Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:13
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
13 21. James sums up the discussion, and pronounces the decision of the Church on this Controversy
13. James ] i.e. the brother of the Lord, and bishop of Jerusalem, see above on Act 12:17.
Men and brethren ] See note on Act 1:16.
hearken unto me ] The president’s summary takes no note of the “much disputing” ( Act 15:7) but points out that a divine revelation had been made to Peter, and that it was accordant with the words of Old Testament prophecy. On these warrants he based his decision.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
James answered – James the Less, son of Alpheus. See the notes on Act 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 (compare 1Co 15:7); and it seems morally certain that he remained for a considerable part of his life in Jerusalem, Act 12:17; Act 21:18; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 15:13-29
And after they had held their peace, James answered.
The decision of the council
This was a crisis in the history of the Church. The greatest disasters might have befallen it at this critical time. The man who saved the Church was Paul. There was in him a fine spirit of conciliation as to methods and usages; but when it came to the liberty of Christ, and the independence of the Church, he stiffened into inflexibility, and he gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. The little picture before us enables us to look into the detail of early Church life. Note here–
I. The place of human thought and independence in the consideration of Christian problems. No man was hooted down on either side. In modern Christian controversy we have all seen lamentable spectacles. It makes one ashamed of the Christian cause when orthodox men employ a heterodox tone for the purpose of putting down an opponent. Take care how you maintain a good cause. I have seen an infidel display a nobler spirit than has been shown by his nominally Christian antagonist. Here the discussion was full, impartial and thorough; due deference was paid to the apostles and elders; all things were done decently and in order.
II. The beginning of Christian liberty. A wrong step here, and Christian liberty would have been lost. Paul was raised up at the very moment of time. He who made havoc of the Church now kept it together. Under the illumination of Paul the horizon of James widened. Sometimes the Church needs inspiration more than information. When the grate is full of fuel, what is wanting is a light. James began to see that Christian liberty was founded on prophecy. How did James become so great a man all of a sudden? Because he had touched the Pauline spirit. Great men make great men. We do not need a new Bible; we need new readers. It was actually found that in the Old Testament this very question had been settled. In every synagogue Moses was read, and nobody understood him.
III. The sight way of treating new converts. They were to begin by not doing things. The trouble with our new converts is that they are converted on Monday, and on Tuesday promoted to places of eminence. The apostles said, Brethren, you will do well to begin by not doing certain things. That is where we ought to begin.
IV. The happier aspects of controversy. But for this controversy, who knows when Paul and James might have been brought together? And after the controversy was over, the bishop writes: Our beloved Barnabas and Paul. James looked at the question partly from the characters of the men, and he called them men that have hazarded their lives for our Lord Jesus Christ. So judge in every controversy, This proof of devotion must go for something in the exciting controversy. It is not enough to be clever; we must be true. What have we done for the Lord Jesus? (J. Parker, D. D.)
Wherefore my judgment is, that ye trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God.—
A triumph of spirituality and liberty
A few lessons come to us from a study of that first Ecclesiastical Council.
I. We see in this conference the true way of settling difficulties, both between churches and between individuals–it is by conferring together. That does not mean by writing letters, or making assertions at arms length, but by getting near to one another so that the persons distrusted may be seen and understood. If that letter had been sent from the Church at Antioch to the Church at Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas had not been seen–a living spirit can never be put into cold words–the judgment of the council might have been different; and St. Paul would have continued on his way, and there would have been a breach between those who ought to have been united. I have come to feel that letters almost always make more difficulties than they mend. Let those who misunderstand one another come together, take each other by the hand; while one says to the other, Now, perhaps, I do not understand you; you explain your meaning; let me explain mine. Few enmities could withstand that process. Only an egotist of the first water ever believes that he has all the truth. The life in nature has one manifestation in a flower; another in a tree; another in an animal, another in a man; none conflict; they are only varying manifestations of the one energy which pulsates from the sun. We have one name for the sum of life and all the manifestations of energy, and that is, the universe. The universe of matter and life is too vast for any individual to comprehend–how much more incomprehensible is the spiritual universe! Differences of opinion on doctrine and ritual will arise. There is but one right way to adjust such differences between individuals or in churches, and that is for those who feel themselves growing apart to take the first opportunity to look into each others eyes and clasp each others hands as brothers, and then bring all the things which separate into light.
