Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 15

CHAPTER 15

And certain men. These were men undoubtedly who had been Jews, but who were now converted to Christianity. The fact that they were willing to refer the matter in dispute to the apostles and elders (Acts 15:2) shows that they had professedly embraced the Christian religion. The account which follows is a record of the first internal dissension which occurred in the Christian church.

Until now, they had been struggling against external foes. Violent persecutions had raged and had fully occupied the attention of Christians. But now the churches were at peace. They enjoyed great external prosperity in Antioch. And the great enemy of souls took occasion then, as he has often done in similar circumstances since, to excite contentions in the church itself, so that when external violence could not destroy it, an effort was made to secure the same object by internal dissension and strife.

The history, therefore, is particularly important, as it is the record of the first unhappy debate which arose in the midst of the church. It is further important, as it shows the manner in which such controversies were settled in apostolic times; and as it established some very important principles respecting the perpetuity of the religious rites of the Jews.

Came down from Judea. To Antioch, and to the regions adjacent, which had been visited by the apostles (Acts 15:23). Judea was a high and hilly region; and going from that toward the level countries adjacent to the sea was represented as descending or going down.

Taught the brethren. That is, Christians. They endeavored to convince them of the necessity of keeping the laws of Moses.

Except you be circumcised. This was the leading or principal rite of the Jewish religion. It was indispensable to the name and privileges of a Jew. Proselytes to their religion were circumcised as well as native-born Jews, and they held it to be indispensable to salvation. It is evident, from this, that Paul and Barnabas had dispensed with this rite in regard to the Gentile converts and that they intended to found the Christian church on the principle that the Jewish ceremonies were to cease. When, however, it was necessary to conciliate the minds of the Jews and to prevent contention, Paul did not hesitate to practice circumcision (Acts 16:3).

After the manner of Moses. According to the custom which Moses commanded; according to the Mosaic ritual.

You cannot be saved. The Jews regarded this as indispensable to salvation. The grounds on which they would press it on the attention of Gentile converts would be very plausible and such as would produce much embarrassment. For:

1. It would be maintained that the laws of Moses were the laws of God and were therefore unchangeable.
2. It would doubtless be maintained that the religion of the Messiah was only a completing and perfecting of the Jewish religion, that it was designed simply to carry out its principles according to the promises, and not to subvert and destroy anything that had been established by Divine authority.

It is usually not difficult to perplex and embarrass young converts with questions of modes, rites, and forms of religion; and it is not uncommon that a revival is followed by some contention just like this. Opposing sects urge the claims of their peculiar rites, seek to make proselytes, and introduce contention and strife into an otherwise peaceful and happy Christian community.

Had no small dissension and disputation. The word rendered "dissension" (stasewv) sometimes denotes sedition or internal war, and sometimes earnest and violent disputation or controversy (Acts 23:7, 10). In this place, it clearly denotes that there was earnest and warm discussion, but it is not implied that there was any improper heat or temper on the part of Paul and Barnabas.

Important principles were to be settled regarding the organization of the church. Doctrines were advanced by the Judaizing teachers that were false and tended to cause great strife and disorder in the church. These doctrines were urged with great zeal, declared to be essential to salvation, and would therefore tend greatly to distract the minds of Christians and produce great anxiety.

It therefore became necessary to meet them with a determined purpose and to establish the truth on an immovable basis. And the case shows that it is right to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 1:3). When similar cases occur, it is proper to resist the approach of error with all the arguments at our command and with all the weapons that truth can provide.

It is further implied here that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to defend the truth and oppose error. Paul and Barnabas regarded themselves as set for this purpose (compare to Philippians 1:17, Knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; ). Christian ministers should be qualified to defend the truth and should be willing, with a proper spirit and great earnestness, to maintain the doctrines revealed.

