3. COUNCIL IN JERUSALEM (15:1-35)

A. Difference of opinion regarding circumcision (15:1-2)

Acts 15:1-2. The people from Judea mentioned in verse 1 could very well be the same ones mentioned in Gal. 2:12. They insisted that circumcision was necessary for justification. Perhaps their theological ideas were based on such passages from the Scriptures as Gen. 17:14 and Ex. 12:48-49. In any case, they could not help but cause a serious schism in the church, so that Paul and Barnabas had to enter into no small competition ... with them and their teaching, which was based on Old Testament dogma.

The people mentioned were not authorized by the Jerusalem church, but were very aggressive. How they regarded “the case of Cornelius and Peter” (Acts 10) or the work of Barnabas (11:22-24) is not said. Perhaps they considered what happened with Cornelius to be an exception to the rule, and the believers in Antioch were such an insignificant phenomenon in their eyes that they did not convince them of anything. But now, when the movement, the “first signs” of which were Cornelius and the Antiochians, began to clearly grow, they stood in his way, and what they taught was their form of protest. The Church in Antioch considered it best to discuss the problem with the Apostles and elders, and therefore they sent Paul and Barnabas and several witnesses with them to Jerusalem. The purpose of the witnesses was to protect Paul and Barnabas from distorters of the facts.

b. Controversy regarding circumcision (15:3-12)

Acts 15:3-4. On the way to Jerusalem, this “delegation”, passing through Phenicia and Samaria, informed local Christians everywhere about the conversion of the pagans, and all the brethren reacted to this with great joy (again, a motif of joy characteristic of Luke!). And then the church in Jerusalem, with all its Apostles and elders, quite favorably received the envoys from Syrian Antioch.

Acts 15:5. Here by "some of the Pharisees' heresy" are meant those who believed from the party of the Pharisees. In their own way, they reasoned logically: performing circumcision entailed the need to fulfill the entire law of Moses. The Apostle Paul would later point out this (Gal. 5:3). The method of justification ultimately determines the method of sanctification (Col. 2:6).

Acts 15:6-9. The apostles and elders gathered to consider this matter (in the presence of numerous believers; verse 12, 22). The problem had to be solved in earnest, and this required a lot of reasoning (the Greek word "zeteseos" means "dispute, with many evidences for and against"). The Apostle Peter allowed this whole discussion to take its course (the Council in Jerusalem in question took place around 49 AD). And then, speaking to the assembly, he reminded them of the conversion of Cornelius.

It is believed that the conversion of Cornelius by Peter, whom God chose for this, took place 10 years before the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 10:1 - 11:18). It was then that the question of the salvation of the Gentiles by grace was resolved, and as a testimony... God gave them the Holy Spirit (10:44-46) - just as He had previously given Him to the Jews (2:4; 11:15). And he made it clear that there is no difference between Jews and pagans, for the hearts of both are purified by faith.

Acts 15:10. To require pagans to be circumcised in fulfillment of the Mosaic Law would be to a) tempt God (compare Deut. 6:16) and b) place an unbearable yoke on the necks of the disciples (i.e. Christians) (compare Matt. 23:4) . “To tempt God” means to test His patience with endless self-will; compare Acts. 5:9. It was precisely the heavy, unbearable burden (“yoke”) that was placed on the pagan proselytes who converted to Judaism. Actually, everyone continued to bear the “yoke” as if they believed in Christ, but continued to “remain” under the law.

Acts 15:11. The construction of this phrase by Peter and the order in which he presented his thoughts are amazing. He said: ... we ... by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, just as they were. A “legal” Jew would say this in reverse: “they will be saved, just as we are” (emphasizing the primacy of the Jews in this regard). But Peter, who trusted in salvation by grace and faith, does not say this (compare Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8), and this is typical.

Acts 15:12. Barnabas and Paul then addressed the congregation, describing the signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles (5:12; 6:8; 8:6,13; 14:3). This must have had a particularly persuasive effect on the Jews (compare 1 Cor. 1:22), and they actually listened to them in silence. This very silence showed that they did not intend to challenge the arguments put forward by Peter, Paul and Barnabas.

V. Decision regarding circumcision (15:13-29)

Acts 15:13-14. Then James, the Lord's maternal brother and the author of the Epistle of James, spoke, apparently the head of the Jerusalem church. He summed up the discussion. And he began by referring to Peter’s experience (Acts 10). It is curious that here in Jerusalem he calls the apostle by his Hebrew name Simon. The word originally in verse 14 is important. For the point here is that Paul and Barnabas were not the first to go to the Gentiles. In fact, James confirmed what Peter had said, that the question of the Gentiles had been decided by the Lord before Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey.

Acts 15:15-18. It is quite natural that the Council (council) needed more than the testimony of people based on their experiences. The congregation wanted to know how it corresponded to the testimony of the Scriptures. In order to show that it is in the Old Testament that the doctrine of the salvation of the Gentiles is contained, regardless of circumcision, James quoted from Am. 9:11-12. But the interpretation of this quote raises several problems. And the first of them is related to the text. The fact is that James quotes close to the Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek), and the text he quotes differs from the original Hebrew.

The original words of Amos in 9:12 are: “That they may take possession of the remnant of Edom and of all the nations among whom I will proclaim My name.” Jacob said, instead of “Edom,” other people, and instead of “taken possession,” they exacted. The following is possible. The Hebrew consonants in the words "Edom" and "Adam" ("man") are identical (dm). As for the vowels, it is quite possible that confusion occurred with them, inserted much later. If we now compare the Hebrew words yarash (“to own”) and darash (“to exact”), we will see that the difference between them is only one letter.

So, in Jacob’s oral transmission of the quotation from Amos, there most likely was no deviation from the original. However, the main problem arises in connection with the interpretation of the text. What did Amos mean when he wrote these verses, and what did Jacob mean by using them? Before we begin to interpret them, a number of points need to be taken into account.

1) Jacob did not say that what Amos said (Amos 9:11-12) was fulfilled in the Church; he only asserted that what was happening in the Church was in full agreement with what was predicted by the Old Testament prophets (Acts 15:15). 2) It is noteworthy that James speaks of prophets (plural); this implies that what he quoted from Amos was shared by the prophets in general. 3) The main idea of ​​​​Jacob is clear: the salvation of the pagans, regardless of the Mosaic Law, does not contradict the Old Testament prophecies. 4) Neither the Masoretic text nor the Septuagint contains the word “later,” but in both there is “on that day.”

All of the above must be kept in mind when interpreting these verses. Theologians, when interpreting them, follow, as a rule, one of three paths. Those who take the amillennialist point of view say that the “recreated tabernacle of David” is the Church that the Lord uses to preach to the Gentiles. (Amillennialists are those theologians who do not believe in the literalness of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, seeing in it a symbol of the ideal Church. - Ed.) It would seem a plausible point of view, but several points contradict it.

