CHAPTER 15
Verse 1. And certain men. These were men undoubtedly who had been
Jews, but who were now converted to Christianity. The fact that they
were willing to refer the matter in dispute to the apostles and elders,
Acts 15:2, shows that they had professedly embraced the Christian
religion. The account which follows is a record of the first internal
dissension which occurred in the Christian church. Hitherto they
had been struggling against external foes. Violent persecutions had
raged, and had fully occupied the attention of Christians. But now
the churches were at peace. They enjoyed great external prosperity
in Antioch. And the great enemy of souls took occasion then, as
he has often done in similar circumstances since, to excite contentions
in the church itself; so that when external violence could not destroy
it, an effort was made to secure the same object by internal
dissension and strife. The history, therefore, is particularly important,
as it is the record of the first unhappy debate which arose in the bosom
of the church. It is further important, as it shows the manner in which
such controversies were settled in apostolic times; and as it established
some very important principles respecting the perpetuity of the religious
rites of the Jews.
Came down from Judaea. To Antioch, and to the regions adjacent, which
had been visited by the apostles, Acts 15:23. Judea was a high and
hilly region; and going from that toward the level countries adjacent to
the sea, was represented to be descending or going down.
Taught the brethren. That is, Christians. They endeavoured to
convince them of the necessity of keeping the laws of Moses.
Except ye be circumcised. This was the leading or principal rite of
the Jewish religion. It was indispensable to the name and privileges of a
Jew. Proselytes to their religion were circumcised as well as native-born
Jews, and they held it to be indispensable to salvation. It is evident,
from this, that Paul and Barnabas had dispensed with this rite in regard
to the Gentile converts, and that they intended to found the Christian
church on the principle that the Jewish ceremonies were to cease. When,
however, it was necessary to conciliate the minds of the Jews and to
prevent contention, Paul did not hesitate to practise circumcision,
Acts 16:3.
After the manner of Moses. According to the custom which Moses
commanded; according to the Mosaic ritual.
Ye cannot be saved. The Jews regarded this as indispensable to
salvation. The grounds on which they would press it on the attention of
Gentile converts would be very plausible, and such as would produce much
embarrassment. For,
(1.) it would be maintained that the laws of Moses were the laws of God,
and were therefore unchangeable; and,
(2.) it would doubtless be maintained that the religion of the Messiah
was only a completing and perfecting of the Jewish religion; that it was
designed simply to carry out its principles according to the promises,
and not to subvert and destroy anything that had been established by
Divine authority. It is usually not difficult to perplex and embarrass
young converts with questions of modes, and rites, and forms of religion;
and it is not uncommon that a revival is followed by some contention just
like this. Opposing sects urge the claims of their peculiar rites, and
seek to make proselytes, and introduce contention and strife into an
otherwise peaceful and happy Christian community.
{e} "certain men" Galatians 2:3
{f} "be circumcised" John 7:22
{g} "after the manner of Moses" Leviticus 12:3
Verse 2. Had no small dissension and disputation. The word rendered
dissension (\~stasewv\~) denotes sometimes sedition or intestine war, and
sometimes earnest and violent disputation or controversy, Acts 23:7,10.
In this place it clearly denotes that there was earnest and warm
discussion; but it is not implied that there was any improper heat or
temper on the part of Paul and Barnabas. Important principles were to be
settled in regard to the organization of the church. Doctrines were
advanced by the Judaizing teachers which were false, and which tended to
great strife and disorder in the church. Those doctrines were urged with
great zeal, were declared to be essential to salvation, and would
therefore tend greatly to distract the minds of Christians, and to
produce great anxiety. It became therefore necessary to meet them with a
determined purpose, and to establish the truth on an immovable basis. And
the case shows that it is right to "contend earnestly for the faith,"
(Jude 1:3;) and when similar cases occur, it is proper to resist the
approach of error with all the arguments which may be at our command, and
with all the weapons which truth can furnish. It is further implied here,
that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to defend the truth
and to oppose error. Paul and Barnabas regarded themselves as set for
this purpose, (comp. Philippians 1:17, "Knowing that I am set for
the defence of the gospel;") and Christian ministers should be
qualified to defend the truth; and should be willing, with a proper
spirit and with great earnestness, to maintain the doctrines revealed.
They determined. There was no prospect that the controversy would be
settled by contention and argument. It would seem, from this statement,
that those who came down from Judea were also willing that the whole
matter should be referred to the apostles at Jerusalem. The reason for
this may have been,
(1,) that Jerusalem would be regarded by them as the source of authority
in the Christian church, as it had been among the Jews.
(2.) Most of the apostles and the most experienced Christians were there.
They had listened to the instructions of Christ himself; had been long in
the church; and were supposed to be better acquainted with its design and
its laws.
(3.) Those who came from Judea would not be likely to acknowledge the
authority of Paul as an apostle: the authority of those at Jerusalem they
would recognize.
(4.) They might have had a very confident expectation that the decision
there would be in their favour. The question had not been agitated there.
They had all been Jews. And it is certain that they continued as yet to
attend in the temple-service, and to conform to the Jewish customs.
They might have expected, therefore, with great confidence, that
the decision would be in their favour, and they were willing to refer
it to those at Jerusalem.
