei kurios poion tauta gnosta ap’ aionos, “says Lord, doing these things
known from ancient time,” is a quotation, not from Amos, but rather from Isaiah 45:12; but this
is not at all certain.
84
Lake and Cadbury translated the Greek verb êñßíù, krino by "I decree," and stated
that it is "The definite sentence of a judge...The translation of 'decree' does not leave room for
the possibility that krino means no more than recommend..." (p. 177) We insist that while
this verb can be used of a judicial decision, it does not by any means necessarily mean that.
The verb also means “pick,” or “choose”; “separate,” “distinguish”; “think,” “consider”; “decide,”
“propose,” in addition to being used as a technical term for “judge,” “decide,” or “condemn.”
The verb occurs some twenty-one times in the Book of Acts, and it oftentimes means no
more than “decide,” or “make a judgment.” Compare Acts 4:19; 16:15; 20:16; 26:8, and
27:1, where the verb krino certainly does not mean “pass a judicial sentence.” It is obvious
that Lake and Cadbury were being far too dogmatic at this point, where Luke’s language is in
fact ambiguous.
If Jacob were pictured as the chief justice of the Sanhedrin, passing a sentence, this
interpretation would be necessary. But the picture Luke draws is far from that--it is a meeting
in which open discussion has been encouraged and allowed, and we think that Jacob is pictured
simply as giving his judgment, in accordance with the unanimous judgment or decision of
those present at the meeting concerning what had become obvious from the discussion that
had ensued, and what they “judged” should be the relationship of the non-Jewish Christians to
the Jewish legal traditions. However we must admit that Luke’s language is ambiguous, and
open to various interpretations (i.e., “low church” and “high church”).
85
The Greek verb ðáñåíï÷ëåí, parenochlein means "to trouble or annoy someone
while going about something," or simply "to cause difficulty for," "trouble," "annoy." It is a rare
Greek word, found only here in the Greek New Testament, but also found some 16 times in
the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible. There it is used of Delilah's "troubling" or "pressing"
or "prodding" and "nagging" Samson to tell her his riddle (Judges 14:17; 16:16). It is also
used in the mouth of the deceased Samuel as Saul was "disturbing" him by calling him up
from the dead by the Witch of Endor. We take it to mean an unnecessary troubling of the non-
(continued...)
673

88 89
the non-Jewish nations. (20) But rather, to write to them, that they should abstain from the
90 91 92 93
pollutions of idols --even from sexual immorality, and from strangled animals, and from
85
(...continued)
Jewish people, bothering them with things that are in fact unimportant. Haenchen comments
that "James is now speaking as forcefully of freedom from the law as Peter!" (449) Perhaps--
however, there is no instance of Peter’s using this kind of language concerning the law; in fact,
it is unique with Jacob for the entire New Testament.
86
Luke depicts Jacob as using the present tense of the verb, ðéóôñÝöïõóéí,
epistrephousin, “they are turning...” where we would expect the use of a present participle,
epistrephontes. We are surprised that the later copyists and translators have not made this
correction.
87
For the phrase ðéóôñÝöïõóéí ð ôí èåüí, epistrephousin epi to theo, literally
“they are turning around upon (or ‘to’) the God,” compare Acts 14:15 and 26:20.
88
The Greek verb ðÝ÷åóèáé, apechesthai as used here means "to keep away from,"
or "to abstain from." It sometimes means “receive” (and in this sense became a technical term
in commercial transactions, for “receiving a sum in full”). It is also used for “becoming distant”
from a place (both physically, and spiritually). But it is also used with the meaning to “keep
away from,” “to abstain from,” a number of times in the Greek New Testament--see Acts 15:
20 (here), 29; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, “This is the will of God, that you keep away from sexual
immorality”); 5:22 (“keep away from every appearance of evil”); 1 Timothy 4:3 (it is a sign of
apostasy to forbid marriage and to teach people to keep away from foods; compare
Colossians 2:16-19!), and 1 Peter 2:11 (to keep away from fleshly desires). In the LXX, see
1 Samuel 21:5; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 28:28; Proverbs 9:18 (only in Greek); Wisdom of Solomon
2:16; Ben Sirach 9:13; 28:8; Isaiah 54:14; and Jeremiah 7:10 (in Greek, “we have kept far
away from doing all these abominations!”). In fact, as sometimes interpreted, Acts 15:11
could easily be taken as an example of what 1 Timothy 4:3 and Colossians 2:16-19 so
strongly warn against--a religion that is centered in self-abasement, and abstention from food
and drink! But, we think, this would be to totally misunderstand Jacob’s (and the gathering in
Jerusalem’s) statement.
89
P74, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33,
1739, the “Majority Text,” the Vulgate and some manuscripts of the Old Latin interpolate the
preposition apo, “from.” The text, without the preposition, is read by P45, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
Bezae, Minuscules 81, 1175, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin manuscripts
e and first writer of p. Whether or not to read the preposition is a grammatical decision;
but either way the text is read, it means the same thing.
90
The Greek text is ôí ëéóãçìÜôùí ôí åäþëùí, ton alisgematon ton eidolon,
"from the things made ceremonially impure by the idols." This is the only place in the Greek
New Testament where the word alisgema occurs; it occurs in the Septuagint at Ben Sirach
40:29; Malachi 1:7, 12; and Daniel 1:8. These passages speak of food that has to be begged
from another, that "defiles the soul," or "pollutes the innermost being"; of food offered at
the altar of God that is less than the best; and of the food of heathen kings that would "pollute"
(continued...)
674

94
blood. (21) For Moses from generations long past has those proclaiming him in every city,
90
(...continued)
or "defile" Daniel and the three Hebrew young men associated with him. Jacob means, we
believe, “Don't get involved in the worship of idols, and the things that have become defiled or
polluted from association with idols.” Compare Exodus 34:15 and Paul’s warning against the
dangers of idolatry in 1 Corinthians 10:7 and 14.
91
We translate kai as "even," although it can just as well be translated "and." We take it
that Jacob gives the general category of "idolatrous things that defile" in the first phrase, and
then specifies three examples of those defiling or polluting things in the next three words. Alternatively,
Jacob can be understood as naming four different things to avoid.
92
The phrase êá ôò ðïñíåßáò, kai tes porneias, “and from sexual immorality,” is
omitted by the third century manuscript P45, and since is the only manuscript from which the
noun is missing, we judge this to be an oversight on the part of the copyist of P45. The Greek
noun ðïñíåßá, porneia (from which comes our "pornography") means "sexual immorality." A
porne was a prostitute. The thought of "sacred prostitution" may well be involved in this word.
Compare especially Leviticus 18:6-18 for the biblical warning against all sorts of sexual immorality,
and in the New Testament, see 1 Corinthians 6:18; 10:1-34 (where idolatry and
sexual immorality are closely combined and warned against), and 2 Corinthians 3:17.
93
The phrase êá ôï ðíéêôï, kai tou pniktou, “and from the strangled,” is omitted by
Bezae, the Old Latin manuscript gig, and by the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395
A.D.), as reported in the marginal reading of Minuscule 1739. Compare Acts 15:29 and 21:
25. The pniktou is that which has been "strangled," or "choked to death." The word is not
found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, nor in Hellenistic Jewish writings. It is
found three times in Acts--15:20, 15:29, and 21:25. It is used here to mean animals killed
without having the blood properly drained from them. Leviticus 17:10-14 forbids the eating of
such flesh. Compare Genesis 9:4. We think the omission of this noun is intentional on the
part of the copyist and translators, since they (like many subsequent students) had not idea of
what it might mean, or why this warning should be included!
94
Bezae, Minuscules 323, 945, 1739, 1891, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Sahidic
Coptic, Irenaeus (2nd century A.D., in a marginal reading found in Minuscule 1739), and
Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339 / 340 A.D., also in a marginal reading found in Minuscule 1739)
have the interpolation kai hosa an me thelosin (Bezae: ho me thelousin) autois (Bezae:
heautois) ginesthai heterois me poiein (Bezae: poieite), “And whatever they may not desire
(or, that which they do not desire) to happen to them (or, to themselves), not to do (or,
don’t do) to others.” This is what is commonly known as the “Negative Golden Rule.” These
variants (including the one referred to in footnote 93) found in Bezae (and in the Western
Text) show that the copyists and translators either could not understand the original text, or
thought it no longer meaningful or relevant, and decided to change it to something much more
understandable and important--thus he dropped the word pniktou, and interpolated the “Negative
Golden Rule.” This is in fact a great change of what is found written in the original text
being copied, and demonstrates the strong “editorial” capacity exercised by the later copyists
and translators. Here, we think, this variant does substantially (and purposefully) change the
meaning of Luke’s narrative.
(continued...)
675

