Chapter 15
The Crisis at Antioch
1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brothers.
4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Translator’s Notes — vv. 1–5:
v.1: The crisis arrives in Antioch in the form of men from Judea — unnamed, but clearly from the Jerusalem church — who teach that Gentile believers must be circumcised to be saved. The claim is absolute: “you cannot be saved” (οὐ δύνασθε σωθῆναι, ou dynasthe sōthēnai). This is not a suggestion about best practice or cultural sensitivity; it is a soteriological claim: without circumcision, there is no salvation. If this position prevails, every Gentile convert must become a Jew. The Gentile mission as Paul and Barnabas have practiced it — welcoming Gentiles as Gentiles, through faith alone — is invalid. The entire first missionary journey is called into question.
στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης (staseōs kai zētēseōs ouk oligēs) — v.2: “Great dissension and debate” — literally “no small dissension and debate,” a characteristically Lukan litotes (understatement through negation). The word στάσις (stasis) can mean “dissension,” “strife,” even “uprising” — it is a strong word for a fierce argument. Paul and Barnabas did not receive this teaching quietly. The debate is sharp enough that the Antioch church decides the matter must be resolved in Jerusalem, by the apostles and elders. The appeal to Jerusalem reflects Antioch’s recognition that this question affects the entire church and requires a definitive, authoritative answer.
v.3: A remarkable detail: as Paul and Barnabas travel south through Phoenicia and Samaria, they describe the Gentile conversions, and the response is “great joy” (χαρὰν μεγάλην, charan megalēn). The ordinary believers in these communities — not the theological gatekeepers — rejoice at the news. The grassroots church celebrates what the Jerusalem faction challenges. The joy of the rank and file versus the anxiety of the establishment: Luke notes both.
v.5: The opposition party is identified: “some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed.” These are not outsiders; they are believing Pharisees, Christians who maintain their Pharisaic convictions about Torah observance. Their position is stated clearly: Gentile believers must be circumcised and must observe the Law of Moses. The demand is twofold: circumcision (the covenant sign) and full Torah observance (the covenant requirements). In their view, faith in Jesus does not replace membership in Israel; it supplements it. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and to follow him means to join the Jewish people by the established route.
Peter’s Speech
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us;
9 and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Translator’s Notes — vv. 6–11:
v.7: Peter speaks first, and his argument is experiential: God already decided this question at Cornelius’s house. “In the early days” (ἀφ’ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων, aph’ hēmerōn archaiōn) refers to the Cornelius event, now perhaps a decade in the past. Peter’s argument is simple: God chose to give the Gentiles the gospel through my mouth. God chose this. The decision was divine before it was human.
καρδιογνώστης θεός (kardiognōstēs theos) — v.8: “God, who knows the heart” — καρδιογνώστης (kardiognōstēs, “heart-knower”) is used only here and in 1:24 (the prayer before Matthias’s selection) in the entire New Testament. God looked at the Gentiles’ hearts and testified (ἐμαρτύρησεν, emartyrēsen) to what he saw by giving them the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is God’s testimony about the Gentiles’ hearts. The evidence is not circumcision of the flesh but the Spirit in the heart.
οὐθὲν διέκρινεν μεταξὺ ἡμῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν (outhen diekrinen metaxy hēmōn te kai autōn) — v.9: “He made no distinction between us and them” — the verb διακρίνω (diakrinō) means “to distinguish,” “to discriminate,” “to judge between.” It is the same root as the word the Spirit used in 10:20: “accompany them without misgivings” (μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, “without discriminating”). Peter’s argument has come full circle: God told him not to discriminate, and God himself made no discrimination. The cleansing was by faith (τῇ πίστει, tē pistei), not by circumcision.
