Acts 15
Notes
Transcript
Handout
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. 3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. 4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Consider the infamous split between Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in the early stages of Apple. These two brilliant minds started together, but as their visions for the company began to diverge, they found themselves in constant disagreement about the direction of their innovations. Eventually, they went separate ways, but each became successful in their own right. Their story reminds us that even when mentors and mentees disagree, those differences can spark innovation and redefine success, even if they lead down different paths.
What requirement were these people placing upon everyone to be ‘saved’?
Circumcision.
Where in the bible did God institute the circumcision?
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Because of the gravity of the situation, what did Paul and Barnabas have to do?
Bring the issue to the Apostle and Elders in Jerusalem.
This is usually called The Jerusalem Council, which took place about AD 49.
When Paul and Barnabas get to Jerusalem, what is the first thing they do?
Give a report of all that God had done.
Were these Pharisees believers in Jesus as the Messiah?
Yes, there were some (like Paul) who were from the sect of Pharisees who believed on Jesus as their Savior.
What is Peter’s argument for not needing circumcision to be saved?
They received the Holy Spirit the same as the Jews.
In fact, Peter’s main argument is that people should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Notice that the giving of the Holy Spirit is God bearing witness of their faith.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
According to Peter, how are the Gentiles purified?
By Faith.
What does Peter equate the requirement to circumcision to?
Placing a yoke upon the neck.
Peter’s yoke analogy in Acts 15:10 draws on a rich biblical and Jewish tradition where the yoke functions as a metaphor for burdensome obligation and oppressive control. By invoking this image, Peter reframes the Pharisaic demand for circumcision and Torah observance as an intolerable weight rather than a legitimate requirement.
In Jewish tradition, the yoke carried an honorable meaning as the obligation to keep the law of Moses, but it could also denote a disagreeable burden unwillingly tolerated, like slavery.[1] Peter’s description of the law as “a yoke … which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” criticizes the policy of imposing it on Gentile Christians as a tempting of God.[1]
The power of this metaphor lies in its historical resonance. The yoke most frequently denoted harsh rule—Solomon and Rehoboam’s oppressive control over Israel involved forced labor and taxation, and imperial rule of nation over nation was depicted as a yoke.[2] By comparing the legal demands to such oppression, Peter suggests that enforcing Jewish ceremonial law on Gentiles would constitute a form of domination inconsistent with Christian freedom.
To require Gentile Christians to submit to the Jewish ceremonial code would be an unwelcome yoke, just as it is for Christians who return to the law.[3] Peter’s argument is that the apostolic council should not saddle new believers with obligations that even Jewish believers throughout history have found unbearable. The yoke image thus encapsulates his conviction that grace, not legal compliance, should define the path for Gentile converts.
[1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 226–227.
[2] Warren Carter, “Yoke,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 5:948.
[3] Leland Ryken et al., in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 975.
Peter even states ‘which our fathers nor we were able to bear?’ reveals how unbearable it felt to them.
I have been working in a Jewish hospital for the last 2 1/2 years. There are Sabbath bathrooms, elevators, and all sorts of things related to the ‘rest’ one is to observe on the sabbath. What I find interesting is that, yes a sabbath is a wonderful time to rest and observe. The problem is that requirements the law states to find ‘rest’ is nothing more than more burdens to bear. Even Jesus rebuked the way in which they had created unnecessary rules to observe the sabbath.
Biblical sabbath law appears in the Ten Commandments[1], where no work was to be done by any person or livestock on the sabbath day[2]. Exodus grounds this in God’s rest on the seventh day of creation, while Deuteronomy connects it to the exodus from Egypt[1]. The commandment encompassed not only Israelites but also children, servants, foreigners, and animals[1]. Later biblical elaborations forbade carrying burdens in or out of the city[1], and Israelites pledged not to buy things from Gentiles on the sabbath[1].
By contrast, the Sanhedrin developed far more intricate regulations. During the intertestamental period, the synagogue emerged as a center for sabbath worship and study, and legalism with petty restrictions on sabbath observance began developing[3]. Two Mishnaic tractates—Shabbath and Erubin—detail the observances of the sabbath, including 39 classes of prohibited actions with extensive hairsplitting over their application[3]. Two rabbinic traditions emerged: one maintained strict sabbath observance emphasizing rules, while the other emphasized internal spiritual rest[2].
The fundamental difference lay in scope and complexity. Biblical requirements focused on ceasing from labor and commercial activity. Pharisaic interpretation multiplied specific prohibitions far beyond the scriptural text—determining precisely what constituted “work” and creating elaborate boundaries around permissible activity. Jesus’s sabbath confrontations reveal this tension: he affirmed the principle of rest but challenged regulations that contradicted the law’s purpose of healing and wholeness, arguing that human need overrides ritual law[2].
