Acts Chapter 15

That the dispensation of grace was growing brighter is shown by Paul’s gradual prominence over Peter in their three recorded meetings. At the first Paul acquainted Peter with his call and commission (Gal. 1:18). At the second he received his public recognition (Gal. 2:19). At the third he rebuked him as his superior (Gal. 2:14). Two of these meetings took place in Jerusalem; Paul is recorded to have gone to Jerusalem five (5) times.

First Meeting with Peter and Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem after he was saved….Paul acquaints Peter with his call and commission (Gal. 1:18). Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem took place three years after his conversion. Paul faced such danger there that "the brethren" took him in hand and "sent him forth to Tarsus" (Acts 9:30). But in Acts 22:17,18 the apostle explains how on that same visit, while praying in the temple, he was in a trance: "AND I SAW HIM [CHRIST] SAYING UNTO ME, MAKE HASTE, AND GET THEE QUICKLY OUT OF JERUSALEM: FOR THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE THY TESTIMONY CONCERNING ME."

Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem was made at the time when "Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church," killing James, the brother of John, and imprisoning Peter, with the intention of killing him after Passover (Acts 11:30; 12:2-4,25). On this trip to Jerusalem Paul evidently did not even see any of the twelve apostles.

Second Meeting with Peter and Paul’s third trip to Jerusalem… Paul received his public recognition (Gal. 2:19). Paul went to Jerusalem a fourth and fifth time as recorded in Acts 18:21-22 and Acts 21:18. Little is known about these visits. Paul did meet with James on his fifth visit. The relation of Paul’s first and third visits to Jerusalem is significant in that on the first trip he was sent from Jerusalem by the brethren for his physical safety, but by the Lord because Israel was being concluded in unbelief (Acts 22:18). On the third visit he was sent to Jerusalem by the brethren to settle a troublesome controversy regarding circumcision, but by the Lord that he might communicate to the leaders at Jerusalem that gospel which he had been preaching to the Gentiles and that they might acknowledge him officially and publicly as the apostle of the Gentiles, sent to proclaim "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal. 2: 2,7,9). Paul had full authority from the Lord entirely apart from the twelve. He had been, saved and ordained as an apostle on the road to Damascus, far from Jerusalem and the twelve. He had been sent on his first great apostolic journey from Syrian Antioch, also entirely apart from the twelve. Already he had been used to turn many Gentiles to the Lord, never once needing to look to the apostles at Jerusalem for directions or authority. The reason he was now sent to Jerusalem by the Lord was not for his sake, but for their sakes and for the sake of the program now being launched. It must be remembered that the apostles at Jerusalem had first been sent to "all the world" and "all nations" (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15). It was their hope and expectation that Israel would receive Christ, the risen King, and that so salvation and blessing might flow through Israel to the Gentiles. But Israel had rejected her King and the long-promised "times of refreshing." The stoning of Stephen was the event in Israel's history that marked a move of God as He prepared to set Israel aside temporarily and to hold the establishment of the kingdom in abeyance. God now raised up another apostle and sent him forth to proclaim grace to the Gentiles entirely apart from Israel's instrumentality; not because of her acceptance of Christ but because of her rejection and rebellion. Naturally this affected the "great commission" to the eleven. Under this new program Paul---not the apostles at Jerusalem---was to become the apostle to "all nations" and "all the world" and the apostles at Jerusalem were from that time forward to confine their ministry to those of the circumcision who believed on Jesus Christ. Paul fully understood this, but they must understand and recognize it fully too, so that they might not be working at cross purposes.

Furthermore, under this new dispensation the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile was to be gradually broken down, and it was therefore necessary that the Jewish believers recognize the Gentile believers as their brethren in Christ. This was still but the beginning, of course. They could not yet comprehend their complete oneness in Christ, but before long they were to recognize each other for what they truly were: "one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Rom. 12:5; cf. I Cor. 1:2; 12:13).

In addition it must be settled once and for all that at least the Gentiles must not be made subject to the law of Moses. Again, this was but a beginning, for the council at Jerusalem did not even consider the question whether or not the Jewish believers were to remain under the law. They assumed that they were, for no revelation had as yet been given by God to the effect that they were to be freed from it. As late as Acts 21:20 they were still "all zealous of the law."

