Acts 15:22-35

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 15:22

The Letter from the Church at Jerusalem; or, the Publication of the Settlement

I. The resolution of the Church.—

1. To prepare an encyclical letter, to be sent round the Gentile Churches. This suggestion, made by James (Acts 15:20), was formally adopted by the whole Church, under the visible leadership of the apostles and elders (Acts 15:22), and at the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the supreme president of the assembly (Acts 15:28).

2. To forward it to Antioch, the missionary centre, by chosen messengers, along with Paul and Barnabas. This addition to James’s motion, by whomsoever proposed, commended itself to the sanctified intelligence of the community as at once respectful to the brethren at Antioch and expressive of their own high sense of the importance of the occasion.

II. The special messengers.—

1. Their names.

(1) Judas, called Barsabbas. That he was not the apostle Judas Thaddeus his surname shows. That he was a brother of Joseph Barsabbas, the candidate for the apostleship (Grotius) is an unproved conjecture. It is enough to know that those who selected and sent him were acquainted with his person as well as with his name.

(2) Silas. Silvanus in the Epistles. Paul’s companion on the second missionary journey (Acts 15:40). Whether the bearer of the first epistle of Peter to the Churches of Asia (1 Peter 5:12) cannot be decided. Not the writer of the Acts (see Acts 1:1).

2. Their character. “Chief men among the brethren,” eminent disciples, had in reputation perhaps both for piety and ability. The word translated “chief,” meaning “leading,” may point to the fact that they were elders (Hebrews 13:17).

3. Their standing. Whether they had been among the seventy (Luke 10:1) may be doubtful; no uncertainty exists as to this: that they ranked as prophets (Acts 15:32; compare Acts 8:1).

4. Their companions. Barnabas and Paul, who returned to Antioch bearing the affection of the whole Church at Jerusalem. “Our beloved Barnabas and Paul” the letter styles them, and—knowing that their splendid services in the cause of Christ had been acknowledged—“men that have hazarded their lives,” etc., it continues.

5. Their selection. Rendered necessary in order to authenticate the letter to the Churches, and to free Paul and Barnabas from all suspicion of having tampered with the letter, or imposed their views on the assembly.

III. The encyclical letter.—

1. The reason for its sending stated. That the Church of Jerusalem had heard how the Gentiles in these Churches had been troubled, even to the degree, in some instances, of having their souls subverted by certain unauthorised teachers who had gone forth from their midst (and perhaps pretending to their authority).

2. To whom it was addressed. To the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, which shows how widely these false leaders had diffused their pernicious doctrines. That it was designed to be laid before all Gentile Churches cannot be inferred (but see Acts 21:25).

3. In whose names it was despatched. Those of the apostles, elders, and brethren (A.V.), or of the apostles and elder brethren (R.V.); i.e., either of the Church’s office-bearers alone (Presbyterianism) or of the Church membership as well (Congregationalism). See Critical Remarks.

4. The writing it contained.

(1) After the opening salutation (Acts 15:23), in which the word used for greeting points to James’s band as that which drew up the document (see Critical Remarks), and

(2) the insertion of the above-stated reasons (Acts 15:24), there follow

(3) the names of the special envoys sent with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:27), and

(4) the decision of the council—its authorship (the Holy Ghost, with the apostles and elders), and its contents (Acts 15:28); after which it closes with

(5) a word of farewell (Acts 15:29).

5. The reception it met with. Arrived at Antioch, towards which they had been solemnly dismissed, perhaps with religious services (see Acts 15:33; Acts 13:3), and possibly an escort for several miles of the way (Acts 15:3), Judas and Silas, having convened a meeting of the Church, formally delivered into their hands the epistle, which, when they had read (it may be, had heard read by Barnabas, the son of consolation), they rejoiced, for the consolation it gave them by the happy settlement of a hard question, which most likely, had it not been settled, would have proved troublesome, and even dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the Church.

IV. The return of the envoys.—

1. After a period of happy service at Antioch, in which they (Judas and Silas), themselves prophets, delighted to engage, and in which they attained considerable success (Acts 15:32), exhorting the disciples there with many words to cleave to Christ alone for salvation.