Certain other of them. Of the brethren; probably of each party. They
did not go to debate; or to give their opinion; or to vote in the case
themselves; but to lay the question fairly before the apostles and
elders.
Unto the apostles. The authority of the apostles in such a case would
be acknowledged by all. They had been immediately instructed by the
Saviour, and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization
of the church. See Barnes " :"; See Barnes "Matthew 18:18".
And elders. See Barnes "Acts 11:30". Greek, Presbyters.
See Barnes " :". Who these were, or what was their office and
authority, it is not easy now to determine. It may refer to the aged
men in the church at Jerusalem, or to those who were appointed to rule
and to preach in connexion with the apostles. As in the synagogue it was
customary to determine questions by the advice of a bench of elders,
there is no improbability in the supposition that the apostles would
imitate that custom, and appoint a similar arrangement in the Christian
church. (Grotius.) It is generally agreed that this is the journey
to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:1-10. If so, it happened fourteen
years after his conversion, Galatians 2:1. It was done in accordance
with the Divine command, "by revelation," Galatians 2:2. And among
those who went with him was Titus, who was afterwards so much
distinguished as his companion, Galatians 2:3.
About this question. The question whether the ceremonial laws of
Moses were binding on Christian converts. In regard to the nature and
design of this council at Jerusalem, See Barnes "Acts 15:30",
See Barnes "Acts 15:31".
Verse 3. And being brought on their way by the church. Being attended
and conducted by the Christian brethren. See Barnes "Romans 15:24".
It was customary for the Christians to attend the apostles in their
travels. Comp. 1 Corinthians 16:6,11; 3 John 1:6.
Through Phenice. See Barnes "Acts 11:19".
And Samaria. These places were directly on their route to Jerusalem.
Declaring the conversion, etc. Of the Gentiles in Antioch, and in the
regions in Asia Minor, through which they had travelled. These remarkable
events they would naturally communicate with joy to the Christians with
whom they would have intercourse in their journey.
Caused great joy. At the news of the extensive spread of the gospel.
It was an indication of their deep feeling in the interest of religion,
that they thus rejoiced. Where Christians are themselves awake, and
engaged in the service of Christ, they rejoice at the news of the
conversion of sinners. Where they are cold, they hear such news with
indifference, or with the utmost unconcern. One way of testing our
feelings on the subject of religion is by the emotions which we have
when we hear of extensive and glorious revivals of religion. Comp.
See Barnes "Acts 8:8".
{a} "brought on their way" Romans 15:24; 1 Corinthians 16:6,11; 3 John 1:6
{b} "declaring the conversion" Acts 14:27
{c} "great joy" Luke 15:7,10
Verse 4. They were received of the church. By the church, in a
hospitable and friendly manner. They were acknowledged as Christian
brethren, and received with Christian kindness. See Galatians 2:9.
And they declared. Paul and Barnabas, and those with them. That is,
they stated the case; the remarkable conversion of the Gentiles, the
evidence of their piety, and the origin of the present dispute.
{*} "received of the church" "by"
{*} "of the apostles" "by"
{d} "they declared" Acts 21:19
{+} "declared" "related"
{*} "with" "by"
Verse 5. But there rose up, etc. It has been doubted whether these
are the words of Paul and Barnabas, relating what occurred at Antioch;
or whether they are the words of Luke, recording what took place
at Jerusalem. The correct exposition is probably that which refers
it to the latter. For,
(1.) this seems to be the most obvious interpretation.
(2.) The use of the words "rose up" implies that. Those who disturbed the
church at Antioch are said to have come down from Judea, Acts 15:1 and
if this place referred to that occurrence, the same words would have been
retained.
(3.) The particular specification here of "the sect of the Pharisees,"
looks as if this was an occurrence taking place at Jerusalem. No such
specification exists respecting those who came down to Antioch; but it
would seem here, as if this party in Jerusalem resolved still to abide by
the law, and to impose those rites on the Christian converts. However,
this interpretation is by no means certain.
Which believed. Who maintained, or taught.
That it was needful, etc. See Barnes "Acts 15:1".
{1} "rose up", or "rose up, said they, certain"
{e} "saying" Acts 15:1
Verse 6. And the apostles and elders, etc. They came together in
accordance with the authority in Matthew 18:19,20. It would seem, also,
that the whole church was convened on this occasion; and that they
concurred, at least, in the judgment expressed in this case.
See Acts 15:12,22,23.
For to consider this matter. Not to decide it arbitrarily, or even by
authority, without deliberation; but to compare their views, and to
express the result of the whole to the church at Antioch. It was a grave
and difficult question, deeply affecting the entire constitution of the
Christian church, and they therefore solemnly engaged in deliberation on
the subject.
{f} "together for to consider" Matthew 18:20
Verse 7. Much disputing. Or, rather, much inquiry, or
deliberation. With our word disputing, we commonly connect the
idea of heat and anger. This is not necessarily implied in the word used
here. It might have been calm, solemn, deliberate inquiry; and there is
no evidence that it was conducted with undue warmth or anger,
Peter rose up, and said. Peter was probably the most aged, and
was most accustomed to speak, Acts 2:14; 3:6,12. Besides,
there was a particular reason for his speaking here, as he had been
engaged in similar scenes, and understood the case, and had had
evidence that God had converted sinners without the Mosaic rites,
and knew that it would have been inexpedient to have imposed
these rites on those who had thus been converted.