With the raising up of Paul and his early ministry among the Gentiles we have the gradual transition from the old dispensation of law to the new dispensation of grace. God does not reveal everything at once, nor save Gentiles which remain unrelated to the believers at Jerusalem. The Jerusalem saints are expected to recognize the change in program, to move on with it, and to enjoy their oneness with the Gentile saints.

We come now to the record of the first great controversy between the followers of Christ, the inevitable clash between the believers at Jerusalem and Antioch, and of how it was used of God to settle once and for all the question of Paul's authority as the apostle of the new dispensation. Peter's report to the brethren at Jerusalem regarding the conversion of Cornelius and his household had not settled the matter. At the time Peter's

explanation had seemed to satisfy them and they had at least "held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). But that had been several years prior (Acts 15:7) and some had now begun to harbor doubts as to the status of such Gentiles. Had Cornelius and his household done right in remaining in uncircumcision? Was theirs an exceptional case? Who had any right to dispense the law which God Himself had established? Furthermore, that law, given to Israel, had declared the principle and enforced the practice of national isolation from Gentiles. Was it right, now, for Jews to consider uncircumcised men as the people of God with them, even though they abandoned idolatry, worshipped Christ, and showed this in their conduct?

These and other such questions would naturally trouble some, for while Peter had been sent to one household of Gentiles and had witnessed the evidences of their salvation, he could only explain that he had been commanded to go "nothing doubting," adding: "What was I that I could withstand God?" Nor had any revelation as yet been given to them that the law, "the middle wall of partition" had been abolished by the cross.

The misgivings of these Judaean believers were aggravated by the fact that great numbers of Gentiles were now being won to Christ under the ministry of Paul and Barnabas and neither circumcision nor the Mosaic law had any place. Finally there were some who couldn’t contain themselves any longer, taking it upon themselves to travel to Antioch and set the Gentile converts there straight. It should be noted that with them it was not merely a matter of fellowship: evidently they were genuinely concerned about the salvation of these Gentiles, for they began teaching them: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner [custom] of Moses, ye cannot be saved." They were not looking upon circumcision merely as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, but as that which had been commanded by Moses, the principal rite of Judaism, indispensable to the rights and privileges of membership in the favored nation, and therefore necessary to salvation. (John 7:22; Lev. 12:2,3; Gal. 5:3). But with all their sincerity in this matter they were wrong, for they had undertaken this mission without authority, and, as it turned out, unsettled matters at Antioch instead of settling them. After the matter was finally settled at Jerusalem, the Jewish church there wrote to the Gentiles regarding these brethren: "... certain which went out from us have TROUBLED YOU with words, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: TO WHOM WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT" (Acts 15:24).

When the Judaizers sought to impose circumcision and the law upon the Galatians, Paul wrote almost the same thing about them: "... there be some that TROUBLE YOU, and would PERVERT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST" (Gal. 1:7).

While some Christians hold that these Judaizers preached a false gospel, I do not agree with that conclusion. Paul would have said in Gal. 1:6,7: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed unto another gospel which is not a gospel" or "which is not a gospel at all" or "which is not even a gospel." What he did say was: "Which is not another."

Paul rebukes the Galatians that the gospel which the Judaizers had brought to the Gentiles was another, yet in a sense not another. That is to say, the difference was one of development rather than of contradiction, just as elsewhere Paul makes it clear that grace was no contradiction of the law (Rom. 3:31). These Judaizers were not unscriptural; they were undispensational. What they taught was to be found in Scripture, but it did not recognize the further revelation given to and through the Apostle Paul. They sought to bring Gentiles, saved by a message of pure grace, back under the program of the kingdom with its circumcision and law--and thus they perverted the gospel of Christ. This should be a lesson to us, for if we preach or practice that which does not belong to the present dispensation, however appropriate, Scripturally, it may once have been, we too pervert the gospel of Christ and come under the curse of Gal. 1:8,9, a curse which has already confused and divided the greater part of the professing “church” of Jesus Christ. Both the apostles at Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul called the

Judaizers trouble makers. He who had "wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision," had been "mighty in Paul toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8) and the contention of these Judaizers that the Gentiles could not be saved apart from circumcision and the law implied that Paul and Barnabas had been teaching a soul-destroying heresy. Paul's divine commission and apostleship was being called into question and his proclamation of grace threatened. Little wonder "Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them" (vs. 2).