ζυγόν ... ὃν οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἰσχύσαμεν βαστάσαι (zygon ... hon oute hoi pateres hēmōn oute hēmeis ischysamen bastasai) — v.10: “A yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” — Peter calls the Law a “yoke” (ζυγός, zygos), an image used in Jewish tradition both positively (“the yoke of the Torah” as a noble discipline) and negatively (an unbearable burden). Peter uses it negatively: Israel has not been able to bear this yoke fully. The admission is extraordinary coming from a Jewish apostle: the Law’s demands exceed Israel’s capacity. If the Jews themselves have not kept the Law perfectly, what justice is there in imposing it on Gentiles as a requirement for salvation? Peter’s question — “why do you put God to the test?” (τί πειράζετε τὸν θεόν, ti peirazete ton theon) — frames the demand for circumcision as resistance to God. To require what God has not required is to test God.
v.11: Peter’s conclusion is the most radical sentence he speaks in Acts: “We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” The grammar is deliberately provocative. Peter does not say “they are saved the same way we are” (which would make Jewish experience the norm and Gentile experience the copy). He says “we are saved the same way they are.” The Gentile experience of salvation by grace through faith is the norm, and the Jewish experience conforms to it. The gospel is not: Gentiles can be saved like Jews. The gospel is: Jews are saved like Gentiles — by grace alone, through faith alone. This reversal is the theological summit of Peter’s career in Acts.
Paul and Barnabas Testify
12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Translator’s Notes — v. 12:
ἐσίγησεν πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος (esigēsen pan to plēthos) — v.12: “All the people kept silent” — the verb σιγάω (sigaō, “to be silent,” “to become quiet”) describes a hushed audience. After Peter’s bombshell, the assembly falls silent. Into that silence, Barnabas and Paul speak — and Luke reverses the order to “Barnabas and Paul,” perhaps reflecting the Jerusalem church’s perspective (Barnabas was better known in Jerusalem) or the fact that Barnabas, as the more irenic figure, speaks first in this sensitive setting. Their testimony is not theological argument but narrative evidence: signs and wonders that God performed among the Gentiles through them. The evidence is experiential: here is what God did. The theology follows the experience; the experience does not follow the theology.
James’s Decision
13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brothers, listen to me.
14 Simeon has related how God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,
17 so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,’
18 says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from sexual immorality and from what is strangled and from blood.
21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Translator’s Notes — vv. 13–21:
v.13: James speaks last and renders the decision. This is James the brother of Jesus, who has emerged as the leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. 12:17). His authority is evident: he listens to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, then delivers a ruling. The structure of the council follows a deliberative pattern: testimony from Peter (the experiential argument), testimony from Barnabas and Paul (the evidence of God’s work), and then James’s speech (the scriptural argument and the verdict).
Συμεὼν ἐξηγήσατο (Symeōn exēgēsato) — v.14: James refers to Peter by his Semitic name “Simeon” (Συμεών, Symeōn) rather than the Greek “Peter” — a touch that reveals the Aramaic-speaking, Torah-observant character of the Jerusalem leadership. James summarizes Peter’s testimony with a phrase of enormous theological weight: “God first concerned himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for his name.” The word “people” (λαόν, laon) is the Septuagint’s standard term for Israel as God’s chosen people. James is saying that God has now taken a people (λαός) for himself from among the Gentiles (ἐθνῶν, ethnōn). The Gentiles have become what Israel was: a people belonging to God. The implications are staggering: the boundary between God’s people and the nations has been redrawn to include the nations.
vv.16–17: James quotes Amos 9:11–12 (following the Septuagint, which differs significantly from the Hebrew text). The Hebrew reads “that they may possess the remnant of Edom”; the Septuagint reads “that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.” The Septuagint version transforms a prophecy about Israel’s conquest of Edom into a prophecy about the Gentiles seeking God — and James treats this as the authoritative reading. The prophecy of the restored “tent of David” (the Davidic kingdom, now in ruins) is being fulfilled not through political restoration but through the inclusion of the Gentiles. The rebuilt tabernacle of David is the church — the community where Jews and Gentiles together seek the Lord.
