Acts 15:13-21

After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”


the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written - "The quotation is from the LXX version of Amos 9:11-12.  James specifies that the prophecy of Amos will be fulfilled 'after these things,' i.e., after the present worldwide witness.  Then, after the return of Christ, 'the tent of David (in the millennial kingdom) will be established, and Jew and Gentile will know the Lord.  James assured the council that God's program for Israel  had not been abandoned by the coming of Gentiles into the church." (Ryrie)

"He then quotes, in particular, from Amos 9:11-12, LXX, freely in some parts (vs 16, 18), but verbatim in the part relating to the Gentiles (v 17).  A reference to the original passage in Amos will shew that the prophet referred specially to the possession, by the chosen race, of Edom and the other Gentile nations.  The Greek translators, by rendering Adam (man) for Edom, through the change of a single letter, interpreted the passage as we have it in the text.   The Jews understood the prophecy to be Messianic, and had called the Messiah, in consequence, 'Bar Naphli', 'the son of the fallen.'" (Walker)

"In A.V. Amos 9:11-12 reads 'remnant of Edom,' instead of 'residue of men,' and 'possess,' instead of 'seek,' but doubtless the latter in each case is correct, as quoted by James in Acts for while Edom is 'adum' in the Hebrew, man is 'adam' and while possess is 'irsh,' seek is 'drash.'  The difference in each case is so slight that the words may very well have been miscopied.  Also, James' quotation of the passage is more in line with the rest of prophecy than the text from which is was translated in the A.V." (Stam)

"Certainly the passage in Amos 9 is not being fulfilled in our day.  Nor did James say it was being fulfilled then.  Doubtless overruled by God, James simply said that the conversion of the Gentiles was in harmony with (Gr. 'sumphoneo) what the prophets had said.  We can say as much about the conversion of Gentiles today, for while this is not a fulfillment of the prophetic program, the fact remains that God had promised to send salvation to the Gentiles and He did send it to them, in spite, of course, of Israel's refusal to become the channel of blessing, but He did send it.  This explains such passages as Acts 13:46-47 and Rom 15:8-16.  The fact pointed out by James that God 'first' visited the Gentiles through Peter, implies a connection between Cornelius and his household and the Gentiles later saved under Paul.  While it is true that in the case of Cornelius we have a foreshadowing of the conversion of the Gentiles through redeemed Israel, personified by Peter, yet the fact is that God sent Peter to Cornelius, not under the 'great commission' but by a special commission, not because Israel had accepted Christ and the prophetic program could now go on, but because Israel had rejected Christ and a new program was being ushered in, and Peter, the leader of the twelve and of the Circumcision Church was the one chosen for this task so that there might be no doubt as to it and that so the further development of this program under Paul (who had already been raised up when Peter visited Cornelius) might be fully attested.  James' testimony, under God, then, was not to show that the prophetic program was being fulfilled, for this was not yet the case, but that it was not contrary to God's purpose that Gentiles should be saved, but rather in harmony with it." (Stam)

the tent of David - "Meaning 'the Jewish nation.'  The word rendered 'tent,' when referred to the original word used by Amos (booth or hut), signifies a poor and temporary abode like the booths used in the Feast of Tabernacles, in contrast to a kingly palace.  It thus points to the dilapidated condition into which the chosen nation had fallen." (Walker)

we should not trouble those - "The clear verdict of James, as president of the council, was that Gentile converts need not be circumcised." (Ryrie)

abstain - "In order to promote peace between Jewish and Gentile believers, the Gentiles were asked to abstain from any practice abhorrent to Jewish Christians.  The Jewish Christians would then socialize with them (cf. 1 Cor 8:13)." (Ryrie)

from polluted by idols - "Gentiles used idols' temples for banquets (cf. 1 Cor 10:14-22).  Partaking in a religious feast means fellowshipping with the one worshiped at that feast.  This is true of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 10:16-17), it was true of Israel in OT times (1 Cor 10:18), and it is true of a pagan feast (1 Cor 10:19-22).  Therefore, believers must not fellowship at pagan feasts since they may thereby open themselves to demonic attacks (1 Cor 10:20)." (Ryrie)

from sexual immorality - "It does not seem likely that the word means illicit sexual relations in this instance (though it does elsewhere), for this would be wrong for any Christian, Gentile or Jew.  It evidently has the special meaning here of marriages contracted between too-near relatives, as forbidden in Lev 18." (Ryrie)