As Paul and his company had been "brought on their way by the church" at Antioch, so now they were "received by the church" at Jerusalem. Messiah's followers in the city were multiplying again (many having also returned from the places where they had been scattered in the "great persecution" of 8:1) and seemed no longer to fear the unbelieving leaders, even planning to hold their own council right in the same city. Also, the genuineness of Paul's conversion to Christ was no longer questioned. Whatever objections some may have had to his ministry he was recognized and heartily welcomed by the church at large as a noted and successful servant of Christ. It must have been a stirring experience to hear Paul and his friends, veteran soldiers of Christ, relate the "things that God had done with them."

I want to point out to you that Paul did not simply appear on the scene and the question regarding the Gentiles discussed and settled. So important a matter could not be disposed of so simply. There were at least two, probably three and perhaps even four separate meetings. In Galatians Paul explains that a private preliminary conference was first held with "them which were of reputation" (2:2). It is possible that Acts 15:4,5 does not refer to a meeting of the church, but the implication of the passage together with the fact that it would not have been much of a welcome by the church had it not been public, leads me to believe that it was a public meeting and that after this the Pharisees rose to object and "the apostles and elders" then met to consider the matter (vs. 6). The meeting of the apostles and elders would then be the third meeting, followed by a fourth, attended by "all the multitude . . . the apostles and elders with the whole church" (vs. 12,22).

We find Paul explaining in his letter to the Galatians that he had first met privately with those "of reputation" to communicate to them personally that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, lest his journey be in vain (Gal. 2:2). Those who fail to see, or who deny, that a further revelation was given to Paul, should study the account in Galatians carefully, for it teaches clearly that his message was something new and distinct from that which the twelve had been preaching. First, the apostle distinctly states that "in conference [they] added nothing to me" while he did "communicate" new truths to them (Vers. 2,6). Second, these truths he calls: "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," indicating that it was not the same message which they had preached among the Jews. Third, the fact that he communicated this gospel first to the leaders, lest he should, or had, run in vain, indicates clearly that he was endeavoring to make them see it.

Apparently the results of this preliminary meeting were encouraging; for Acts 15:4 describes what was evidently a public welcome by the whole church, at which Paul and Barnabas related "all things that God had done with them”. While the multitude was doubtless thrilled to hear what God had been doing among the Gentiles there were certain believing Pharisees present who were dissatisfied. They felt that the Gentiles must approach God through Israel to be saved; that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses or their faith was vain. Did not Isa. 56:6,7; 60:1-3; Zech. 8:13,23 and many other 01d Testament passages teach this? How could these Gentiles now be saved apart from Israel, circumcision and the law? It was because some of the believing Pharisees now arose to voice these objections that a special meeting of the apostles and elders was needed.

An examination of the list of those present at the special meeting of "the apostles and elders" will give us an inkling of the difficulties Paul faced as he defended his apostleship and message and the liberty of the Gentiles.

First there were probably all of the twelve apostles except James the brother of John, who had been killed by Herod. Then there was also James, the brother of Christ, who was an apostle in the secondary sense, but not one of the twelve. He was a strict legalist and a stickler for the letter of the law. He was also called "James the Just."