2. With a parting salutation of peace, or with best wishes for their happiness and safety (compare Acts 16:36; Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50).

3. To those who had sent them forth—i.e., to the Church at Jerusalem, leaving Paul and Barnabas behind at Antioch, to continue there the work of teaching and preaching the word of the Lord; though from the narrative (Acts 15:40) it may be gathered that Silas soon after rejoined Paul at Antioch.

Learn—

1. That wisdom and love combined are much required in dealing with the difficulties of Christian members.
2. That Church courts should strive to attain unity in all their decisions.
3. That the decisions of supreme ecclesiastical courts should always be announced with tenderness.
4. That only persons of approved piety should be entrusted with special missions for the Church:
5. That the Holy Ghost requires unity among Christians only in essentials.
6. That decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies, if come to under the Holy Spirit’s presidency, may be fitly regarded as His decisions.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 15:22. “Chief men among the brethren;” or the prominent leaders in the first Christian council.

I. Two apostles.—

1. Peter. One of the original twelve: who opened the door of the Church to the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius.

2. James. Of apostolic rank, though not included in the twelve; the president of the Jewish Christian Church at Jerusalem.

II. Two missionaries.—

1. Paul. The apostle to the Gentiles par excellence, the pioneer evangelist who carried the gospel beyond the bounds of Palestine—first into Asia, and subsequently into Europe.

2. Barnabas. The son of consolation, the good Levite; the modest and self-effacing companion of his great colleague.

III. Two deputies.—

1. Judas Barsabbas. A Jerusalem Christian of good repute among his brethren; otherwise unknown.

2. Silas. Also a recognised disciple of good standing; afterwards Paul’s companion on the second missionary tour.

Acts 15:23. The Jerusalem Concordat.—

1. The salutation—“Greeting.” “The actual form of the salutation is remarkable—χαίρειν: Hail! The secular traditional Greek salutation is used here, and not yet, as in the subsequent epistles, the apostolic greeting: ‘Grace and peace from God and Christ’; but the Israelitish salutation of Jesus and his disciples is no longer adopted, which ran, ‘Peace be with you!’ We find this χαίρε used in the New Testament by Judas with the kiss of betrayal (Matthew 26:49), by the mocking soldiers (Matthew 27:49; Mark 15:18; John 19:3); in the letter from the chief captain Lysias to the governor Felix (Acts 23:26); it is also quoted as a salutation of everyday life in 2 John 1:10, and it is made use of in the Epistle to James (Acts 1:1). This Greek expression, χαίρειν, is certainly spiritualised by Christian use, and raised to its true and highest signification, just as is the Israelitish שָׁלוֹם לְךָ in the mouth of the Lord; here, however, it is a friendly mode of address to the Greek brethren, and a greeting highly suited to the case” (Stier).

2. The contents. “As an independent commandment of loving wisdom for the edification of the Jewish and Gentile Church, this letter formed the remarkable beginning of inspired writing of the New-Testament system, as the Decalogue did in the Old Testament.… In this letter we find the first transition from oral teaching to the principal form of the New Testament Scripture” (Stier).

3. The authority. “It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us.” “We must neither look upon this expression as a mere formula, as in the later councils, nor must we refine upon it, as if the apostles and elders said, The Holy Ghost instructed us in this in the house of Cornelius, and we now decide therefrom; as if they had been taught by that outpouring of the Holy Spirit that these four items were to be specially imposed on the Gentile brethren. In this decretal formula now made use of there is, of course, some allusive reference to the matters of fact which had been set forth by Peter, and to the Scripture that had been quoted by James, both being alike testimony of the Holy Spirit, by which testimony the assembly had been induced to come to a conclusion.” … “But the ἔδοξε of the Holy Ghost refers as much to the four requisitions of abstinence as to the principal resolution, which declared the liberation of the Gentiles; consequently, it is always maintained that these four requisitions were made by the full authority of the Holy Ghost” (Stier).

Acts 15:24. Subverting Souls.

