Acts 16:1-5

Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.


Timothy - "Timothy, the son of a Greek Gentile father and a devout Jewish mother named Eunice, was intimately associated with Paul from the time of the second missionary journey on (2 Tim 1:5; Acts 16:1-3).  When Paul wrote 1Timothy, probably from Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3), he was on his way to Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), but Timothy had been left in charge of the work in Ephesus and Asia Minor.  Though Paul desired to visit Timothy (1 Tim 3:14; 4:13), [the book of 1 Timothy], in the meantime, would guide Timothy in the conduct of his pastoral responsibilities." (Ryrie)

"Converted, we may well believe, during St. Paul's former visit to Lystra (cf. 2 Tim 3:10-11 and 1 Tim 1:2 with Acts 14:19-20).  We find him, in this chapter, accompanying the apostle to Philippi (vv. 6-12).  He also assisted in the work at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9; 1 Thes 1:1), and at Beroea (Acts 17:10-14), where he remained behind with Silas to strengthen the church, rejoining St. Paul later at Athens (Acts 17:15), — only, however, to be dispatched again on a mission to Thessalonica (1 Thes 3:1-2).  He rejoined his chief once more at Corinth (Acts 18:5), and there we lose sight of him till we find him with Paul at Ephesus during the third missionary journey (Acts 19:22), from whence he was sent with Erastus and others to Macedonia (1 Cor 16:10-11), with the intention of going on to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17).  He is still in Macedonia, however, with St. Paul when 2 Corinthians is written (2 Cor 1:1); and, in his company, goes on to Corinth (Rom 16:21).  He continued with the apostle on the return journey, at least s far as Troas (Acts 20:1-5).  There is no further mention of him til wee find him with St. Paul at Rome during the latter's first imprisonment there (Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; Philem 1), about to be sent on a special errand to Philippi (Phil 2:19-24).  After his release, St. Paul placed him in charge of the church at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), and we see him once more in 2 Tim 4:9, 21, summoned to come to Rome as speedily as possible during the apostle's second imprisonment there.  There is one other allusion to him, in Heb 13:23)." (Walker)

"The Holy Spirit moved the Apostle to have Timotheus to go forth with him.  The Epistles to Timothy shed more light on this.  In 1 Tim 1:18 we read: 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before thee, that thou mightest war a good warfare.'  A better translation of 'according to the prophecies which went before thee' is 'according to the prophecies which led the way to thee.'  Timothy had been marked out by the Holy Spirit through the gift of prophecy as the proper companion of the Apostle.  No mention is made in the record before us of the laying on of hands.  However, we read of it in the Epistles to Timothy.  'Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hand of the presbytery' (1 Tim 4:14).  'Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands' (2 Tim 1:6).  This laying on of hands by the elders and by the Apostle Paul must have been done in Lystra." (Gaebelein)

"From the two epistles to Timothy it is evident that he was cultured and refined, a student from his youth, delicate in health and possessing, as was natural from his upbringing, an almost feminine tenderness, for Paul writes him with regard to his childhood, his mother, his grandmother and his tears, prescribes for his 'often infirmities' and urges him not to be ashamed or afraid or weak, but to be strong, as 'a good soldier of Jesus Christ.'" (Stam)

"Another step in the transition from the old dispensation to the new is seen in the fact that hitherto all of Paul's fellow travellers on his apostolic journeys had been chosen from the Circumcision, while here, for the first time, was one who was only partly Jewish ... the apostle, however, had him formally initiated into the Hebrew race by the rite of circumcision.  In addition, a public consecration service was evidently held for the young man, before he embarked on his journey with Paul and Silas.  In this service men with the gift of prophecy declared that God ha chosen Timothy for this ministry and a special 'gift' for the work was imparted to him by the Spirit, as the elders of the Church, together with Paul, and probably Silas, identified themselves with him in the laying on of hands (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).  While the new dispensation was dawning brighter, the old, with its miraculous gifts, had not yet 'vanished away.'" (Stam)

circumcised him - "The Jerusalem council had declared that circumcision was not necessary for salvation or for acceptance into the Christian church (Act 15:19), but because of Timothy's part-Jewish background it seemed expedient in his case, in order to enlarge his local usefulness in witnessing.  In the case of Gentile Titus, Paul insisted that he not be circumcised (Gal 2:3)." (Ryrie)

