John Calvin Commentary Acts 15:2

"And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, [the brethren] appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." — Acts 15:2 (ASV)

When there was sedition arisen. This was no small trial, in that Paul and Barnabas were dragged into a troublesome tumult. There was trouble enough already in the dissension itself; but it is a more cruel trouble when the contention becomes so heated that they are forced to fight with their brothers as with enemies.

Moreover, add the infamy with which they saw themselves burdened among the simple and unlearned, as if they would trouble the peace of the Church with their stubbornness. For it often happens that the faithful servants of Christ are envied exclusively and bear all the blame, after they have been unjustly troubled and have faithfully engaged themselves in defense of a good cause. Therefore, they must be equipped with invincible courage to despise all false reports that are spread about them. Therefore, Paul boasts in another place that he went through the midst of seditions (2 Corinthians 6:5).

But the servants of God must observe such moderation that they abhor all discord as much as they can; if at any time Satan raises tumults and contentions, they should endeavor to appease them, and finally, they should do all they can to foster and cherish unity. But again, on the other hand, when the truth of God is assailed, let them refuse no combat for its defense; nor let them fear to oppose themselves valiantly, even if heaven and earth should collapse.

And, being warned by this example, let us learn, whenever any tumult arises in the Church, to wisely consider whose fault it was, so that we do not rashly condemn the faithful ministers of Christ, whose steadfastness is rather to be praised, because they can endure so valiantly such violent assaults of Satan.

Secondly, let us remember that Satan was restrained by the wonderful providence of God, so that he could not undermine Paul’s doctrine. For if he had been allowed to do harm as he pleased, as soon as the faith of the Gentiles had been torn down and overthrown, the gospel preached by Paul would have fallen to the ground, and the gate would have been shut against the calling of the Gentiles.

Thirdly, let us learn that we must promptly prevent dissension, of whatever sort it may be, so that it does not break out into the flame of contention; because Satan seeks nothing else by fanning dissension than to kindle many fires. But again, since we see the primitive Church in an uproar, and the best servants of Christ troubled by sedition, if the same thing happens to us now, let us not be afraid as if it were some new and unusual matter; but, praying to the Lord for such an outcome as He provided then, let us pass through tumults with the same steadfastness of faith.

Unless ye be circumcised. Luke briefly states in these words the heart of the question, namely, that these seducers sought to bind people’s consciences with the necessity of keeping the law. Circumcision is indeed mentioned alone in this place; but it appears from the text that they raised the question about keeping the whole Law. And, because circumcision was, as it were, a solemn entrance and admission into other rites of the law, therefore, by synecdoche, the whole law is comprehended under one part. These enemies of Paul did not deny that Christ was the Messiah; but though they professed allegiance to Him, they retained along with it the old ceremonies of the law.

The error might have seemed tolerable at first glance. Why then does Paul not dissemble, at least for some short time, so as not to shake the Church with conflict? For the dispute was about external matters, concerning which Paul himself elsewhere forbids excessive contention. But there were three weighty reasons that compelled him to resist.

For, if keeping the law is necessary, human salvation is tied to works, which must be grounded in the grace of Christ alone, so that faith may be settled and secure. Therefore, when Paul saw the observance of the law pitted against the free righteousness of faith, he could not remain silent without betraying Christ.

For, since the adversaries denied that anyone could be saved unless he observed the law of Moses, by this means they transferred the glory of salvation to works, which they took away from Christ; and by shaking assurance, they troubled wretched souls with anxiety. Moreover, it was no small thing, nor of minor importance, to rob faithful souls of the liberty obtained through Christ’s blood.

Although the inward liberty of the Spirit was common to our forefathers as well as to us, yet we know what Paul says: that they were confined under the childish guardianship and custody of the law, so that they did not differ much from bondservants. But we are released from the tutelage of the law after Christ was revealed (Galatians 3:24), and we have more liberty, the time of our immaturity being, as it were, ended.

The third fault of this doctrine was that it darkened the light of the Church, or at least introduced, as it were, certain clouds, so that Christ, the Sun of righteousness, could not give perfect light. In short, Christianity would soon have come to nothing if Paul had yielded to such beginnings.

Therefore, he enters the combat, not for the external uncircumcision of the flesh, but for the free salvation of people; secondly, to acquit and set free godly consciences from the curse of the law and the guilt of eternal death; lastly, so that after all hindrances are driven away, the brightness of Christ’s grace may shine as in a pleasant and clear sky.

Moreover, these scoundrels did great harm to the law when they wickedly corrupted its right use. The natural and right function of the law was to lead people by the hand, like a schoolmaster, to Christ; therefore, it could not be more corrupted than when, under the guise of it, the power and grace of Christ were diminished.

In this way we must look into the sources of all questions, so that by our silence we do not betray the truth of God, whenever we see Satan, by his subtlety, aim directly at it. Nor let our minds be changed and grow faint because of any perils, or reproaches and slanders, because we must constantly defend pure religion, even if heaven and earth should collapse.