A good while ago. Acts 10. Some time since. So long since that
there had been opportunity to ascertain whether it was necessary to
observe the laws of Moses in order to the edification of the church.
God made choice, etc. That is, of all the apostles, he designated me
to engage in this work. Comp. See Barnes "Matthew 16:18", with
Acts 10.
That the Gentiles. Cornelius, and those who were assembled with
him at Caesarea. This was the first case that had occurred, and
therefore it was important to appeal to it.
{g} "ye know how" Matthew 16:18,19; Acts 10:20
469
Verse 7.
Verse 8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, Acts 1:24. God thus
knew whether they were true converts or not, and gave a demonstration
that he acknowledged them as his.
Giving them the holy Ghost, etc. Acts 10:45,46.
{h} "which knoweth the hearts" Acts 1:24
{*} "witness" "Bore testimony to them"
{+} "holy Ghost" "Spirit"
Verse 9. And put no difference, etc. Though they had not been
circumcised, and though they did not conform to the law of Moses. Thus
God showed that the observance of these rites was not necessary in
order to the true conversion of men, and to acceptance with him. He
did not give us, who are Jews, any advantage over them, but justified
and purified all in the same manner.
Purifying their hearts. Thus giving the best evidence that he had
renewed them, and admitted them to favour with him.
By faith. By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. This showed that the
plan on which God was now about to show favour to men, was not by
external rites and ceremonies, but by a scheme which required faith as
the only condition of acceptance. It is further implied here, that there
is no true faith which does not purify the heart.
{a} "purifying their hearts by faith" Hebrews 9:13,14; 1 Peter 1:22
Verse 10. Why tempt ye God? Why provoke him to displeasure? Why,
since he has shown his determination to accept them without such
rites, do you provoke him by attempting to impose on his own people rites
without his authority, and against his manifest will? The argument is,
that God had already accepted them. To attempt to impose these rites
would be to provoke him to anger; to introduce observances which he had
shown it was his purpose should now be abolished.
To put a yoke. That which would be burdensome and oppressive, or
which would infringe on their just freedom, as the children of God. It
is, called in Galatians 5:1, "a yoke of bondage."
See Barnes "Matthew 23:4". A yoke is an emblem of slavery or bondage,
1 Timothy 6:1 or of affliction, Lamentations 3:27; or of punishment,
Lamentations 1:14; or of oppressive and burdensome ceremonies, as in
this place; or of the restraints of Christianity, Matthew 11:29,30. In
this place they are called a yoke, because,
(1.) they were burdensome and oppressive; and,
(2.) because they would be an infringement of Christian freedom. One
design of the gospel was to set men free from such rites and ceremonies.
The yoke here referred to is not the moral law, and the just restraints
of religion; but the ceremonial laws and customs of the Jews.
Which neither our fathers, etc. Which have been found burdensome at
all times. They were expensive, and painful, and oppressive: and as they
had been found to be so, it was not proper to impose them on the Gentile
converts, but should rather rejoice at any evidence that the people of
God might be delivered from them.
Were able to bear. Which are found to be oppressive and burdensome.
They were attended with great inconvenience, and many transgressions, as
the consequence.
{b} "a yoke on the neck" Galatians 5:1
Verse 11. But we believe. We apostles, who have been with them; and
have seen the evidences of their acceptance with God.
Through the grace, etc. By the grace or mercy of Christ alone,
without any of the rites and ceremonies of the Jews.
We shall be saved, even as they. In the same manner, by the mere
grace of Christ. So far from being necessary to their salvation, they are
really of no use in ours. We are to be saved not by these ceremonies, but
by the mere mercy of God in the Redeemer. They should not, therefore, be
imposed on others.
{c} "through the grace of the Lord Jesus" Romans 3:24; Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4,5
{+} "even" "In like manner"
Verse 12. Then all the multitude. Evidently the multitude of private
Christians who were assembled on this occasion. That it does not
refer to a synod of ministers and elders merely, is apparent,
(1.) because the church, the brethren, are represented as having been
present, and concurring in the final opinion, Acts 15:22,23; and,
(2.) because the word multitude (\~to plhyov\~) would not have been
used in describing the collection of apostles and elders merely.
Comp. Luke 1:10,11,13; 5:6; 6:17; 19:37; John 5:3; 21:6; Acts 4:32; 6:2; Matthew 3:7.
Gave audience. Heard; listened attentively to.
Barnabas and Paul. They were deeply interested in it; and they were
qualified to give a fair statement of the facts as they had occurred.
Declaring what miracles and wonders, etc. The argument here evidently
is, that God had approved their work by miracles; that he gave evidence
that what they did had his approbation; and that as all this was done
without imposing on them the rites of the Jews, so it would follow that
those were not now to be commanded.
{*} "audience" "hearkened to"
{d} "God had wrought" Acts 14:27
Verse 13. James answered. James the Less, son of Alpheus.