[1] E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016), 340.
[2] Ann Coble, “Sabbath,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1145–1146.
[3] Charles C. Ryrie, “Sabbath,” in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Moody Press, 1975). [See here, here.]
For instance, does the bible limit how far one can travel on the sabbath?
No! This was later added by Rabbi’s who set the distance one could travel.
They set it at around 2,000 steps based off the distance between the ark and the people following it in Joshua 3:4.
4 Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore.
God never specified this as a requirement. God did instruct the children of Israel not to go forage manna when they were in the wilderness telling them to stay in their place. But this was situational.
One that is often brought up is the kindling of fire from Exodus 35:2-3
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. 3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
The limit on sabbath travel is a Sanhedrin requirement, not a biblical one. The regulation limiting travel on the Sabbath was derived from Jewish literature and interpreted from the prohibition against work[1], but the Bible itself contains no explicit distance restriction.
The rabbis permitted travel of 2,000 cubits (about a half mile) based on the distance between the ark and the people following it in Joshua 3:4, or from pasturelands to Levitical cities in Numbers 35:4–5[1]. This assumption about the sabbath day’s journey appears to have been in force during the time of Christ[2], but it was a rabbinic interpretation rather than a direct biblical command.
The rabbis then went further by inventing creative loopholes. They invented ways to at least double the distance—one could establish a home 2,000 cubits away by carrying food sufficient for two meals, with one to be eaten and the other to be buried to mark a temporary domicile[1]. Alternatively, a traveler could mentally declare a tree or stone wall 2,000 paces away to be his residence for the Sabbath, then proceed 2,000 paces beyond it[2].
This exemplifies the broader pattern: the Bible prohibited work on the sabbath, but the Sanhedrin and rabbis developed elaborate regulations specifying precisely what constituted work—including travel distance—and then devised equally elaborate methods to circumvent their own rules while technically remaining compliant.
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, in Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1149.
[2] H. Porter, “Sabbath Day’s Journey,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr et al. (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2634.
Paul says it best in Romans 14:5-6 regarding the observation of the sabbath.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Who is this James?
This is the half-brother of Jesus.
He had become the leading elder at the church in Jerusalem.
What Old Testament passage does James quote?
11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, And close up the breaches thereof; And I will raise up his ruins, And I will build it as in the days of old: 12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, Which are called by my name, Saith the Lord that doeth this.
James’s command regarding things strangled and blood reflects two competing interpretations in the search results, each offering different theological reasoning.
The Practical Unity Interpretation
James sought to make Gentiles more acceptable to Jewish Christians by addressing dietary differences that Jews found objectionable.[1] The prohibition against eating flesh of strangled animals was significant because such animals still contained blood.[1] From this perspective, James was attempting to reduce friction between Jewish and Gentile believers by asking Gentiles to adopt practices that would facilitate table fellowship and community cohesion.
The Moral and Theological Interpretation
A stronger reading suggests the restrictions carried deeper significance. The prohibition concerning blood and things strangled extends beyond the Mosaic covenant, as God demanded that all mankind abstain from eating blood.[2] Leviticus 17:10–13 forbids both Israelites and aliens from eating blood, requiring that all blood be poured out before eating any animal, making the requirement to abstain from strangled animals consistent since such animals would still retain their blood.[3]
James was requiring that Gentile believers who wished to associate with Jewish believers adhere to restrictions similar to laws that had always guided aliens who associated with Israelites, including avoiding food offered to idols, forbidden sexual practices, and food containing blood due to improper slaughter methods.[3] Rather than merely appeasing Jewish sensibilities, these commands reflected universal moral principles applicable to all people—not just Jewish converts.
[1] Robert Stevens and Brian Johnson, Profiles of African-American Missionaries (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2012), 244–245.
[2] Sid Latham, “The Jerusalem Meeting,” in Back to the Beginning: Studies in Acts, ed. Daniel W. Petty, Florida College Annual Lectures (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College Bookstore, 2007), 156.
[3] J. Bradley Chance, Acts, ed. Leslie Andres and R. Alan Culpepper, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated, 2007), 259.
20. But … that they abstain from pollutions of idols—that is, things polluted by having been offered in sacrifice to idols. The heathen were accustomed to give away or sell portions of such animals. From such food James would enjoin the Gentile converts to abstain, lest it should seem to the Jews that they were not entirely weaned from idolatry.
and from fornication—The characteristic sin of heathendom, unblushingly practiced by all ranks and classes, and the indulgence of which on the part of the Gentile converts would to Jews, whose Scriptures branded it as an abomination of the heathen, proclaim them to be yet joined to their old idols.
and from things strangled—which had the blood in them.
and from blood—in every form, as peremptorily forbidden to the Jews, and the eating of which, therefore, on the part of the Gentile converts, would shock their prejudices.