II. The Council at Jerusalem makes very clear the distinction between liberty and authority in the Christian life. Christians recognise only one authority, and that is God. Just so fast and so far as the will of God concerning them can be learned, they are under obligation to obey. We are at liberty to believe everything that is true, and to do whatever is right and expedient; all encroachments on this liberty are to be resisted; and in the last analysis we ourselves must decide what is true, wise and right. How easy it would be if someone else could decide for us! Men are made strong by the exercise of their faculties. Those representatives of the venerable Church in Jerusalem came to Antioch with their Thus saith the law, and there the law was written in cold black letters as it was supposed to have been written by Moses himself, and they said: Can you get away from that? If the letter was to decide, the case was already closed. But St. Paul believed that there had been another revelation; that while law had been best for one time, it was not for all times; that he had a commission from Christ to preach His gospel wherever there were souls to be saved; and so, turning away from the letter, he boldly and confidently followed the spirit. But while we emphasise liberty and individual responsibility, we cannot fail also to see that, if we really desire to know what is true and right, we must be very careful about going contrary to what is generally believed to be truth and right by those who we have reason to believe are Christians. If, for instance, in this Church of nearly seven hundred and fifty members, seven hundred believe that one course of conduct is wrong, and one believes that it is right, that one ought to be very sure that he has not been influenced by prejudice, conceit, or some evil motive before he concludes that he is right and all the others are wrong. This Council at Jerusalem illustrates the proper relation of liberty and authority. When the Jewish party asked to have Titus circumcised, and so indicate that the law was still binding, Paul indignantly refused. When the meddlers came from Jerusalem and stirred up a misunderstanding, he said: Well, let us confer together; in other words, I am willing to find all the truth that there is anywhere; the only authority is in truth and right–that is in the revealed will of God–and all men are free from all other obligation except the obligation to obey the true and the right. To learn that, he was willing to go to Jerusalem. So should we be, or to go anywhere else.
III. This contest in the early Church makes plain the contrast between spirituality and formality in religion. Men are everlastingly inclined to put emphasis on things of no importance. The Pharisees who tithed mint, anise, and cumin are not yet all dead. Formality says: If you observe certain rites, you are doing all that is required of you. Spirituality says: Have the mind of Christ; wherever you can do good, do it; pray without ceasing; no one place alone is holy, but all places are equally holy because God is everywhere; live the life of love, and open your hearts in the day and in the night so that the Spirit of Truth may lead you at all times. Why do we have so many denominations? What is it that separates Christians but this everlasting tendency to put emphasis upon form rather than life? Life can always be trusted; it will make its own form. All we need to be anxious about is to make sure that our poor weak human hearts are open to the Divine life. No ceremony is of any value except so far as it contributes to growth in the spiritual life. The apostle violated all the traditions by which he was surrounded, but in doing so he tore a rift in the worlds darkness, and made it possible for the sunlight of the grace of God to flood a struggling race. But the question presses, If we are to trust the Spirit rather than forms, how are we to know whether a man has the Spirit? Well, first, what difference does it make whether we know or not? Who made us judges? To his own master he standeth or falleth. But we may know whether men have the Spirit. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one toward another. (A. H. Bradford, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 13. James answered] He was evidently president of the council, and is generally called bishop of Jerusalem. The rest either argued on the subject, or gave their opinion; James alone pronounced the definitive sentence. Had Peter been prince and head of the apostles, and of the Church, he would have appeared here in the character of judge, not of mere counsellor or disputant. Thy popish writers say that “James presided because the council was held in his own church.” These men forget that there was not then what they term a Church on the face of the earth. The Church, or assembly of believers, then met in private houses; for there was no building for the exclusive purpose of Christian worship then, nor till long after. These writers also forget that the pope pretends to be the head of the catholic or universal Church; and, consequently, no man can preside where he is present, but himself. Peter did not preside here; and this was the first ecclesiastical council, and now, if ever, he should have assumed his character of prince and chief; but he did not; nor did any of the other apostles invite him to it, which they would have done had they thought that Jesus Christ constituted him head of the Church. From this very circumstance there is the most demonstrative evidence that Peter was no pope, and that the right of his pretended successor is a nonentity.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
After they had held their peace; Barnabas and Paul had finished their narrative.