"The law has nothing to say about the circumcision of the offspring of the offspring of mixed marriages.  It is well known that, if there was a mixed marriage (i.e., between a Jew and a Gentile), the law would have nothing to say to the offspring. 'Legally, the Jewish father could not own his own children born of a Gentile mother, or vice versa (see Ezra 10).  Not Timothy being the offspring of such a marriage, there could be no claim, even if there was license to circumcise him; and Paul condescends out of grace to those who were on lower ground, and stops their mouths most effectually.' (William Kelly, introduction to Acts).  His act then was not according to Law, for circumcision in Timothy's case was not commanded but it was done on the ground of grace; he did not want to put a stumbling block into the way of the Jews (1 Cor 9:20)." (Gaebelein)

"The time element is an important factor in the interpretation of the Book of Acts.  It must be remembered that Paul himself received the great truths of grace gradually, in a series of revelations, and that the circumcision of Timothy took place before he had even written his first epistle.  A few years later he was to write to the Galatian believers, Jewish and Gentile alike: 'Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing.  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law' (Gal 5:2-3).  These Galatian believers had come to see the law as fulfilled in Christ and had the, through the influence of the Judaizers from Jerusalem, begun to place themselves under the law again.  Thus it would be wrong for anyone today to submit to circumcision in compliance with the law, and even at that time it would have been out of order for any Gentile to do so.  But it must be remembered that the council at Jerusalem had not ruled against the circumcision of Jewish believers, that Paul's ministry was still 'to the Jew first' and that he naturally began his testimony to them by proving that 'Jesus is the Christ,' the Messiah of Israel ... The statement, then that Paul circumcised Timothy because 'they knew all that his father was a Greek,' should not lead us to conclude that Paul was making a concession to Jewish believers who felt that Gentile believers should be circumcised.  It was clearly for the sake of the unbelieving Jews that Paul circumcised Timothy.  It is true enough that Timothy could have remained uncircumcised and that no one would have had a right to impose the rite upon him.  Indeed, had brethren demanded Timothy's circumcision on the basis of Acts 15:1, Paul would have opposed their attempt to bring him into bondage, but since Timothy was half Jewish, physically, and mostly Jewish in his upbringing, and since circumcision was still the mark of God's covenant people, Paul circumcised him so that henceforth Timothy's ministry to the people of Israel might be as free and unhindered as his own.  In this act, performed at that stage in the transition from Judaism to grace, Paul was simply teaching the lesson that while we have no right to give up our liberty (Gal 5:1) we do have liberty to give up our right (Gal 5:13; Rom 14:1-15:2; 1 Cor 8:1-10:33)." (Stam)

they delivered to them for observance the decisions - "The decisions arrived at in Jerusalem in Acts 15:23-29)." (Ryrie)

"The selective principle in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is clearly seen in Verses 5 and 7.  Paul's whole ministry in Galatia is passed over with a few words, evidently because an account of it would not be in line with the special purpose of the Acts.  In his letter to the Galatians we learn that 'on account of [Gr. dia] infirmity of the flesh' had had preached the gospel to them at the first (Gal 4:13).  The exact nature of the illness that detained him among the Galatians is not stated, though it seems to have been some severe eye trouble (Gal 4:15; 6:11).  However that may be, we know that even in his illness he plainly set forth Christ crucified among them (Gal 3:1) and that his energy and faithfulness were richly rewarded by the esteem and affection lavished upon him by those whom he had won to Christ (Gal 4:14-15)." (Stam)

Acts 15:1-41

What is the theme of this chapter?

The Council at Jerusalem.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 7-11

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.”

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

I can avoid sharp disagreements with other believers by placing myself in their shoes — Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (Phil 2:4).  But I can take comfort in knowing that even when I do mess up, God still "works all things according to the counsel of his will" and "for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Eph 1:11; Rom 8:28).

Additional observations/questions:

It's interesting to note that it was decided at this council that Gentiles need not be under the law, but nothing was said whether or not Jews were to continue under the law.  They must have assumed that they were because as late as Acts 21:10 "they are all zealous for the law."

Acts 15:36-41

And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.