"Probably not in its grosser forms but in such cases where they felt the Gentile believers might be more lax." (Stam)

what has been strangled - "A word peculiar to this chapter and Acts 21:25.  The Jews were forbidden by their law to eat the flesh of any animal from which the blood had not been let out (Lev 17:13), since the latter was considered sacred to God.  Things 'strangled' would, of course, come under that prohibition.  There is a natural feeling, which is allied to this, against eating animals which die of themselves." (Walker)

from blood - "The blood needed to be drained from slaughtered animals." (Ryrie)

"This, from the time when animal food was first permitted to man, was strictly prohibited (Gen 9:4), the prohibition being enforced and emphasized by the law of Moses (Lev 3:17;17:10-14; Deut 12:16, 23).  If we examine the four points specified, we see that they relate to idolatry, impurity, and indulgence in questionable meats (as the Jew, at least, considered them).  It was just such things which, apart from circumcision, made the Gentile offensive to the Jew and so rendered intercourse between them well nigh impossible.  St. James's fourfold prohibition was clearly intended to form a basis of agreement between the two parties.  Many consider that it was of the nature of a compromise, intended to meet temporary conditions (1 Cor 8:1-13).  Such compromise on lesser questions, when once the main principle (in this case the circumcision test) is conceded, is in accordance with the Christian law of love." (Walker)

in every city - "Where there was a synagogue.  We may understand this verse as meaning either that there was no fear that the law of Moses would be entirely forsaken, since it was regularly taught in the synagogues of the dispersion; or, that, since the precepts of the law of Moses were everywhere diligently inculcated, Gentile Christians  must be careful not to offend the prejudices of their Jewish fellow-believers in these four particulars." (Walker)

Acts 15:6-12

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.


the apostles and elders - "An examination of the list of those present at the special meeting of 'the apostles and elders' will give us an inkling of the difficulties Paul faced as he defended his apostleship and message the liberty of the Gentiles.  First there were probably all of the twelve apostles except James the brother of John, who had been killed by Herod.  Then there was also James, the brother of Christ, who was an apostle in the secondary sense, but not one of the twelve.  He was strict legalist and a stickler for the letter of the law.  It is doubtless for this reason that he came to be called 'James the Just ... A comparison of Acts 15:7 and Gal 2:4-5 reveals that among those present at this meeting there were also 'false brethren, unawares brought in,' working under cover to 'spy out' the liberty which the Gentiles enjoyed in Christ and to bring them into bondage; men secretly brought in to infiltrate the audience and use political persuasion or pressure or other illegitimate means to sway the decision.  Then, of course, there were also the subordinate elders of the churches of Judaea (Ver 6).  Representing the Gentile believers there were Paul, Barnabas, Titus and several others (Acts 15:2; Gal 2:1).  The choice of Barnabas and Titus to accompany Paul on this occasion was, as we have said, particularly wise.  Barnabas was a Jew, a Levite, who had formerly belonged to the church at Jerusalem and had sold his property, laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet (Acts 4:36-37).  He would well understand their viewpoint.  Titus, on the other hand, was a Greek, brought along doubtless as an example of the reality of Gentile conversion and also as a test case in the event of a battle with the legalizers over circumcision, so that the Gentiles might have practical proof that circumcision and the law were not be enforced upon them.  What a valuable experience this must have proved to Titus when later he had to stand against the legalizers in the island of Crete! (Titus 1:10-12)." (Stam)

Peter stood up and said to them - This is the last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts.

