AP

Studies in Acts

The Council at Jerusalem and its Aftermath (Acts 15:22-41)

Verses 22-29: Note that not only the apostles and elders, but the whole church made the decision to send men with Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch. By sending Judas, also named Barsabbas, and Silas, probably the same as the well-known Silvanus, to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch, these controversial brothers could not be accused of partisan reporting. Silas was a Roman citizen (16:37-39) and would later accompany Paul on his second apostolic journey, as well as be intimately involved with the letters to the Thessalonians. As a Hellenist he would have spoken Greek fluently. It was also good that they put the resolutions in writing.

According to James, in the light of the Amos prophecy it was clear what the assembly needed to do (v. 19). God intended already from the start to form from among the Gentiles a people who would honour his name. Well, that agrees completely with the words of the prophets. James proved this by referring the assembly to Amos. For James’s Jewish listeners, this prophecy needed no further explanation. The wonderful building consisting of David’s unified and undivided kingdom was sundered after Solomon’s death and in the days of Amos was nothing more than “a dilapidated hut.” But Yahweh would erect it once again by providing a new “David” (Ezekiel 34:23), a Good Shepherd.

These prophecies were fulfilled in Messiah Jesus. To him God had given the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32) and had exalted him to heaven (Acts 1:9; 2:23). But he would not rule exclusively over Israel, but also over the rest of humanity. God’s intentions included far more than simply Israel’s salvation. He would restore David’s fallen royal house, so that the Gentiles would seek him as well: “This is what the Lord says, who has made this known from of old” (Isaiah 45:21). For he had already promised to Abraham the calling of the Gentiles (Genesis 12:3). With this, James wanted to say that the issue under dispute did not fall brand new from the sky, but had been foretold already by the prophets, as work that God had intended already centuries before. The new believers from among the Gentiles would be saved by grace and not have to obey the Mosaic laws (cf. Romans 3:21-22; Ephesians 2:8-9).

With this proposal, however, people needed to proceed with wisdom as well, for people were still living during that period of transition from the Old to the New Covenant. Both for Jewish and Gentile believers this created difficulties. Thus, there were four things that were extremely offensive for Jews in their interaction with Gentiles, especially regarding food.

First: meat that came from the butcher shops associated with pagan temples, where the meat had been contaminated through being consecrated to an idol. If some converted Gentiles in Corinth viewed this to be an acknowledgement of another god, then so did many a Jew (1 Corinthians 8:1-13).

Second: sexual immorality. This would have referred not only to marriages within varying degrees of kinship that had been prohibited by Leviticus 18:6-18 (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1), but also adultery (Exodus 20:14, cf. Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 5:27-28), fornication (Deuteronomy 22:16, 28-29, cf. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 6:12-20), bestiality (Leviticus 18:23), and homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, cf. Romans 1:24-27).

Third: meat whose blood had not been fully drained, for example, of animals that had died on their own, caught in a trap or drowned.

Fourth: the use of the blood itself (cf. Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10-14).

Note that while the prohibitions about animal blood and bestiality are not mentioned in the New Testament, the others are.

If the Gentile Christians would abstain from these things in meek wisdom, they would make living together on the part of the Jews with former pagans much easier. James proposed that this be requested in writing – not as a new “law,” but as a few temporary guidelines during this difficult transitional phase. Or as a voluntary restriction of their freedom-from-the-law, which James otherwise fully acknowledged.

The Christians from among the Gentiles would not have found his proposal difficult or strange. Many of them had for years been attending the synagogue, where each Sabbath the Law of Moses was read publicly. From this they had already understood that they would be doing a great service to their Jewish fellow believers if they voluntarily abstained from “idol food, blood, meat with blood, and sexual immorality” (v. 29). Even more if they recalled that the aversion toward these among the Jews had been burned into the consciences of the Jews for more than thirteen centuries! Paul too could agree with these transition regulations (cf. 1 Corinthians 8; 9:19-23; 10:23-11:1).