94
(...continued)
The phrase ôï áìáôïò, tou haimatos means "from the blood." Jacob means that the
non-Jewish converts must be taught to abstain from the consumption of blood--whether by
directly drinking blood as a drink, or eating meat from which the blood has not been properly
drained. These things, Jacob reasons, would not be "troubling" or "annoying" the non-Jewish
nations with needless legislation, but would be of great importance and help for them to take
care concerning, doing everything possible to avoid them.
We immediately are led to ask, "Why these particular prohibitions?" If we hold that the
non-Jewish nations are to be "saved by faith," and are not to be held under the Mosaic teaching
concerning circumcision, or observance of the Jewish Day of Rest, why these--and not
those?" It is a most important question, the answer to which will have a very important bearing
upon our understanding of the relationship of Christians to the Bible of the Jews!
Haenchen comments that "Strange as it may at first seem to us, the following four
requirements are conceived not as a legalistic imposition on the Gentile Christians, but as a
concession to them, a meeting halfway." (p. 449) Other scholars (such as Marshall) have
followed Haenchen in this view, but we ask, where does Luke speak of "concession" or of
"meeting halfway"? The fact is, Luke depicts the Jerusalem church, with all its leaders, agreeing
with the church at Antioch, and with Barnabas and Paul, in this “judgment” or “decision.”
There is no talk of "compromise," or "meeting half-way"! Haenchen's implication is that the
three or four requirements mentioned mean a "scaled-down" law of Moses, or a "Noachian
Covenant" (Genesis 9:4; but there the language is different, not using the word pniktos:
ðëí êñÝáò í áìáôé øõ÷ò ï öÜãåóèå, plen krea en haimati psuches ou phagesthe,
“nevertheless flesh with life in (its) blood you shall not eat”), instead of the full 613 regulations
of Judaism. But is this in fact what this means?
McGarvey held that “The four things from which James proposed that the Gentiles
should be required to abstain had been made unlawful, not by the Mosaic law, but by the revelations
of the patriarchal age. From the beginning it had been known to the patriarchs that it
was sinful to have any responsible connection with idols [should we agree with this contention?
Or, does not the battle against idolatry begin only with the giving of the Ten Commandments
at Sinai?], or to indulge in fornication; and from the time of the law given to the race in
the family of Noah, eating blood, and consequently eating things strangled which retained their
blood within them, had been wrong, and it will continue to be until the end of the world!” (2, p.
67) Thus McGarvey found in these four prohibitions the expression of eternal laws, which apply
to all the nations, originating in the covenant made with Noah following the flood. Bruce
held a similar view. He stated that "While there was no more question of requiring the Gentiles
to submit to the ceremonial law, they would do well to behave considerately to their
'weaker brethren' of Jewish birth, not all of whom could be expected immediately to acquire
such an emancipated outlook on food-laws and the like as Peter and Paul. Therefore, without
compromising the Gentiles' Christian liberty, James gave it as his considered opinion that they
should be asked to respect their Jewish brethren's scruples by avoiding meat which had idolatrous
associations or from which the blood had not been properly drained, and by conforming
to the high Jewish code of relations between the sexes instead of remaining content with the
lower pagan standards to which they had been accustomed. This would smooth the path of
social and table fellowship between Christians of Jewish and Gentile birth." (p. 311)
(continued...)
676

eing read in the synagogues every Day of Rest." 95
94
(...continued)
However, we must respond to Haenchen and McGarvey’s view that these four (or three)
prohibitions are not found in the text of Genesis 9, where the supposed “Noachian covenant”
is given, and McGarvey has to call upon supposed “patriarchal revelation” to support his view.
The same thing must be said with regard to Bruce's view--there is not one word of such a
“compromise” in the text!
Conzelmann holds that "As a whole, these stipulations had to do with those ritual prohibitions
which enabled the Jew to live together with the Gentile Christian. The western text
has transformed this regulation of the church for a specific time into a timeless precept by
striking out the prohibition of pnikton, 'what is strangled,' and adding the 'golden rule.' By this
means the remaining stipulations were changed to moral stipulations (haima, 'shedding of
blood' = murder). The pattern of the three mortal sins stands out. In this way there was not
only a failure to recognize the original historical setting and meaning, but also to recognize the
importance Luke attaches to the decree. For Luke, of course, the issue of table fellowship in
mixed congregations was no longer a live issue. Yet he saw these stipulations as of fundamental
significance. That significance, however, was not ethical, but salvation-historical, since
the decree provided continuity between Israel and the church, which was free from the Law."
(p. 119) But, we must respond to Conzelmann, if the church is “free from the law,” why pick
out these particular regulations as of “fundamental significance”? Why not others?
The later Greek copyists and translators, not understanding where these prohibitions
came from, and not sensing any clear meaning, began to omit them, and substitute for them
seemingly much more meaningful words, including the “Negative Golden Rule." We certainly
can sympathize with those copyists and translators--not wanting to place meaningless regulations
upon converts, and if a regulation has to be given, to make it as meaningful as possible.
Those copyists and translators saw little meaning or practical application in the decrees, and
sought to give them a more meaningful and practical application--as preachers and Bible
teachers have continued to do across the centuries!
It is our suggestion that all of this is rooted in a misunderstanding of something that had
great importance as we will seek to show in the discussion following these notes (see pages
694-96).
95
What does Jacob mean by this statement? It has been understood in different ways.
For example, "We don't have to worry about the teachings of Moses being forgotten if the non-
Jewish converts don't keep the Mosaic legislation--because already there are synagogues
where the Mosaic teaching is read every week, all across the Empire!" Compare Acts 13:15
and 27 for examples of such reading of the Jewish Bible in the synagogues of the first century.
Or, "The non-Jewish converts already know the necessity of these things, having heard the
reading of Moses’ teachings in the synagogues they have been attending." Haenchen mentions
that in the opinion of such scholars as Dibelius, and he agrees with that opinion, this
verse is "among the most difficult in the New Testament." (p. 450) But surely this is overstatement!
677
(continued...)

96
(22) Then it seemed best to the Ambassadors, and to the Official Leaders, together
97 98 99
with all the assembly, [that] having chosen men from among them, they should send
95
(...continued)
McGarvey held that Jacob’s remark was intended “to meet an objection which he knew
to be in the minds of some of his hearers, and it may have been expressed by some of the
speakers whom he was answering--the objection that, if the Gentiles were not required to keep
the law of Moses, the law would fall into disrepute, and be forgotten among men. Of this
James would assure them there would be no danger, seeing that the synagogue service would
prevent such a result.” (2, pp. 67-68)
96
Lake and Cadbury translated Ôüôå äïîå ôïò ðïóôüëïéò, Tote edokse tois apostolois,
by "Then it was voted by the apostles", holding that this verb dokeo "is the technical
term in Greek of all periods for 'voting' or 'passing' a measure in the assembly." (p. 178) But it
is obvious from the Greek dictionaries that this is not at all the primary meaning of the verb,
and we have to respectfully disagree with these great New Testament Greek scholars. Compare
our earlier disagreement with them in footnote 84.
97
Luke's inclusive language óí ë ô êêëçóß, sun hole te ekklesia, “with the
whole assembly,” seems to show that the decision arrived at was unanimous, and that all the
participants--including the Ambassadors ("the Apostles"), the Official Leaders ("Elders"), and
the congregation as a whole--agreed upon. Nothing is said about taking a vote (however, see
Lake and Cadbury’s view in footnote 96), but it is obvious that there was no real objection to
the decision according to Luke's story. And the fact that the congregation is included with its
leaders shows that a genuinely "democratic" decision was made, not a decree "from the top,"
handed down to "those below" without their approval!
98
The accusative participle êëåîáìÝíïõò, ekleksamenous, “chosen ones,” which goes
with the accusative noun andras, “chosen men,” that follows, is read as a dative, ekleksamenois,
“having chosen,” which goes with the preceding nouns apostolois and presbuterois,
(and perhaps the singular dative hole te ekklesia) meaning “the Ambassadors and
Officials (and the whole assembly) having chosen...” The dative is read only by the later
witnesses P74, Minuscules 33, 323, 614, 945, 1739, a few other Greek manuscripts, and the
Peshitta Syriac (see). It is obvious that Luke is no legalist, and that his unguarded language
can be construed in such a way as to seem to support varying forms of church organization.
The later copyists and translators have been alert to this ambiguity, and have inserted their
own views for the language of the original text.
In the light of this ambiguous language, we ask, does this “choosing” come “from the
top,” as an authoritative decision made by the Ambassadors and Official Leaders, or is it a
more democratic decision, in which the in-put and choice of the entire community is involved?
The original reading simply says the men were “chosen,” and gives no indication as to who did
the choosing. The later variant reading allows two different interpretations--that of the authoritative
decision of the Ambassadors and Official Leaders, or a democratic process of selection
including the entire assembly in the choosing. Compare footnote 114.
99
The verb for choose is a simple verb, and gives no connotation of the manner in which
(continued...)
678