James, who was surnamed the Just, and was the son of Alpheus, and a kinsman to our Saviour, now being president of this council.
Answered; that is, began to speak.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. James answered, saying,&c.Whoever this James was (see on Ga1:19), he was the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem,and here, as president of the assembly, speaks last, winding up thedebate. His decision, though given as his own judgment only, couldnot be of great weight with the opposing party, from his conservativereverence for all Jewish usages within the circle of IsraelitishChristianity.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And after they had held their peace,…. Meaning not the multitude, but Paul and Barnabas; when they had finished their account, and had done speaking:
James answered; or rose up, as the Syriac version reads, he stood up and began to speak. This was James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles, sometimes called the brother of the Lord; for the other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was dead, being killed by Herod, Ac 12:2 but this was the brother of Jude, and the same that wrote the epistle that bears his name: whether he was now bishop or pastor of the church at Jerusalem, is not certain; nor whether he was president in this council; the speeches made in it do not appear to be directed to him: he began his oration thus,
saying, men and brethren, hearken to me; the titles he uses, and the manner of desiring audience, were what were common with the Jews; see Ac 2:14.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After they had held their peace ( ). Literally, “after the becoming silent (ingressive aorist active of the articular infinitive) as to them (Barnabas and Paul, accusative of general reference).”
James answered ( ). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative. It was expected that James, as President of the Conference, would speak last. But he wisely waited to give every one an opportunity to speak. The challenge of the Judaizers called for an opinion from James. Furneaux thinks that he may have been elected one of the twelve to take the place of James the brother of John since Paul (Ga 1:19) calls him apostle. More likely he was asked to preside because of his great gifts and character as chief of the elders.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
James. See Introduction to Catholic Epistles.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
JAMES, PRESIDING, SUMMARIZED THE ISSUE V. 13-18
1) “And after they had held their peace,” (meta de to sigesai autous) “Then after they kept silence,” had completed their testamentary report on their missionary tour in extended detail, similar to that formerly given to the Antioch church in Syria, from which they had specifically gone forth as missionaries, Act 14:26-28.
2) “James answered, saying,” (apekrithe lakobos legon) “James responded, saying,” as Luke then records the conclusion summary made by James, pastor of the Jerusalem church, and at least at this point in the council, he presided over the meeting.
3) “Men and brethren, hearken unto me:” (andres adelphoi akousate mou) “Responsible men, you brethren, you all hear, listen to me,” as I summarize the issue and testimony, or as he gave a summary of what had occurred in all deliberations over the issue, before the council to that moment; That James was pastor of the Jerusalem church, and presided as moderator in the final council business, is verified by his summary here recorded, Act 15:13-21; Act 12:17, and by his judgement statements, wherefore my sentence, judgement, or conclusion,” of recommendation from the heart of a caring, compassionate pastor, based on his understanding of both the nature of the problem and the Word of God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
13. James answered, saying. Some old writers of the Church think that this James was one of the disciples, whose surname was Justus and Oblia, whose cruel death is recorded by Josephus in the Twentieth Book of his Antiquities. But would to God the old writers had travailed rather to know the man, than to set forth, with reigned praises, the holiness of a man whom they knew not. It is a childish toy and surmise, in that they say that it was lawful for him alone to enter into the most holy place. For if in that entering in there had been any religion, he had done it contrary to the law of God, forasmuch as he was not the highest priest. Secondly, it was a superstitious thing thus to foster the shadowish worship of the Temple. I omit other trifles. And they are greatly deceived in that they deny that he was one of the twelve apostles. For they are enforced to confess that it is he whom Paul commandeth so honorably, that he maketh him the chief among the three pillars of the Church, ( Gal 2:9.) Assuredly, a man inferior in order and degree could never have excelled the apostles so far; for Paul giveth him the title of an apostle. Neither is that worth the hearing which Jerome bringeth, [viz.] that the word is general there, seeing that the dignity of the order is there handled; forasmuch as Christ did prefer the apostles before other teachers of the Church. −