The Letter: Notice how tactful this letter was. It was from “your brothers.” Thereby they acknowledged the “unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) in which they with them were proclaiming the gospel.  It was addressed to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia – that is how far the controversy had spread. It reminded the readers of what had occasioned the dispute, i.e., that the Judaizers did not have authorization from the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church. It affirms Paul and Barnabas as “dear friends” and reminds the readers of the trials and tribulations they had endured for the sake of the Gospel and the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Only then does it mention the requirements, after stating that the Holy Spirit was involved in the decision. The letter said not a word about the disputed circumcision! Nor was observing the Sabbath demanded (cf. Colossians 2:16-17).

Verses 30-35

The Recipients: The whole church came together in Antioch, where the letter was read and received with joy. Judas and Silas encouraged the believers. Then they were sent off with a blessing. Some manuscripts added ‘but Silas decided to remain there.’ This is quite likely as Paul took Silas on his next journey, though he could have recalled him from Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas stayed on for some time to teach and preach the Word of the Lord, probably from November 52 until spring of 53.

Verses 36-41

The Disagreement between Paul and Barnabas:  Who could ever have thought: Paul and Barnabas embittered toward each other! A mystery made even more profound when we note the prehistory of their friendship. Barnabas, who had sold an entire field to support the poor with the proceeds, was the first one to look at Saul when this convert returned from Damascus to Jerusalem. Together they had accomplished so much for the name of the Lord Jesus since that time. For years they had proclaimed the gospel together. They had travelled together, eaten, preached, prayed, and suffered together. Side by side they had defended the gospel of Jesus alone, believing alone, and grace alone. For that purpose, they travelled together to Jerusalem. What could have broken this intimate collaborative relationship? Not a doctrinal difference, but a policy dispute.

Paul envisioned a pastoral follow-up trip. But by means of the intervention of the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-7), this would expand into the second apostolic journey, during which the gospel would be proclaimed on European soil. Barnabas agreed with this proposal and wanted to take along his cousin John Mark. He had accompanied them on their first journey until they reached Pamphylia, but at that point, for reasons Luke does not mention, he returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

Paul was not sympathetic to that suggestion. He thought that it would be better not to have someone who had abandoned them and their work. He considered such a man unfit for this task. The kind and patient Barnabas evaluated Mark’s conduct more gently and wanted to give him another chance. But no matter how much he advocated on behalf of his nephew, Paul persisted, but Barnabas continued to insist. At that point, despite the love of each of them for the proclamation of the gospel, a sharp conflict arose between these intimate friends. It escalated so much that these comrades in arms broke off their collaboration and went their separate ways. The fact that Luke included this dark page in his book proves that he was unwilling to paint an idealized picture of the early Christian church.

Barnabas took Mark along and left for Cyprus, the island from which he had come originally. Earlier they had worked with Paul (Acts 13:4-5) and so he was continuing according to the latter’s plan: to visit once again the former places. This is the last we hear of Barnabas in Acts. Luke limits himself from this point on simply to the expansion of the apostolic witness by Paul. He does not mention the other apostles again.

 Paul chose Silvanus as his travel companion, here called Silas for short. He was a prominent figure in the church in Jerusalem. He had the gift of prophecy (Acts 15:32) and had been a member of the committee that had to communicate and explain the decisions of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) to the church in Antioch. He also enjoyed the confidence of the apostles. Later he would assist Peter in writing his first epistle (1 Peter 5:12). Paul thought him to be a suitable replacement for Barnabas. As the third partner, Timothy would later take the place of Mark. Paul later described Mark as “useful to me” (See Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 4:11). Mark is the one who wrote down Peter’s experiences in his Gospel of Mark, when he was in Rome. He also started a church in Alexandria in Egypt. 

Questions:

In what ways did the Holy Spirit guide the church? (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Peter 4:11).

How does Satan seek to destroy the church or the witness of the church?

What was one good thing that resulted from the quarrel?

In what measure should we defer to the scruples of others?

– Alida Sewell