1) The verb anastrepso, which in Russian (15:16) is rendered as “I will return,” literally means “I will return.” Luke resorts to him one more time - in Acts. 5:22 (it does not appear in his Gospel) and in both cases it has the same meaning of return. Since the Son of God had not yet returned in body, the “rebuilding of the tabernacle” spoken of here did not take place. 2) The heavenly ministry of Christ at the present time (which is the age of the Church) is in no way associated with the “throne of David.”

Jesus Christ now sits at the “right hand” of the Father (Ps. 109:1; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3 :22). But when He returns, He will sit on the “throne of David” (2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 88:4: Matt. 19:28; 25:31). 3) Since the Church remained a mystery, hidden from the Old Testament saints (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:5-6; Col. 1:24-27), Amos could not have the Church in mind.

A different approach to these verses is usually shared by premillennialists. According to their point of view, four chronological periods are implied here: the non-standing age of the Church ("God's formation of a people for Himself from the Gentiles"; Acts 15:14), the return of Christ to Israel (verse 16a), the establishment of the kingdom of David (verse 16b) and, finally, , the turning of the Gentiles (all nations) to God (verse 17). Everything seems to be logical, however, and here certain difficulties arise.

1) The quotation begins with the word “Later” (Acts 15:16). Premillennialists believe that Jacob used it, “adapting” it to his understanding of the words of the prophet in Am. 9:11. So this “later” should not be associated with Acts. 15:14, and with Am. 9:8-10, which refers to the time of the Great Tribulation ("Jacob's time of trouble"; Jer. 30:7). 2) If the “later” of Jacob meant that the ancient prophet “received his sight” in Am. 9:11 “the age of the Church,” then how would this be consistent with the fact that for those who lived in the Old Testament times, the upcoming creation of the Church remained a secret?

The third point of view, also usually shared by premillennialists, is the most acceptable. Here it is: James simply argued, referring to what Amos said, that the Gentiles would find salvation in the Millennial Kingdom when Christ, having returned, would restore the fallen tabernacle of David, in other words, restore Israel as a nation. However, nothing Amos said indicated the need for circumcision for the Gentiles. Several factors speak in favor of the third interpretation:

1) This is precisely the mood of those gathered at the Jerusalem Council. If the Gentiles will be saved in the age of the Kingdom (millennial), why should they become proselytes of the Jewish persuasion in the age of the Church?

2) The “third approach” does not contradict the meaning of the phrase “in that day” in Am. 9:11. After (in Jacob - “later”) the days of the Great Tribulation (Amos 9:8-10), God will establish the Messianic Kingdom (Amos 9:11-12). Jacob understood by “that day” in Amos the time when God, having accomplished one thing (the great tribulation), would then begin (Acts 15:16) to implement another (the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom).

3) Finally, with this approach, the word “originally” in Acts takes on a special meaning. 15:14. Cornelius and his "household" were from among the pagans who became the "original" members of the Body of Christ, that is, the Church. The salvation of the pagans will reach its apogee in their great blessing during the Millennial reign of Christ on earth (compare Rom. 11:12).

4) Many prophets, as James states in Acts. 15:15, predicted the salvation of the Gentiles in the Millennial Kingdom (for example, Isa. 42:6; 60:3; Mal. 1:11). All His works have been known to God from eternity. (That is why He foretold what was happening now - many, many years in advance - through the mouth of His prophets. - Ed.)

Acts 15:19-21. James came up with - based on all this theological discussion - a practical decision: do not make it difficult for the Gentiles to turn to God. This echoes the idea expressed by Peter (verse 10). And, with which verse 20 begins, corresponds to the Greek word “alla” - a union that expressed decisive opposition.

Instead of unnecessarily "embarrassing" the Gentiles, James emphasizes, they should write a letter containing ethical instructions - ones that would not offend the feelings of the Jews, "deeply rooted" in the Old Testament. The pagans should write, James specifies, to abstain from three things: a) from food defiled by idols, b) from debauchery (fornication) and c) from eating the meat of strangled animals and blood (strangled - a strangled animal from which it was not blood is released). Many Bible scholars believe that these are merely ceremonial matters.

Thus, by “defiled by idols” was meant, judging by verse 29, meat that had previously been sacrificed to idols (compare 21:25). According to the mentioned point of view, what is meant here is the same thing that Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 8-10). By “abstaining from fornication” they mean observing the “marriage laws” recorded in Lev. 18:6-20. And the prohibition to “eat blood” is also connected with the laws written in Lev. 17:10-14. All three prohibitions are thus seen as deriving from Jewish ceremonial law.

But it seems that it is more correct to understand these prohibitions as having a moral and ethical character. And “defilement by idols” is understood in the sense that it has in Rev. 2:14.20. After all, it was customary for the pagans to hold feasts in the temples of their gods (idols). And Paul condemned the participation of Christians in such feasts (1 Cor. 10:14-22). As for extramarital affairs, they were so widespread among pagans that they were not even considered a sin.

This moral laxity has also penetrated into the Christian environment, as can be seen from the denunciations of “fornication” in the New Testament (1 Cor. 6:12-18, which apparently contains Paul’s response to attempts to defend the “legitimacy” of such relationships). As for the third prohibition, it goes back further than what is written in Lev. 17 (Gen. 9, where God makes a covenant with Noah, which in a certain sense continues today). (There God gives a person the right to eat “flesh” after bleeding it first.)

So, all three prohibitions recorded in Acts. 15:20 is best understood in an ethical or moral sense. And in this case, Christians today are not relieved of the responsibility to follow them - even to the point of not eating anything that contains blood, including raw meat. By not attending temple feasts, not engaging in extramarital affairs, and not eating bloody meat, pagan Christians would maintain high moral standards in everyday life and would not offend the feelings of their Jewish brothers, who, like them, believed in Christ. So that they don’t do to others what they don’t want to do to themselves. Here and in verse 29, these words of the Lord Himself - recorded in the Gospels of Matthew (Matthew 7:12) and Luke (Luke 6:31) - are found in only a few ancient manuscripts.)

Acts 15:22. From this verse we see that the entire church was given the opportunity to speak. To accompany Paul and Barnabas... to Antioch, two “witnesses” were again assigned. They had to confirm in words (verse 27) what was said in the letter to the Jerusalem church. One of the two was Strength. In Luke's characteristic manner, someone (in this case, Strength) is quietly and as if gradually brought onto the stage, who will play an important role in the future (verse 40).

Both of them - Judas and Silas - occupied a leadership position in the church (they were among the leaders among the brethren), both were prophets (verse 32); they apparently represented two groups within the Jerusalem church: Judas, probably Joseph's brother (1:23), represented the Jews, and Silas, a Roman citizen (16:37), the "Hellenists."