Moreover, we may gather out of this place, that they made no small account of James, ( Act 21:18😉 forasmuch as he doth with his voice and consent so confirm the words of Peter, that they are all of his mind. And we shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who suffered another to rule him, − (120) if we believe Eusebius. −
Men and brethren, hear me. James’ oration consisteth upon [of] two principal members; for, first, he confirmeth and proveth the calling of the Gentiles by the testimony of the prophet Amos; secondly, he showeth what is best to be done to nourish peace and concord among the faithful; yet so that the liberty of the Gentiles may continue safe and sound, and that the grace of Christ may not be darkened. Whereas Peter is in this place called Simeon, it may be that this name was diversely pronounced then. Whereas he saith that God did visit to take a people of the Gentiles, it is referred unto the mercy of God, whereby he vouchsafed to receive strangers into his family. It is, indeed, a harsh phrase, yet such as containeth a profitable doctrine; because he maketh God the author of the calling of the Gentiles, and pronounceth that it is through his goodness that they began to be reckoned among his people, when he saith that they were taken by him; but he proceedeth further, when he saith that he did visit that he might take. For this is his meaning, That at such time as the Gentiles were turned away from God he did mercifully look upon them; because we can do nothing but depart farther and farther from him, until such time as his fatherly look prevent us of his own accord. −
In his name. The old interpreter hath, To his name, which is almost all one, though the preposition, it may be otherwise translated, to wit, For his name, or Upon his name. − (121) Neither shall the sense disagree, that the salvation of the Gentiles is grounded in the power or name of God, and that God did respect no other thing in calling them but his own glory; yet did I retain that which is more usual; to wit, that, in numbering them among his people, he would have them counted in his name, like as it shall be said shortly after, that his name is called upon by all those whom he gathereth together into his Church. The adverb of time, πρωτον, may be expounded two ways; if you read it, first, as the old interpreter and Erasmus have it, the sense shall be, that Cornelius and others were, as it were, the first fruits at whom God began the calling of the Gentiles; but it may be taken also comparatively, because there was already some token of the adoption of the Gentiles showed in Cornelius and his cousins, before that Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles. And I do better like this latter sense. −
(120) −
“
Sibi praesse,” to take precedence of him.
(121) −
“
Propter,” on account of.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(13) James answered.The position which James the brother of the Lord (see Notes on Act. 12:17; and Mat. 12:46; Mat. 13:55) occupies in the Council is clearly that of pre-eminence, justifying the title of Bishop of Jerusalem, which later writers give him. No one speaks after him; he sum up the whole debate; he proposes the decree which is to be submitted to the Council for approval.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying,’
Once all had listened to the long account of what God had done through Barnabas and Paul, there was silence. They had been given much to think about. And there must have been a feeling of great relief when James, the Lord’s brother spoke up. They would know that he would give a balanced view, showing full respect to the Law of Moses.
The gathered assembly had listened with great respect to Peter, for they knew that he was one of those who had been chosen by the Lord Himself to be a guarantee and interpreter of truth, and had received a special anointing for that purpose. They were aware that along with the other Apostles he had been given the authority by Jesus to ‘bind things’ on earth (Mat 18:18), that is, to determine what should bind God’s people and what should not. Thus they had recognised that he had had the right to speak authoritatively.
They had listened to Barnabas and Paul, for Barnabas was their own representative whom they had sent to oversee affairs in Antioch, and they now knew Paul as a brother beloved. But they were not all convinced that the enthusiasm of these two might not have carried them too far.
But with equal respect to that shown to Peter would they listen to James, and some, who were not quite certain about Peter, would listen to him with even more respect. They well knew his holy life, and why he was named ‘James the Just’. They knew that he obeyed the law of Moses to the full, more than they all. They knew how much time he spent praying in the Temple. And they knew that he had been brought up with Jesus in his daily life, and had once known Him as a brother, and now knew Him well as his Lord. His words certainly had to carry special weight. Furthermore he was unquestionably one of the leading elders of the Jerusalem church, very much admired and looked up to, and very influential because of what he was. We can imagine a hush falling on the assembly, as he rose to speak. All knew what the crucial effect of this man’s words would be.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘Men, brethren, hearken to me.’