100
[them] to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas: Judah, the one called "Barsabbas," and
101 102 103 104
Silas --leading men among the brothers --(23) having written by their hand [as follows]:
99
(...continued)
the choice was made. The decision was to choose men (not women)--using the gender specific
andras.
100
The spelling Âáñóáââí, Barsabban is changed to Barabban by Bezae. The
name "Barsabbas" is an Aramaic name and means "Son of Rest-Day," or "Son of Sabbath." It
may mean that the person so named was born on the Day of Rest. Bezae’s “Barabbas”
means “Son of Father,” or “Daddy’s Boy,” and may be reminiscent of the Passion of Jesus, in
which the criminal by this name was chosen by the Jews to be given freedom while Jesus was
condemned. The later copyist does not feel himself bound to repeat the spelling of the personal
name given in the original text, but freely changes it to a more familiar name.
101
The name "Silas" is evidently a Hebrew or Aramaic name, and is the equivalent of
"Saul." It is found in this form only in the Book of Acts (some 13 times). In 2 Corinthians
1:19, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, and 1 Peter 5:12, the Greek form Silouanos
is found, which may be either a Latin or a Greek attempt to give an equivalent to “Silas.”
102
The two men chosen were well known among "the brothers," being described by
Luke as ãïõìÝíïõò, hegoumenous, an active participle which means "taking the lead,"
"guiding." It is used oftentimes with reference to leaders in various positions--of high officials
(Acts 7:10), of military commanders, and also of leaders of religious bodies--see Hebrews
13:7. Compare the earlier use of "brothers" at 11:1, 12, 29; 12:17, and 15:3.
103
The phrase äé ÷åéñò áôí, dia cheiros auton, “through their hand,” is read by
P45 (see), P74, the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, a few other Greek
manuscripts, and the Bohairic Coptic tradition. However, a corrector of Sinaiticus, E (Laudianus),
Minuscules 33 (see), 1739, the “Majority Text,” and the Harclean Syriac read: dia
cheiros auton tade, “through their hand this...” (see the discussion of the introductory formula
tade legei, ‘this is what...says” in A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 553, under hode, hede, tode).
Ephraemi Rescriptus (with a different order), Bezae, the Old Latin manuscripts gig, w,
the Peshitta Syriac (see), and the Sahidic Coptic (see), read epistolen dia cheiros auton
periechousan tade, “a letter through their hand containing this...” Minuscule 614, a few
other Greek manuscripts, and the margin of the Harclean Syriac read dia cheiron auton
epistolen kai pempsantes periechousan tade, “through their hand a letter and having sent
including this...” Psi reads epistolen dia cheiron auton echousan ton tupon touton, “a
letter through their hand containing this form...” It is obvious that later copyists and translators
considered Luke’s original text to be too ambiguous, and in need of further explanation, which
resulted in these variants. Their additions are correct--but unnecessary for the understanding
of the text. They do not change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
Luke's language, we think, implies that the two leading brothers who had been chosen
to accompany Barnabas and Paul on their return trip to Antioch were also the ones who wrote
(continued...)
679

105
"The Ambassadors, and the Official Leaders, [and the] brothers, to the brothers in
103
(...continued)
the letter that they carried with them; alternatively, Luke may mean only that the written letter
was carried “by their hand.”
104
In what follows, Luke quotes the contents of the letter sent by the Jerusalem Church
to the Church at Antioch, and the others addressed (in Syria and Cilicia). It is the first example
of official correspondence in the Christian Church; it would be followed by the letters of Paul to
the churches he had helped to form, and then by other church leaders such as Peter, and
Jacob, and John--through which the form of the "letter" would become a predominant means
of teaching in the Christian Church. How thankful we are today for all that first-century correspondence,
which opens up before our eyes the reality of the Christian Church and its life!
McGarvey commented that “This is the earliest document, so far as we know, that
issued from the pen of any apostle [but notice that the text does not say who wrote the letter--
compare footnote 103]...It is called an epistle (verse 30), and also the ‘decrees [ta dogmata]’
which had been ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem (16:4). It makes
a formal claim of inspiration by the words, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.’ No
uninspired men could dare to use such language; and this circumstance differentiates it from
all the decrees and deliverances of all the ecclesiatical courts from that day to this, not excepting
those of the Roman Catholic Church, which makes blasphemous pretenses of infallibility.
Be it observed, too, that while this conference is constantly referred to by Romanists and other
supporters of episcopacy, as the first general council, it was no general council at all. It was
not composed of representatives from the congregations of a district, however small, but of the
members of a single church. Furthermore, it decided, on the authority of the inspired men who
directed its decisions, a question of doctrine affecting the salvation of souls; and this no set of
men except the apostles have ever had the right to do. In no sense, then, can its action be
pleaded as a precedent for the existence of any ecclesiastical court whatever outside of the
individual congregation, or for the purpose of settling by authority any question of doctrine.”
(2, pp. 70-71)
Compare our criticisms of McGarvey’s view of church councils in footnote 1. We find it
strange to say that no one other than the Ambassadors can lay claim to the guidance of the
Spirit--since this is the basic claim concerning the Spirit that is given in the New Testament
documents, including the Book of Acts, that the Spirit would always be with the followers of
Jesus, guiding them into the truth! Further, we are amazed at McGarvey’s claim that this
“conference” represented only one single congregation, when the text makes clear that the
churches in Antioch of Syria and in Jerusalem were involved, along with the many assemblies
in Asia Minor which Paul and Barnabas represented! McGarvey’s view simply cannot be sustained,
and must be considered an example of “anti-Rome” sentiments of the 19th century.
105
P33, P74, the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Bezae, Minuscules 33, 81, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate and some
manuscripts of the Old Latin read simply äåëöï, adelphoi, “brothers.” A corrector of Sinaiticus,
E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscule 1739, the “Majority Text,” the Syriac tradition, and
some Bohairic Coptic manuscripts read kai hoi adelphoi, “and the brothers...” If this later
reading is omitted, as it is in the oldest manuscripts, instead of adding a third group as authors
(continued...)
680

106 107
Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, those from the non-Jewish nations, greetings!
108
(24) "Since we have heard that certain ones [having gone out] from among us,
105
(...continued)
of the letter (the congregation), the word "brothers" can be understood as affirming that the
Ambassadors and the Official Leaders are their "brothers" in the faith. There are some manuscripts
which omit the word "brothers" altogether. Again, we observe that Luke’s language is
unguarded, and that Luke is no “legalist.” His writing can be interpreted in terms of an official
decision rendered by Ambassadors and Church Leaders; but it can also be interpreted (and
has been) in terms of a very democratic process, in which the entire assembly is included.
Again we insist that Luke is not writing a document intended to be taken as an inspired manual
for church organization!
106
The trouble which led to the conference in Jerusalem originated in Antioch, and Antioch
was located in Syria--thus the destination of the letter to Antioch and Syria is obvious.
Cilicia is the region located directly to the north and northwest of Syria, and the two areas had
close political ties with one another. With our background of the Book of Galatians, we expect
the letter to be addressed to the churches that Paul had founded as described in Acts
13-14, and especially to the churches of Galatia, where this issue of the relationship of non-
Jewish converts to the Teaching of Moses had become (or would quickly become) a white-hot
issue. Such, however, according to Luke, was not the case. We must conclude that the problem
was much more widespread than we might have concluded on the basis of Galatians
alone.
107
The Greek infinitive ÷áßñåéí, chairein is a very normal word with which to begin a
letter. Compare Acts 23:26, and Jacob (“James”) 1:1. Haenchen holds (along with Bauernfeind)
that this letter shows no deviation from the standard letter-form in the first century (p.
452).
108
The reason for îåëèüíôåò, ekselthontes, "having gone out" being placed in brackets
is that the phrase is omitted by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Minuscule 1175,
and a few other Greek manuscripts. However, it is present in P33, P45 (see), P74, a corrector
of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules
33, 1739, the “Majority Text,” the entire Latin tradition, the Syriac tradition, the Sahidic
Coptic (see), the Bohairic Coptic, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.)--
enough of the manuscripts to make it difficult to know whether to omit it or include it--hence
the brackets. We are inclined to include it as original. Whether read or not, it makes no
difference for the meaning of the original text.
681