Acts 15:23-29. The letter of the Apostles and elders... to the pagan brethren confirmed the decision of the Council. Barnabas and Paul were recommended to them as beloved by the Jerusalem church, who risked their lives for the name of the Lord (in the Russian text - verse 26 - conveyed as having given up their souls; 13:50; 14:5,19). Noteworthy is the letter's reference to the Holy Spirit as the primary "impelling Force" in establishing the truth discussed here.

d. Messengers to the Gentiles (15:30-35)

Acts 15:30-35. So those sent came to Antioch and... handed over the letter. The Antiochian brethren were encouraged by this letter, and in their new, joyful mood they were confirmed by the sermons and instructions of Judas and Silas, of whom it is said here that they were prophets (verse 32). After some time, the messengers of Jerusalem were released in peace. Verse 34 is missing from a number of Greek manuscripts. It may have been added later by one of the scribes to explain Paul's election of Silas (verse 40).

In the following months, Paul... and Barnabas continued to minister to the saints in Antioch.

4. "ESTABLISHMENT" OF THE CHURCHES IN ASIA MINOR (15:36 - 16:5)

Second missionary journey 15:36 - 18:22)

A. Paul and Barnabas are separated (15:36-41)

Acts 15:36-41. After some time, Paul invited Barnabas to once again go around the churches they had founded on their first journey - with the goal of “establishing” them. Barnabas wanted to take Mark with him, but Paul was strongly against it, remembering Mark’s unauthorized return to Jerusalem from Pamphylia (13:13). Judging by the Greek text, the disagreement that arose on this issue between Paul and Barnabas became sharp, and it ended with their separation.

But the Lord turned this for good: as a result, instead of one, two missionary journeys took place - one to Cyprus (Barnabas and Mark), and the other to Syria and Cilicia, and ultimately to Europe, where Paul and Silas went. Probably, in relation to Mark, both Paul and Barnabas were right in their own way.

Mark was not yet “ripe” to accompany the apostle of the Gentiles as Paul was; on the other hand, Barnabas rightly saw in his nephew excellent material for “molding” (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philim. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:13). Paul later spoke favorably of Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10). He owed him a lot, and it seems that, despite this “quarrel” over Mark, they remained friends.

Neither Mark nor Barnabas appear on the pages of the Acts of the Apostles; so did Peter - after the Council of Jerusalem described in chapter 15. Having chosen Silas, whose Latin name was Silvanus (2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12), Paul acted wisely, and that's why. 1) Silas was the official representative of the Jerusalem church, sent by the Council to Antioch (Acts 15:22) 2) He was a Roman citizen (16:37). 3) He was a prophet (15:32). 4) In the Antioch church they knew him well, so that both he and Paul were entrusted by the brethren to the grace of God. 5) From the fact that Silas helped Peter as a secretary-scribe, we can conclude that he was fluent in Greek (1 Pet. 5:12). The ministry of Paul and Silas was to strengthen the churches (Acts 14:22; 15:32).

The addition of pagan Christians caused a problem in the Church that required a solution. The thinking and traditions of the Jew were that he belonged to the chosen people. In fact, the Jews believed not only that they belonged to God in a special way, but even that God belonged exclusively to them. Their problem was the following: should a pagan, before being accepted into a local Christian community, observe circumcision and the law of Moses? In other words, must a pagan first become a Jew before accepting Christianity? Or can a pagan believer join directly the Church of Christ?

Even if this issue were resolved, another problem would inevitably arise. A devout Jew could not communicate with a pagan. He could neither receive him as a visitor nor go to him. He would not, as far as possible, enter into business agreements with him. Even if pagans were allowed into the local church, how far is it permissible for a Jew to communicate with a non-Jew in the public life of the church?

These problems required immediate solutions. But ultimately, the Church came to the conclusion that there should be no difference between Jews and non-Jews. IN Acts 15 tells about the Council of Jerusalem, the decision of which was a carta for the Gentile believers.

Acts 15.1-5 The problem is getting worse

Some who came from Judea taught the brothers: unless you are circumcised according to the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved.

When there was a disagreement and no small rivalry between Paul and Barnabas and them, they decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go to the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem on this matter.

So, having been escorted by the church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, talking about the conversion of the pagans, and caused great joy in all the brethren.

Upon arrival in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, the apostles and elders, and announced everything that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the pagans.

Then some of the Pharisees who believed in the heresy rose up and said that the Gentiles should be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses.

The preaching of the Gospel is the same for Jews and Gentile Christians - the historical event that took place in Antioch and made it possible for them to live together in unity and brotherhood was considered by some to be an accident. After all, there were also Jews for whom this was unthinkable. They could not forget that the Jews, as the chosen people, occupy a special position. They agreed to accept non-Jews into the Church, but on the condition that they first convert to Judaism. If this view had prevailed at the Council of Jerusalem, Christianity would have become nothing more than just one of the sects of Judaism. Some of the devout Jews came to Antioch and tried to convince the Christian converts that their faith was useless unless they first converted to Judaism. Paul and Barnabas sharply objected to this, and the matter reached a dead end.

There was only one way out: to contact the apostles in Jerusalem and ask them to solve the problem. To prove their point, Paul and Barnabas simply gave an account of the events that took place. They wanted the facts to speak for themselves. But some Pharisees who converted to Christianity insisted that all Christian converts be circumcised and strictly obey the law of Moses.

A simple but fundamental question was posed: is the gift of God intended for a select few, or for the whole world? If it is given to us, can we consider it a privilege, or does it impose a special responsibility? For us, this problem is not so acute, but even today there is a division into classes, nations and races. We will only fully understand the true spirit of Christianity when these barriers between people are destroyed.

Acts 15.6-12 Peter makes his case

The apostles and elders gathered to consider this matter.

After a long discussion, Peter stood up and said to them: Men and brethren! you know that from the first days God chose me from among us, so that from my mouth the pagans would hear the word of the Gospel and believe;

And God, the Knower of the Heart, gave them a testimony, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he has given us,

And he made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith,

Why are you now tempting God, wanting to place on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, just as they were.

Then the whole congregation fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul telling what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Answering the faithful Jews, Peter recalled that God entrusted him with the responsibility of accepting Cornelius into the Church ten years ago. The proof that he did the right thing is the fact that God gave the Holy Spirit to the very pagans whom he introduced to the Christian Church. By conforming exclusively to the requirements of the law, one could consider them unclean; but God purified their hearts by His Spirit. After all, any attempt to fulfill the numerous requirements of the law and thus earn salvation was doomed to failure, and the person would lose everything. There is only one way left: in selfless faith, accept the free gift of God’s grace.

Peter went straight to the heart of the matter. After all, this whole dispute touched on the most important principle. Can a person earn God's favor? Or should he admit his helplessness and be ready in humble faith to accept what God's mercy offers him?