ἐγὼ κρίνω (egō krinō) — v.19: “It is my judgment” — the verb κρίνω (krinō) can mean “I judge,” “I decide,” “I rule.” James is rendering an authoritative decision, not merely offering an opinion. His judgment: “we do not trouble” (μὴ παρενοχλεῖν, mē parenochlein, “not to cause difficulty for,” “not to burden”) the Gentile converts. The word “trouble” is deliberate: requiring circumcision and Torah observance would be an imposition, a burden, an obstacle placed in the path of those turning to God. James rules against the Pharisaic party’s position.
v.20: The four requirements James imposes on Gentile believers have been debated extensively. They are: (1) abstain from things contaminated by idols (ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων, alisgēmatōn tōn eidōlōn — food offered to idols in pagan temples), (2) sexual immorality (πορνείας, porneias), (3) what is strangled (πνικτοῦ, pniktou — animals killed without draining the blood), and (4) blood (αἵματος, haimatos — consumption of blood). Two main interpretations have been proposed:
(a) These are the “Noahide laws” or “resident alien” requirements. Leviticus 17–18 specifies laws that apply not only to Israelites but to “the alien who resides among them” (גֵּר, ger): prohibitions against idolatrous sacrifice (Lev 17:7–9), consuming blood (Lev 17:10–12), eating animals that have not been properly slaughtered (Lev 17:13–15), and certain sexual practices (Lev 18). James is applying the Old Testament’s own category for Gentiles living among God’s people: they are not required to become Israelites, but they must observe the minimum standards for coexistence in a mixed community. This interpretation has the strongest scriptural basis and best explains why these four items were chosen.
(b) These are practical requirements for mixed table fellowship. The four items represent the practices most offensive to Jewish sensibilities. If Jewish and Gentile believers are to eat together (the fundamental act of Christian community), Gentiles must avoid the practices that would make shared meals impossible. The requirements are not about Gentile salvation (that is settled: by grace through faith) but about Jewish-Gentile fellowship. They are concessions to unity, not conditions for acceptance.
Both interpretations may be correct simultaneously: the Leviticus 17–18 background provides the scriptural logic, and the practical concern for table fellowship provides the pastoral motivation. James is finding a way forward that affirms Gentile freedom from the Law while honoring Jewish conscience.
v.21: This enigmatic verse provides James’s rationale: “Moses has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” The most likely meaning is: these minimal requirements will not burden the Gentiles unduly, and they will allow Jewish believers (who hear the Law every week) to maintain fellowship with Gentile believers without violating their own conscience. The continued reading of Moses is not a threat but a reality: Jewish Christians live in the orbit of the synagogue, and the decree respects that reality. James’s solution is not a compromise (compromise implies both sides lose something) but a creative resolution that gives the Gentiles freedom and the Jews community.
The Apostolic Letter
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas — Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,
23 and they sent this letter by them: “The apostles and the brothers who are elders, to the brothers in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,
25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
Translator’s Notes — vv. 22–29:
v.22: The decision is not only from the apostles and elders but “with the whole church” (σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾏ, syn holē tē ekklēsia). The entire congregation participates in the decision. Two delegates are appointed: Judas called Barsabbas (possibly related to the Joseph Barsabbas of 1:23) and Silas, who will become Paul’s partner on the second missionary journey. They are described as “leading men” (ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους, andras hēgoumenous) — their authority and reputation ensure the letter will be received seriously.
v.24: The letter explicitly disavows the Judean teachers who caused the crisis: “some of our number to whom we gave no instruction.” The Jerusalem church distances itself from the circumcision demand. Those men acted without authorization. The word “unsettling” (ἀνασκευάζοντες, anaskeuazontes) is a military term meaning “to plunder,” “to dismantle,” “to overturn” — the unauthorized teaching had devastated (“unsettled the souls of”) the Antioch believers. The letter acknowledges the damage and names its source.
v.26: Paul and Barnabas are described as “men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκόσι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν, “who have handed over their lives”). The verb παραδίδωμι (paradidōmi) means to “hand over,” “surrender” — the same verb used for Jesus being “handed over” to death. The Jerusalem church honors the missionaries’ sacrifice. Paul’s stoning scars are implicitly acknowledged.