See Barnes "Acts 12:1".
Hearken unto me. This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such
authority in the church as the Papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion
would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less
than that of Peter. It is possible that he might have been next in age,
(comp. 1 Corinthians 15:7;) and it seems morally certain that he remained for
a considerable part of his life in Jerusalem, Acts 12:17; 21:18
Galatians 1:19; 2:9,12.
{|} "peace" "were silent"
{**} "saying" "spoke"
Verse 14. Simeon. This is a Hebrew name. The Greek mode of writing
it commonly was Simon. It was one of the names of Peter,
Matthew 4:18.
To take out of them a people. To choose from among the Gentiles
those who should be his friends.
{e} "declared" Luke 2:31,32
Verse 15. The words of the prophets. Amos 9:11,12. It was a very
material point with them, as Jews, to inquire whether this was in
accordance with the predictions of the Scriptures. The most powerful
revivals of religion, and the most striking demonstrations of the
Divine Presence, will be in accordance with the Bible, and should
be tested by it. This habit was always manifested by the apostles and
early Christians, and should be followed by Christians at all times.
Unless a supposed work of grace accords with the Bible, and can be
defended by it, it must be false, and should be opposed. Comp.
Isaiah 8:20.
{f} "as it is written" Amos 9:11,12
Verse 16. After this. This quotation is not made literally either
from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew.
The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the
16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main
point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according
to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be
introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point
the passage has a direct bearing. The prophet Amos Amos 9:8-10 had
described the calamities that should come upon the nation of the Jews, by
their being scattered and driven away. This implied that the city of
Jerusalem, and the temple, and the walls of the city, should be
destroyed. But after that (Heb. "on that day," Amos 9:11; that is,
the day when he should revisit them, and recover them) he would restore
them to their former privileges; would rebuild their temple, their city,
and their walls, Amos 9:11. And not only so--not only should the
blessing descend on the Jews, but it should also be extended to others.
The "remnant of Edom," "the heathen upon whom" his "name would be
called," (Amos 9:12,) should also partake of the mercy of God, and be
subject to the Jewish people; and the time of general prosperity and of
permanent blessings should follow, Amos 9:13-15. James understands
this as referring to the times of the Messiah, and to the introduction of
the gospel to the Gentiles. And so the passage (Amos 9:12)is rendered
in the Septuagint. See Acts 15:17.
I will return. When the people of God are subjected to calamities and
trials, it is often represented as if God had departed from them.
This returning, therefore, is an image of their restoration to his
favour, and to prosperity. This is not, however, in the Hebrew, in
Amos 9:11.
And will build again. In the calamities that should come upon the
nation, (Amos 9:8,) it is implied that the temple and the city should
be destroyed. To build them again would be a proof of his returning
favour.
The tabernacle of David. The tent of David. Here it means the
house, or royal residence of David, and the kings of Israel. That is, he
which was the work of Solomon; but to the magnificence and splendour of
the dwelling place of David; that is, to the full enjoyment of their
former high privileges and blessings.
Which is fallen down. Which would be destroyed by the captivity under
the king of Babylon, and by the long neglect and decay resulting from
their being carried to a distant land.
The ruins thereof. Hebrew, "Close up the breaches thereof." That is,
it should be restored to its former prosperity and magnificence; an
emblem of the favour of God, and of the spiritual blessings, that should
in future times descend on the Jewish people.
Verse 17. That the residue of men. This verse is quoted literally
from the Septuagint, and differs in some respects from the Hebrew. The
phrase, "the residue of men," here is evidently understood, both by
the Seventy and by James, as referring to others than the Jews--
to the Gentiles. The rest of the world--implying that many of
them would be admitted to the friendship and favour of God. The Hebrew
is, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." This change is made in
the Septuagint by a slight difference in the reading of two Hebrew words.
The Seventy, instead of the Hebrew \^HEBREW\^ shall inherit, read
\^HEBREW\^, shall seek of thee; and instead of \^HEBREW\^
Edom they read \^HEBREW\^, Man, or mankind, i.e. men. Why
this variation occurred, cannot be explained; but the sense is not
materially different. In the Hebrew, the word Edom has undoubted
reference to another nation than the Jewish; and the expression means,
that in the great prosperity of the Jews, after their return, they should
extend the influence of their religion to other nations; that is, as
James applies it, the Gentiles might be brought to the privileges of
the children of God.
And all the Gentiles. Heb., All the heathen; i.e., all who were not
Jews. This was a clear prediction that other nations were to be favoured
with the light of the true religion, and that without any mention of
their conforming to the rites of the Jewish people.
Upon whom my name is called. Who are called by my name, or who are
regarded by me as my people.
Who doeth all these things. That is, who will certainly accomplish
this in its time.
Verse 18. Known unto God, etc. See Barnes "Acts 1:24". The meaning
of this verse, in this connexion, is this. God sees everything future;
he knows what he will accomplish; he has a plan; and all his works are so
arranged in his mind, that he sees all things distinctly and clearly. As
he foretold these, it was a part of his plan; and as it was a part of his
plan long since foretold, it should not be opposed and resisted by us.