In essence, the devout Jews said: “Religion means that a person deserves the grace of God by keeping the law.” Peter answered this: “Religion consists in completely surrendering to the mercy of God.” This expresses the difference between the religion of works and the religion of grace. Peace will not come to a person until he realizes that he can never make God his debtor, and that he only has to accept what God in his mercy gives him. The paradox of Christianity lies precisely in the fact that the path to victory lies through the admission of defeat; and the path to power lies through the recognition of one's helplessness.

Acts 15:13-21 Jacob's Headship

After they were silent, Jacob began speaking and said: Men and brethren! listen to me:

Simon explained how God initially looked upon the pagans in order to make them into a people for His name;

And the words of the prophets agree with him, as it is written:

“Then I will turn and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, and what is broken in it I will rebuild and repair it,

So that other people and all nations may seek the Lord, among whom My name will be proclaimed, says the Lord who does all these things.”

All His works have been known to God from eternity.

Therefore, I believe not to make it difficult for those who are pagans to turn to God.

And write to them so that they abstain from what is defiled by idols, from fornication, strangulation and blood, and so that they do not do to others what they do not want for themselves:

For the law of Moses from ancient generations has had those preaching it in all cities and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

One gets the impression that the question of the procedure for introducing pagans to the Church has not yet been resolved in one direction or another. Then Jacob began to speak. He was the head of the Jerusalem church. His leadership was in no way formal; on the contrary, his moral leadership is recognized as an outstanding person. He was Jesus' brother. Jesus appeared to him in a special way (1 Cor. 15, 7). He became a pillar of the Church (Gal. 1, 19). They say that the skin on his knees was as tough as a camel's because he often knelt to pray and prayed for a long time. He was so righteous that he was called James the Just. In addition, and this was important, he himself strictly observed the law. If such a person begins to defend the pagans, the matter will be resolved in the best possible way: and he did just that, declaring that new disciples going to the Church should not be put in unnecessary obstacles.

And even after this, the question arose about the normal relationship between Jews and non-Jews. How can a strictly law-keeping Jew associate with uncircumcised believers? To alleviate the problem, James suggested that non-Jewish Christians should observe certain standards.

They were to abstain from being defiled by idols. One of the important problems of early Christianity was related to meat sacrificed to idols. Paul elaborates on this issue in 1 Cor. 8 and 9. When a pagan sacrificed to the gods in his temple, often only a small portion of the meat was sacrificed. Most of the meat was returned to the donor to prepare a feast with friends, often on the grounds adjacent to the temple, and sometimes at his home. The rest was received by the priests, who sold this meat through shops. No Christian can risk contamination by eating such meat because it has been sacrificed to an idol.

They were to abstain from fornication. As has already been said, chastity was a completely new virtue for the ancient world that Christianity brought with it. In an unclean world, Christians were expected to remain pure.

They were to abstain from strangulation and blood. For the Jew, blood meant life, and life belonged to God alone. At the same time, the Jews proceeded from their life experience: life goes away with blood. Therefore, all the meat consumed by the Jews was slaughtered and prepared so that all the blood would drain away. The practice of the pagans, who did not drain the blood of slaughtered animals, was disgusting to the Jews. They also found the practice of slaughtering cattle by strangulation equally disgusting. Thus, the pagan Christians began to eat only meat prepared according to the Jewish rule.

If these simple requirements were not observed, communication between Jews and non-Jews would be impossible; their observance removed the last barrier to such communication. The Church established the principle that Jews and Gentile believers are one before God.

Acts 15,22-35 Making a decision

Then the apostles and elders with the whole church decided, having chosen men from among themselves, to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely: Judas, called Barsaba, and Silas, men in charge among the brethren,

Having written and given them the following: Apostles and elders and brethren of the Gentiles who are in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: rejoice.

Because we have heard that some who went out from us confused you with their speeches and shook your souls, saying that you must be circumcised and keep the law, which we did not entrust to them;

Then we, having gathered, unanimously decided, having chosen men, to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we have sent Judas and Silas, who will explain the same things to you verbally.

For it pleases the Holy Spirit and us not to place any more burden on you than this necessary:

Abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication, and do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself: by observing these things, you will do well. Be healthy.

So those sent came to Antioch and, having gathered people, handed over the letter.

Having read it, they rejoiced at this instruction.

Judas and Silas, being also prophets, gave instruction to the brethren with abundant words and confirmed them.

Having stayed there for some time, they were released in peace by the brethren to the Apostles;

But Silas decided to remain there (and Judas returned to Jerusalem).

Paul and Barnabas lived in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord together with others.

In making this important decision, the Church acted effectively and tactfully. All provisions adopted at the council were written down in the message. But the message was not sent by an ordinary messenger: it was delivered to Judas and Silas, who went to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul. If Paul and Barnabas had come alone, their opponents might have questioned the truth of the message: Judas and Silas were the official messengers and guarantors of the truth of the decision taken at the council. The Church acted wisely in sending both the people and the message. One of the early Christian authors wrote that he learned much more from a living voice than from everything he read. After all, the message could have sounded official; and Judas and Silas brought into him a warm friendship that a single letter could never have achieved. People would save a lot of trouble if they talked more often in person to each other instead of writing letters.

Acts 15.36-41 Pavel hits the road again

After some time, Paul said to Barnabas: Let us go again and visit our brethren in all the cities in which we preached the word of the Lord, how they live.

Barnabas wanted to take with him John, called Mark, but Paul decided not to take him who had lagged behind them in Pamphylia and did not go with them to the work for which they were sent.

Hence there was grief, so that they were separated from each other; and Barnabas, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus;

But Paul, having chosen Silas for himself, set out, having been entrusted by the brethren to the grace of God,

And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, establishing churches.

Pavel was a born adventurer and could never sit in one place for a long time. He decided to hit the road again; but preparations for the trip ended in a tragic break. Barnabas wanted to take John, nicknamed Mark, with him, and Paul did not want to have anything to do with a man who had already shown himself once in Pamphylia to be an unreliable servant. The differences between them turned out to be so acute that they broke up and never worked together again. Here it is difficult to say which of them - Barnabas or Paul - was right. But one thing is clear: Mark was extremely lucky to have a friend like Barnabas. Later, as we already know, Mark will regain his good name. It is possible that it was Barnabas' friendship that helped him regain self-respect and correct past mistakes. It's a great thing to have someone who believes in you. Barnabas believed in Mark and, in the end, Mark lived up to his trust.

15:1,2 Some who came from Judea taught the brothers: unless you are circumcised according to the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved. 2 When there was a disagreement and considerable competition between Paul and Barnabas with them, they decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go to this matter to To the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
And here are the first disagreements between Christians according to teaching and there is nothing terrible in this, this can happen in human society: Paul, preaching to the pagans in Antioch, did not invite them to accept circumcision, and Christian Jews who came to Antioch from Judea taught the pagans that if you are not circumcised according to the Law of Moses, you will not you will be saved from sin and death. Naturally, this brought confusion and stumbling into the hearts of the disciples from Antioch, which, in fact, is why disagreements are dangerous for newcomers unestablished in the faith.