ἔδοξεν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡμῖν (edoxen tō pneumati tō hagiō kai hēmin) — v.28: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” — this is one of the most remarkable phrases in the New Testament. The council claims that its decision is not merely human wisdom but reflects the Spirit’s leading. The Holy Spirit is named as a participant in the deliberation. The juxtaposition — the Spirit and us — implies neither that the council merely rubber-stamped a divine decree nor that the decision was purely human. It was both: a community of believers deliberated, debated, listened to testimony, searched the Scriptures, and reached a conclusion that they recognized as guided by the Spirit. This is the model of Spirit-led communal discernment that the church has sought to practice ever since.
v.29: The letter’s tone is gracious and minimal: “no greater burden than these essentials” (τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες, toutōn tōn epanankes, “these necessary things”). The closing is warm: “If you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (ἔρρωσθε, errōsthe — “be well,” “fare well,” the standard closing of a Greek letter). The council has spoken. The Gentiles are free.
The Letter Delivered to Antioch
30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.
31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.
32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a lengthy message.
33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brothers in peace to those who had sent them out.
34 [But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.]
35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord.
Translator’s Notes — vv. 30–35:
v.31: The Antioch church’s response to the letter is joy and encouragement (παρακλήσει, paraklēsei). The crisis that began with disturbance and unsettled souls (v.24) ends with rejoicing. The question has been answered: Gentile believers do not need to be circumcised or observe the Mosaic Law to be saved. The relief must have been immense.
v.34: This verse is absent from the best manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) and is almost certainly a later scribal addition, probably inserted to explain how Silas was available in Antioch when Paul chose him for the second journey (v.40). Most modern translations omit it or include it in brackets.
Paul and Barnabas Separate
36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.”
37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
40 But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.
41 And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Translator’s Notes — vv. 36–41:
v.36: Paul proposes a return visit to the churches planted on the first journey. The impulse is pastoral: “see how they are.” Paul does not merely plant churches and move on; he returns to strengthen them. The missionary is also a pastor.
ἀποστάντα ἀπ’ αὐτῶν (apostanta ap’ autōn) — v.38: Paul’s view of Mark’s departure is harsh. The word ἀποστάντα (apostanta, “one who deserted,” “one who withdrew”) is stronger than the neutral ἀποχωρήσας (apochorēsas) used in 13:13 for Mark’s departure. Paul views Mark’s leaving as a defection, a failure of commitment. The emphasis “who had not gone with them to the work” underscores Paul’s standard: the mission is serious, and those who abandon it cannot be trusted with it again.
παροξυσμός (paroxysmos) — v.39: “Sharp disagreement” — παροξυσμός (paroxysmos, from which we get “paroxysm”) means a violent outburst, a fit of sharp anger. This is not a polite difference of opinion; it is an explosive argument between two apostles. Luke does not conceal it, soften it, or explain it away. The two men who launched the Gentile mission together cannot agree about a personnel decision and part ways permanently. The honesty is remarkable: the early church was not a community of perfect harmony but of real people with real conflicts, including conflicts between its greatest leaders.
v.39: The theological implications of the split have been debated. Was Paul right to insist on reliability, or was Barnabas right to give Mark a second chance? Luke does not explicitly take sides, though his narrative follows Paul from this point forward, suggesting where his literary interest lies. But the outcome vindicates both: Barnabas takes Mark to Cyprus and presumably continues effective ministry (he vanishes from Acts but his legacy continues). Paul takes Silas and launches the second missionary journey, which will take the gospel to Europe. And Mark himself is eventually reconciled with Paul: in Colossians 4:10, Paul commends Mark to the Colossian church, and in 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul writes from prison, “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.” The man Paul refused to take on his journey became the man Paul asked for at the end of his life. Barnabas was right about Mark. Paul was right about standards. Both truths coexist.