109 110 111
troubled you people with words, unsettling your innermost beings, to whom we did not
112 113 114
give orders-- (25) it seemed best to us, having come to one mind, (and) having chosen
109
Instead of the verb ôÜñáîáí, etaraksan, “they troubled,” the first writer of Bezae
reads eksetaraksan, a slightly stronger form of the verb, with the same meaning, “threw into
confusion.” Again we witness the freedom of the copyist to substitute a different verb for the
verb found in the original being copied, yet without changing its meaning. Compare Paul’s
similar language in Galatians 1:7.
110
The active participle íáóêåõÜæïíôåò, anaskeuazontes, “unsettling,” is found only
here in the Greek New Testament. In Classical Greek the verb anaskeuazein is used to
mean “”pack up the baggage,” “break up camp.” It came to mean “to waste,” “ravage.” The
result of this teaching, if allowed to be followed, would be a “breaking up” of motivations and
convictions of the participants in the Christian movement! Combined with the following ôò
øõ÷ò ìí, tas psuchas humon, it means "tearing down your innermost beings." It is a
highly disturbing experience to have teachers enter into a congregation, proclaiming that the
conversion experience and new life that have occurred are inadequate, and that there is
something lacking that the leaders have neglected to teach them. Perhaps the congregation
at Antioch felt like the members of the Jewish synagogues in Antioch of Pisidia and at Iconium
had felt when Paul and Barnabas had preached in their midst!
111
There is an interpolation found in Ephraemi Rescriptus, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscule
1739, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin manuscript gig (see), the Syriac tradition, and the
Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.): legontes peritemnesthai (+ dei, E [Laudianus])
kai terein ton nomon, “saying to be circumcised (+ it is necessary) and to keep the law.”
This is commentary made by the later copyists and translators, seeking to fill out and enhance
the meaning of the original text, but not changing its overall meaning.
112
The letter begins by identifying the Jewish writers with the non-Jewish Christian
addressees--affirming that we are all "brothers"! Then immediately, it denies responsibility for
the ones who have caused the trouble at Antioch and its environs. They did come from our
community; but in their claim to have been sent from us in Jerusalem, and to be representing
our views--they have misrepresented the case! Such a claim is simply not true! This opening
statement of the letter would be good news to the non-Jewish believers who received it. The
authors of the letter state unambiguously that they had not "given orders" to the people who
taught the necessity for circumcision of non-Jewish believers. They had acted on their own,
and were not representatives of the leaders of the assembly in Jerusalem! The assumption
seems to be that they could have given such orders, and those people who had gone to
Antioch could have been their official representatives--but in actual fact, they were not!
113
These are not the words of authoritarian leaders, handing down inspired orders--but
rather, these are the words of brothers, who have openly and honestly considered the matter,
and who now are giving their best judgment in the matter. The phrase äïîåí ìí ãåíïìÝíïéò
ìïèõìáäí, edoksen hemin genomenois homothumadon, “It seemed best to us,
having come to one mind,” is very different from such a statement as “It seemed best to us, as
the inspired Ambassadors of Jesus, acting under divine, infallible inspiration”! No, this is the
kind of wise, Spirit-guided counsel that Christians can give one another--family-member to
(continued...)
682

115 116 117 118
men, to send [them] to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, (26) people
119
who have given their innermost beings on behalf of the name of our Lord Jesus, Anointed
113
(...continued)
family-member, congregation to congregation. It is quite different from official decrees that
allow no discussion, no compromise.
What a mistake it is then, we believe, to consider this letter as being “the Word of God,”
rather than the word of devout, inspired church leaders, giving their best advice in a very difficult,
controversial situation! The “Word of God” is the Word / Event which is Jesus of Nazareth--his
life, his example, his suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, his sending of the
Spirit--that’s the “Word of God,” not every word spoken or written by his followers! The “Word
of God” is eternal, unchanging, unalterable--but the advice given in this letter is quite different,
being the advice given by Spirit-filled leaders in a time-bound, specific situation, which with the
passing of time, and the changing of the religious environment, would become not only no
longer understandable, but no longer relevant--as witnessed by the many variant readings
given to the original text in later centuries!
114
The aorist participle êëåîáìÝíïéò, ekleksamenois, “having chosen,” is in the dative,
and is related to the preceding “to us” (in the dative) along with the participle genomenois,
“having come.” It is read by P45 (see), Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, L (020), Psi, Minuscules
33, 81, 614, 945, 1175, 1739, a large number of other Greek manuscripts, and the Peshitta
Syriac. But here again (compare footnote 98), there is an alternative reading, ekleksamenous,
the accusative form of the same participle, read by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Bezae, E (Laudianus), H (014), P (025), Minuscules 36, 323, 1241, 1505, a large number of
other Greek manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before
395 A.D.). Understood as an accusative participle, it means that the men being sent are
“chosen men,” and says nothing concerning who did the choosing. Understood as a dative, it
means that those responsible for the letter are also responsible for having chosen these men.
115
Compare footnote 99. Again Luke uses the gender specific íäñáò, andras, “men.”
116
Instead of ìí, hemon, “our,” Bezae reads ìí, humon, “your...” This is a common
variant in the textual tradition, and probably represents a problem that arises from copying
manuscripts by ear. Either reading seems equally appropriate, but it is clear from the
textual evidence that the original manuscript read “our.”
117
This is "statesmanlike" language--as the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem proclaim
their love for, and unity with, the leaders of the Church at Antioch. "We are one with your
leaders! We are not in opposition to them, or to their work!" They are "beloved" to us!
118
Here, instead of the gender specific íäñáò, andras, “men,” Luke uses íèñþðïéò,
anthropois, “people...” Compare footnotes 99 and 115.
119
Or, "who have handed over their lives," or "hazarded their lives," i.e., run the risk of
arrest, and even death in the mission that they have undertaken. Compare Romans 16:4.
Instead of the phrase ôò øõ÷ò, tas psuchas, “their innermost beings,” Bezae, the majority
(continued...)
683

120 121 122
King. (27) Therefore we have officially sent Judah and Silas; and they are
123
announcing by speech the same things. (28) For it seemed best to the Set-apart Spirit, and
124 125 126
to us, to lay no more burden upon you than these necessary things: (29) to abstain from
119
(...continued)
of Bohairic Coptic manuscripts, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.) read
ten psuchen, “the innermost being.” The variant does not change the meaning of Luke’s
narrative.
120
Bezae, E (Laudianus), Minuscule 614, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin
manuscript l, and the Harclean Syriac margin interpolate the words eis panta peirasmon, “into
every testing.” Compare Acts 5:41. The letter seems to say, "We love these men, and fully
recognize the great work, and the tremendous risks, that your leaders have taken on behalf of
our common Lord and King, Jesus!" There could hardly be any way that the church in Jerusalem
could give a stronger endorsement to the church in Antioch, to its leadership, and to its
mission! The interpolation enhances the original text, but does not change its meaning.
121
The letter uses the Greek verb ðåóôÜëêáìåí, apestalkamen, “we have authoritatively
sent--it is the verb from which the noun apostolos, "ambassador" has been formed.
122
The meaning is that "While we did not officially send those persons who came into
your midst, troubling you, we have officially sent these two men accompanying Barnabas and
Paul!"
123
Instead of ðáããÝëëïíôáò, apaggellontas, the accusative plural active participle,
“who are reporting,” Bezae reads apaggelountas, “those who were reported.” We think this is
most probably a mistaken spelling on the part of the copyist of Bezae.
124
Earlier, in verse 25, the letter has only mentioned "it seemed best to us, having come
to one mind." But now the letter adds that "It seemed best to the Set-apart Spirit, and to us."
That is, the letter claims that the Spirit of God has been present in their deliberations, and that
what they have decided upon is under the guidance of the Spirit. It is really God's doing--not
just their own! Again we note how appropriate it is to call the Book of Acts "The Book of Acts
of the Set-apart Spirit of God"! The leaders of the Christian movement have not allowed their
own egos, or prejudices, or former opinions to predominate in their decision--but they have
acted in dependence upon, and in obedience to, the Spirit of God! Haenchen comments that
"It is clearly fitting that the letter should conclude with this, the all-important message. 'It has
pleased the Holy Spirit and ourselves'--the highest supernatural authority and the legal earthly
authority derived from it stand side by side; compare official decisions, e.g., of the Roman
emperors..." (p. 453) In those official decisions given by both Roman authorities and Jewish
Rabbis, the opening words are oftentimes, "It has pleased..." Haenchen adds that to call this
letter an "Apostolic Decree," as is commonly done, "is misleading since it attributes to the
Apostles an autonomy which for Luke they did not possess." (Ibid.)
Bruce commented that 'The words 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, with
which the terms of the council's decision are introduced, emphasize the church's role as the
(continued...)
684