{a} "Known unto God" Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 46:10
Verse 19. My sentence. Gr., I judge, (\~krinw\~) that is, I give my
opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion;
but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the
case, but merely that he gave his opinion or counsel.
That we trouble not them. That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress
them, by imposing on them unnecessary and burdensome rites and
ceremonies.
{*} "my sentence is" "judgment"
{b} "turned to God" 1 Thessalonians 1:9
Verse 20. That we write unto them. Expressing our judgment, or our
views of the case. This verse has greatly perplexed commentators.
The main grounds of difficulty have been,
(1.) why fornication--an offence against the moral law, and about which
there could be no dispute--should have been included; and,
(2.) whether the prohibition to abstain from blood is still binding.
That they abstain. That they refrain from these things, or wholly
avoid them.
Pollutions of idols. The word rendered pollutions means any kind
of defilement. But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those
animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Acts 15:29. That
flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in
the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1 Corinthians 10:25-29. It became a
very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake
of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of
idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it
as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the
idolatrous worship where it had been offered. See this subject
discussed at length in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. As idolatry was forbidden to
the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices to
idols, in their feasts, might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews
would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace,
James advised that they be recommended to abstain from this. To
partake of that food might not be morally wrong, (1 Corinthians 8:4,) but
it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a
matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.
And from fornication, The word used here--\~porneiav\~-- is
applicable to all illicit intercourse; and may refer to adultery, incest,
and licentiousness in any form. There has been much diversity of opinion
in regard to this expression. Interpreters have been greatly perplexed
to understand why this violation of the moral law has been introduced
amidst the violations of the ceremonial law; and the question is
naturally asked, whether this was a sin about which there could be any
debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts? Were there any who would
practise it, or plead that it was lawful? If not, why is it prohibited
here? Various interpretations have been proposed. Some have supposed
that James refers here to the offerings which harlots would make of
their gains to the service of religion, and that James would prohibit the
reception of it. Beza, Selden, and Schleusner, suppose the word is taken
for idolatry, as it is often represented in the Scriptures as
consisting in unfaithfulness to God, and as it is often called adultery.
Heringius supposes that marriage between idolaters and Christians is here
intended. But, after all, the usual interpretation of the word, as
referring to illicit intercourse of the sexes of any kind, is undoubtedly
here to be retained. There is no reason for departing from the ordinary
and usual meaning of the word. If it be asked, then, why this was
particularly forbidden, and was introduced in this connexion, we may
reply,
(1.) that this vice prevailed everywhere among the Gentiles, and was that
to which all were particularly exposed.
(2.) That it was not deemed by the Gentiles disgraceful. It was practised
without shame, and without remorse.---Terence, Adelph. 1, 2, 21. See
Grotius. It was important, therefore, that the pure laws of Christianity
on this subject should be known, and that special pains should be taken
to instruct the early converts from paganism in those laws. The same
thing is necessary still in heathen lands.
(3.) This crime was connected with religion. It was the practice
not only to introduce indecent pictures and emblems into their
worship, but also for females to devote themselves to the service of
particular temples, and to devote the avails of indiscriminate
prostitution to the service of the god, or the goddess. The vice was
connected with no small part of the pagan worship; and the images,
the emblems, and the customs of idolatry, everywhere tended to
sanction and promote it. A mass of evidence on this subject, which
sickens the heart--but which would be too long and too indelicate
to introduce here-may be seen in Tholuck's Nature and Moral Influence of
Heathenism, in the Biblical Repository, for July, 1832, pp. 441--464. As
this vice was almost universal; as it was practised without shame or
disgrace; as there were no laws among the heathen to prevent it; as it
was connected with all their views of idol worship and of religion, it,
was important for the early Christians to frown upon and to oppose it,
and to set a peculiar guard against it in all the churches. It was the
sin to which, of all others, they were the most exposed, and which was
most likely to bring scandal on the Christian religion. It is for this
cause that it is so often and so pointedly forbidden in the New Testament,
Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:13,18; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3.
And from things strangled. That is, from animals or birds that
were killed without shedding their brood. The reason why these were
considered by the Jews unlawful to be eaten was, that thus they
would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively
forbidden by the law. Hence it was commanded in the law, that
when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be
poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Leviticus 17:13.
And from blood. The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the
Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life,
Leviticus 17:11,14. See Barnes "Romans 3:25". The use of blood was common
among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in
making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this
respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Leg.
Hebrm. pp. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, Ed. 1732. See also
this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, pp. 588--626.
The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in
the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank
by the heathens, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is
fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., pp. 377--380. But the prohibition
specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that
therefore it should not be eaten. See Barnes "Romans 3:25".
This reason existed before any ceremonial law; is founded
in the nature of things; has no particular reference to any custom
of the Jews; and therefore is as forcible in any other circumstances
as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early
Christian converts; and for the same reason its use should be abstained
from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks, when we
remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of
Moses were given; and that God regarded the fact that the life was
in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of
it worthy of death, Genesis 9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that
this law is still obligatory. Perhaps also there is no food more
unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some
moment that all men naturally revolt from it as an article of food.
Verse 21. For Moses. The meaning of this verse is, that the law of
Moses, prohibiting these things, was read in the synagogues constantly.