v.39: There is a deeper irony. Barnabas was the man who gave second chances: he vouched for Saul when no one trusted him (9:27), he sought out Saul in Tarsus when everyone had forgotten him (11:25), and now he fights for Mark’s second chance. Barnabas’s defining characteristic — seeing potential in people others have written off — is precisely what creates the conflict with Paul. The same quality that brought Paul into the church now drives a wedge between them. The Son of Encouragement does what he has always done; Paul, who was himself the beneficiary of that grace, does not extend it to Mark. The irony is painful and human.
v.40: Paul chooses Silas (also called Silvanus), one of the Jerusalem delegates who delivered the council’s letter (v.22). The choice is strategic: Silas is a respected leader from the Jerusalem church, a Roman citizen (16:37), and a prophet (v.32). His presence alongside Paul will demonstrate that the Gentile mission has Jerusalem’s endorsement. The second missionary journey begins as Paul and Silas travel overland through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening existing churches before pushing into new territory.
General Notes on the Chapter
Acts 15 is the theological center of the book of Acts. Everything before it has been building to this question: must Gentiles become Jews to be saved? Everything after it flows from the answer: no. The decision of the Jerusalem Council is the hinge on which the entire history of Christianity turns. If the Pharisaic party had prevailed, Christianity would have remained a sect of Judaism, and the Gentile mission would have required full conversion to Jewish practice. Instead, the council affirmed that salvation is by grace through faith, without circumcision or Torah observance, and the door remained open for the gospel to reach the entire world.
The council’s decision rests on three pillars: experience (Peter’s testimony about Cornelius and the Spirit’s impartial gift), evidence (Paul and Barnabas’s report of signs and wonders among the Gentiles), and Scripture (James’s citation of Amos 9:11–12). All three converge on the same conclusion: God has already acted to include the Gentiles. The council is not deciding whether to include them; it is recognizing what God has already done. The decision is descriptive before it is prescriptive: the council describes God’s action and then prescribes a response to it.
Peter’s statement in v.11 — “We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” — is arguably the single most important theological sentence in Acts. By making the Gentile experience the norm (“we are saved the same way they are” rather than “they are saved the same way we are”), Peter redefines the gospel itself: salvation is by grace, full stop. Jewish identity, Torah observance, and circumcision are not additions to grace; grace is complete without them. The implications extend far beyond the first-century debate about circumcision: wherever Christians are tempted to add requirements to grace — cultural conformity, social status, ethnic identity, moral performance — Peter’s sentence stands as a correction. We are saved the same way they are: by grace alone.
The four requirements of the apostolic decree (v.20) have puzzled interpreters because they seem to impose some version of the Law on Gentiles, contradicting the council’s own principle of salvation by grace. But the requirements are not conditions for salvation; they are conditions for fellowship. The question the decree answers is not “what must Gentiles do to be saved?” (that was answered: believe in the Lord Jesus) but “how can Jewish and Gentile believers eat together?” The four items represent the minimum concessions needed for mixed table fellowship in a community where Jewish and Gentile believers share meals. The decree is pastoral, not soteriological: it protects the unity of the church, not the terms of salvation.
The Paul-Barnabas split (vv.36–41) is the final and most painful episode in the chapter. After the triumph of the council, the two missionaries who have served together through every trial cannot agree about a young man. The greatest partnership in early Christianity dissolves over a personnel dispute. Luke’s honesty in recording this is part of what makes Acts credible: he does not idealize the apostles or pretend the early church was free from conflict. But God’s purposes are not defeated by human disagreements: the split produces two mission teams instead of one. Barnabas goes to Cyprus; Paul goes to Asia Minor and then to Europe. The gospel spreads further because the missionaries separated. God uses even the conflicts of his servants to advance the mission.