The rise to prominence of this man among the twelve apostles is one of the signs of their decline and of the passing away of the Pentecostal program. He had not been named one of the twelve, much less the leader of the twelve. He was not even qualified to be one of them, for while they were following Christ, he was still an unbeliever (See John 7:5 and cf. Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:21,22). Yet James exerted a growing influence over the twelve and even over Peter, their Christ appointed leader, probably by reason of the fact that he was our Lord's own brother in the flesh. Paul testifies that as early as his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, when he abode with Peter for fifteen days, he saw none of the other apostles, but that "James, the Lord's brother," was with Peter. Later, upon his escape from prison, Peter asked some friends to report the matter, not to the other apostles, but to James and the brethren (Acts 12:17). Here in Acts 15 this James, rather than Peter, was evidently the moderator of the council (Acts 15:19,20). After the meeting in Jerusalem James intimidated Peter about eating with Gentiles which was a violation of the agreement (Gal. 2:11-14). And at Paul's last visit to Jerusalem neither Peter nor any of the apostles are mentioned. We read simply that "Paul went in... unto James; and all the elders were present" (Acts 21:18). This James and his party, then, were a power to be reckoned with, and these circumstances explain Paul's characterization of these men as "these who seemed to be somewhat" and "who seemed to be pillars," and his declaration: "Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me" (Gal. 2:6,9). A comparison of Acts 15:7 and Gal. 2:4,5 reveals that among those present at this meeting there were also "false brethren, unawares brought in," working under cover to "spy out" the liberty which the Gentiles enjoyed in Christ and to bring them into bondage; men secretly brought in to infiltrate the audience and use political persuasion or pressure or other illegitimate means to sway the decision. Then, of course, there were also the elders of the churches of Judaea (vs. 6). Representing the Gentile believers there were Paul, Barnabas, Titus and several others (Acts 15:2; Gal. 2:1). Barnabas was a Jew, a Levite, who had formerly belonged to the church at (He was saved, evidently, about the time of the crucifixion (Acts 1:14) Jerusalem and had sold his property, laying the proceeds at the apostles' feet (Acts 4:36,37). He would surely understand their viewpoint. Titus, on the other hand, was a Greek, brought along no doubt as an example of the reality of Gentile conversion and also as a test case in the event of a battle with the legalizers over circumcision, so that the Gentiles might have practical proof that circumcision and the law were not to be enforced upon them. What a valuable experience this must have proved to Titus when later he had to stand against the legalizers in the island of Crete! (Tit.1:10,11).

In the earlier part of the meeting there was "much disputing" (vs. 7). Those who sought to Judaize the Gentile believers and impose circumcision and the law upon them, together with those "unawares brought in" to help engineer the matter by undercover strategy, proved no match, however, for the Apostle Paul. "TO WHOM WE GAVE PLACE BY SUBJECTION, NO, NOT FOR AN HOUR; THAT THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL MIGHT CONTINUE WITH YOU” (Gal. 2:5). As to Titus: "He was not compelled to be circumcised either." (The Judaizers did not win that battle either)

We now come to the last mention of Peter in Acts. He appears as an "apostle of the circumcision," yet to endorse Paul's apostleship and to support his demand that the Jewish believers refrain from imposing the law upon the Gentiles. On examining the account so far we must ask "Where is Peter?" Has not the Lord already made it unmistakably clear to him that the uncircumcised who believe are to be accepted as they are? Did he not relate to his brethren how, against his own inclination, he had been sent to Cornelius and his household and how they had been gloriously saved? Did not six brethren bear witness to the supernatural evidences of the conversion of these Gentiles? Did not his brethren hold their peace and glorify God when he had finished, acknowledging: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life? (Acts 11:18). Why is he silent now? Is he not the one whom the Lord appointed as head of the twelve? Why does he not speak to put an end to all this disputing? Did our Lord's words mean nothing? Peter had presided in early Acts (1:15; 2:14). But his power and that of the other apostles was declining. Finally, after there had been much disputing, he rose to protest against the movement to force circumcision and the law upon the Gentile believers. First he relates the simple facts of God's working in the case of Cornelius and his household. It was now some time ago that God had chosen Peter from among the twelve that, as he says: "the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe" (vs. 7). Mark the words "my mouth," for they are most important in connection with this council. God had not commanded all of the twelve to begin going to the Gentiles now, for Israel had not yet received Christ and under the prophetic program salvation was to go to the Gentiles through redeemed Israel. Peter alone had been sent, and he to this one household only. He did not continue to minister to the Gentiles. As a result of this council at Jerusalem he and the other apostles agreed to confine their ministry to Israel, recognizing Paul as God's apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). This all emphasizes the fact that God had a unique purpose in sending Peter to Cornelius and his household. It was not in fulfillment of the prophetic program or the "great commission" for all twelve were included in that program and commission. Nor was it that God was now to send the twelve to the Gentiles regardless of Israel's continued rebellion, for Paul, not the twelve, was to be entrusted with this task.