As these commands were constantly read, and as the Jewish converts would
not soon learn that their ceremonial law had ceased to be binding, it was
deemed to be a matter of expediency that no needless offence should be
given to them. For the sake of peace, it was better that they should
abstain from meat offered to idols than to give offence to the Jewish
converts. Comp. 1 Corinthians 8:10-13.
Of old time. Greek, From ancient generations. It is an established
custom; and therefore his laws are well known, and have, in their view,
not only the authority of revelation, but the venerableness of antiquity.
In every city. Where there were Jews. This was the case in all the
cities to which the discussion here had reference.
Them that preach him. That is, by reading the law of Moses. But in
addition to reading the law, it was customary also to offer an
explanation of its meaning. See Barnes "Luke 14:16", and
Luke 4:17-22.
{*} "old time" "From ancient generations"
{a} "being read" Acts 13:15,27
Verse 22. Then pleased it. It seemed fit and proper to them.
The apostles and elders. To whom the business had been particularly
referred, Acts 15:2. Comp. Acts 16:4.
With the whole Church. All the Christians who were there assembled
together. They concurred in the sentiment, and expressed their
approbation in the letter that was sent, Acts 15:23. Whether they were
consulted, does not particularly appear. But as it is not probable
that they would volunteer an opinion unless they were consulted, it seems
most reasonable to suppose that the apostles and elders submitted the
case to them for their approbation. It would seem that the apostles and
elders deliberated on it, and decided it; but still, for the sake of
peace and unity, they also took measures to ascertain that their decision
agreed with the unanimous sentiment of the church.
Chosen men. Men chosen for this purpose.
Of their own company. From among themselves. Greater weight and
authority would thus be attached to their message.
Judas, surnamed Barsabas. Possibly the same who was nominated to the
vacant place in the apostleship, Acts 1:23. But Grotius supposes that
it was his brother.
And Silas. He was afterwards the travelling companion of Paul,
Acts 15:40; 16:25,29; 17:4,10,15. He is also the same person, probably,
who is mentioned by the name of Silvanus, 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 5:12.
Chief men among the brethren. Greek, Leaders. Comp.
Luke 22:26. Men of influence, experience, and authority in the church.
Judas and Silas are said to have been prophets, Acts 15:32. They
had, therefore, been engaged as preachers and rulers in the church at
Jerusalem.
{b} "Barsabas" Acts 1:23
Verse 23. And wrote letters. Greek, Having written. He does not
mean that they wrote more than one epistle.
By them. Greek, By their hand.
After this manner. Greek, These things.
Send greeting. A word of salutation, expressing their desire of the
happiness (\~cairein\~) of the persons addressed. Comp. Matthew 26:49;
Matthew 27:29; Luke 1:28; John 19:3.
In Antioch. Where the difficulty first arose.
And Syria. Antioch was the capital of Syria, and it is probable that
the dispute was not confined to the capital.
And Cilicia. See Barnes "Acts 6:9". Cilicia was adjacent to
Syria. Paul and Barnabas had travelled through it; and it is probable
that the same difficulty would exist there which had disturbed
the churches in Syria.
Verse 24. Forasmuch. Since we have heard.
That certain. That some, Acts 15:1.
Have troubled you with words. With doctrines. They have disturbed
your minds, and produced contentions.
Subverting your souls. The word here used occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament, (\~anaskeuazontev\~.) It properly means to collect together the
vessels used in a house--the household furniture--for the purpose of
removing it. It is applied to marauders, robbers, and enemies, who remove
and bear off property; thus producing distress, confusion, and disorder.
It is thus used in the sense of disturbing, or destroying; and here
denotes that they unsettled their minds--that they produced anxiety,
disturbance, and distress--by these doctrines about Moses.
To whom we gave no such commandment. They went, therefore, without
authority. Self-constituted and self-sent teachers not unfrequently
produce disturbance and distress. Had the apostles been consulted on this
subject, the difficulty would have been avoided. By thus saying that they
had not given them a command to teach these things, they practically
assured the Gentile converts that they did not approve of the course
which those who went from Judea had taken.
{+} "certain" "Some"
{c} "which went out" Acts 15:1
{d} "troubled you" Galatians 5:12
{e} "subverting your souls" Galatians 5:4
{++} "saying" Unsettling your minds"
{f} "To whom we gave" Galatians 2:4
Verse 25. No notes from Barnes on this verse.
{&} "one accord" "one mind"
Verse 26. Men that have hazarded their lives, etc. See
Acts 14. This was a noble testimony to the character of Barnabas and
Paul. It was a commendation of them to the confidence of the churches,
and an implied expression that they wished their authority to be
regarded in the establishment and organization of the church.
For the name. In the cause of the Lord Jesus.
{g} "hazarded their lives" Acts 13:50; 14:19
Verse 27. The same things. The same things that we wrote to you.
They shall confirm all by their own statements.
Verse 28. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost. This is a strong and
undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to
the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been
promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Matthew 18:18-20; John 14:26.
No greater burthen. To impose no greater restraints; to
enjoin no other observances. See Barnes "Acts 15:10".
