by Lane Rogers

Are the Events of Acts 15 and Galatians chapter 2 the same story?

The Traditional View of the passage is that Luke's account of this meeting is the same as the one described in Galatians 2:1-10.

The same people were present, the same topic was discussed and essentially the same principle ( that the Gentiles need not be circumcised) was accepted. There are important differences between the two accounts and some unresolved problems if we regard these two stories as describing the same event.

1. Galatians 2:2 indicates that the meeting in Jerusalem was a private one Acts 15:22 indicates that is was a public meeting.

2. More important, Galatians 2 says nothing about the actual conditions imposed on the Gentiles and might be thought to exclude the possibility of such a happening. It has been argued that Paul might have regarded the decision of Acts 15 as completely unacceptable. Indeed it is arguable that the trouble in Galatians 11-14 when certain men from James along with Peter and Barnabas refused to eat with the Gentiles is incomprehensible after the conference of Acts 15.

The Correct view is probably that the visit of Galatians 2:1-10 is related to Acts 11:26-30. This solves the problems of how many visits Paul made. Thus, the visit to Jerusalem in Acts 15 that Paul made is not mentioned most probably because the letter was written before the visit. It also accounts for the differences between Galatians 2 and Acts 15.

Below is the lesson from Galatians chapter 2.

Law, Legalism, and the Gospel at Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-35)

INTRODUCTION: Much of modern Biblical scholarship has rejected the long-held idea that Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1 are accounts of the same events at Jerusalem but from different vantage points. Nor is the study of Acts 15 essential to understanding Paul's message in Galatians 2: 1-10. But the parallels are such that if the events are not the same the problems are certainly identical and therefore offer to us from the inspired vantage point more principle information on the problem and the solution which existed in the churches of Galatia, and are alive within the body of Christ even now.

PARALLELS BETWEEN GALATIANS 2:1 AND ACTS 15

1. Paul's apostolic authority questioned (Gal. 2:2; Acts 15: 1-3).

2. The same problem: legalism vs. the gospel (Gal. 2: 3-5; Acts 15: 1,5).

3. The same persons involved: Specifically Paul and Barnabas, Peter and James, the false brethren.(cf. Gal. 2:5; Acts 15:5) w as the reason for the Jerusalem gathering.

4. Paul's gospel of justification by faith in Christ apart from the law of Moses challenged by false brethren (cf. Gal. 2:5; Acts 15:5) was the reason for the Jerusalem gathering.

5. Paul and Barnabas vindicated and their gospel endorsed (Gal. 2:9; Acts 15:22-29, esp. 25-27).

If the events in both accounts are the same, the thrust or purpose of each is distinct. Luke wrote from the vantage point of a historian; Paul wrote to sustain his apostleship and the genuineness of his gospel. This will account for Paul's selection of certain events at the Jerusalem gathering which Luke did not record.

THE AIM OF THIS LESSON is to learn more of the problem (at that time existing in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Galatia) of legalism and the principal solution supplied by the apostles. From this came a practical application to us who deal with the same problem today.

Prior to Cornelius the gospel had not been preached to pure uncircumcised (unproselyted) Gentiles. By the miraculous endowment of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles gathered at Cornelius' house, God confirmed to Jews (and to all men) for all time to come that Gentiles can be saved by faith in Christ apart from the legal system of the law of Moses (10:44-48; 15: 7-11). At first the apostles and brethren (Jewish) at Jerusalem, hearing that the Gentiles “also received the Word of God,” contended with authority lending finality to the matter, explained the situation (11: 4-17), declaring that God made no such distinctions between Gentiles and Jews. Peter therefore concluded that he himself had no right “to withstand God” in his desire to bring Gentiles into his fellowship. To this the brethren at Jerusalem agreed “when they heard these things....and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life” (11:18).

This Gentile precedent resulted in the following:

1. A predominantly Gentile church at Antioch (in Syria) ( 11: 19-21).

2. Fellowship between the Jewish and Gentile churches at Antioch and Judaea (11: 22-30). The

Page 2

brethren at Jerusalem sent their best exhorter, Barnabas, to the church at Antioch to help them grow spiritually and numerically. Later the Gentile church responded to the needs of their Jewish brethren in Judaea by sending relief during a time of famine.

3. The sending out of Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to preach to the Gentiles in Asia Minor (chs. 13-14).

Such divinely directed acts should have been sufficient proof to all that God fully received Gentiles into the church without any appeal to Judaism whatever. But Judaistic legalism launched a counter offensive at Jerusalem seeking to make the law of Moses a permanent part of Christianity. Luke recounts the problem and the divine solution in Acts 15.

I. THE PROBLEM, 15: 1-5.

Pharisaic ignorance of the nature of law and grace. Certain “Pharisees who believed” in Christ as Messiah nevertheless apparently did not understand the following:

A. THE NATURE OF LAW. Law condemns and cannot justify. See Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10. It is in the nature of any legal system to condemn lawbreaking; otherwise law is powerless as a system of regulation. It is not in the nature of law to justify. See Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16; 3:21. Paul's “ if there had been a law (any legal system) given which could make alive...” is tantamount to saying that no law of a legal nature which naturally condemns can possible make the dead in sin alive (or justify). That would be a sheer contradiction. It would be like a law enforcement officer stopping a speeding motorist to give him a license to speed. Thus, to bind law on Jews or Gentiles would be to condemn them for certain at the next transgression. These Jews did not understand this.