The servants of Christ must not be fighters (2 Timothy 2:24). Therefore, if any contention has arisen, they must rather seek to appease and pacify it by their moderation, than immediately to sound the call to attack. Secondly, they must take good care to avoid superfluous and vain conflicts, nor should they engage in controversies of little importance. But when they see Satan grow so proud that religion can no longer remain safe and sound unless he is stopped, they must take courage and rise up to resist; nor should they fear to enter even the most hateful combats.

The name of peace is indeed attractive and sweet, but cursed is that peace which is purchased at so great a cost that we allow the doctrine of Christ to perish, by which alone we grow together into godly and holy unity.

The Papists cause us today to be sorely hated, as if we had been the cause of deadly tumults with which the world is shaken. But we can well defend ourselves, because the blasphemies which we endeavored to reprove were so cruel that it was not lawful for us to remain silent. Therefore, we are not to be blamed for having undertaken to enter combats in defense of that cause, for which we would have to fight even with the very angels.

Let them cry until their throats are sore; Paul’s example is sufficient for us: we must not be either cold or slack in defending the doctrine of godliness when the ministers of Satan seek to overthrow it with all their might. For their frenzied opposition ought not to overcome the constancy of God’s servants. When Paul zealously set himself against the false apostles, sedition eventually began because of the conflict; and yet the Spirit of God does not therefore reprove him, but rather with due praises commends the fortitude that He had given that holy man.

They determined, etc. The Spirit of God suggested this remedy to them to appease the tumult, which might otherwise have escalated and caused much harm. By this we are also taught that we must always seek such means as are fit for ending discord; because God so highly commends peace, let the faithful show that they do all they can to nourish the peace of the Church.

The truth must always be their first priority, in defense of which they must not be afraid of any tumults. Yet they must so moderate their zeal that they refuse no means of godly agreement; yes, let them of their own accord devise whatever ways they can, and let them be resourceful in seeking them out.

Therefore, we must maintain this balance, lest, being carried away by immoderate vehemence of zeal, we are carried beyond proper limits. For we must be courageous in defense of true doctrine, not stubborn, nor rash. Therefore, let us learn to join together these two virtues which the Spirit of God commends in Paul.

When he is drawn into conflict by the wicked, he is not afraid to offer himself boldly. But when he meekly accepts the remedy that was offered, he declares plainly how little desire he had to fight. Otherwise, he might have boasted that he was not dependent on the apostles and so could have stood firmly on his own; but the desire for peace did not allow him to refuse their judgment.

Moreover, ignorant and weak people would have formed an unfavorable opinion if they had seen only two men separated from all the servants of Christ. And godly teachers must by no means neglect this way to cherish faith, so that they may show that they agree with the Church.

Paul, indeed, did not depend upon the whim of the apostles, to the extent that he would change his opinion if he had found them opposed to him—for he would not have yielded even to the very angels, as he boasts in the first chapter of Galatians (Galatians 1:8). But lest the wicked should slanderously report that he was a man who was too conceited, too proud, and who pleased himself with an inappropriate contempt for all people, he offered to give an account of his doctrine, as was fitting for him and as it was profitable for the Church. Secondly, he presented himself before the apostles with sure hope of victory, because he knew very well what their judgment would be, since they were guided by the same Spirit by which he was governed.

Nevertheless, it may be asked for what purpose the men of Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to the rest of the apostles. For if they reverenced them so greatly that they remained in doubt until they had given judgment one way or the other, was their faith until then vain and altogether non-existent? But the answer is easy: since they knew that all the apostles were sent by Christ alone with the same commandments, and that they had the same Spirit given them, they were fully persuaded of the outcome and success. Undoubtedly, this counsel proceeded from honest and steadfast men, who were not ignorant that the scoundrels falsely invoked the names of James and Peter. Therefore, they sought nothing else than that the apostles might advance a good cause with their consent.

For the same purpose all holy synods have been assembled since the beginning: so that serious men, well-versed in the Word of God, might decide controversies, not according to their own pleasure, but according to the authority of God.

This is worth noting, lest the Papists overwhelm anyone with their loud outcries. These people, in order to overthrow Christ and His gospel and extinguish all the light of godliness, thrust Councils upon us, as if every definition and determination of men were to be counted a heavenly oracle. But if the holy Fathers were sitting today, they would cry with one voice that nothing was more unlawful for them, nor did they intend anything less than to establish or deliver anything without having the Word of Christ as their guide, who was their only teacher (or master), even as He is ours.

I will not dwell on the fact that the Papists rely only on degenerate Councils, which exude nothing but gross ignorance and barbarism. But even the best and choicest councils must be understood as subject to the Word of God. There is an existing grievous complaint by Gregory Nazianzen that no Council ever had a good outcome.

Whatever excellence flourished and was potent in the Church, it cannot be denied that it began to decay a hundred years later. Therefore, if that holy man were living now, how firmly would he reject the trifles of the Papists, who, without any shame, most impudently introduce the deceptions of masked pretenders instead of lawful Councils—and that for the purpose that the Word of God may be dismissed as soon as a few ignorant and foolish men have established whatever pleased them?