What, then, was God's special purpose in sending Peter alone (of the twelve apostles) to this one household of Gentiles? It was 1.) that Paul's subsequent ministry among the Gentiles might be given full recognition, 2.) that it might be recognized that the Gentiles were to be saved apart from circumcision and the law and, 3.) that the believers at Jerusalem might recognize these Gentile believers as their brethren in Christ. Peter had not preached the mystery or the gospel of the grace of God to Cornelius and his household, but he had preached Christ and as he had proclaimed the necessity of faith in Christ for the remission of sins, his hearers had believed and were saved. At that moment the Spirit had interrupted Peter's address and had given these Gentiles that gift whereby Peter and his friends could know that their salvation was genuine.

The Jerusalem saints, then, could not deny that God was now working among the Gentiles, for their own leader had been sent to minister to them and must now bear witness that "God, which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us" (vs. 8). In this connection Peter observed (vs. 9) that God had put "no difference" between Jew and Gentile, purifying the hearts of these Gentiles "by faith." This statement by Peter indicates a full acceptance of what Paul had argued for in the private conference with the leaders. God had given Peter this experience with Cornelius and his household (significantly after the raising up of Paul) with this very council in view, that he might bear witness to the simple facts he had observed and so confirm Paul's ministry. And why should the Jewish believers complain? Was it not after all circumcision of the heart and its purification by faith that even Israel must experience before she can be saved? (See Jer. 4:1,4; 9:26; cf. Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:25-29).

How necessary was Peter's experience for just this occasion! Not that the circumcision apostles had any jurisdiction over Paul or the Gentiles, but that Paul's apostleship among the Gentiles and the liberty of Gentile believers in Christ might be fully recognized, lest Judaizers, boasting the "authority" of the leaders at Jerusalem, including even the Lord's brother in the flesh, continue to trouble the Gentile saints. Having related the basic facts of his experience Peter now poses the question: "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (vs. 10). The Pharisees and those who sided with them were attempting to impose upon the Gentiles a yoke which neither their fathers nor they had been able to bear. Indeed, the Pharisees, sitting in Moses' seat, had helped to make this yoke heavier (Matt. 23:1-4). To insist now that their wills prevail in this matter, rather than yielding to God's revealed will, would indeed be trying God and would but insure their own defeat and condemnation. In fact, it would now be wrong for Gentile believers to accept this yoke (Gal. 5:1). Closing his remarks, Peter makes a most remarkable statement:

"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they" (Ver. 11).

In Acts 10:15 the cleansing of the Gentiles is shown to be by grace and here, through faith. He does not say: "they shall be saved even as we" but "we shall be saved even as they." So far from the law being necessary to their salvation, he argues, it is not really that by which we are saved, and this will yet be demonstrated.

This is the last recorded statement in the account of Peter's ministry in Acts. It should be compared with the last words of his epistles. Explaining there that Paul has written some things "hard to be understood," he closes:

"BUT GROW IN GRACE, AND IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. TO HIM BE GLORY BOTH NOW AND FOR EVER, AMEN" (II Pet. 3:18). This all shows how wrong it is to divorce Peter's experience at the house of Cornelius from the subsequent ministry of Paul, associating it only with the kingdom program. How necessary was this experience, and Peter's testimony regarding it, to a recognition of Paul's later ministry!

Vs.12... It appears that at this point the whole church was again admitted and addressed by Barnabas and Paul, who related what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. This was to confirm to these Jewish hearers the fact that their ministry was indeed of God, for "the Jews require a sign" (I Cor. 1:22) and this was one of the reasons why Paul was at first given the power to work miracles. In all this Paul had shown restraint, for he would rather have striven for the great doctrinal realities that .had become so precious to him, but the great need now was that the believers of the circumcision recognize his God-given commission.

It is significant that in vs. 2, at Antioch, it is "Paul and Barnabas," while in vs. 12,25, in Jerusalem, it is "Barnabas and Paul."