They determined. There was no prospect that the controversy would be settled by contention and argument. It would seem from this statement that those who came down from Judea were also willing that the whole matter should be referred to the apostles at Jerusalem. The reason for this may have been:

1. That Jerusalem would be regarded by them as the source of authority in the Christian church, as it had been among the Jews.
2. Most of the apostles and the most experienced Christians were there. They had listened to the instructions of Christ himself, had been long in the church, and were supposed to be better acquainted with its design and its laws.
3. Those who came from Judea would not be likely to acknowledge the authority of Paul as an apostle; the authority of those at Jerusalem they would recognize.
4. They might have had a very confident expectation that the decision there would be in their favor. The question had not been agitated there. They had all been Jews. And it is certain that they still continued to attend the temple service and to conform to Jewish customs. They might therefore have expected, with great confidence, that the decision would be in their favor, and they were willing to refer it to those at Jerusalem.

Certain other of them. Of the brethren, probably from each party. They did not go to debate, or to give their opinion, or to vote in the case themselves, but to lay the question fairly before the apostles and elders.

Unto the apostles. The authority of the apostles in such a case would be acknowledged by all. They had been immediately instructed by the Savior and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization of the church (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).

And elders. .

Greek, Presbyters. .

Who these were, or what their office and authority were, is not easy now to determine. It may refer to the aged men in the church at Jerusalem, or to those who were appointed to rule and to preach in connection with the apostles. As in the synagogue it was customary to determine questions by the advice of a bench of elders, there is no improbability in the supposition that the apostles would imitate that custom and appoint a similar arrangement in the Christian church (Grotius).

It is generally agreed that this is the journey to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:1-10. If so, it happened fourteen years after his conversion (Galatians 2:1). It was done in accordance with the divine command, by revelation (Galatians 2:2). And among those who went with him was Titus, who was afterwards so much distinguished as his companion (Galatians 2:3).

About this question. The question was whether the ceremonial laws of Moses were binding on Christian converts. Regarding the nature and design of this council at Jerusalem, see Acts 15:30 and Acts 15:31.

And being brought on their way by the church. This means being attended and conducted by the Christian brethren (see the notes on Romans 15:24).

It was customary for Christians to accompany the apostles on their travels (compare 1 Corinthians 16:6, 11; 3 John 1:6).

Through Phenice. (See the notes on Acts 11:19).

And Samaria. These places were directly on their route to Jerusalem.

Declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, etc. This refers to the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch and in the regions of Asia Minor through which they had traveled. They would naturally communicate these remarkable events with joy to the Christians with whom they would interact on their journey .

Caused great joy. This was at the news of the extensive spread of the gospel. It was an indication of their deep commitment to their faith that they rejoiced in this way (compare Luke 15:7, 10).

When Christians are themselves spiritually alert and engaged in the service of Christ, they rejoice at the news of the conversion of sinners. When they are spiritually cold, they hear such news with indifference or with the utmost unconcern. One way of testing our feelings on the subject of religion is by the emotions we experience when we hear of extensive and glorious revivals of religion (compare the notes on Acts 8:8).

They were received of the church. By the church, in a hospitable and friendly manner. They were acknowledged as Christian brethren, and received with Christian kindness. See Galatians 2:9.

And they declared. Paul and Barnabas, and those with them. That is, they stated the case: the remarkable conversion of the Gentiles, the evidence of their piety, and the origin of the present dispute.

{} "received of the church" "by" {} "of the apostles" "by" {d} "they declared"Acts 21:19 {+} "declared" "related" {*} "with" "by"

But there rose up, etc. It has been doubted whether these are the words of Paul and Barnabas, relating what occurred at Antioch, or whether they are the words of Luke, recording what took place in Jerusalem. The correct interpretation is probably that which refers it to the latter. For:

1. This seems to be the most obvious interpretation.
2. The use of the words "rose up" implies that. Those who disturbed the church at Antioch are said to have come down from Judea (Acts 15:1), and if this passage referred to that occurrence, the same words would have been retained.
3. The particular specification here of "the sect of the Pharisees," suggests that this was an occurrence taking place in Jerusalem. No such specification exists regarding those who came down to Antioch; but it seems here that this party in Jerusalem still resolved to abide by the law, and to impose those rites on the Christian converts. However, this interpretation is by no means certain.

Which believed. Who maintained, or taught.

That it was needful, etc. Refer to Barnes on Acts 15:1.