Read or listen The Acts of the Apostles Chapter 15 online (ESV, Bible Gateway)

Is circumcision necessary? — Acts 15:1-5

first missionary journey to Antioch in Syria, some Christians also came from Jerusalem. Luke does not say whether they came intentionally to "correct" the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, or whether their arrival was a coincidence. In any case, the result was that a dispute arose about the way of salvation. On one side were Paul and Barnabas with their supporters, on the other side were the Christians from Judea with their supporters. What was the matter exactly?

Luke summarizes the controversy in the words: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Circumcision, however, was not an isolated, or even isolated, regulation, but for the Jews it signified submission to the entire law (compare Gal 5:1-6). The Jews also baptized converts with proselyte baptism, but only circumcision made the convert a Jew.

If the position of Paul's opponents had won, perhaps the Christian faith would have become only an intermediate stage in conversion to Judaism and a sect of Judaism.

Paul's position meant making a clear distinction between Judaism - i.e. legal piety that sticks to the Law of Moses - and Christianity. The fact that the position represented by Paul prevailed meant a faster separation between Judaism and Christianity.

But why did the problem only come to light in the late 40s (apparently in 48 AD). We have already noted the existence of the problem (Acts 11:1-18), but now it was made even more serious by the fact that many Gentiles had been converted. The churches founded by Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey were apparently mainly of former Gentile background.

Ultimately, the question was about the basis of salvation: is a person saved by his own works (=observance of the law) or by God's grace alone? There are only these two options. There is no compromise between the two.

Apparently, there was only one thing agreed upon in Antioch: the problem had to be solved in Jerusalem, in the presence of the apostles. The church at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas and their companions to the Jerusalem meeting as their representatives (verse 2). The journey from Syrian Antioch to Jerusalem was this time made overland. This provided an opportunity to visit the churches along the coast - Phoenicia, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.

How important this issue was to Paul is evident in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul again had to fight against the requirement of circumcision. The Epistle to the Galatians is the most intense of Paul's letters.

The meeting of the Apostles – Acts 15:6-21

The matter was decided in Jerusalem at a meeting of the apostles and elders, where apparently all willing members of the congregation were present (compare verse 13: "Men, brothers..."). In Jewish religious discussions, it was customary for the younger ones to speak first and then the older ones. Finally, it was Peter's turn. He did not refer to any theories or rational explanations, but to the works of God.

"In the early days" (verse 7) God had made His position known: the Gentiles of Cornelius' household were acceptable to God without circumcision, for God had given the Holy Spirit as a sign of acceptance (Acts 10:1-11:18). The matter was therefore already decided. He who would not accept God's decision would "put God to the test" (verse 10).

Note the expression Peter uses, "In the early days." We often think of the events in Acts as occurring in rapid succession, one after the other, but in reality the events described in Acts span a 30-year period, from 30 to 60 AD. The date of the apostles' meeting is 48 or 49 AD, more than 15 years after the first Pentecost.

There is an important aspect in Peter's speech: the Christian faith is not a sect of Judaism, but Jews must be saved in the same way as others: through faith (verse 11).

If Jews are not saved through the law, why should Christians converted from paganism be burdened with unnecessary requirements? If faith is the basis of salvation for all, why should the law be mixed with it? That would be not only useless, but also harmful, as later developments would show.

Judaists believed that every Christian had to become a Jew as well. Circumcision was precisely a sign that one wanted to follow the entire Law of Moses! We can say that for them, faith in Christ was only a certain intermediate stage on the way from paganism to Judaism, or for the Jews, a certain addition to the old piety.

Peter (and Paul and his supporters) had a different opinion: a Christian does not have to also become a Jew. One can be a Christian without being a Jew. In fact, Peter went even further: he demanded that Jews become Christians, so Judaism is not the goal but only an "intermediate stage".

When we remember that the Old Testament repeatedly promises Israel a special status as God's chosen people, we understand that the decision was not easy. Although Christians were and are the new Israel, the old Israel has not completely lost its significance.

It can be said that two models of missionary work collided at the meeting of the apostles: the Jewish Israel-centered model and the Christian model from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Apparently the Judaists also wanted the Gentiles to become Christians, but they wanted to put Israel first. Paul, on the other hand, saw that Israel had already rejected God (Acts 13:46-48), so it was time to focus on the Gentile mission.

After Peter had finished his speech - which is his last speech in the Acts of the Apostles - Paul and Barnabas confirmed by sharing their own experiences that God had (re)accepted Gentiles as Christians without circumcision and keeping the law.

Solution

The solution was ultimately made by James, the brother of Jesus - not the apostle James, who had already suffered martyrdom about five years earlier (Acts 12:1-2). James also gave the Old Testament justification for the solution: Amos 9:11-12 (verses 16-18).

The solution was ultimately made by James, the brother of Jesus - not the apostle James, who had already suffered martyrdom about five years earlier (Acts 12:1-2). James also gave the Old Testament justification for the solution: Amos 9:11-12 (verses 16-18).

The law was no longer a way of salvation, so it would remain an external custom that could be followed or not. Of course, this did not mean, for example, canceling the 10 commandments, but specifically abolishing the Jewish ceremonial law.

Since the congregations usually included both Gentile and Jewish Christians, it was wise to set certain limits on the freedom of Gentile Christians so as not to unnecessarily irritate Jewish Christians. James listed four regulations that should be adhered to so that the connection between the two groups in the congregation would not be broken (verse 20):

1. Christians were to avoid that which had been defiled by idolatry.
2. Fornication was also to be avoided, which here means marriages between close relatives (Leviticus 18:16-18) and
3. meat from which no blood had been drawn and
4. blood.

In the Old Testament (Leviticus 17-18), the same four things were required of foreigners living in Israel. Verse 21 confirms our conclusion: Judaism was widespread, so it had to be taken into account. The question was twofold: On the one hand, the Jews should not be irritated, because that would have made it even more difficult for them to convert to Christianity. And on the other hand, it was about taking into account the Christians of Jewish background who were in the congregation.

Although we do not see the effects of these four decrees in the Acts accounts of Paul's activities and Paul never mentions them in his letters, we do see that Paul wanted to follow them in his own work. In 1 Corinthians 10:14-33, Paul urges the Christians in Corinth to take into account "differently minded" Christians in their eating and drinking.

"Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God"
(1 Cor 10:32)

The fact that the decision of the apostolic council is only slightly reflected in Paul's actions is due to the simple reason that Paul's congregations were Gentile congregations, where the issue of taking into account Jewish Christians was much less of an issue than in the congregations in Palestine.

The instruction of the Council of the Apostles is still valid: it is useless to annoy Jews - or anyone else - with the freedom of a Christian. If you invite a Jew to your home for a meal, you should not offer blood sausage and pork chops. True Christian freedom is to consider others.

Gentile mission is allowed to continue - Acts 15:22-35

James' proposal was accepted as the decision of the apostolic council. The decision was sent in writing to Antioch, but according to Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Judas Barsabbas were also sent, who verbally supplemented the information in the letter (verse 27).

Silas later became - in fact, quite soon - a close associate of Paul (Acts 15:40, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1). He is sometimes referred to as Silvanus. Judas Barsabbas, on the other hand, remains unknown. Barsabbas means "born on the Sabbath", literally "son of the Sabbath".

The Jerusalem church clearly disassociated itself from the Christians who had caused the confusion in Antioch (verse 24). The decision made at the meeting meant that circumcision and observance of Jewish law were not required of Gentile converts. The decision was thus a clear victory for the gospel free from the law represented by Paul.

After some time, the ambassadors of the Jerusalem church returned to Jerusalem (verse 33). Although some manuscripts have added verse 34: "However, Silas decided to stay with them, and so Judas left alone." That addition has tried to explain why Silas is already back in Antioch in verse 40. Apparently, some time has passed between the meeting of the apostles and Paul's second missionary journey. The phrase "after some days" in verse 36 is a typical phrase for Luke, with which he begins the next section, not so much a precise time frame. So Silas has had plenty of time to visit Jerusalem and verse 34 is not needed to "clarify" the text.

Again to the same cities – Acts 15:36-41

At the end of the chapter, Luke tells us that Paul’s second missionary journey began in a bad mood. Barnabas wanted to take his cousin (Col 4:10) John Mark with him this time as well, but Paul did not want him because John Mark had returned to Jerusalem in the middle of his first missionary journey (Acts 13:13).

Paul and Barnabas could not come to an agreement on the matter, and so there was a separation. Paul took Silas as his coworker, while Barnabas and John Mark left for Barnabas’ home island of Cyprus. The separation was an unpleasant thing, but it was also beneficial: now there were two groups working instead of one.

This is the last time Barnabas is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. But from Paul's letters, we learn that later both Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6) and John Mark (Col 4:19, Philem 24, 2 Tim 4:11) worked as Paul's colleagues, so the break between them did not remain permanent.

Paul and Silas set out for the same cities that she and Barnabas had visited on their first missionary journey. This time they traveled from east to west, not from west to east, as they had done before.

Although Paul had intended to visit only the same cities as before, in the coming chapters we will discover that God had other plans. A second missionary journey would bring Paul to Europe, but more on that in the next section.