B. THE NATURE OF GRACE. Grace is simply a favor which one bestows. It indicates that no merit has prompted the gift, whatever it may be. The reason for bestowing the favor lies with the giver. In God's case he bestowed his favor on us when he sent Jesus Christ to Calvary to provide redemption (Eph. 2:8). The reason for that great unspeakable gift was that he love us (Jno. 3:16; I Jno. 4:10).

The condition God has placed on man for receiving his gift of salvation is obedience of faith through Christ Jesus, not an attempt to make oneself righteous by keeping a legal law system which by its nature condemns our sinful imperfections. Neither did these Pharisees understand that nature of God's gift of Christ by grace which was totally sufficient in itself to save all men. It is a simple matter (for those who will receive it) of one system canceling out the other. Of this all legalists are ignorant.

II. THE SOLUTION, 15: 6-29

The gospel as sufficient in and of itself to save all men was preached by Paul in Asia Minor even as Peter preached it to Cornelius. It was that sufficiency which was challenged. Luke records the four points which the apostles argued was that pure Christianity was sufficient to save:

A. PETER'S APOSTOLIC ENDORSEMENT, 7-11.

1. God gave the Gentiles (Cornelius) the Holy Spirit as proof that “he made no distinction” (9) between Jews and Gentiles, and saved them by faith in Christ without any appeal to the law of Moses.

2. He emphatically states the official position of the apostles at this time that Jews were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in like manner as Gentiles – i.e., without the law of Moses (11).

B. GOD'S DIRECT ENDORSEMENT BY MIRACLES, 12.

Jesus promised the truth of his word would be confirmed or endorsed by signs following the disciples (Mk. 16: 15-20). When Paul and Barnabas preached only Christ and him crucified among the Gentiles (in Acts 13-14), God confirmed that doctrine by working miracles among them.

C. THE PROPHETS' ENDORSEMENT AND THE JUDGEMENT OF JAMES, 13-21.

1. The prophet James tells us that Amos predicted what Peter affirmed, and that by saving Gentiles God was thus fulfilling Amos 9: 11-12 by taking “out of them (the Gentiles) a people for His name."

2. James concluded on that basis not to “trouble” the Gentile Christians by requiring them to keep the law. To determine the seriousness of this “ trouble” see Gal. 1: 6-7.

D. THE APOSTOLIC DECREE, 22-29. Cf. 16: 4

The Holy Spirit inspired an epistle to be read to the churches among the Gentiles where the problem existed. In the epistle the error was condemned (24), Paul and Barnabas were endorsed (25-26), and their gospel declared as genuine (27).

CONCLUSION: The historian records that when Gentiles who had been victims of this legalistic heresy received the epistle and had read it, that “they rejoiced for the consolation.” Another statement fraught with meaning says that the prophets Judas and Silas, after they had confirmed the brethren in the gospel, “ were dismissed in peace from the brethren” (15:33). Rejoicing and peace are the fruits of a pure gospel. Legalism always divides the church and replaces peace with fear and frustration. It is our judgment together with James that we trouble not the churches with death dealing legalism. It is our obligation together with Paul that when Pharisaism raises its head in modern days to bring us into bondage that we give “place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5).

This is the paradox of Christianity: we must wage war both offensively and defensively if we are to maintain peace in Israel (the new Israel). 

Acts 15 (New American Standard Bible)

The Council at Jerusalem

Gentiles and Jews seemed to be getting along until false teachers arrived from JUDEA teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation.

Genesis 17:9-14

Paul and Barnabas Oppose the New Requirement_

When Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem there was an assembly (called the church). It was here that the story of Gentile conversions was told (told all that they did). The sect of the Pharisees were those who had been converted to Christianity and they stated that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised.

Verse 6 probably represents a different meeting than the one described in v.4.

V.7This meeting started off with a general free for all which Luke did not record. In the end it was the view of Peter and James that mattered the most. Peter refers them back to Acts 10, 11 with the conversion of Cornelius. The Gentiles were to hear the gospel from the mouth of Peter.

V.8___God gave them (the Gentiles) the Holy Spirit

Here is the point. God gave us the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and God gave the Gentiles the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 10. The same gift that was given to Jewish believers has now been given to the Gentile believers. The gift of the Holy Spirit was given in order to establish belief.

V. 9___There is now no distinction between the Jew and the Gentile. Salvation is on the basis of faith.

V.10___If both Jews and Gentiles were saved in the same way (See Acts 2:38 for Jewish Salvation and Acts 10:48 for Gentile salvation), then to believe anything else is putting God to the test.

V. 11___Here is what the Apostles believed. Salvation comes through the grace of God.

Spell Bound_________________

V. 12__Remember the opposition. Now Peter's report had news in it that silenced them.

Notice that the KJV translates this word “miracle.” In some cases that is acceptable but in most cases it misses the point that a “sign” can be different than a miracle.