127 128
things sacrificed to idols --even from blood, and strangled [animals], and from sexual
124
(...continued)
vehicle of the Spirit...Although New Testament Greek is well supplied with verbs of commanding,
it is noteworthy, as F.J.A. Hort pointed out, that none of them is used here. 'The independence
of the Ecclesia of Antioch had to be respected, and yet not in such a way as to
encourage disregard either of the great mother Ecclesia, or of the Lord's own Apostles, or of
the unity of the whole Christian body.'" (P. 315; Bruce is quoting Hort's The Christian
Ecclesia, p. 82.)
125
The Greek noun âÜñïò, baros means "weight" or "burden" (compare the earlier use
of “yoke” in verse 10). Judaism would formulate some 613 commandments, with thousands
of regulations designed to "fence in" those commandments, which would be laid upon the
shoulders of those who desired to be good Jews. Already the process was well under way,
that would result in the Mishnah and later in the Talmud. But the leaders of the Christian
Church in Jerusalem decide that only these three or four things are necessary, to "lay upon
the shoulders" of the non-Jewish believers as a "weight" or "burden" for them to carry. Instead
of 613, it is only “3 or 4.” And our question is, "Why these three or four? Why not circumcision,
or observance of the seventh Day of Rest, or any of the other 613 such as the Jewish
“Kosher” food laws?" It is a question which we think we can answer satisfactorily in our study!
See pages 694-96.
126
The phrase ôïýôùí ôí ðÜíáãêåò, touton ton epanagkes, “these necessary
things, is read by P33 (see), the second corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
the first corrector of Bezae (see), Psi, Minuscules 81, 614, 945, 1175, 1505, 1739,
some other Greek manuscripts, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D.). P74
(see), Alexandrinus, Minuscules 36, 453, 1241, a few other Greek manuscripts, and Clement
of Alexandria (d. c. 215 A.D.) read ton epanagkes, “the necessary things.” E (Laudianus)
and the “Majority Text” read ton epanagkes touton. The first writer of Sinaiticus, the first
writer of Bezae, Minuscule 33, and a few other Greek manuscripts read touton epanagkes.
The variants are simply matters of Greek “style,” and add nothing to the original text; however,
they again demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists to make such slight alterations in the
text being copied, without being bound to its exact wording.
The phrase ôí ðÜíáãêåò, ton epanagkes occurs only here in the Greek New Testment.
It comes from the Classical Greek verb epanagkazo, which means "compel by force,"
"constrain." This letter means to say that these three or four matters are compulsory, necessary.
They are absolutely essential, and cannot be omitted, without drastic dire consequences!
"But," we ask again, "why these particular three or four? We can think of many
other commandments in the Jewish Bible that are of far greater importance, than these--for
example Micah’s ‘doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with God’!” (Micah 6:8)
Again we ask, why these three (or four)?
127
Earlier, in verse 20 (and compare 21:25), Jacob has been quoted as naming the
three or four matters to be abstained from as "The pollutions of idols--even from sexual
immorality, and from strangled animals, and from blood." Here, instead of "the pollutions of
idols," the letter reads "things sacrificed to idols," which obviously means the same thing, only
with slightly different wording. Jacob's earlier phrase means "things made ceremonially
(continued...)
685

129 130 131
immorality --from which, protecting yourselves, you do well! Farewell!"
127
(...continued)
impure by the idols," and this is very close to "things sacrificed to idols," which would thereby
be considered "unclean" by the Jewish believers. Obviously, Luke is no “legalist,” who insists
on exact wording, with no variations!
128
The first writer of Sinaiticus, the first writer of Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Minuscules 81, 614, 1175, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Coptic tradition
(see), Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215 A.D.), and some manuscripts of Jerome (d. 420 A.D.),
read kai pnikton, “and from strangled [animals].” P74, a corrector of Sinaiticus, a corrector
of Alexandrinus, E (Laudianus), Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, the “Majority Text,” the Vulgate
and some Old Latin manuscripts, the Syriac Tradition, and Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386 A.D.)
read kai pniktou, “and from a strangled (animal).” Bezae, the Old Latin manuscript l, the
Latin translation of Irenaeus (as given in the margin of Minuscule 1739), Tertullian (d. c. 220
A.D.), and some manuscripts of Jerome (d. 420 A.D.) omit the phrase completely. As we have
commented in footnote 94, later copyists and translators found these regulations difficult to
understand, and sought to either leave one or more out, or change them to something more
important.
129
The phrase êá ðïñíåßáò, kai porneias, “and from sexual immorality,” is omitted by
some individual manuscripts of the Vulgate. Bezae, Minuscules 323, 614, 945, 1739, 1891,
a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin manuscripts l, p, w, the Harclean Syriac (with
marks indicating the reading was not found in the exemplar being copied), the Sahidic Coptic,
the Latin translation of Irenaeus (before 395 A.D., as shown by the marginal reading of Minuscule
1739), Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339 / 340 A.D., as shown by the marginal reading of
Minuscule 1739), and Cyprian (d. 258 A. D.) interpolate the lengthy reading kai hosa me
thelete heautois ginesthai, hetero (heterois: Minuscules 945, 1739, other Greek manuscripts,
and the Harclean Syriac (with markings showing the reading was not found in the
exemplar being copied) me poiein (poieite: the second corrector of Bezae, Minuscule 614,
and few other Greek manuscripts), “And whatever thing you do not wish to happen to
yourselves, to another (or, to others) do not do,” again as in the variant reading at verse 20,
the “Negative Golden Rule” is read into these ancient prohibitions by later generations of
copyists / translators, who simply could not understand the reason for these prohibitions. See
footnote 94.
We have understood Jacob's earlier statement to mean, "The pollutions of idols--
namely, sexual immorality, and strangled animals, and blood." Here those same three
specifications are given, only in reverse order, "blood, and strangled animals, and sexual
immorality." We conclude that the three or four items warned against, or forbidden, are in
essence exactly the same in both lists--only they are not named in any legalistic order. But
again we ask, "Why these three or four? To legalists we ask, “Is this the Church Council in
Jerusalem’s ‘three or four point plan of salvation,’ or their outline of what is necessary for living
the Christian life?” Why not many other, different items, which would apparently have much
more importance in trying to sum up the infinite demands made upon people in covenant
relationship with YHWH God?" On each of these words, see footnotes 90, 92, 93, and 94.
686

132
(30) So then they, having been sent away, went down to Antioch, and gathering
133
together the crowd, delivered the letter. (31) Then having read [it], they rejoiced over the
134 135
exhortation. (32) Both Judah and Silas, being themselves also spokespersons,
130
The present indicative active is read by the large majority of witnesses to the text:
ðñÜîåôå, praksete. Bezae, the Old Latin manuscript l (see), and the Latin translation of
Irenaeus (before 395 A.D., as shown in the margin of Minuscule 1739, see), change the
present indicative to the future indicative, and interpolate an additional phrase: ...praksate
pheromenoi en to hagio pneumati, “you people will do well, being moved (or ‘carried’) by the
Set-apart Spirit...” We understand this interpolation to be an early commentary on the original
text by the later copyists, and an excellent understanding of the text! Not, "you will be saved,"
or "you will truly be Christians," but "you do well." It is advisable, for it will keep you from great
harm--it will not hurt you, but will be of help!
131
The closing word, Åññùóèå, Errosthe, the second person plural, perfect passive
imperative, is a common word for closing secular letters in the first century, but is rarely found
in Christian letters. It is taken from the verb hronnumi, and was commonly used at the close
of letters to mean "Good-bye," or "Farewell." It occurs only here in the Greek New Testament,
except as a textual variant at Acts 23:30.
132
The first writer of Bezae and the Old Latin manuscript l (see) interpolate the phrase
en hemerais oligais, “in a few days.” The interpolation does not change the meaning of
Luke’s narrative, but simply expands on the text--demonstrating the freedom of the copyist
and translator in their textual work, to act as “editors” of that text.
133
Haenchen comments that the verb used by Luke here, ðÝäùêáí, epedokan, from
epididounai, is "a late Greek technical term for handing over a letter." (p. 454)
134
Compare Hebrews 13:22, where the Letter to the Hebrews is self-described as a
"word of exhortation." It is not the decree of a church court, or part of a Book of Canon Law,
but rather a "Word of Exhortation," intended to teach and persuade its readers by its selfevident
truth and love. So with this letter from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church at
Antioch--it is not meant as a legal requirement of "Canon Law," to be obeyed without question
as the divinely mandated church law issued by superiors--rather, it is an "exhortation," a
matter of wise counsel, which can only commend itself by its spirit and its truth. The Church at
Antioch was filled with joy at its content. This letter testified that they and their leaders were
on the right path, in solidarity with the founding leaders of the Christian movement.
135
Bezae interpolates the phrase plereis pneumatos hagiou, “full of Set-apart Spirit.”
We have read earlier in Acts 13:1 that there were "spokespersons" in the church at Antioch,
that is, people with the divine gift of speaking for God. Here Luke claims that these two men
sent down to Antioch from Jerusalem were recipients of that same gift of the Spirit--they were
able to speak for God. The interpolation simply makes this claim more explicit and emphatic,
but does not change the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
687