I. An easy performance.—May be done by

(1) promulgating erroneous doctrine;
(2) setting a bad example; or

(3) unduly exercising liberty (Romans 14:15).

II. A frequent practice.—By no means seldom occurring. Sometimes ignorantly, but often also deliberately done (2 Timothy 2:14; 2 Timothy 3:6; Titus 1:10).

III. A dangerous achievement.—

1. Imperilling the salvation of the subverted soul.

2. Involving in awful guilt—that of soul murder—him who subverts (2 Peter 1:1).

Acts 15:26. Hazarding One’s Life for the Name of Christ.

I. To decline to do so when necessary is sin.—To save one’s life at the expense of one’s fidelity to Christ, or to deny Christ in order to save one’s life, is to be guilty of apostasy.

II. To do so when called on by conscience is duty.—When one who is called to serve Christ finds that he cannot do so without imperilling his life, it becomes his duty to embrace the risk.

II. To do so voluntarily, in order to serve Christ, is heroism.—One who would not hesitate to sacrifice his life when serving might still shrink from deliberately encountering such risk, in order to find opportunities of serving Christ. This latter did Barnabas and Paul.

Acts 15:30. The Jerusalem Epistle: the Church’s Charter of Liberty.

I. Its urgent occasion.—It concerned the question, Moses or Christ.

II. Its unassailable origin.—Dictated by the Holy Ghost.

III. Its honourable bearers.—The heralds of evangelical grace, accredited by God Himself.

IV. Its incontestable contents.—Freedom from the ceremonial, but not from the moral, law. Deliverance from the yoke of slavish obedience, but not from the service of self-denying love.

V. Its joyous publication.—First to the Church at Antioch, and afterwards to the Churches in the cities visited by Paul and Silas (Acts 16:4).

Delivering the Epistle.—That this encylical was never composed and far less delivered—at least in the way recorded in the Acts—has been argued (Baur, Zeller, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, and others) on various grounds.

I. The apparent discrepancy between the narrative in Acts and the account given by Paul, who was an eyewitness of what took place in Jerusalem, it is said, shows the letter to be unhistorical.—It is urged—

1. That the conference with the Jerusalem authorities, according to Galatians, was sought for by Paul alone; whereas, according to Acts, it originated in a Church resolution.
2. That the Galatian story bears no trace of the antecedent disturbance at Antioch; whereas the picture drawn by Luke is that of storm and dissension, both at Jerusalem and Antioch. 3. That Acts is absolutely silent about the Titus episode, which forms so striking a feature in the Galatian letter. But, as to the first, why may not both statements be true, and Paul have resolved, on his own account, while executing the Church’s commission, to lay before the Jerusalem authorities a full and clear exposition of the gospel which he preached among the heathen, in the hope and belief that this would put an end to all further controversy? As to the second, may not Paul have deemed it quite unnecessary to inform the Galatians of every detail concerning the struggle for liberty at Antioch and Jerusalem, and considered it enough to emphasise the main point, that his apostleship to the Gentiles had been expressly recognised by the three pillar apostles, James, Cephas, and John? The third, the Titus episode, though not particularised in Luke’s narrative, is not contradicted, or even excluded, and may well have formed an item in the much questioning (Acts 15:7) which preceded Peter’s speech; or it may have been deliberately omitted from Luke’s narrative because it formed no part of the public discussion. In any case the two accounts, when impartially viewed, are rather supplementary than contradictory of each other.

II. Had the letter been written as reported, it is held Paul could not have stated in Galatians, as he does, that those who were of repute imparted nothing to him.—“There is no getting beyond this,” says Weizsäcker. “It is a round assertion, and perfectly clear.… All possibility of an exception, of anything having been added by the apostles, is excluded.… Paul has not said that nothing burdensome, but that nothing at all, was imposed upon him.” But surely this is to misunderstand the meaning of the apostle, who is not writing about ecclesiastical decrees for the observance of Gentile converts, but about apostolic authorisation for himself, and who distinctly asserts that the three pillar apostles imparted nothing to him—i.e., did not for a moment ever imagine that he required to be authorised by them, and certainly did not arrogate to themselves the right to authorise him as an apostle to the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, recognised that he had already been authorised as such by God.