"The second missionary trip was not planned to reach out to areas beyond those on the first trip but to return to the churches established on the first journey.  God, however, had additional plans." (Ryrie)

they separated from each other - "Here is an example of separation because of personality or practicality, not doctrine, and it seemed to be the only solution to the problem.  God brought good out of it in that two missionary teams were sent out, and Barnabas's continued interest in John Mark rescued him from possible uselessness." (Ryrie)

"Some have explained the contention by noting a possible spiritual decline in the change from the words: 'the Holy Spirit said,' in 13:2, to the words: 'Paul said,' in 15:36.  It should be remembered, however, that in the former passage we have the Spirit's original instruction to the Church at Antioch to separate Paul and Barnabas for the work wherein they had now become engaged.  Therefore we should not expect another such case, nor are we to suppose that the apostle is acting in the flesh every time we fail to find the words: 'The Holy Spirit said.'  Indeed, since the passing of the Pentecostal era believers should be very careful about saying: 'The Spirit said' or, "The Spirit told me' or, "The Lord said to me,' unless they are referring to the written Word of God." (Stam)

having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord -  "It has been noted that Paul and Silas were commended by the church to the grace of God (Ver. 40) as Paul and Barnabas had been at the first (Acts 13:3; 14:26) but that Barnabas and Mark received no such commendation at this time.  This, however, may have been because Barnabas left suddenly or secretly, either from anger or disappointment, or generously, to leave the work there wholly to Paul.  Even at that, it does seem that the main body of the church there probably stood with Paul, though on the other hand against it must be said that the later record indicates that Barnabas' confidence in Mark was justified and that he did well in giving the young man another chance.  At any rate, Barnabas and Mark now sail for Cyprus, while Paul and Silas travel through Syria and Cilicia (we hope not bound for the same destination!).  This is the first indication that churches had been established in Syria and Cilicia (apparently either after Paul's return to Tarsus or during his ministry in Antioch.  See Gal 1:21 and cf. Acts 9:30; 11:25,26; 15:23).  It is heartening to consider that all four of the men we have been discussing really had the same great cause at heart, and that after a time their wounds healed again.  In 1 Cor 9:6 Paul speaks highly of Barnabas as a co-worker for Christ.  As to Mark,  in Col 4:10 Paul instructs the Colossian believers to 'recieve him,' in Phile 24 he calls him a 'fellow-laborer' and in 2 Tim 4:11 he makes the touching request: 'Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.'  Thus Mark came through with colors flying and Paul graciously received him back.  Indeed it is touching to note that God used this servant (Acts 13:5) who had failed so dismally, to write the account of the perfect Servant, The Gospel According to Mark.  This is the last we hear of Barnabas and Mark in the Book of Acts.  The dispensational reason for the disappearance of the twelve apostles, and even of Barnabas and Mark, from the record, is that the message and ministry entrusted to Paul might be duly emphasized." (Stam)

Acts 15:22-35

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words. And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.


we gave them no instructions - "Opening with a hearty 'greeting' from 'the apostles and elders and brethren' at Jerusalem, it explained that they had heard that certain of their own number had gone to Antioch troubling the Gentile believers there and 'subverting' their souls, and assured them that these men had received no command from them to go.  The word 'suc' has been incorrectly supplied in Ver. 24.  The meaning is not that the church at Jerusalem had not commissioned them to say what they did, but that they had not commissioned them to go at all: 'to whom we gave no commandment' ... As for Judas and Silas, they stand in direct contrast to the Judaizers who had preceded them.  The Judaizers had not been sent but had come casting doubts upon the reality of the Gentiles' conversion to 'dismantle' and rob them.  Judas and Silas, on the other hand, had been officially commissioned by the Church at Jerusalem and had come to encourage the Gentile believers and confirm them." (Stam)

Silas - "An abbreviated form of Silvanus.  After performing his special mission in Antioch (vs 30-35), he accompanied St. Paul, in place of Barnabas, on his second missionary journey (v 40) through Syria, Cilicia, south Galatia, and the road to Macedonia.  He remained in Berea with Timothy after St. Paul's departure to Athens (Acts 17:14), but seems to have followed his leader to Athens later (Acts 17:15), only, however, to be sent back to Macedonia, like Timothy, on some special errand (1 Thes 3:1-2).  He rejoined St Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:5), and his name is associated with the apostle's in the two Epistles written to the Thessalonians from that city.  Here we lose sight of him, so far as St. Paul's further labours are concerned.  It is generally supposed, however, that he is identical with the Silvanus mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 12, as the bearer of St. Peter's first Epistle.  Like Paul, he was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37)." (Walker)

you will do well - "act rightly" (Ryrie)

"As to the actual decision of the council, reduced to writing in this letter, several important details should be noted.