The early church was in part established by miracles and signs although they knew they had the responsibility to test miracles and signs to see if they were in fact inspired by Satan. (2 Cor. 11:14; 1^st John 4:1 and 2^nd Thess. 2:9f.

The Judgment of James

Here it appears that the person in charge was James not Peter nor Paul. James increasingly became more popular in the church at large (12:17).

In this test James bases his arguments on the comments of Peter and Peter's claim that all of this was fulfillment of Prophecy. Here he refers to Peter by his Jewish name Simeon ( 2 Pet. 1:1).

There are some interesting facts found in James remarks. In the above passage he uses the words “God first concerned Himself” but the text reads:

God came to visit the Gentiles. This is reference to the conversion at the house of Cornelius. The term below is used of divine intervention whether for salvation or for judgment (Luke 1:68, 78, 7:16).

God's purpose was to take out of the Gentiles a people for His name. The use of the word “people” is interesting since prior to this point the Jews have been contrasted with the Gentiles (nations) but the Gentiles are called God's people. Whereas in the Old Testament Israel was God's people and the Gentiles were not included (Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18f), now the Gentiles are included. Moreover, what has happened was the fulfillment of prophecy . James cites only one text but he may have been thinking of more.  Zech. 2:11 is used when he refers to the prophets, i.e. scroll of the minor prophets (as in 7:42), from which the citation from Amos 9:11 f comes.

16-18__________ For those who believe that Jesus will come back and rebuild the tabernacle and reign on earth this passage should come as a shock. The claim here is that the fallen tabernacle of David was rebuilt when the Gentiles received salvation.

From the above arguments James has concluded that the church ought not bother the Gentiles who were turning to God. Nevertheless, James has some suggestions to make.

1. Gentiles should abstain from pollutions of the idols. This refers to meat used in pagan sacrifices which was often sold at shops (Lev.18:6-18).

2. Unchastity understood as anything that broke Jewish marriage laws (see Lev. 18:16-18). Marriage was forbidden between close relatives.

3. Animals killed by strangling. When animals were killed in this manner the blood remained in the meat.

4. Abstain from the blood itself. (Lev.17:8-13).

I think here is what James is saying by this puzzling statement. Since Jews have such a long history of abstaining from the above mentioned items and it has been “grilled” into them for generations, Gentiles ought to respect the Jews and their conscience and thus avoid bringing the problems into the congregation

V.22___Here we have the makeup of those in agreement: The Apostles, the Elders, and the whole church. Apparently conservative Jews lost the battle to what they may have considered a more liberal element. Judas Barsabbas is unknown unless he is the Joseph Barsabbas of 1:23. Silas (Silvanus) was an important early figure. (see 15:4; 1^st Thess. 1:12, 1^st Cor. 1:19; 1^st Peter 5:12). Some scholars assume that these were elders in the church.

VS. 23-29__This letter has an unusual introduction. From the Apostles and the elders. The main body of the letter makes it very clear that any persons who had come from Jerusalem to Antioch and advocated circumcision for Gentile converts was in no sense representative of the church. In order the clarify this matter, the church at Jerusalem has sent officiate delegates. Further, this matter was decided on by the Holy Spirit giving it all the authority needed. Notice, the last part of verse 29__that is by abstaining from the four things mentioned above “they do well.” I gather that this means this is not a commandment but suggestions that will bring peace in the church.

The Above verses need no explanation__________

Second Missionary Journey

After the satisfactory settlement of the Gentile question Paul raised with Barnabas the question of a return visit to places where they had already been. At this point, evangelism into fresh territories is not mentioned but the rest of the story (see 16:67) indicates that the idea was on their mind. But a difference arose between the two men as to whether Mark should go with them. Paul was against this idea since Mark had skipped out on the last campaign. The matter developed into one of principle so the two friends went their own way. Many claim that the contention between the two is based on Barnabas's vacillation on the question of eating with the Gentiles and used Galatians 2:11ff as a prof text. But___if the story in Galatians is really the visit of Acts chapter 11 then the point becomes moot. Nevertheless, the results of the septation was “two” missionary journeys rather then one. At this juncture, Barnabas leaves the story and Paul becomes the center of all.

V.36___ In light of the letter to Galatians, we understand why Paul was up for a new visit.

V.37___Barnabas's desire to take Mark with them was no doubt motived in giving the young man another chance. This can be traced to their family relationship, which Luke does not mention (Col. 4:10) but Barnabas was one of those who had sympathy in abundance (9:27). Paul was mission concerned and not willing to take a risk on anything that might hinder him. Later Paul will acknowledge what a valuable missionary Mark was (Col. 4:10; 2^nd Tim 4:11; 1^st Peter 5:2).

VS. 4-41___Since Silas had previously left Antioch, we must presume that either had had returned to Jerusalem or that Paul sent him to Jerusalem. He was a Roman citizen (16:21) like Paul, and he had connections with the church at Jerusalem.. ….Other wise, we know nothing more of Silas.

By Lane Rogers____________________