III. Had the letter been written, it is difficult, we are told, to see how either Peter could have acted at Antioch or James at Jerusalem, as they are represented afterwards to have done (Galatians 2:11). But

(1) with reference to both apostles it should be borne in mind that it is by no means uncommon for even the best of men to act at times inconsistently and in flat contradiction to their previously expressed opinions and principles—even Barnabas, as well as Peter, was carried away with the prevailing spirit of dissimulation.
(2) As regards Peter, had the letter not been written it is doubtful if Paul would have been justified in so sharply censuring Peter’s conduct. Nor
(3) is it likely that Paul would have so distinctly charged Peter with having acted contrary to his avowed principles had he not been aware how Peter had expressed himself at the Jerusalem conference. While
(4) as to James, it is not certain that his emissaries did not travel beyond their instructions; or, if they did not, it is by no means unintelligible that, while James may, at the conference, have recognised the Church membership of uncircumcised Gentiles, he may also have desired that Jewish Christians should not be too free in social intercourse with the Gentiles.

IV. Had the letter been written, it is further contended, it would hardly have dropped so completely as it appears to have done out of the Pauline epistles.—Though referred to again in Acts (Acts 16:4; Acts 21:15) it is not alluded to again by Paul, it is said, in either Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, or Ephesians. But—

1. Paul may have deemed it unnecessary to cite the apostolic decrees either
(1) because they were sufficiently well known, or
(2) because they were more or less Palestinian in their colouring, and therefore less suitable for impressing Churches in Europe and Western Asia;
(3) because the purpose of his letters did not call for their citation; or
(4) because he chose to rely rather on fundamental gospel principles than on ecclesiastical enactments.
2. Even in Galatians Paul may have judged it better to make no appeal to the decrees, in case of weakening his claim to apostolic autonomy and total independence of human authority in the exercise of his ministry.
3. It is scarcely accurate to assert that all trace of the encyclical, if it ever existed, quickly disappeared, since each of the above-named epistles contains manifest allusions to its contents, as, e.g.,

(1) to abstinence from flesh and wine (offered to idols) for the sake of a weak brother (Romans 14:21);

(2) to the practice of fornication (1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 10:8);

(3) to things offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 10:7; 1 Corinthians 10:19; 1 Corinthians 10:28);

(4) to the freedom of the Gentiles from circumcision (Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:11; Galatians 2:14; Galatians 5:2); and

(5) to marriage (Ephesians 5:25).

V. The recognition by Paul of the mother Church in Jerusalem as the supreme court, whose decisions were universally binding (it is added), does not harmonise with his claim for independence of all human authority in the gospel which he preached (Galatians 1:1).—But while Paul’s conviction that he had received his gospel by express revelation from heaven may have been, and was, for himself a sufficient authorisation of the same, he may also have felt (or been taught by the special revelation that sent him to Jerusalem) that a decision from the mother Church would not be without importance as a means of securing the acquiescence of Jewish Christians, who could hardly be expected to remain satisfied with his statement about the heavenly source of his views.

VI. Other objections to the historicity of this decree, such as that it opens and closes like Claudius Lysias’ letter to Felix (Acts 23:26), and that the sentence formations of Acts 15:24, are analogous to Luke 1:1, do not strike one as weighty. Both only show that there were customary modes of composition, which were known to Theophilus’s friend and to Claudius Lysias, as well as to the apostles and brethren in Jerusalem—surely by no means an impossible or even violent supposition!

VII. The suggestion that, nevertheless, the letter has a historical basis, and that a concordat of similar purport must have been arranged subsequent to the Antioch dispute (Weizsäcker), shows how hard put to it objectors feel themselves in their attempts to get rid of the document as it stands, and how difficult they find it to explain the growth of Gentile Churches without some such deliverance as Acts records.

Acts 15:33. Let Go in Peace.

A testimony to—

I. The success of their mission.
II. The unity of the Church.
III. The influence of the letter.