Vs. 13-21… Finally the council was brought to a close as James rose to speak, evidently as the chairman of the convention. Several important details in his address should be noted. First, in his "answer" James did not refer to what Paul and Barnabas had just said about their work among the Gentiles, but to what Peter had previously said, probably in another meeting, about his ministry to the Gentiles. Second, even in referring to Peter, James called him Simeon, using his earthly name rather than Peter, the name which our Lord had given him in connection with his superiority over the eleven (Matt. 16:17-19). Third, he handed down the final decision as his own. Quoting from Amos 9, he points out that "the tabernacle of David" was to be rebuilt "that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord" (vs. 17). Whether James meant to contend that the salvation of the Gentiles under Paul was part of the kingdom program and that these Gentiles were to be subject to Israel would, perhaps, be hard to determine. To be sure this was not a further development of the kingdom program, for the seeking remnant and the called Gentiles of Amos 9 were spoken of in connection with the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was to take place "in that day," i.e., the day of the Lord. Certainly the tabernacle of David was not being rebuilt when James spoke; Certainly the passage in Amos 9 is not being fulfilled in our day. Nor did James say it was being fulfilled then. James simply said that the conversion of the Gentiles was in harmony with what the prophets had said. We can say as much about the conversion of Gentiles today, for while this is not a fulfillment of the prophetic program, the fact remains that God had promised to send salvation to the Gentiles and He did send it to them, in spite, of course, of Israel's refusal to become the channel of blessing, but He did send it.

James' testimony, under God, then, was not to show that the prophetic program was being fulfilled, for this was not yet the case, but that it was not contrary to God's purpose that Gentiles should be saved, but rather in harmony with it.

It is sad to see James usurping Peter's position, and even Paul's, as he concludes: "Wherefore I decide . . ." (Verse 19). What he was about to propose was not his decision. As the records of Acts and Galatians bear witness, it was mainly the result of Paul's battle and Peter's protest. But in the providence of God, James' "decision" was still a remarkable one. It provided that the Jewish believers should not trouble the Gentiles about circumcision and the law, but proposed writing to them exhorting them to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (Vs. 20).

On the basis of Acts 15:29; 21:25 and Gal. 2:5 I do not believe, as some do, that this stillamounted to an imposition of the law, but that this course was suggested to smooth the way for better fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers and that the prejudices of the unbelieving Jews might not be shocked and they driven farther away from Christ. For, as James said: "... Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (Vs. 21). His statement indicates that should the condition pass, the exhortation would no longer be pertinent.

First, Paul points out in Gal. 2 a fact which he may well have sought to "get across" at the council too. The issue should not have been settled by James, who was not one of the twelve, nor even by John, but by Peter.

Comparing the circumcision ministry with his own, the apostle says: "For he that wrought effectually in PETER to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8). For James had no authority over the Gentiles to whom Paul ministered But with James speaking out Paul refers to the leaders four times as those who were "of reputation," saying once about those reputed to be somewhat: "whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person" (Vs. 6). Yet, God was overruling, for the apostle declares that "they saw" that "the gospel of the uncircumcision" had been committed to Paul, as "the gospel of the circumcision" had been to Peter (Vs. 7) and before it is over we find the circumcision leaders and Paul and Barnabas shaking hands in a solemn and important agreement: (Vs. 9).

The Judaizers had brought Paul's apostleship into question but now it was amply confirmed, for here we have James, the man-approved leader of the Hebrew Church and Peter, its Christ-appointed leader, together with John, all shaking hands with Paul and Barnabas in solemn and public recognition of the fact that God had called Paul and Barnabas to go to the Gentiles, and agreeing to confine their own ministry to the circumcision. This agreement is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that the twelve had at first been commissioned to go to all nations, beginning, of course, at Jerusalem (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). But as the apostles had bound things which had also been bound in heaven, so now they exercise their authority for the last time by loosing themselves from the commission to go to all the world, and what they did on earth was ratified in heaven (See Matt. 18:18-20).

Gal. 2, the apostle adds: "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do”, (Vs. 10). Could there be any more eloquent testimony to the collapse of the kingdom program and the beginning of a new work among the Gentiles than that the leaders of the church at Jerusalem found it necessary to ask Paul to remember their poor. A great change had taken place since the time when they had all been "of one heart and of one soul" and none among them had lacked (Acts 4:32,34). Paul understood the situation, perhaps better than they, and his sincerity in saying that he himself was "forward" to help them is evidenced by the fact that he had already brought them help from the church at Antioch (Acts 11:29,30) and that in his letters we find him raising funds from "the churches of Galatia" (I Cor. 16:1-3) "the churches of Macedonia" (II Cor. 8:1-4) and the churches of Achaia (II Cor. 9:2) to help "the poor saints . . . at Jerusalem" (Rom. 15:26).