Paul, being an apostle, knew that he was teaching the Gentiles correctly. But he did not tell the Jews that, they say, they are simple Christians, not the apostles of Christ and therefore do not know how to teach correctly.
Paul first tried to argue to the Jews a new vision of fulfilling the law of Christ for the Gentiles without burdening them with circumcision, but there was a lot of competition in words and did not bring any benefit: Paul was not an authority in the eyes of the Jews, and the worms of doubt began to erode the faith of those who accepted Paul.
Therefore, the congregation decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to the apostles - to the supreme, so to speak, authority of the Christian congregations of that time and to other elders from the congregations of Jerusalem.
Only they could reinforce what Paul and Barnabas teach the pagans - with their authority of the Jerusalem pillars of faith, which the Jews opposing Paul could not object to.

15:3,4 So, having been escorted by the church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, talking about the conversion of the pagans, and caused great joy in all the brethren.
The entire congregation from which they set out froze in anticipation, for they knew what question the apostles were going to solve. If there was a public problem, then there was no need to hide it, but it was necessary to simply solve the problem by consulting with Jerusalem: Jerusalem's decision for the Jews who brought discord into the local assembly would be law.
Paul and Barnabas, traveling to Jerusalem, again did not waste time, telling their fellow believers along the way about the conversion of the pagans to God and thereby greatly delighting them.

4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, the apostles and elders, and they announced everything that God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith to the pagans.
In Jerusalem they met with the apostles, elders, and congregation of Jerusalem, sharing with them this same joy and telling them how the Gentiles were being converted by God's help from the gospel.
Judging by the further reaction of the congregation, Paul said that he did not force the Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law and be circumcised.

15: 5 Then some of the Pharisees who believed in the heresy rose up and said that they should circumcise [the Gentiles] and command them to keep the law of Moses.
So, the reaction to Paul's joyful message about the conversion of the Gentiles to the Lord: Christians from the former Pharisees rebelled against Paul and insisted on teaching the Gentiles to be circumcised according to the Mosaic Law.
The PROBLEM requiring research and solution, as we see, was clearly formulated and voiced: it was necessary to find out whether the Apostle Paul was right or whether the Christians from the former Pharisees were right.
The rightness of both sides, of course, had to be decided from the point of view of God, that is, on the basis of His principles and requirements for the pagans, and not by voting, for example.

15:6 The apostles and elders gathered to consider this matter.
As we see, not all members of the congregation were called to solve this problem: there is no need to publicly air disagreements on doctrine, so as not to offend Christians who are not confirmed in the faith.
But not only the 12 apostles had to decide it (not only the members of the governing council of the first century): all the responsible brothers appointed as elders in the congregation of Jerusalem were invited to discuss this issue at an extended meeting of the “ruling committee” of the meeting of Christians of antiquity.
It was expected that they were all well versed in the Scriptures and would be able to navigate God's requirements for believing pagans. Moreover, when discussing this disagreement, they will not stumble, for they are strong and sound in the faith (the weak, those ignorant of the Scriptures and the unhealthy were not appointed elders)

So, the governing body meeting was extended, with the participation of not only the apostles, but also the anointed elders of the congregations. For this was a serious question, requiring a thorough study of Scripture.

15:7-11 After a long discussion, Peter stood up and told them...
As we see, they did not quickly reflect on Scripture, but Peter did not convince anyone with his authority alone, but appealed to common sense on the basis of Scripture:
although, of all the apostles of Christ in Jerusalem, it was he who was chosen by God to convert the pagans, nevertheless, he did not put pressure on those gathered precisely by this, but showed in itself the absurdity of the desire to burden the pagans with what the Jews themselves could not fulfill, meaning imposing the fulfillment on the pagans Mosaic Law:
Why are you now tempting God, [wanting] to place on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear?

Moreover, if God personally called the pagans to salvation and expressed His approval by pouring out the holy spirit on them at a time when they were not circumcised, then what is the point of requiring them to be circumcised if God baptized them and decided to save them without requiring them to be circumcised?
Does a person have the right to demand more from the disciples of Christ than God demands from them? Peter encouraged those present to ponder, connecting Scripture and events approved by God.
Actually, there was no direct answer to Paul's problem in Scripture, so reason had to be appealed to based on God's principles.

15:12 Then the whole congregation fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul telling what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
So, Peter led everyone present to the idea that if God has cleansed and circumcised the hearts of the Gentiles, then it makes no difference whether their flesh is circumcised.
After this, they again gave the floor to Paul and Barnabas, who confirmed the thought of the Apostle Peter with stories about all the miracles that God performed with their hands among the uncircumcised pagans. And if God works miracles with the uncircumcised, it means that He Himself is not at all embarrassed by their uncircumcision.
From all this, the Pharisees should have understood the following: if God approved the pagans in their natural form - uncircumcised - then why circumcise what God accepted in this form? And why not accept those whom God has accepted?
There was something for the Pharisees to think about.

15:13-20 Then James spoke, citing passages of Scripture and combining them with common sense regarding the fact that it was also revealed to Peter that God accepted the Gentiles in the uncircumcised state. Jacob showed in Scripture that the prophecy about God’s acceptance of other nations was simply fulfilled, that’s all the wisdom:
And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: Then I will return and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, and what was destroyed in it I will rebuild, and I will repair it, so that they may seek the Lord. other people and all the nations among whom my name will be proclaimed, says The Lord who does all this.

As we see, it is impossible to find the right solution without studying the Scriptures and using common sense.
There is no need to artificially create difficulties for the conversion of pagans to Christianity; let them observe the most necessary minimum of the requirements of the Mosaic Law, which is also important for a Christian, so as not to be defiled by fornication, idolatry, drinking blood and bad deeds. That's it, that's enough for them.
This is what the Apostle James reasoned from the Scriptures in support of the Apostles Paul and Peter.

15:21 For [the law] of Moses from ancient generations has had those preaching it in all cities and is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
Since all Jews had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the Mosaic Law by visiting synagogues every Saturday, Jacob suggested that for the pagans a minimum list of reminders about God’s requirements should be written, so that they too would have something to build on when setting out on the path of Christ.

Jacob's proposal It was reasonable to record the decision of the Jerusalem Council: it could be shown in all other cases of “rebellion” of the Jews against NOT circumcising the Gentiles and not observing the Law of Moses.
In addition, all congregations of Christians should become familiar with this decision, so that everyone has the opportunity to speak ONE opinion, formed on the basis of the study of the Scriptures by many brothers from Jerusalem. The decision of the Jerusalem Christian Assembly still had greater authority than the words of an individual Paul or Barnabas.