"The passae we have been considering contains the last mention of Peter—or of any of the twelve—in the record of the Acts.  Having confirmed Paul's ministry and apostleship he vanishes from the scene to be replaced entirely by Paul." (Stam)

by my mouth the Gentiles - "A reference to Peter's ministry in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44)." (Ryrie)

"Mark the words 'my mouth,' for they are most important in connection with this council.  God had not commanded all of the twelve to begin going to the Gentiles now, for Israel had not yet received Christ and under the prophetic program salvation was to go to the Gentiles through redeemed Israel.  Peter alone had been sent, and he to this one household only.  He did not continue to minister to the Gentiles.  Indeed, as a result of this council at Jerusalem he and the other apostles agreed to confine their ministry to Israel, recognizing Paul as God's apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9) ... What, then, was God's special purpose in sending Peter alone (of the twelve apostles) to this one household of Gentiles?  It was 1.) that Paul's subsequent ministry among the Gentiles might be given full recognition, 2.) that it might be recognized that the Gentiles were to be saved apart from circumcision and the law and, 3.) that the believers at Jerusalem might recognize these Gentile believers as their brethren in Christ.  True, Peter had not preached the mystery or the gospel of the grace of God to Cornelius and his household, but he had preached Christ and as he had proclaimed the necessity of faith in Christ for the remission of sins, his hearers had believed and were saved.  At that moment the Spirit had interrupted Peter's address and had given these Gentiles that gift whereby Peter and his friends could know that their salvation was genuine ... God had given Peter this experience with Cornelius and his household (significantly after the raising up of Paul) with this very council in view, that he might bear witness to the simple facts he had observed and so confirm Paul's ministry.  And why should the Jewish believers complain?  Was it not after all circumcision of the heart and its purification by faith that even Israel must experience before she can be saved? (See Jer 4:1,4; 9:26; cf. Acts 7:51; Rom 2:25-29)." (Stam)

a yoke - "I.e., the law, which with its interpretive additions had become a burden, literally almost impossible to keep." (Ryrie)

"Closing his remarks, Peter makes a most remarkable statement: 'But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they' (Ver 11).  He does not say: 'they shall be saved even as we' but 'we shall be saved even as they.'  So far from the law being necessary to their their salvation, he argues, it is not really that by which we are saved, and this will yet be demonstrated." (Stam)

all the assembly - "It appears that at this point the whole church was again admitted and addressed by Barnabas and Paul, who related what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.  This was to confirm to these Jewish hearers the fact that their ministry was indeed of God, for 'the Jews require a sign' (1 Cor 1:22) and this was one of the reasons why Paul was at first given the power to work miracles." (Stam)

Barnabas and Paul - "It is significant that in Ver 2, at Antioch, it is 'Paul and Barnabas,' while in Vers 12, 25, in Jerusalem, it is 'Barnabas and Paul.'" (Stam)

Acts 15:1-5

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.  When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”


Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. - "The problems raised by the presence of Gentiles in the church now came to a head.  Peter had learned that no man should be called unclean — not even a Gentile (Acts 10:34), and the Jerusalem church had accepted the first Gentile converts on an equal basis with Jewish converts, without the necessity of being circumcised.  However, some believe Pharisees (v 5) went on the offensive and insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised.  A parallel question was also being raised:  Should there be unrestricted social contact between Jewish and Gentile believers?  The Judaistic party separated themselves from those who did not follow the dietary laws and would not partake of the common meals.  Chapter 15 is concerned with these two questions:  circumcision and foods (socializing)." (Ryrie)

"...the question of the relation of the believing Gentile to the Law and to circumcision had to be determined.  This question was but the natural outcome of the situation in the beginning of this age.  To make this clear we quote from another: 'Wherever the Jews went in the Gentile world, their presence gave rise to two conflicting tendencies.  On the one hand, the Jew possessed the knowledge of the one true God; and amidst the universal corruption, idolatry and superstition of the ancient world this saving knowledge exercised a powerful attraction.  The synagogues of the Jews became the center of a large body of seekers after truth, whether actually circumcised proselytes or simply God-fearing Gentiles.  On the other hand, this knowledge was enshrined in a law, which imposed upon the Jews a number of distinctive customs and observances and these separated them from the rest of mankind and made a real coalescence impossible.  Four characteristics in particular struck the Gentiles, the absence of all images or emblems of the deity in Jewish worship, the observance of the Sabbath, abstinence from unclean meat and especially swine's flesh, and circumcision.  This last was sufficient in itself to prevent the world from adopting Judaism.  But the law of uncleanness caused the Jew on his side to look upon the Gentiles with contempt, as unclean, and put an effectual bar on any real fellowship.  The Gentiles in their turn readily paid back Jewish exclusiveness with an ample interest of ridicule and hatred.  This double relation to the Gentiles divided the Jews themselves into two schools.  On the one side were those who with some consciousness of the brotherhood of common humanity were striving to remove barriers and to present the Jewish faith to the world in its most spiritual and philosophic aspect.  Such were the Hellenists of Alexandria.  On the other side, the salvation of the Gentiles was inconceivable to the genuine Hebrew, and this was the attitude of mind which prevailed in Judea.  There the Hebrews were growing more and more rigid; instead of lowering, they were raising the fence around the law and trying to make the barrier between Jew and Gentile absolutely impassable." (Gaebelein)

