Commentary on Acts 15.19-29

By Bob Myhan

¹⁹Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. ²¹For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

It should be pointed out that no new revelation has been given on the subject of physical circumcision as a requirement for Gentiles to be saved from their sins and to enter into a right relationship with God via the gospel. There was no need for revelation on this topic because the Holy Spirit had revealed the truth by His silence on the matter. When He spoke through the mouth of Peter to those in the home of Cornelius He said nothing about them needing to be circumcised; when he spoke to the Gentiles through Barnabas and Paul, and confirmed their word as “God’s honest truth,” He said nothing about their needing to be circumcised. And it was prophesied in the Old Testament that “the tabernacle of David” (AKA the kingdom of God) would be for all nations, not just the Jews, implying there would no need to circumcise Gentiles prior to their being saved.

Notice the double use of necessary inference in each of the three arguments. Peter does not directly state but implies that he necessarily inferred from the events at Caesarea that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Though Luke’s account of the argument of Barnabas and Paul is abbreviated (probably because he had just given a slightly detailed account of their preaching to the Gentiles), he implies by referring to their argument that they had also necessarily inferred, from the preaching they had done by inspiration, the same thing as Peter. They had inferred it and were now implying it. James, likewise, necessarily inferred from the prophets the same thing the others had necessarily inferred from their respective experiences. Thus, physical circumcision had not been mentioned by any of them, insofar as Luke’s account is concerned. Thus, we have apostolic precedent for using necessary inference to establish truth. Notice, also, the letter they wrote does not directly state but implies that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to come into the Lord’s church.

 The reason for the proposed letter was to ensure that unconverted Jews were given no reason to think the ancient taboos were being violated or, particularly, that the Law of Moses was being disrespected. It should be remembered that the persecution that arose about Stephen was motivated by this misunderstanding (Acts 6.8-14; 7.54-59; 8.1).

²²Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

To avoid the possibility of Paul and Barnabas being disbelieved in their report of the conference the church decided to send representatives to Antioch with them, to testify to the decision of the church. 

²³They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. ²⁴Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment-- ²⁵it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, ²⁶men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. ²⁸For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: ²⁹that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

The astute reader will notice that the letter is not merely addressed to the brethren in Antioch but to the brethren in Syria and Cilicia. This latter place was the home province of Paul. He had most likely preached the gospel there after he was sent to the Cilician city of Tarsus after the Jewish persecution in Jerusalem focused on him (Acts 9.26-30). Notice also that there is not in the letter any direct statement to the effect that Gentiles need not “be circumcised and keep the law.” There is only the affirmation that “we gave no such commandment” to those who were troubling the Gentiles with words that were unsettling their souls. But the letter implies there was no such necessity and the readers would be expected to necessarily infer the same.

(To be continued)

A Study of the Holy Spirit (Part 25)

By Bob Myhan 

One of the many powers that the apostles and certain others were given was authority over demons that had possessed individuals. The origin of demons is not dealt with overtly in the Bible but we infer necessarily that they were created beings.

First, demons are clearly depicted in the Bible as beings with individual personalities and wills; that is, persons. Second, they recognized Jesus for who He was. Both points are brought out plainly in the following passage.

Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, saying, "Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God!" (Mark 1.23-24)

Third, the demons were in Satan’s kingdom.

Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons."

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12.22-26)

Fourth, “the everlasting fire [was] prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25.41).

Fifth, the demons who are in the devil’s kingdom were “the angels who sinned” or “who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode” (2 Peter 1.4; Jude 6). Satan’s condemnation was being lifted up with pride; they must have followed him in rebellion (1 Tim. 3.6).

Sixth, the angels are explicitly said to have been created (Job 38.4-7; Psalm 148.1-5). Satan himself was also created; the only alternative is that he is a fallen member of the Godhead but who can believe that?

For a time the demons were permitted by God to leave Hades and take control of the minds and bodies of individuals that were defenseless against them. They could give superhuman strength to and completely block the senses of those whom they possessed (Luke 8.29; Matt. 12.22-23). But Jesus, His apostles and certain others had authority to cast them out.

(To be continued)