It should be added that the Mosaic Law at that time, with the ritual part of the worship of Jehovah, was in effect, because the temple with the “darned” curtain was still in operation: the Jewish Christians had not yet clearly rethought that the death of Christ abolished the fulfillment of the entire ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law . When the Romans destroyed the temple, then it became clear that there was nowhere else to go and nowhere to make sacrifices, and then it became possible to understand the words of Christ that your house is left empty for you (Matt. 23:38) in the sense that God no longer lives in man-made temples. And that it is foolish to attach an old patch to a new garment (Matt. 9:16)
But for now, it seemed unthinkable to the Jews to stop fulfilling all the requirements of the Mosaic Law, therefore, both by inertia and by force of religious habit, many Jewish Christians continued to obey the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

However, a Jew who also became a Christian under the Mosaic Law by fulfilling the law, of course, did not sin. He just needed to stop imposing on others the work of the duties of the law that he had personally chosen for himself.

15:22-23 So, on the question of Paul, the entire assembly in Jerusalem decided to send authoritative commanding brothers from Jerusalem to Antioch to the Gentiles to help Paul and Barnabas with an official written decision - in case the Jews continued to contradict in those places and insist on their own.

15:24 -29 An interesting fact is that the letter contains the names of the “postmen” and recommendations about what to expect from those who came. A competently, clearly and clearly written letter indicating specific goals plays an important role in instructing the readers of the letter.

For it pleases the Holy Spirit and us not to place any more burden on you than this necessary:
Without being very verbose in their letter, the brothers briefly and clearly indicate FIRST the will of the Holy Spirit, and THEN their own. Not the other way around.

Lopukhin:The decision of the council is the will of the Holy Spirit, and the action of the Spirit of God in no way constrains or violates the complete independence of the reasoning and thoughts of those gathered regarding the controversial issue. “To the Holy Spirit,” ... - it is said so that they do not think that this is a human teaching, but in order to inspire us that they themselves accept this, although they belong to the circumcision ... "

The content of the letter, firstly, reported that they were already aware of the tricks of their faith by the Jews, which were confusing the Antiochians: this honest recognition of the problem that arose through the fault of fellow believers should have immediately attracted the attention of those listening.
Secondly, they strengthened the authority of Paul and Barnabas, preaching the word of God to them correctly without the requirement of circumcision, which helped the disciples of Antioch to get rid of doubts about these brothers sown by Jewish Christians.
Thirdly, he listed the minimum requirements from the Mosaic Law, which passed into the law of Christ, which will also pass into the new world order of God forever:

15:29 abstain from sacrifices to idols and blood, and strangulation, and fornication, and do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. By observing this, you will do well . Stay healthy.
To abstain means to have nothing to do with the above in principle.
Expression Be healthy means the usual “goodbye” and has nothing to do with the fact that if you do what is written, you will certainly be healthy (as some Bible readers think).

15:30,31 During the entire period of waiting, the congregation in Antioch did not spread doubt or panic among itself; it patiently awaited the answer from Jerusalem and did not stop serving the Lord. They waited and received the word from those who came, peace and tranquility, at least for some time, were restored in the assembly, hesitation and division on this issue were eliminated.

There is nothing irreparable or fatal in the fact that sometimes some differences of doctrine arise in the assemblies of God's people. You just need to take this precedent for solving similar problems into service and solve emerging problems in the same way.

15:32-35 Judas and Silas, being also prophets, taught with abundant words instruction brothers and approved them. Here the word “prophet” is used in the sense of “one who instructs, edifies, admonishes, helps to strengthen oneself in the faith,” and not a predictor of the future - 1 Cor. 14:3.

The power that came from Jerusalem to Antioch decided to stay in that meeting, Judas decided to return: as we see, the brothers could make their own decision about where (in which theocratic region) it was most convenient for them to serve at some point. Wherever it was more convenient for them to serve, that’s where they stayed.
Although, it is clear that in those days it was easier to choose a place to serve God: if someone makes the wrong decision, the holy spirit is on guard and corrects the Christian’s path if necessary.

15:36- 41 And here is an example of another disagreement, but not based on teachings, but on personal opinion and preferences: the current everyday situation, of which there are a great many of which arise with all Christians.
Moreover, disagreements arose between two luminaries, mature men in Christ. One of them again wanted to take Mark, his relative, into ministry with him (Col. 4:10), but the other did not want to for some reason.

Well, they didn’t fight, but simply dispersed to different theocratic corners, each continuing to preach in his own corner, and the word of God did not stop spreading because of their strife. And it’s okay that the brothers did not part with each other in the most rosy mood. They didn’t burn bridges behind them and didn’t loudly slam the door, forever closing the entrance to each other’s hearts. All the same, ONE common thing is being done and all these temporary differences will then disappear into oblivion if brothers and friends remain in love with each other.

We can only add that Paul later served with Mark and praised him - Col. 4:10.
This means that their relationship was normal in the end.

This can happen to each of us today: someone’s paths diverge in opinions or tastes, or in the desire to communicate with someone - it doesn’t matter and there is no point in necessarily overpowering yourself and being in a place where it is difficult morally and not very I want to.
From different angles - and the trick is in the bag, if it doesn’t work out otherwise. If only the word of God does not stop sounding in these corners.

Cyril asks: Does your organization follow the command of Acts 15:29? Acts 15:28,29 states that Christians should
abstain... from blood

Peace be with you, Kirill,

28. For it pleases the Holy Spirit and us not to place any more burden on you than this necessary:
29. abstain from sacrifices to idols and blood, and strangulation, and fornication, and do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. By observing this, you will do well. Be healthy."
(Acts of the Holy Apostles 15:28,29)

This command was not given only to Christians and not only in the New Testament.
Not to eat blood is a covenant between the descendants of Noah and the Almighty:
2. Let all the beasts of the earth fear and tremble at you, and all the birds of the air, everything that moves on the earth, and all the fish of the sea: they have been given into your hands;
3. Every moving thing that lives will be food for you; I give you everything like green herbs;
4. You shall not eat only flesh, with its soul, with its blood...
(Book )
We also find a similar prohibition in the Law of Moses:
17. This is a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwellings; You shall not eat any fat or any blood.
(Book )
26. And you shall not eat any blood in all your dwellings, either from birds or from livestock;
27. But whoever eats any blood, that soul will be cut off from among his people.
(Book )
13. Beware of offering your burnt offerings in every place that you see;
14. But in the place that the Lord chooses, in one of your tribes, you shall offer your burnt offerings and do everything that I command you.
15. However, whenever your soul desires, you can slaughter and eat, with the blessing of the Lord your God, the meat that He has given you in all your dwellings: the unclean and the clean can eat it, like chamois and like deer;
16. Just don’t eat blood: pour it on the ground like water.
()