What two men are chosen to accompany Paul and Barnabas?
Judas and Silas.
Acts 15:26 really sums up the life of Paul and Barnabas.
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact, in 2 Corinthians 11:25 Paul will list some of the hazards upon his life. This is where he will reference the stoning at Iconium from Acts 14.
23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. 24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
The specific number of stripes matters for two interconnected reasons: it reflects both legal constraint and the severity of Paul’s suffering.
Legal Significance
The Old Testament law permitted a maximum of 40 lashes, but Jewish practice typically administered only 39 to safeguard against miscounting and inadvertently breaking the law.[1] This Jewish method of punishment is rooted in Deuteronomy 25:2–3, which specifies that forty stripes may be given but not exceeded.[2] By mentioning “forty stripes save one,” Paul emphasizes that he endured the maximum allowable punishment under Jewish law—repeated five times.
The Cumulative Brutality
The number becomes staggering when calculated. If the whip consisted of three cords and Paul received thirty-nine lashes each time, he received 117 lashes at each beating, totaling 585 lashes across five occasions.[2] A single beating of thirty-nine lashes was often enough to kill a man, yet Paul endured such a beating five times.[3] There wasn’t a place on his body that hadn’t been beaten or had pieces of flesh ripped out of it.[2]
Paul catalogs this suffering as evidence of his apostolic credentials when defending his ministry against false teachers in Corinth. The specificity of the number—not simply “beaten repeatedly” but the precise count of 39 lashes repeated 5 times—underscores both the legal brutality of the punishment and Paul’s willingness to endure systematic, near-lethal violence for his gospel mission.
[1] Thoralf Gilbrant, “Πεντάκις,” in The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary (WORDsearch, 1991). [See here.]
[2] Rick Renner, Sparkling Gems from the Greek: 365 Greek Word Studies for Every Day of the Year to Sharpen Your Understanding of God’s Word (n.p.: Wordsearch, 2008), 793.
[3] Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 1149.
Who was Barnabas determined to take with them?
John Mark.
Why did Paul not want to bring John Mark with them?
Because he gave up the first time.
What was the outcome of their contention?
They went their separate ways.
Who did Paul choose?
Silas.
Luke’s account provides no indication of who held the correct position[1], and the evidence suggests both men had legitimate concerns grounded in different pastoral instincts.
Paul’s hesitation was reasonable. Mark had abandoned the missionary team under circumstances that appeared questionable, which understandably made Paul reluctant to depend on him again[1]. Demanding reliability from those undertaking demanding ministry work is not unreasonable. Barnabas, however, operated from a different conviction: as Mark’s cousin and a person known for his encouraging and accepting nature, he saw potential worth investing in[1].
The later outcome—Mark’s usefulness to Paul—vindicates Barnabas’s wager, but this doesn’t necessarily prove Paul was wrong. Paul may have correctly assessed that Mark wasn’t yet ready for such a demanding journey, while Barnabas may have rightly believed that with his mentorship, Mark could eventually become a capable servant[2]. Both assessments could be true simultaneously. The difference was strategic: Paul prioritized the immediate mission’s success; Barnabas prioritized developing a young believer’s character through a second chance.
What the evidence suggests is that when sharp contention erupts, fault typically lies on both sides, and neither party was fully walking in the Spirit on the issue[1]. The dispute reveals not who was objectively right, but how two faithful leaders approached discipleship differently—one emphasizing standards, the other emphasizing grace. Mark’s eventual maturation vindicated Barnabas’s investment, yet Paul’s later reconciliation with Mark suggests he came to recognize the value of what his former partner had seen all along.
[1] David Guzik, Acts, David Guzik’s Commentaries on the Bible (Santa Barbara, CA: David Guzik, 2013). [See here, here, here, here.]
[2] Curtis C. Thomas, Life in the Body of Christ: Privileges and Responsibilities in the Local Church (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 27.
Paul did choose the safe route, which to me indicates that Paul was not someone willing to disciple or uplift someone who was not yet at a certain level of maturity in their faith.
I do think this is also represented in his writings as well.
In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul will state that Mark (John Mark) is now profitable to him. Which again, to me indicates that Paul had little patience or desire to work with those who did not meet a much higher level of spirtiaul maturity.
11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
I also think this is a bit of Paul recognizing that he may have been wrong about giving John Mark a second chance.