136 137 138
exhorted the brothers with much speaking, and strengthened [them]. (33) After some
time they were sent away with [wishes of] peace from the brothers to those who had authorita-
139 140 141
tively sent them. (35) Then Paul and Barnabas spent time in Antioch, teaching and
136
Compare footnote 134. The letter was an "exhortation"; and now, the words of Judah
and Silas were "exhortatory" words.
137
The word “much,” ðïëëï, pollou, is omitted by Bezae, in a subtle criticism of
Luke’s original language as “too wordy.” The omission does not change the meaning of
Luke’s narra-tive.
138
The word “them” is not in the Greek text; instead, it says literally, “they encouraged
the brothers and strengthened.” Instead of discouraging the brothers in Antioch, claiming that
they were something less than what God wanted them to be, these Spirit-gifted brothers from
Jerusalem encouraged them, giving them strength. We are reminded of what Barnabas had
done when he was sent from Jerusalem to Antioch as recorded in Acts 11:23. The church in
Jerusalem, instead of being a "heavy," that makes authoritative demands on other churches
and believers, obviously wants to play the role of "exhorter" of others, imparting strength and
courage to all new believers, whatever their racial background, without setting up any obstacles
in their path!
139
Some Greek manuscripts add verse 34, in an attempt to explain how Silas is later
found in Antioch. Ephraemi Rescriptus (see), Minuscules 33, 36, 323, 453, 614, 945 (see),
1175, 1739, 1891, some other Greek manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac (with markings to show
the reading was not found in the exemplar being copied), the Sahidic Coptic, and some manuscripts
of the Bohairic Coptic read edokse de to Sila epimeinai autou, “then it seemed to
Silas he should remain.” Bezae, the Old Latin manuscripts gig, l, w, and the Clementine
Vulgate read: edokse de to Sila (Silea: a corrector of Bezae) epimeinai pros (this last word
is omitted by the corrector of Bezae) autous, monos de Ioudas eporeuthe (+ eis Ierousalem:
the Old Latin manuscript w, and the Clementine Vulgate), "Then it seemed best to
Silas to remain there with them; so only Judas went (to Jerusalem).” The text without these
additions is read by P74, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, E (Laudianus), Psi, the
“Majority Text,” the Vulgata Stuttgartiensis, the Peshitta Syriac, and the Bohairic Coptic.
This variant reading is an obviously late, “supplementary” commentary on the original text,
demonstrating the freedom felt by the later copyists and translators to make such explanatory
additions, but not changing the meaning of Luke’s narrative.
Luke wants to assure his readers that there was no conflict between Jerusalem and
Antioch--rather, there was peace! There is a unified mission to the entire world, including both
Jews and non-Jewish peoples! At the heart of that world-wide mission is the Good News of
the gracious favor of God that transforms lives with full forgiveness, and that has no further
program, other than the guidance of the Spirit of God. There are no revolutionary aims at all--
nothing of which the Roman (or Jewish) authorities need have any fear! The only desire of
these Christian leaders is that converts to Christianity not become again involved in the magical,
sexually immoral religions that had so tragically perverted human personality in the past,
(continued...)
688

142 143
proclaiming the Word of the Lord as Good News, along with many others.
The Good News of our baptisms, and of our communion meals, is just that--it is really
Good News! God, the great Creator, has acted for our salvation. What we could never do for
ourselves, he has done for us, fully and completely! The death of Jesus, his beloved Son, on
a wooden post on the hill called "Skull" (Golgotha), was nothing less than God's own great
sacrificial offering--to us sinful human beings, and for us--weak, wayward, hate-filled, rebellious,
betrayers--to take away all our guilts, to offer us total cleansing and genuine freedom
forever!
It is no longer a matter of weak human beings offering up their own pitiful animal or
human sacrifices (or alms, or prayers, or keeping a commandment), as if those things could
take away our sins, or cleanse our polluted hearts. It isn't a matter of us fallible human beings
attempting to pay for our own guilt, or successfully fulfilling some rule-book, or code of laws,
that will enable us to deserve the divine favor. No, it is a matter of God himself, freely giving
his most precious gift, his beloved Son, to allow him to carry all our guilt and evil and hatred
upon himself, in order to do away with sin and guilt forever, and in order to share with us his
eternal life and the kind of freedom that God alone can give! That's Good News! And all we
sinners have to do to receive that gift is simply to reach out in faith--to say yes to God--to
humble ourselves and receive his cleansing and forgiveness, and his gift of eternal life with all
its joyous freedom!
139
(...continued)
and called down divine judgment upon non-Jews. See our discussion on pp. 694-96.
140
Again, Luke returns to the order "Paul and Barnabas," now that they have left Jerusalem,
where Barnabas would naturally play a leading role. Compare footnote 60.
141
Here again Luke uses the verb äéÝôñéâïí, dietribon, but probably not with any
connotation of "wearing away." Compare Acts 12:19; 14:3 (with its footnote 13), 28; here
15:35; 16:12; 20:6; 25:6, and 14. Once again we note how difficult such statements are for
those attempting to frame some type of "exact chronology" from the Book of Acts. The
language simply does not permit the drawing of such conclusions!
142
The combination of these two participles is noteworthy: äéäÜóêïíôåò êá åáããåëéæüìåíïé,
didaskontes kai euaggelizomenoi. "teaching and proclaiming as Good News."
Sharp distinctions between "teaching" and "evangelizing" need to be avoided--all proclamation
of Good News partakes of the element of "teaching," and all genuine teaching includes elements
of proclamation of Good News!
143
The Church at Antioch was not a "closed corporation," where only one or two "ordained
ministers" were involved in the teaching and proclamation of Good News--there were
"many others" who were involved in this great work. So it is in any genuine congregation.
There is not just "one mouth" that is authorized to speak the Christian Message; it is a responsibility
that falls upon the shoulders of many!
689

That great gift of forgiveness, and eternal life, and freedom, wasn't given to us because
we are good enough, or smart enough, or strong enough, to save ourselves. It wasn't made
as a reward for our obedience to 613 rules (or more), or because of our fulfillment of covenants,
even divinely given and approved covenants. It was simply an expression of God's
deep love for us, his hurting, guilty, enslaved children. It was God's own gift and Word, crying
out to us that he loves us, and forgives us, and welcomes us back into his presence, to live
with him forever, in the freedom of his children! There can be no mistake about it, that's Good
News!
That's the Good News that had been preached on the Day of Pentecost, as described
in Acts two. Jewish people from all over the world were gathered there, in Jerusalem, and
Peter and the other disciples of Jesus had proclaimed the amazing Good News of this great
gift, inviting all who believed the Message to turn their lives around, and to be immersed in the
name of Jesus--thereby receiving the full forgiveness of their sins, and being filled with the
Set-apart Spirit of God, becoming sharers in the very life of God himself! In response to that
invitation, some three thousand people accepted the Message, and were added to the number
of the New Israel of God, the Church of the risen Lord Jesus.
In the Book of Acts, we are shown how that Message radiated throughout the City of
Jerusalem, and thousands more were obedient to the faith, including many of the priests--until
the whole City of Jerusalem was filled with the Teaching concerning Jesus, the risen Lord.
Luke has also told us how that Message spread beyond Jerusalem--into Judea and Samaria.
He has told us about an Ethiopian governmental official, who had come to Jerusalem to
worship, and was on his return journey to Ethiopia in far-distant East Central Africa--who had
been told about Jesus by one of the early "deacons" of the church--how he had been
immersed, and filled with joy (see chapter eight). Luke has also told about the wondrous
conversion of Saul--later to be called Paul--how he began preaching in Syria, and then went to
his childhood home in Asia Minor (see chapter nine).
Luke has described how Cornelius, a Captain in the Roman Army of occupation, living
at Caesarea on the Mediterranean Coast, had received the Set-apart Spirit, and had been
immersed, as a result of Peter's strange roof-top vision that informed him he should never call
anyone or anything unclean that God has cleansed (see chapters ten and eleven). Through
that experience, Peter and the others were learning that God had granted repentance and new
life as God's children to the non-Jewish peoples, just the same as he had to the Jews. This
Good News wasn't just a Jewish Message, but was intended instead to be a universal Message.
It was a matter of Good News for all the nations of earth! It wasn't parochial, it wasn't
racial, it wasn't national, it had nothing to do with class-consciousness. It was a universal
Message, of God's gift of freedom and life, intended for every nation and people on the face of
the earth!
At Antioch of Syria, this Good News had reached out beyond the Jews, to include non-
Jewish people, Greeks and Romans--and Luke tells his readers, the "Lord's hand was with
them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord." Luke tells how the
believers in Jerusalem had sent Barnabas down to Antioch to observe what was happening--
and when he got there, Luke describes how he was filled with joy, and entered into the work
enthusiastically. As a result, a large church began to be formed, made up largely of non-
Jewish people. Luke also tells us how Barnabas went to Tarsus of Cilicia, to look up Saul, and
how he brought him back with him to Antioch, to share in this great experience of rapidly
690