This severity of the commandment and its New Testament continuity have several explanations. So this ban can be explained by the fact that drinking blood was an integral part of pagan rituals (and even now this custom is widespread among Satanists and other destructive cults). This theory is supported by the fact that, in addition to blood, the apostolic council in Acts also prohibits food sacrificed to idols and fornication, which was also an integral attribute of pagan cults.
In the cities of Asia Minor, pagans and Christians lived (as we now live in our cities) in close social relationships, and we must also take into account that in the Middle East, sharing a meal plays a much larger role than in Western culture. And this ban, at least, greatly limited the mixing of pagan and Christian cultures and spirituality. And as we see from the further history of the arrival of Christianity in pagan countries, these prohibitions were not at all unnecessary. A striking example is the entry of Slavic pagan holidays and rituals into the traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Another common explanation for the ban on drinking blood is the sanitary and hygienic meaning. In the 21st century AD Of course, it is not entirely clear why the inhabitants of the 15th century BC needed to forbid eating food with blood by a separate covenant of the Almighty - we already know about worms, and about bacteria, and about viruses, etc. But Noah and his descendants did not know. Moreover, in the first century AD. all this was unknown to people. In the time of Noah, if you believe archeology, people often caught a hare or a roe deer, and they ate it right there, on the spot: with blood and intestines. Well, of course, those who did this did not live long - fast food lovers lived for 30-40 years. And the Lord, as we know from the Torah, always cared not only about the spiritual, but also about the physical health of a person - in the Law of Moses there are a lot of purely sanitary - hygienic prohibitions and restrictions.
But when they try to link this ban to medical blood transfusions, this is fundamentally wrong. Blood transfusion, like organ transplantation, serves to save a person’s life, there is no paganism, no violation of sanitary and hygienic prohibitions here : the apostles tell us at the end of the letter: be healthy. We do not eat human flesh and do not drink his blood - the person is of course not kosher)) but we are talking about medical intervention so that the person recovers.
All in all: members of the SDA church do not eat blood sausage, but do not refuse blood transfusions - because... They consider these to be completely different procedures.

God's blessings
Oleg

Read more on the topic "Health and beauty, sports":

Acts:1–4. Some who came from Judea taught the brothers: unless you are circumcised according to the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved. When there was a disagreement and considerable competition between Paul and Barnabas and them, they decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go to the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem on this matter. So, having been escorted by the church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, talking about the conversion of the pagans, and caused great joy in all the brethren. Upon arrival in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, the apostles and elders, and they announced everything that he had done to them and how he had opened the door of faith to the pagans.

You see, the apostles were tested both externally and internally. Not only was it said about the need for circumcision, but: “Unless you are circumcised according to the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved”. The opposite opinion was that by being circumcised, believers could not be saved. But Paul did not say: “Why is this? Am I really unworthy of trust after having performed so many signs?”, but decided to go to Jerusalem for them. How does he say in Galatians: “I did not go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who preceded me”(1, 17)? The first time he came to Jerusalem not on his own, but was sent by others; the second time he arrived there not in order to learn, but in order to persuade others to his opinion, because from the beginning of his conversion he himself was of the opinion that the Council of the Apostles later decreed, that is, that converted pagans should not be circumcised. And since it seemed to some Jewish Christians that Paul alone could not be trusted to resolve the issue, and since they turned their gaze to the apostles who were in Jerusalem, Paul went there, went not in order to learn more, but in order to convince those who said the opposite that the apostles who were in Jerusalem were deciding this issue in agreement with him and Barnabas.

. Then some of the Pharisees who believed in the heresy rose up and said that the Gentiles should be circumcised and commanded to keep the law of Moses. The apostles and elders gathered to consider this matter. After a long discussion, Peter stood up and said to them: Men and brethren! You know that from the first days He chose me from among us, so that from my mouth the Gentiles might hear the word of the Gospel and believe. And God, the Knower of the Heart, gave them testimony, giving them the Holy Spirit, as he did to us; and made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Why are you now tempting God, wanting to place on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we will be saved, just as they were. Then the whole congregation fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul telling what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles..

Believers not from the pagans, but from the Jews, demanded that those who accepted the faith be circumcised and fulfill other commandments of the law that had to do with the carnal nature of man. The other disciples did not agree with them, who reasoned on the basis of the ancient law, although they themselves were from circumcision, because they tried to make a decree not according to their own desire, but in accordance with the common benefit.

“The apostles and elders met together to consider this matter”. And from this place it can also be concluded that the apostles had some special dignity, by which they stood above the elders, otherwise Luke would have designated all of them with one common name with the elders.

“Men and brethren! You know". Note: Peter receives the grace to resolve the issue, in whom elements of Judaism still remained. “You,” he says, “know.” Perhaps there were those who once accused him for Cornelius, and perhaps those who entered Cornelius’s house with him, which is why he puts them forward as witnesses.

“From the first days God chose me from among us”. What does the expression “chose from among us” mean? It means "in Palestine" or "in your presence." With the words “out of my mouth” he shows that he spoke through him and that there was nothing human here.

"And the Knower of the Heart gave them testimony". Points them to spiritual testimony.

“Why are you now tempting God, desiring to place a yoke on the necks of the disciples..?” Where faith cleanses the sins that come from the heart, there is no difference between the faithful, whether they are Jews or Greeks. And this cleansing replaced circumcision; Instead of carnal circumcision, spiritual circumcision is given, which through faith in Christ also cleanses secret sins. What means “Are you tempting God?” This means: “Why don’t you believe God? As if he were not able to save a person by faith.” To introduce a law is a sign of disbelief. Everyone knows that the law was burdensome for the Israelites. The disciples also recognized this. And the Savior himself pointed this out to us, saying: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”(). He calls those who were under the law toiling and burdened, but He calls Himself meek, a quality the law did not have. There is also a place like this: "By grace are you saved"(). So, before the law saved those who kept everything that was written in the law, but now the grace of the Lord saves through faith even without keeping the law.

. After they were silent, Jacob began speaking and said: Men and brethren! listen to me. Simon explained how he initially looked upon the pagans in order to form them into a people for His name. And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written: “Then I will return and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, and what is destroyed in it I will rebuild, and I will repair it, so that the rest of the people and all the nations among whom my name will be proclaimed may seek the Lord, says the Lord.” , who does all these things" (). “All His works have been known to God from eternity. Therefore, I decide not to make it difficult for the pagans who turn to God, but to write to them so that they abstain from what is defiled by idols, from fornication, strangulation and blood, and so that they do not do to others what they do not want for themselves. For the law of Moses from ancient generations has had those preaching it in all cities and is read in the synagogues every Saturday. Then the apostles and elders with the whole church decided, having chosen men from among themselves, to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely: Judas, called Barsaba, and Silas, men in charge among the brethren, writing and handing over to them the following: “Apostles and elders and the brethren, to the Gentile brethren who are in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: rejoice.”.