The "necessary things" in which the Jerusalem Church did exhort them, were not works of the law which they sought to bind upon the Gentiles after all, but things which they felt the Gentile believers should "abstain" from so as not to shock the prejudices of the Jews with whom they came into contact (Ver. 29).

Even these details were not put in the form of commands. It was simply suggested that they would "do well" to abstain from these things for the time being (Ver. 29) even if this proved somewhat of a "burden." We do not believe, as some do, that Paul agreed to subject the Gentiles to certain legal requirements and then later repudiated the agreement (See Gal. 2:5; 5:1,3,9). Because of the transition from the kingdom program to that of the present economy the council's written decision was necessary both to establish Gentile liberty and to confirm Paul's apostolic authority among the Gentiles. It did not, however, supersede Paul's own God-given authority and commission. He needed no Jerusalem council to endorse his apostleship. While he accepted its decision as a satisfactory settlement of the matter in question, he never once refers to this letter in his epistles, not even when discussing the principal matter with which it dealt (Gal. 2). Anyway, Paul found higher reasons why the Gentiles - and even the Jews--should not be under the law (Rom. 7:2; Gal. 3:13; Col. 2:14) and higher motives for abstaining from anything that might in any way injure others, whether lost or saved (Rom. 14:13-15; I Cor. 8:1,4,7,9; 10:28-33; Gal. 5:13). Where impurity and immorality were concerned he found greater motives for true sanctification in the truths that they were “bought with a price” and that their bodies were the members of Christ and the temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:15, 19, 20). So definitely had the matter been settled that years later the leaders at Jerusalem said to Paul: “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20). But in sharp contrast: “AS TOUCHING THE GENTILES WHICH BELIEVE, WE HAVE WRITTEN AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY OBSERVE NO SUCH THING” (Ver. 25).

In spite of all the failures at the Jerusalem Council, it must still be said that never since that time has so much authority been vested in a CONFERENCE OF THE CHURCH. There were the leaders of the twelve, whom our Lord Himself had chosen and commissioned as His representatives. There was Paul, called and commissioned by the ascended Lord, and Barnabas, who with Paul had been sent forth by the Holy Spirit to minister among the Gentiles. There were others also with greater or less degrees of authority as the representatives of Christ. Then too, the Scriptures declare that the decisions of the council were directed by the Holy Spirit. Yet almost every Church council since has repudiated the decision of this council. Though this council so emphatically recognized the further revelation given to Paul for the Gentiles, with a message that differed from theirs (Acts 15:9-11; Gal 2:2, 7) and though they agreed fully and finally that the Gentiles were to remain under grace, yet almost without exception the Church has gone back from the Pauline commission to the so-called “great commission” given to the eleven, and council after council has had to deal with questions about the law, baptism, miracles and a hundred other details which never would have come up had the Church heeded the decisions of this council and listened to Paul.

Vs. 30-35...Suddenly, we find the apostles back at Antioch again! How wonderful it must have been to the Gentiles to hear that letter read! And then to hear the whole story, or a good deal of it, from the lips of Paul and Barnabas on the one hand and Judas and Silas on the other! The Judaizers had not been sent but had come casting doubts upon the reality of the Gentiles’ conversion. Judas and Silas, on the other hand, had been officially commissioned by the Church at Jerusalem and had come to encourage the Gentile believers and confirm them.

It must not be supposed, however, that the communication from the Church at Jerusalem, even though confirmed by accredited witnesses, had brought complete and lasting peace to Antioch from the trouble which the Judaizers had stirred up there. Peter’s visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul took place after the council at Jerusalem, but before the separation between Paul and Barnabas. The record of this incident is given to us in (Gal. 2:11-14).

Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish Church. Antioch was that (on earth) of the Gentile Church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, “they that were of the circumcision contended with him” (Acts 11:2). When he came to Antioch, Paul “withstood him to the face”(Gal. 2:11). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Acts 11:3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he had stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal. 2:12). At Jerusalem he rightly defended his action (Acts 11:4). At Antioch he had no defense to offer (Gal. 2:11-18).

Peter “withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal.2:12). This, of course, was not only cowardice, but hypocrisy, for if Peter’s fellowship with the Gentiles had been right before, why was it wrong now? As a result of Peter’s action “the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Gal. 2:13). It must have been heartbreaking to Paul to see even Barnabas desert him. It was Barnabas who had first brought him to the apostles when they were afraid of him (Acts 9:26, 27). It was he and Barnabas together who had, under God, accomplished so much among the Gentiles (Acts 14:27; 15:3). And how Barnabas had stood with him against the intrusions of the Judaizers! In Acts 15:2 we read that Paul and Barnabas had “no small dissension and disputation with them,” and that as a result the church at Antioch had determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others, should go up to Jerusalem about the matter.

The question may well be asked here: Was not Paul making more trouble in the assembly than Peter and the others would have made by withdrawing? Surely feelings must have run high and relations must have been strained as Paul openly and publicly rebuked the great apostle from Jerusalem. Was Paul forgetting the dignity of Peter’s position; that Peter had been appointed the chief of the twelve apostles by the Lord Himself; that he had been used to lead thousands to Christ before Paul was even saved? Was he practicing what he preached and later wrote, that believers should walk “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; What an influence James and his party must have exerted to be able to intimidate even the chief of the apostles in this way!

“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:2,3). Was he the trouble maker of Antioch? No, for the trouble was more subtle than appeared on the surface. God had been breaking down “the middle wall of partition” between the Jew and the Gentile, and of the apostles at Jerusalem no one knew this better than Peter. He had been shown by a vision from God that he could and should eat with them, and had helped Paul’s cause in the dispute at the Jerusalem council by reminding the Judaizers of this and declaring:

“And God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us; AND PUT NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM, PURIFYING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH” (Acts 15:8,9).

Peter, then, had known and testified to the oneness of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ, but now he was withdrawing himself from the Gentiles – and doing it hypocritically for fear of James’ party. He may have done so in the most kindly attitude, with many apologies and explanations to the Gentiles, but the fact remained that he was causing a division among believers. Nor was this merely a local matter. It was a repudiation of the decision of the council and of God’s revealed will. Had not Paul spoken out boldly, a division might have started there which would have opened an irreparable breach between Jewish and Gentile believers and negated the truth of the “one body.” Silence in such a case would not have helped to keep the unity of the Spirit, but to break it. Though Peter may have excused himself most apologetically and though Paul’s open rebuke may have appeared unkind, it was Peter who was causing the division and Paul who was endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit.

What, then should our attitude be? If we speak out about grace some will remind us that we should endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, but let us fix it in our minds that silence in the face of the present man-made divisions in the body of Christ would be as wrong as the divisions themselves if we truly believe that we should be one and especially if we know the remedy for the division, the sevenfold basis for our oneness in Christ (Eph. 4:4-6). In the incident at Antioch Peter, not Paul, “was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11). He had been guilty of “dissimulation” and had “not walked uprightly” (Vers. 13,14). He had “made himself a transgressor” in his attempt to build again the barrier which he himself had helped to break down (Ver. 18).No one knew all this better than Peter himself and, while Paul’s rebuke may have rankled in his bosom for some time to come, he realized all the while that had not Paul leaped to support him as he stumbled he might have dragged many down with him in his fall. Not only did Peter recover from the rebuke, but the last person he mentions in his writingsis “our beloved brother Paul” (II Pet. 3:15).

Years later Paul wrote from prison to the Philippians like a soldier guarding a most precious treasure: "I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17). Always he had stood faithfully to defend the purity of that good news which had been committed to him: "the gospel of the grace of God." Let us thank God for this. It must have encouraged Paul and his party, too, to find that their news of the conversion of the Gentiles "caused great joy unto all the brethren" of Phenice and Samaria (Acts 15:3). Of course they might have sailed from Antioch to Joppa and avoided the regions of the Canaanites and the hated Samaritans, but the choice of this route may well have been an assertion of the principles for which they were standing.