"We come now to the record of the first great controversy between the followers of Christ, the inevitable clash between the believers at Jerusalem and Antioch, and of how it was used of God to settle once and for all the question of Paul's authority as the apostle of the new dispensation ...for while Peter had indeed been sent to one household of Gentiles and had witnessed the evidences of their salvation, he could only explain that he had been commanded to go 'nothing doubting,' adding: 'What was I that I could withstand God?'  Nor had any revelation as yet been given to them that the law, 'the middle wall of partition' had been abolished by the cross.  The misgivings of these Judaean believers were doubtless aggravated by the fact that great numbers of Gentiles were now being won to Christ under the ministry of Paul and Barnabas, who were establishing churches among them in which neither circumcision nor the Mosaic law had any place ... It should be noted that with them it was not merely a matter of fellowship:  evidently they were genuinely concerned (the 'false brethren' of Gal 2:4 entered the scene later at Jerusalem) about the salvation of these Gentiles, for they began teaching them:  'Except ye be circumcised after the manner [custom] of Moses, ye cannot be saved.'  They were not looking upon circumcision merely as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, but as that which had been commanded by Moses, the principal rite of Judaism, indispensable to the rights and privileges of membership in the favored nation, and therefore necessary to salvation.  And it was indeed the basic ceremonial requirement of the law and that which separated them from the Gentiles, as the people of God (Jn 7:22; Lev 12:2-3; Gal 5:3).  But with all their evident sincerity in this matter they were wrong, for they had undertaken this mission without due authority, and, as it turned out, unsettled matters at Antioch instead of settling them.  After the matter was finally settled at Jerusalem, the church there wrote to the Gentiles regarding these brethren (Acts 15:24).  Years later when Judaizers sought to impose circumcision and the law upon the Galatians, Paul wrote almost the same thing about them (Gal 1:7)" ... We see no ground, therefore, for the theory that the Judaizers at Antioch and Galatia proclaimed a spurious gospel or that which was not a gospel at all, else Paul would have said so.  While, perhaps, the emphasis on difference is usually somewhat greater in the case of 'heteros' than in the case of 'allos,' they are close synonyms used by Paul, evidently, to show that the gospel which the Judaizers had brought to the Gentiles was another, yet in a sense not another.  That is to say, the difference was one of development rather than of contradiction, just as elsewhere Paul makes it clear that grace was no contradiction of the law (Rom 3:31).  These Judaizers were not unscriptural; they were undispensational.  What they taught was to be found in Scripture, but it did not recognize the further revelation given to and through the Apostle Paul.  They sought to bring Gentiles, saved by a message of pure grace, back under the program of the kingdom with its circumcision and law — and thus they perverted the gospel of Christ." (Stam)