This Jacob was a bishop, which is why he speaks after. Pay attention to his wisdom: he confirms his word with both new testimony and Old Testament prophecies.

"Simeon explained". This is the Simeon who prophesies in the Gospel of Luke: “Now You are releasing Your servant, O Master” ().

“To form them into a people for His name”. The Lord was pleased to accept people from the pagans not simply, but “in His name,” that is, in the name of His glory.

“And the words of the prophets agree with this.”. Simeon was known as a husband close in time, but he did not have authority, since he was not an ancient husband. Therefore, Jacob quotes an ancient prophecy: “Then I will turn and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David.”. The fall was so great that it seemed irreparable. What? Was Jerusalem restored? Wasn't he even more ruined? What kind of restoration does the prophecy speak of? About the restoration after the Babylonian captivity, when Jerusalem began to matter again.

“Therefore, I think it won’t be difficult”. That is, not to upset things, because if we called them, and these impositions upset the calling, then we are resisting God. Speaks with authority I "believe" .

"Write to them to abstain from what is defiled by idols". These warnings, although they concern sensory things, are necessary. Since these things were the cause of many evils, it was primarily from them that Jacob kept the believers.

"The Law of Moses from ancient generations". Before the coming of the Savior, Moses was read every Saturday in some synagogues, but after His coming the law of Moses was read without restraint in the churches of Christ. And this is evident from the fact that it is constantly read even to this day. Moreover, if the Old Testament Scripture had not been read in the churches, the apostle would not have written so recklessly in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law: do you not listen to the law?” ().

. Since we heard that some who came out from us confused you with their speeches and shook your souls, saying that you must be circumcised and keep the law, which we did not entrust to them, then we, having gathered together, unanimously decided, having chosen men, to send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we have sent Judas and Silas, who will explain the same things to you verbally..

Says that “We, having gathered, unanimously decided,” because everyone has determined this and is writing it after careful discussion. It is remarkable that neither Peter nor James dared, without the entire church, to make a decree on circumcision, although they recognized it as necessary. But all of them together would not have relied on themselves if they had not been convinced that this was also pleasing to the Holy Spirit. And so that the embassy of Judas and Silas would not be considered a sign of displeasure by Paul and Barnabas, they are praised: “men who gave up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

. For it pleases the Holy Spirit and us not to place any more burden on you, except for this necessary: ​​to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and blood, and things strangled, and fornication, and not to do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. By observing this, you will do well. Be healthy." So those sent came to Antioch and, having gathered people, handed over the letter. Having read it, they rejoiced at this instruction. Judas and Silas, being also prophets, gave instruction to the brethren with abundant words and confirmed them. Having stayed there for some time, they were released in peace by the brethren to the Apostles. But the Force decided to stay there. And Judas returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas lived in Antioch, teaching and preaching, together with many others, the word of the Lord. After some time Paul said to Barnabas: let us go again and visit our brothers in all the cities in which we preached the word of the Lord, how they live.

“Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, with him. But Paul decided not to take one who fell behind them in Pamphylia and who did not go with them to the work for which they were sent.”.

Says it was "according to the Holy Spirit" so that they don’t think that this is a human matter. As for what is added “and to us,” this is so that everyone who is circumcised will know that this is precisely their opinion regarding the issue of circumcision.

"Besides these things that are necessary". It is shown that there is nothing that believers lack; on the contrary, it is enough for them to "to abstain from offering things to idols" and so on. Expression “to refrain from... strangling” murder is prohibited.

“Having gathered people, they handed over a letter”. The success of students is a source of comfort for teachers!

"Let's go again and visit our brothers". Note, It was the duty of the leaders to take care of those whom they had enlightened with the light of the gospel, to test whether they were sound in the faith, whether they were lame, and whether they should be corrected.

. Hence there was grief, so that they were separated from each other; and Barnabas, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus; and Paul, having chosen Silas for himself, set out, having been entrusted by the brethren to the grace of God, and passed through Syria and Cilicia, establishing the churches.

Some misunderstanding occurred between Paul and Barnabas: one stood on the basis of justice, and the other wanted to sacrifice justice, but each had one goal - serving the faith. The reason for the misunderstanding is as follows. On the evangelical path, they were accompanied from Palestine to Pamphylia by a certain Mark, who, as a weak man, having fallen behind the apostles, returned to Palestine, without, however, denying Christ, but refusing further travel as difficult for him. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas returned with abundant fruits of faith and piety and preached the gospel to the church in Jerusalem about the conversion and repentance of the pagans. When they began to praise Paul and Barnabas for their exploits, Mark was saddened and troubled in soul, because he thought: if he had been with the apostles, he would have become a participant in their glory. And therefore he again wished to accompany them. Barnabas accepted him as repentant, but Paul insisted that they should not take with them to the work of the Lord a person who could not accompany them before. So, the difference of opinion was not in the nature of injustice, but of truth, and stemmed from a misunderstanding. Paul demanded truth, Barnabas demanded humanity. While they disagreed, they agreed on a sense of piety and were divided not by faith and convictions, but by human misunderstanding. This happened according to God’s dispensation, because as soon as they parted, Barnabas took Mark with him and went his own special way. But Paul’s strict accuracy also brought benefits to Mark, since with his zeal he tried to make up for his previous oversight. Paul advised the churches not to receive Mark, not in order to sadden him, but to make him more zealous, and when he saw that Mark showed the success of zeal and justified himself by his subsequent actions, he began to approve of him and say: “Greetings to you... Mark, nephew of Barnabas (about whom you received orders: if he comes to you, receive him)” ().

We also notice differences in opinions and morals between the prophets. So, Elijah is strict, Moses is meek. It’s the same here: Paul is more persistent than Mark. But look: he is at the same time condescending. He didn’t get excited, but insistently demanded that Mark not be taken. So what? Were Paul and Barnabas separated as enemies? It won't happen! In Paul's letters you find that Barnabas had much praise from Paul after this. It even seems to me that they separated by mutual consent, saying to each other: “Since you don’t want what I want, and vice versa, so as not to argue, we will choose different areas for preaching.” So they did, completely yielding to each other. And this was written for our edification, to warn us from falling, because we, people, cannot do without strife, but in strife we ​​must make mutual concessions. But for Mark this feud could not have been more useful. Pavlov's severity corrected him, and Varnavin's condescension encouraged him not to abandon his calling. So Paul and Barnabas argue; but one consequence emerges from the dispute - benefit. Looking at Paul, deciding to separate from Barnabas, Mark was greatly frightened and blamed himself; and looking at Barnabas, who defended him so much, Mark fell deeply in love with the latter. And the student is corrected by the discord of the teachers - so far was this discord from serving as a temptation.

“Crossed Syria and Cilicia, establishing churches”. Before going to other cities, he visits those that have already accepted the word of God. This is what we do: we instruct the first people first, so that they do not serve as an obstacle to the instruction of those who follow.