Than these necessary things. Necessary,
(1.) in order to preserve the peace of the church.
(2.) To conciliate the minds of the Jewish converts, Acts 15:21.
(3.) Necessary in their circumstances, particularly, because the crime
which is specified--licentiousness--was one to which all early
converts were particularly exposed. See Barnes "Acts 15:20".
{|} "Ghost" "Spirit"
{h} "burthen" Revelation 2:24
Verse 29. From meats offered to idols. This explains what is meant by
"pollutions of idols," Acts 15:20.
Ye shall do well. You will do what ought to be done in regard to the
subjects of dispute.
{i} "abstain from meats" Acts 15:20
{k} "keep yourselves" 2 Corinthians 11:9; James 1:27; 1 John 5:21; Jude 1:20,21
Verse 31. They rejoiced for the consolation. They acquiesced in the
decision of the apostles and elders, and rejoiced that they were not
to be subjected to the burdensome rites and ceremonies of the Jewish
religion. This closes the account of the first Christian council. It
was conducted throughout on Christian principles, in a mild, kind,
conciliatory spirit; and is a model for all similar assemblages. It
came together, not to promote, but to silence disputation; not to
persecute the people of God, but to promote their peace; not to be
a scene of harsh and angry recrimination, but to be an example of
all that was mild, and tender, and kind. Those who composed it
came together, not to carry a point, not to overreach their adversaries,
not to be party men; but to mingle their sober counsels to inquire
what was right, and to express, in a Christian manner, that which was
proper to be done. Great and important principles were to be established,
in regard to the Christian church; and they engaged in their work
evidently with a deep sense of their responsibility, and with a just view
of their dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit. How happy would it
have been if this spirit had been possessed by all professedly Christian
councils! How happy, if all had really sought the peace and harmony of
the churches; and if none had ever been convened to kindle the fires of
persecution, to evince the spirit of party, or to rend and destroy the
church of God!
This council has been usually appealed to as the authority for
councils in the church, as a permanent arrangement; and especially
as an authority for courts of appeal and control. But it establishes
neither, and should be brought as an authority for neither. For,
(1.) it was not a court of appeal in any intelligible sense. It was
an assembly convened for a special purpose; designed to settle an
inquiry which arose in a particular part of the church, and which
required the collected wisdom of the apostles and elders to settle.
(2.) It had none of the marks or appendages of a court. The term
court, or judicature, is nowhere applied to it, nor to any assembly of
Christian men, in the New Testament. Nor should these terms be
used now in the churches. Courts of judicature imply a degree of
authority, which cannot be proved from the New Testament to have
been conceded to any ecclesiastical body of men.
(3.) There is not the slightest intimation that anything like
permanency was to be attached to this council; or that it would be
periodically or regularly repeated. It will prove, indeed, that when
cases of difficulty occur, when Christians are perplexed and
embarrassed, or when contentions arise, it will be proper to refer to
Christian men for advice and direction. Such was the case here; and
such a course is obviously proper. If it should be maintained that it
is well that Christian ministers and laymen should assemble
periodically, at stated intervals, on the supposition that such cases
may arise, this is conceded; but the example of the apostles and elders
should not be pleaded as making such assemblies of Divine right and
authority, or as being essential to the existence of the church of God.
Such an arrangement has been deemed to be so desirable by Christians,
that it has been adopted by Episcopalians in their regular annual and
triennial conventions; by Methodists in their conferences; by
Presbyterians in their general assembly; by Friends in their yearly
meetings; by Baptists and Congregationalists in their associations,
etc. But the example of the council summoned on a special emergency
at Jerusalem should not be pleaded as giving Divine authority to all,
or to any, of these periodical assemblages. They are wise and prudent
arrangements, contributing to the peace of the church; and the example
of the council at Jerusalem can be adduced as furnishing as much Divine
authority for one as for another; that is, it does not make all or
either of them of Divine authority, or as obligatory on the church of
God.
(4.) It should be added, that a degree of authority (compare
Acts 16:4) would, of course, be attached to the decision of the
apostles and elders of that time, which cannot be to any body of
ministers and laymen now. Besides, it should never be forgotten--what,
alas, it seems to have been the pleasure and the interests of
ecclesiastics to forget--that neither the apostles nor elders
asserted any jurisdiction over the churches of Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia; that they did not claim a right to have these cases
referred to them; that they did not attempt "to lord it" over their
faith or their consciences. The case was a single, specific, definite
question, referred to them; and they decided it as such. They asserted
no abstract right of such jurisdiction; they sought not to intermeddle
with it; they enjoined no future reference to them, to their successors,
or to any ecclesiastical tribunal. They evidently regarded the churches
as blessed with the most ample freedom; and evidently contemplated no
arrangement of a permanent character, asserting a right to legislate on
articles of faith, or to make laws for the direction of the Lord's
freemen.
{1} "consolation" "exhortation"
Verse 32. Being prophets. See Barnes "Acts 11:27". This evidently
implies that they had been preachers before they went to Antioch.
What was the precise nature of the office of a prophet in the
Christian church, it is not easy to ascertain. Possibly it may imply that
they were teachers of unusual or remarkable ability.