expanding church growth among the non-Jewish people in Antioch, the Capital City of Syria
(see the end of chapter eleven).
It was from Antioch, that the Spirit had sent Barnabas and Saul on their so-called "First
Missionary Journey." They themselves hadn't just decided on that missionary trip--it was God
himself who had led them into it! They had gone to the Island of Cyprus, Barnabas' native
home, and had preached there, with some success. A Roman Proconsul by the name of
Sergius Paulus had believed the Message which Barnabas and Saul were proclaiming. But
then they had taken ship from Cyprus up into the heart-land of Asia Minor, where Saul, now
called Paul, had begun to take leadership--and where they had successfully planted a number
of churches--at Antioch of Pisidia, and at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe--what we believe today
was the Roman Province of Galatia, and were the churches to whom Paul addressed one of
his earliest writings, the Letter to the Galatians (see Acts, chapters thirteen and fourteen).
Paul and Barnabas had preached in the synagogues of those first two cities, reaching
out to Jews at first; but then, upon being rejected by many of the Jews, had turned to the
non-Jewish people with their Message, the Word of God--and at Lystra and Derbe their
mission had become almost totally a non-Jewish mission. God had been with them in power,
working miracles, and enabling the Church of the risen Lord Jesus to be planted throughout
those areas, with its wondrous new life of forgiveness and freedom and eternal hope.
Following that intensive work of proclaiming the Good News in Asia Minor, Paul and Barnabas
had returned to Antioch of Syria.
It was while there, that certain people came down from Jerusalem, raising the claim that
unless the non-Jewish believers began to observe the teaching of Moses, beginning with
circumcision, they could not be saved. It was a shocking thing for Paul and Barnabas to hear,
and more than they could swallow. In other words, these people were claiming that the gift of
God in Jesus and his sacrificial death was simply not enough. The risen Lord was powerless
to save the non-Jewish peoples, unless they began to live as Jews--accepting the Abrahamic
covenantal act of circumcision, and then beginning to observe all of the many teachings that
had been handed down among the Jews as originating with Moses. It wasn't enough just to
proclaim the Good News of God's forgiveness and eternal life in Jesus--they had to learn the
Jewish Bible, and all its commandments, and begin the life of living "under the yoke of the
law." It was as if there was no moral guidance, no genuine “Torah,” direction for life, to be
found in simply uniting their lives with Jesus!
Paul and Barnabas quickly realized that if this teaching was accepted, and followed,
their mission would soon be destroyed. Instead of being the missionaries of a universal
Church, for both the Jews and all the non-Jewish peoples of the earth, their movement would
dissolve into a matter of persuading non-Jews to become Jews, and Paul and Barnabas would
become more the proclaimers of the teaching of Moses than the proclaimers of the risen Lord
Jesus! Instead of setting people free from sin and death, with no other obligation than to unite
their lives with the risen Lord Jesus, they would have to begin teaching the 613 commandments
of the Mosaic teaching, instructing their converts in how to live and act like orthodox
Jews!
Instead of a powerful religious movement proclaiming the freedom of all human beings
under the risen Lord Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they would quickly become a
movement bogged down in legalism, with hundreds of rules and regulations to govern every
movement of everyday life. Instead of a “trans-cultural” religion that could reach and be
691

adapted to every nation and culture and language, it would become a matter of leading the
nations to adapt the culture of Rabbinic Judaism! Instead of the glories [and dangers] of
genuine freedom under God, they would be, in Paul's eyes (and ours), returning to bondage!
The upshot of all of this is that Paul and Barnabas got into a heated debate with these
people who had come down to Antioch from Jerusalem--until finally, “they” (the church in
Antioch, we think) decided to send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem, to argue their case
before the church and its leaders there. Luke tells us that as they journeyed through Phoenicia
and Samaria, they told believers everywhere what they had experienced--and Luke reports
that they found glad acceptance and joy on the part of all the believers--letting them know that
what they were facing among their Jewish brothers and sisters was certainly not a universal
conviction that they were wrong, and that their work had been in vain; but rather they were
given the encouraging experience of witnessing the great joy that their fellow believers felt
over their success among the non-Jewish people!
Then, in Jerusalem, they met with the leaders and the entire congregation of believers--
to whom they told their story of what God had done through them. But no sooner had they
told their story, than certain people arose from among the Pharisees--or "Separatists"--
insisting that "It is necessary to command [the non-Jewish believers] to be circumcised, and to
keep the teaching of Moses!" Thus the issue was joined.
This fifteenth chapter plays a pivotal role in the Book of Acts. If Paul and Barnabas
had lost the argument, and been overwhelmed by the people who opposed them in Jerusalem,
the history of the Christian Church would have been greatly hindered, even curtailed. But
because they were totally vindicated, and came forth with the approval of the Jewish believers
in Jerusalem, the missionary movement to the ends of the earth continued on its way, until by
the end of Acts, Paul was in Rome, and the Message that began in Jerusalem, in the tiny
province of Judea, had spread all the way to the Capital City of the Roman Empire. The
Christian religion was well on its way to becoming the powerful force in world history that it was
designed by God to play--calling all peoples and nations into the Church and Kingdom of the
risen Lord Jesus, with the fullness of their God-given freedom and newness of life, governed
by nothing other than the Word / Event of God in Jesus of Nazareth, with its tremendous
ethical content that fulfilled the divine desire expressed in the Torah of Moses!
There were three parts to the rebuttal that was given there in Jerusalem to those Jewish
believers who were insisting that the non-Jewish believers had to be circumcised, and follow
the manifold legalistic rules and regulations that the Jews attributed to Moses. First, the great
leader of the followers of Jesus, Peter, stood up and reminded all of them of what had
happened to Cornelius, the Roman Captain, who had been pointed out by God, and had
received the Set-apart Spirit of God, even before placing faith in the risen Lord Jesus (see
Acts 10 and 11). Peter reminded them of how God had cleansed Cornelius and the members
of his family simply on the basis of their faith--without making any distinction between them as
non-Jews, and the Jewish believers. They had received the Spirit just like the Church in Jerualem
had received it on the Day of Pentecost--completely apart from their circumcision, or any
agreement to follow the teachings of Moses. God had himself imparted new life and full
acceptance to that non-Jewish Roman soldier and his family, totally apart from their becoming
Jews, or living by the various Jewish traditions! Peter argued that for the Jewish believers to
insist now that the non-Jewish believers had to follow the teachings of Moses, meant that they
would be placing a yoke upon the neck of believers, which the Jews themselves had never
been able to fully bear!
692

Peter further argued that the basis of salvation, for both Jew and non-Jew alike, was
simply the gracious gift of the Lord Jesus, and acceptance of that gift through faith--nothing
more! That is how God had acted, and they had no right to insist on making demands on
believers that God himself had not made! What God had done should be the basis for their
decision in this matter! And to refuse to accept and live by that divine Word / Event in Jesus
was in fact a return to the ancient motif of “rebellion in the wilderness”!
Second, Barnabas and Paul responded to Peter's speech, telling of their own experiences
in their "first missionary journey," relating the miraculous healings and powerful deeds
that had accompanied them on their mission. "Signs and wonders" had occurred, which
demonstrated that God himself was approving their mission, and blessing it (see Acts 13-14).
Third, Jacob [or "James"], the younger physical brother of Jesus, who by this time was
rapidly becoming the preeminent leader of the disciples in Jerusalem, began to speak. He
agreed with what Peter had just said, and he called to their minds the fact that the Spokespersons
[or "Prophets"] of their own Bible--specifically Amos--had foretold God's reaching out
to the non-Jewish nations, to place his name upon them, making them his own people, just
like the Jews!
We must agree with Jacob--for the basic theology of the Jewish Bible is rooted in
YHWH God's promise to Abraham and Sarah that through their descendants "all the nations
of the earth will be blessed." The vision of the future that permeates the Jewish Bible is one in
which the Word of YHWH goes forth from Jerusalem to all the nations and peoples of the
earth, placing his name upon them, calling them to know and serve the God of Israel, to share
in glad-hearted freedom and worship of the one God of all the earth! And while we may disgree
over, and quibble concerning the meaning of some of the statements made in their Bible
[such as the interpretation of Amos 9], the overall conclusion cannot be avoided--universal
mission to the ends of the earth, to all peoples and nations, lies at the very heart of the future
promised Israel by her God!
It was Jacob's judgment that the Jewish believers should not trouble those non-Jewish
believers who were turning to God--but that the Jerusalem congregation, along with its
leaders, should send them a letter, urging them only to "...Abstain from the pollutions of idols--
even from sexual immorality, and from strangled animals, and from blood." Jacob urged the
congregation not to be afraid that Moses and his teachings would be forgotten--for the fact
was that there were already synagogues all over the world, where the teaching of Moses was
read and proclaimed weekly in their regular meetings.
Jacob's argument, coming on the heels of Peter's testimony, and the witness of Paul
and Barnabas, won the day. Those desiring to force the non-Jewish believers to submit to
circumcision and the legalistic rules of Judaism, were defeated--and a letter was written from
Jerusalem to Antioch and its environs of Syria and Cilicia--denying the claims of those who
insisted on observance of the Mosaic traditions, and affirming the work of Barnabas and Paul,
who, the letter acknowledged, had risked their lives for the Lord Jesus, Anointed King. The
letter told how the Jerusalem congregation was sending two representatives--Judah and Silas-
-to give their personal testimony concerning the truth of the letter. It then closed with the
exhortation to the non-Jewish believers that it was necessary "to abstain from things sacrificed
to idols--even from blood, and strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." They needed
to protect themselves from these dangers--but beyond that, the Jewish believers would not
attempt to lay any other burden on their non-Jewish brothers and sisters in a common faith!
693

