Chapter 15
Men come from Judea to Antioch, preaching that you still have to be circumcised to be saved. They added this "law" to the gospel. Jesus nowhere said it, nor had any of the apostles up to this time. We are not told who these men are, whether they were from the Jerusalem church, whether James was in agreement with them, or any of that. There is hot debated between these men and Paul and Barnabas. So Paul and Barnabas and others are appointed to go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders. So there is some sense of a governing body over the church. There is some sense of the central church, which in this case is the one they left from. No denying that the Jerusalem church was central.
They are welcomed at the Jerusalem church. But some Pharisees rise up and say that circumcision is still required, PLUS, they have to keep the law of Moses. The whole thing! This verse, at the beginning of Paul's speech:
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, [Act 15:8 ESV] You only bear witness of something that has already happened. The Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles at Cornelius' house as God's testimony that they were as saved as the Jews were. This was much the same reason that the Spirit came with such power in the upper room. It was God's testimony through miracles that he had endorsed and sent the disciples, and that the message they brought, though new, was from God. The works are a witness of identity of the original sender, NOT an endorsement of any specific messenger. Paul says it to show that uncircumcised Gentiles were demonstrably saved. Baptism in water was NOT in view, but the same argument certainly holds.
2025 - So...if God saved those Gentiles, who were uncircumcised at the time and who had never kept the law, then on what basis should they have to now be circumcised and keep the law? It does not save. It was not sent to save but to reveal sin. But with the Holy Spirit indwelling, the law is no longer needed to reveal sin. Distinguishing good from evil is now internal, with the guidance of the Spirit, which we can never lose. So keeping the Law is not required. But circumcision? That was about uniquely identifying men who were born into the physical family of Abraham. It was a mark on them that they could not deny. But Cornelius, and Samaria, were about God saying the light was come to the Gentiles. That is, to those who are NOT blood relatives of Abraham and yet were saved for eternity. To circumcise Gentiles therefore glosses over the universalization of the gospel. Requiring it would in fact diminish the change that the coming of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius was confirming.
Then James speaks:
14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. [Act 15:14 ESV]
Abraham himself was called of God before there was any such thing as circumcision. God only required that at a later time, and even then it was not part of the law, but of the Abrahamic covenant that pre-dates them all. James quotes Amos 9:11. Reading that, it seems to me to be a Millennial passage about the restoration of the Davidic covenant. This would have seen a fulfillment in Jesus coming - but looks further to his coming as conquering King. The verses are these:
16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.' [Act 15:16-18 ESV]
MSB notes says of verse 17, James' point is that Amos makes no mention of Gentiles becoming Jewish proselytes. If Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jews in the kingdom, there is no need for Gentiles to become proselytes in the present age. So James is agreeing with Paul.
Then James makes a sort of final judgement, as though he has the authority to decide when debate is over, and to pronounce the findings. There was no vote. Surely some disagreed. Maybe all disagreed. James comes up with a compromise, not an agreement between all. He decides that circumcision will not be required teaching of the church, but that some of the law will be taught. What they will teach is that they shouldn't eat meat offered to idols, they shouldn't participate in sexual immorality (Jesus taught this directly), they shouldn't eat meat that has been killed by strangulation (I think this goes back to Moses), and from blood (this also goes back to Moses).
2023 - Several things. The point above about James having the final say is very important. It was not a vote. There was a "head" that made the final decision after hearing all the debate. James didn't retire into an inner room and then come out saying "Here's what God told me - and me alone rather than all you assembled - we ought to do." James listened to it all, and made his best decision based on the discussion. He does not claim to have some back-channel direct line to God himself.