Confirmed them. Strengthened them; that is, by their instructions
and exhortations. See Barnes "Acts 14:22".
{*} "prophets" "teachers"
{a} "confirmed them" Acts 14:22
Verse 33. A space. For some time.
They were let go in peace. An expression implying that they
departed with the affectionate regard of the Christians to whom they
had ministered, and with their highest wishes for their prosperity,
1 Corinthians 16:11; 2 John 1:10. Silas however, it seems, chose to remain.
Unto the apostles. At Jerusalem. Many Mss., however, instead of "unto
the apostles," read, "unto those who had sent them." The sense is not
materially different.
{+} "tarried" "Abode"
{++} "a space" "For some time"
{|} "let go" "dismissed"
{b} "peace" 1 Corinthians 16:11; 2 John 1:10
Verse 34. Notwithstanding, etc. This whole verse is wanting in many
Mss., in the Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic versions; and is regarded as
spurious by Mill, Griesbach, and by other critics. It was probably
introduced by some early transcriber, who judged it necessary to
complete the narrative. The Latin Vulgate reads, "It seemed good
to Silas to remain, but Judas went alone to Jerusalem."
Verse 35. Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch. How long a
time is unknown. It is probable that at this time the unhappy
incident occurred between Paul and Peter, which is recorded in
Galatians 2:11-14.
Verse 36. Let us go again and visit our brethren. That is, in the
churches which they had established in Asia Minor, Acts 13,
Acts 14. This was a natural wish; and was an enterprise that might be
attended with important advantages to those feeble churches.
{c} "in every city" Acts 13:4
Verse 37. And Barnabas determined. Greek, willed, or was disposed to
\~ebouleusato\~.
John, etc. See Barnes "Acts 12:12". He had been with them before
as a travelling companion, Acts 12:25; 13:5. He was the son of a sister
of Barnabas, Colossians 4:10; and it is probable that Barnabas' affection
for his nephew was the main reason for inducing him to wish to take him
with him in the journey.
{|} "determined" "desired"
{d} "John, whose surname" Acts 12:12,25; Colossians 4:10
Verse 38. But Paul thought not good. Did not think it proper. Because
he could not confide in his perseverance with them in the toils and
perils of their journey.
Who departed from them, etc. Acts 13:13. Why he did this is not
known. It was evidently, however, for some cause which Paul did not
consider satisfactory, and which, in his view, disqualified him from
being their attendant again.
To the work. Of preaching the gospel.
{e} "departed" Acts 13:13
Verse 39. And the contention was so sharp. The word used here--
\~paroxusmov\~--is that from which our word paroxysm is derived. It
may denote any excitement of mind, and is used in a good sense in
Hebrews 10:24. It here means, evidently, a violent altercation that
resulted in their separation for a time, and in their engaging in
different spheres of labour.
Verse 40. Being recommended. Being commended by prayer to God.
See Barnes "Acts 14:26".
{a} "recommended by the" Acts 14:26; 20:32
Verse 41. Syria and Cilicia. These were countries lying near to each
other, which Paul, in company with Barnabas, had before visited.
Confirming the churches. Strengthening them by instruction and
exhortation. It has no reference to the rite of confirmation.
See Barnes "Acts 14:22".
In regard to this unhappy contention between Paul and Barnabas,
and their separation from each other, we may make the following
remarks:
(1.) That no apology or vindication of it is offered by the sacred
writer. It was undoubtedly improper and evil. It was a melancholy
instance in which even apostles evinced an improper spirit, and engaged
in improper strife.
(2.) In this contention it is probable that Paul was, in the main, right.
Barnabas seems to have been influenced by attachment to a relative; Paul
sought a helper who would not shrink from duty and danger. It is clear
that Paul had the sympathies and prayers of the church in his favour,
Acts 15:40, and it is more than probable that Barnabas departed
without any such sympathy, Acts 15:39.
(3.) There is reason to think that this contention was overruled for the
furtherance of the gospel. They went to different places, and preached to
different people. It often happens that the unhappy and wicked strifes
of Christians are the means of exciting their zeal, and of extending the
gospel, and of establishing churches. But no thanks to their contention;
nor is the guilt of their anger and strife mitigated by this.
(4.) This difference was afterwards reconciled, and Paul and Barnabas
again became travelling companions, 1 Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 2:9.
(5.) There is evidence that Paul also became reconciled to John Mark,
Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11. How long this separation continued is
not known; but perhaps in this journey with Barnabas, John gave such
evidence of his courage and zeal as induced Paul again to admit him to
his confidence as a travelling companion, and as to become a profitable
fellow-labourer. See 2 Timothy 4:11, "Take Mark, and bring him with thee;
for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
(6.) This account proves that there was no collusion or agreement among
the apostles to impose upon mankind. Had there been such an agreement,
and had the books of the New Testament been an imposture, the apostles
would have been represented as perfectly harmonious, and as united in
all their views and efforts. What impostor would have thought of the
device of representing the early friends of the Christian religion as
divided, and contending, and separating from each other? Such a statement
has an air of candour and honesty, and at the same time is apparently
so much again, st the truth of the system, that no impostor would
have thought of resorting to it.
{b} "confirming the churches" Acts 16:5
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP