The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was
resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.

Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he
ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision
being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. "The
fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of
righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith."

The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that
circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their
wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in
arms against Paul and his doctrine.

Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he
insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon
salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference
agreed that the Jews should be permitted to keep their ancient customs for
the time being, so long as they did not regard those customs as conveying God's
justification of the sinner.

The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They
did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian
liberty. They insisted that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.

As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther's, the enemies of the
Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected
without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything.
They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.