Luke tells how Paul and Barnabas, along with Judah and Silas, went back to Antioch,
and delivered the letter--which became the source of great rejoicing and happiness among the
non-Jewish believers. Freedom in the risen Lord Jesus--not bondage, not conformity to
hundreds of rules and regulations! Freedom to love, and serve, and give, and worship, and
share in the wondrous joy and privileges of the people of God, as full citizens of the Kingdom
of God--without being caught up in the constant concern for minute regulations and observances
that would expend all their energies, and hold them back from loving service to God
and others! That's what it all meant!
Yes, that's what it meant. It's what enabled the Christian religion to become the most
powerful religious force in human history--instead of narrowing down into a legalistic, narrow,
rules-oriented sect of Judaism (even though sometimes Christians have succumbed to that
temptation). Today, we can be deeply thankful that Barnabas and Paul went to Jerusalem,
and shared with Peter and Jacob, and the church in Jerusalem, in making that all-important,
pivotal decision!
But there is a problem inherent in the letter sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. It seems to
say, "No rules!" But then it turns around and says "Three or four rules!" Freedom in the risen
Lord Jesus--no legalistic rules, no traditions of Moses--but then, three or four rules from
Moses! How can we make sense of this? And especially, why these particular three or four?
We are in deep agreement with the later Greek copyists, who wanted to amend and change
these rules into much deeper, more important rules, such as the “Negative Golden Rule”!
Our answer to this problem is that what Jacob means is not four regulations, or three,
but in fact, only one. He means, "Don't return to, or get involved in, those terrible idolatrous
practices of the Canaanites, that involved the magical use of blood and sexual immoralities
such as prostitution and homosexuality, along with the use of strangled animals. It was
exactly those practices (according to the Book of Leviticus) that caused the non-Jewish
Canaanites to be “vomited out” of the land of Canaan. So today, If you non-Jewish believers
are going to be servants of the risen Lord Jesus, you will have to abstain from all those pagan
practices! You don't want to be "vomited out" like the Canaanites were! Any involvement in
those fertility practices, and you will be returning to a slavery far worse than subjection to the
613 commandments of Rabbinic Judaism, based on the Mosaic traditions!
Study of these four things--pollutions of idols, sexual immorality, strangled animals, and
"blood," must concentrate on two chapters in the Book of Leviticus--chapters 17 and 18.
The goal of these two chapters is that the people of God may "have life." They do not have
the goal of restricting, or hurting the people of God, or limiting their freedom. Rather, they
have the goal of giving them the genuine freedom that comes only through the love of, and
fellowship with YHWH God and with one another. These two chapters are rooted in the action
of YHWH God in history.
YHWH God had given the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Canaan four hundred
years to turn away from their immoral life-style--a life-style that was deeply involved in sexual
immorality--including homosexuality, sacred prostitution in worship, and the eating and
drinking of animal blood, attempting to make magical potions out of both menstrual blood, and
animal blood. The Canaanites believed that such use of sex and blood would impart life and
power to the participants. They even offered up their children in such fertility worship,
believing that their land would be made productive and they would be given power by such
use of sex, and human life, and the blood of both children and animals.
694

It is a revolting, crude picture that is painted in Leviticus 17 and 18--one that reminds
us of the terrifying scene witnessed on television screens and chronicled in daily newspapers
and weekly magazines during the death of David Koresh and his followers, along with their
children, in Waco, Texas. In the recent growth of "Satan worship" (not limited to Cuba with its
Santeria, or to Haiti with its Voodoo, but even here in North America!) with its black magic and
witchcraft, once again the use of blood, and the taking of innocent animal and human life is
being practiced. It is, historically, one of the most widely spread religions ever practiced.
Acts 15 warns the non-Jewish believers against going back into any such religion--and
there were numerous options to do so in the first century Greek-Roman world, with its "immersions
in blood" in the worship of Mithras, and with the "Sybils" and "Pythias" of the oracles,
and sacred prostitutes in almost every major center--such as just outside Antioch of Syria, and
in Ephesus, and Corinth, to mention only a few. Being "free in King Jesus" certainly did not
mean being "free" to return to such superstitious immorality and belief in magic--which would
only lead to a new slavery and rejection by God--not to genuine freedom!
The Jewish Bible insists that it was because of these practices that YHWH God drove
the Canaanites out of their homeland, and gave that "Promised Land" to the people of Israel.
Leviticus chapters 17 and 18 join their voice with many other passages in the Jewish Bible,
warning Israel that if she too joins in such practices, involving the pollutions of idols, sexual
immorality, and the magical use of blood, they too will be vomited out of the land!
“You will do well to never forget that great teaching,” Jacob and the church in Jerusalem
urged the non-Jewish believers. “You do not have to submit yourselves to a host of regulations
and rules found in the traditions of Moses. But if you are going to live in freedom in the
risen Lord Jesus, you must be very careful not to allow yourselves ever to get caught up again
in the terrible bondage that comes from such idolatry and sexual perversions, and that caused
that earlier generation of non-Jews to be ‘vomited out of the Promised Land’” It is still an
exhortation that all believers in the risen Lord Jesus need to hear and heed! The Lord Jesus
is risen from the dead! He is alive forever! He has shed his blood to cleanse and forgive
every person on earth, from every guilt and sin! He offers every one of us newness of life, that
death and evil can never conquer! He offers us the unbelievable freedom that can only come
by renouncing our own sinful natures, and walking hand in hand with him through life, doing
the marvelous works and signs of the Kingdom of God and the freedom it imparts--the works
of mercy, and serving, and giving, and loving, and building for eternity, under the guidance of
his Spirit! He does not destroy the teaching of Moses, but rather embodies the very heart of
those teachings, and guides his followers into doing the same. He is in fact, we believe, what
the author of the Gospel of Matthew holds, the “New Torah” of God!
The risen Lord Jesus does not place us back under earlier covenants, such as those
given to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Moses. He does not place us under an impossible yoke of
external rules and regulations which have to be taught and learned, over and over; but he
leads us in a joyful fulfillment of what lay at the very heart of the Law in the first place, through
personal knowledge of himself and the intimate experience of God’s own presence in our lives
through the Spirit! Let nothing take that freedom away from you! Don't submit to any legalistic
codes of laws, even if they are founded in the teachings of Moses, or taken from one of the
Gospels of the New Testament, or from the writings of Peter or Paul! We are free in King
Jesus, free at last!
695

Of course, if we seriously want to live in this glorious new freedom of life, we cannot
afford to get caught up in the kind of immoral life-style that characterized the ancient
Canaanites, and caused them to be driven from their homeland. Stay away from all other
religious options--don't get involved in idolatry, and the sexual perversions so common to it! In
the words of Paul to the Galatians, "It is for freedom that our King has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery!" We have to add that
when Paul, in his Letter to the Galatians, urges his readers to stand fast in their freedom, he
does not by any means hold that they can be sexually immoral, or become involved in the kind
of practices that are being warned against in Acts 15! Rather, he holds that genuine freedom
will fulfill the intent and purpose of the Law of God--see especially Galatians 5:2-10. He
insists that genuine faith must "work through love," serving others willingly, and rejecting the
works of the flesh, producing the fruits of the Spirit, becoming "new creatures," fulfilling the
Law of our Anointed King, always submitting to the guidance of the Spirit!
C. S. Lewis observed that: "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only
thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata [or,
might we say, a world of marionettes on strings, or a world of people with computers instead of
minds, all programmed by the great Computer Programmer in the skies]--of creatures that
worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for
his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each
other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between
a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free."
That's the kind of freedom that is given through faith in Jesus as risen Lord and King.
It's the freedom to unite our lives with his, to walk in his footsteps of loving, self-giving ministry
to this world--the freedom to become and be everything that our God-given talents will allow us
to become. It's not a bondage to arbitrary rules and regulations set by others--but the freedom
to love, and think, and become, all that our Creator wants us to be! That's real freedom! It's
the kind of freedom that God gave his people through the gift of Jesus, in his death and
victorious resurrection from among the dead. It's the kind of freedom that Paul was struggling
for as related in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and in his Letter to the Galatians. Its the
God-created freedom that can be ours, if we will make Jesus our Savior and King, and his
Spirit our guide--turning away from all other religious options--whether keeping legalistic codes
of laws such as are found in Rabbinic Judaism, or seeking to gain salvation through the
sensuous worship of the fertility religions--neither of which will not make us free, but will only
serve to enslave us!
Thanks be to God for this great fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts!
1