Second. James says they are going to keep a few things because they go so very far back. Circumcision will not be required, because obviously Abraham was called before he was circumcised. No meat to idols...I don't know the theological history of that particular teaching. We might infer from what Paul says about it being no big deal later on in the NT that it was previously a pretty rigidly enforced law. They may have seen it as originating in the wilderness - or in Balaam's time - as a way for pagans to infiltrate...and so it was a very old position. Immorality no one would disagree with. Strangulation and blood...Confusing here. Not eating strangled meat goes way back in the law, but I don't know how emphasized it was in the first century. Is it like some halal approach? They don't have to keep all the Mosaic dietary laws, but this one is super important, so they should keep this one? But that last...the Lord's supper is drinking Jesus' blood. How then can NOT drinking blood be required of the Gentiles. Won't they ask how they are supposed to keep that law AND participate in the Lord's supper? I think that understanding the final edict of the Jerusalem Council requires a lot more understanding of the historical context of Jewish laws - and their priorities - than I know at this time. AND, it looks for all the world as if "compromise" on "small doctrines" is perfectly acceptable, if conducted and decided upon in the right way, and so long as no direct and unequivocal Scripture is violated. BUT...not drinking blood looks to me like it is going to lead to some problems...though in the NT I don't think it ever does.
That line that Brian showed me about this being for your health is not in the ESV. Not one of the translations in BLB has that line about health. Not one. But the Jehovah's Witness bible did. They've added it from somewhere. What do they claim as their source? And what was the context in the Mosaic law about blood? Wasn't it just about eating raw blood?
"MSB note explains it this way: James and the other leaders did not want the Gentiles to revel in their freedom in Christ, which could cause the Jewish believers to follow that same liberty and violate their consciences. So James proposed that the Gentiles abstain from 4 pagan, idolatrous practices that were violations of the law of Moses, so as not to offend Jews." James sort of adds his justification for adding these rules: The Jews were everywhere, and they practiced these every day laws.
I so disagree, but I was not there. It opened the door to further compromise. It gave the Pharisees a linchpin to teach that the old ways should still be incorporated, if they could just find a good enough reason. This also established the appeal to the authority of a central church, and the final authority of the head of that central church.
MSB says the blood thing was part of dietary law. Healthcare was not in view at all. Even if you take the view of the JW Bible and add that the dietary laws were for their health, it was NOT about medical care in any sense. But where JW's are concerned, this isn't really the main issue. What is, and how do we answer it?
2022 - The things that James "keeps" from Jewish law are ancient. Strangulation and blood....why these? Food offered to idols and immorality were/are/should be universal concepts. But why strangling and blood? Because they'd be easy to keep? Because they might satisfy the Judaizers without offending the Gentiles? Dietary restrictions that really caused no inconvenience whatever? To interpret it this way is to say that James' proposal was a compromise to keep the peace.
2025 - Historically, it may have been that these four rules were considered sacrosanct to the Jews. These may have been considered the worst offenses there could be against the Law. The most "in your face" for the Gentiles to do. All James was trying to do was keep the temperature down by not letting these four sources of gasoline get close to the fire! For me, I wouldn't compromise on women teaching in the church or on homosexuals - or alcoholics or gamblers or serial polygamist...ok there are a lot I wouldn't compromise about. Which is the point. There were "deal breaker" things in the Law that would make a majority of the Jews walk away from the fledgling church. James proposes that the Gentile converts be taught to just avoid these deal breakers. He isn't saying these are necessary for your salvation, but they will go a long way towards keeping peace and unity within the church as we try to unify two groups that have historically been oil and water. Yes. This finally makes sense as an explanation for what was done at the Council of Jerusalem.
In the letter that is sent, the final sentence is this:
29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." [Act 15:29 ESV]
Maybe it is here that the JW's put in the health thing? The "for your health" phrase is not in other translations here either. In context, he means doing well with respect to worship, to salvation, to being members of one body. Each background is accommodating the other in matters that surely neither disagrees with anyway. It would not be a compromise of Jesus' teaching to abstain from immorality. Surely Jesus would not eat food offered to idols, and so on.
The letter is delivered back to Antioch by Paul, Barnabas, and two from Jerusalem - Silas and Judas. All goes well. Then Judas and Silas return home but Paul and Barnabas stay in Antioch.
Paul and Barnabas decide to revisit the churches of their first journey. Barnabas wants to take John Mark, Paul is adamant that he shouldn't go. So after this huge disagreement and compromise, Paul and Barnabas separate over John Mark. So Barnabas and Mark go to Cyprus while Paul recruits Silas to go with him to Syria and Cilicia. How do we know this is the same Silas mentioned earlier? It says he went home?