"It is quite generally agreed that this visit of Paul to Jerusalem is identical with that referred to in Gal 2 ... The main objection raised against this view is that in Gal 1:18-2:1 Paul himself solemnly declares that after his visit with Peter, three years after his conversion, he had not gone up to Jerusalem to see the apostles again until 'fourteen years after.'  But this difficult in not insurmountable, for the apostle's argument in Galatians is not that he had been to Jerusalem so seldom, but that he had been in contact with the apostles so seldom, and therefore could not have gotten his teaching from them.  His omission of the visit of Acts 11:30 in the Galatians passage is evidently because he saw none of the apostles at that time, and does not indicate a want of candor ... Thus on these two occasions he was sent, first from Jerusalem and the to Jerusalem by both the brethren and the Lord.  And the relation of these two visits is significant too.  On the former occasion he was sent from Jerusalem by the brethren for his physical safety, but by the Lord because Israel was being concluded in unbelief (Acts 22:18).  On the second occasion he was sent to Jerusalem by the brethren to settle a troublesome controversy regarding circumcision, but by the Lord that he might communicate to the leaders at Jerusalem that gospel which he had been preaching to the Gentiles and that they might acknowledge him officially and publicly as the apostle of the Gentiles, sent to proclaim 'the gospel of the uncircumcision' (Gal 2:2, 7, 9).  Paul had full authority from the Lord entirely apart from the twelve ... The reason he was now sent to Jerusalem by the Lord was not for his [Paul's] sake, but for their [the twelve] sakes and for the sake of the program now being launched.  It must be remembered that the apostles at Jerusalem had first been sent to 'all the world' and 'all nation' (Matt 28:19; Mk 16:15).  It was their hope and expectation that Israel would receive Christ, the risen King, and that so salvation and blessing might flow through Israel to the Gentiles.  But Israel had rejected her King and the long-promised 'times of refreshing.'  The stoning of Stephen was, in the words of Sir Robert Anderson, 'the secret crisis' in Israel's history and, preparing to set Israel aside temporarily and to hold the establishment of the kingdom in abeyance, God now raised up another apostle and sent him forth to proclaim grace to the Gentiles entirely apart from Israel's instrumentality; not because of her acceptance of Christ but because of her rejection and rebellion.  Naturally this affect the 'great commission' to the eleven.  Under this new program Paul, not the apostles at Jerusalem, was to become the apostle to 'all nations' and 'all the world' and the apostles at Jerusalem were henceforth to confine their ministry to those of the circumcision.  Paul fully understood this, but they must understand and recognize it fully too, so that they might not be working at cross purposes.  Furthermore, under this new dispensation the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile was to be gradually broken down, and it was therefore necessary that the Jewish believers recognize the Gentile believers as their brethren in Christ.  This was still but the beginning, of course.  They could not yet comprehend their complete oneness in Christ, but before long they were to recognize each other for what they truly were:  'one body in Christ, and every one members one of another' (Rom 12:5; cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 12:13).  This all, in addition to the fact that it must be settled once and for all that at least the Gentiles must not be made subject to the law of Moses.  Again, this was but a beginning, for the council at Jerusalem did not even consider the question whether or not the Jewish believers were to remain under the law.   They assumed that they were, for no revelation had as yet been given by God to the effect that they were to be freed from it.  As late as Acts 21:20 they were still 'all zealous of the law.'  Thus with the raising up of Paul and his early ministry among the Gentiles we have the gradual transition from the old dispensation to the new.  God does not reveal everything at once, nor start churches among the Gentiles which remain unrelated to the believers at Jerusalem.  The Jerusalem saints are expected to recognize the change in program, to move on with it, and to enjoy their oneness with the Gentile saints.  Of those who accompanied Paul on this journey to Jerusalem only two names are mentioned in the sacred record:  Barnabas (Acts 15:2) and Titus (Gal 2:1).   The choice of these two could hardly have been more appropriate, for Barnabas had originally belonged to the company at Jerusalem and was a Levite by birth, while Titus was an uncircumcised Greek.  With these two and some others besides, the apostle left for Jerusalem." (Stam)

"It must not be supposed that the apostle and his part simply appeared on the scene, that the council was called and the question regarding the Gentiles discussed and settled.  So important a matter could not be disposed of so imply.   There were at least two, probably three and perhaps even four separate meetings.  In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul explains that a private preliminary conference was first held with 'them which were of reputation' (Gal 2:2).  It is possible that Acts 15:4-5 does not refer to a meeting of the church, but the phraseology of the passage together with the fact that it would not have been much of a welcome by the church had it not been public, lead us to believe that it was a public meeting and that after this the Pharisees rose to object and 'the apostles and elders' then met to consider the matter (Ver 6).  The meeting of the apostles and elders would then be the third meeting, followed by a fourth, attended by 'all the multitude ... the apostles and elders with the whole church' (Vers 12,22)." (Stam)