1.  The Church at Jerusalem did not impose the law upon the Gentile believers.

2.  They could not have done so anyway, because they had no jurisdiction over them, but the point is that had the kingdom program gone on the Gentiles would have been subject to Israel.  Now the Church at Jerusalem makes it clear that this is not the case.

3.  The 'necessary things' in which the Jerusalem Church did exhort them, were not works of the law which they sought to bind upon the Gentiles after all, but things which they felt the Gentile believers should 'abstain' from so as not to shock the prejudices of the Jews with whom they came into contact (Ver. 29).

4.  Even these details were not put in the form of commands.  It was simply suggested that they would 'do well' to abstain from these things for the time being (Ver. 29) even if this proved somewhat of a 'burden.'  We do not believe, as some do, that Paul agreed to subject the Gentiles to certain legal requirements and then later repudiated the agreement (See Gal 2:5; 5:1,3,9).

Because of the transition from the kingdom program to that of the present economy the council's written decision was necessary both to establish  Gentile liberty and to confirm Paul's apostolic authority among the Gentiles.  It did not, however, supersede Paul's own God-given authority and commission.  He needed no Jerusalem council to endorse his apostleship.  Thus while he accepted its decision as a satisfactory settlement of the matter in question, he never once refers to this letter in his epistles, not even when discussing the principal matter with which it dealt (Gal 2).  Anyway, Paul found higher reasons why the Gentiles—and even the Jews—should not be under the law (Rom 7:2; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14) and higher motives for abstaining from anything that might in any way injure others, whether lost or saved (Rom 14:13-15; 1 Cor 8:1,4,7,9; 10:28-33; Gal 5:13) ... There had indeed been much to be apprehensive about, yet the Holy Spirit had graciously and powerfully overruled, until both James and Peter, with John, publicly and officially recognized Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and the 'whole church ... assembled with one accord' wrote to the Gentiles as brethren in Christ, condemning the Judaizers, upholding Paul and declaring that they had agreed that the Gentiles were not to be under the law." (Stam)

v 29 - "Some manuscripts do not contain this verse." (Ryrie)

spent some time - "This verb occurs again in Acts 12:19; 14:3, 28; 16:12; 20:6; 25:6, 14.  A considerable period seems to be intended.  To this period must be referred the incidents of Peter's vacillating conduct and Barnabas' compromising actions related in Gal 2:11-18.  Doubtless, it prepared the way for the breach which follows (vs 39-40)." (Walker)

"It is undoubtedly at this point in the history of Acts that we must place Peter's visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul (Gal 2:11-14), for this took place after the council at Jerusalem, but before the separation between Paul and Barnabas.  This was the second time Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem.  Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish Church.  Antioch was that (on earth) of the Gentile Church.  When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, 'they that were of the circumcision contended with him' (Acts 11:2).  When, later, he came to Antioch, Paul 'withstood him to the fact' (Gal 2:11).  At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Acts 11:3).  At Antioch he was rebuked because he had stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12).  At Jerusalem he rightly defended his action (Acts 11:4).  At Antioch he had no defense to offer (Gal 2:11-18).  There was naturally a keen interest at Jerusalem in developments among the Gentiles.  It was soon after the council at Jerusalem that Peter travelled to Antioch to visit the church there himself.  It must have seemed like further fulfillment of the 'sheet' vision to sit down and eat with these Gentiles and enjoy their fellowship to the full.  But then something happened.  It was reported that 'certain from James' had arrived.  No more was this announcement made than a separation began among those who had been thus enjoying each other's fellowship.  First Peter 'withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision' (Gal 2:12).  (What an influence James and his party must have exerted to be able to intimidate even the chief of the apostles in this way!)  This of course, was not only cowardice, but hypocrisy, for if Peter's fellowship with the Gentiles had been right before, why was it wrong now?  As a result of Peter's action 'the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation' (Gal 2:13)." (Stam)

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)