He called on them now, as his ‘brothers’, as those who were beloved in the Lord and precious to both His Lord and himself, to listen to what he had to say. There could be no doubt that his words would carry great weight. No one would be able to accuse James of having been carried away by new ideas and of not giving due respect to the Law. He was firmly rooted in the old as fulfilled in the new, and none was more faithful to both than he.
The picture we have of James here ties in with the James of the epistle. Very fervent for the Law and yet very clear on central Christian principles.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The proposal of James:
v. 13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
v. 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
v. 15. and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written,
v. 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up,
v. 17. that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
v. 18. Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world.
v. 19. Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles a returned to God,
v. 20. but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
v. 21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day. By the time Barnabas and Paul had finished their rehearsal of the success which attended their labors, the hearers could not have had any other impression but that the conversion of the Gentiles was a work of God, and that their discipleship, even without the observance of the ceremonial law, must necessarily he acceptable to Him. No one else, therefore, having asked for the privilege of the floor, James, that is, James the Just, the brother of the Lord, one of the pillars of the congregation at Jerusalem, according to common report its head after the removal of the apostles, arose and added the evidence of prophetical prediction to that of the facts presented by the previous speakers. Requesting the audience to listen carefully, he opened his remarks with a reference to the report of Peter: Simeon has explained in what manner God at first, from the beginning, resolved to gain a people out of the Gentiles unto His name, for the glory and praise of His holy name, and called by His name, as His children. With this fact agree the words of the prophets. Although James quotes only one of the prophets, he may either have had in mind the hook of the prophets or implied that the other prophets make similar statements. He quotes the words Amo 9:11-12 according to the Greek translation. There the Lord had promised to return after this, at the time fixed by Him in the future. He would then build anew, erect once more, the tent of David which had been destroyed, laid low. He does not speak of the Old Testament Church as the house of David, as in other places, but as a tent, a booth, a hut that had decayed and fallen into ruins. But this hut which was lying on the ground as though struck down by a storm the Lord wanted to build anew and to set upright again as the tabernacle of the New Testament. This rebuilding of the ruins took place in and through Jesus Christ, in order that those that remained of the people should seek the Lord most diligently, that the rest of men, that is, all the heathen, without respect of persons and of works, all upon whom His name is pronounced in the preaching of the Gospel, should strive to possess the blessings of the Lord. It was this Lord that was doing all these things, whose manner of performing them could not be gainsaid. For He was not in the habit of performing any of His works in a haphazard manner, but had worked according to definite plans from the beginning of the world. And He had made these facts known of old, from the beginning of the world. On the basis of this clear prophetical statement, whose fulfillment no one could deny after hearing the reports made to the assembly, James now ventured an opinion, not necessarily as the president of the meeting, but as a speaker that presents the result of his deliberations in the form of a resolution. He offered the motion that they should not trouble or molest in any way those people among the Gentiles that were turning to God, and had been accepted by Him in faith. But he suggested that letters be sent to them warning them against the contamination of idol worship, against committing fornication, against partaking of meat of strangled animals, and against eating blood, in the worship of idols was included idolatrous feasts, where meat was served that had been sacrificed to false gods. To some extent, also, the sins against the Sixth Commandment were practiced in connection with the temples of the idols, though these sins were prevalent otherwise as well, nameless breaches of the Christian law of purity taking place as a matter of fact. That is the will of God to the Christians of all times, that they avoid fornication and all uncleanness, and that they remain unspotted from the world and its lusts, including the unclean, idolatrous joys and delights of the world. But that James wanted to add the prohibition concerning the eating of animals that had been stunned or strangled without the loss of blood, and that of blood itself, Lev 17:13; Deu 12:16-23; Deu 15:23, was done for another reason. These practices had been forbidden in the Old Testament and were considered especially disgusting by the Jews, an abomination before the Lord. And the Jewish Christians had not yet been able to throw off this feeling of loathing and disgust, in the opinion of James, therefore, the Gentile Christians might well be asked to have some consideration for their Jewish brethren in this case. Christian charity demanded as much, especially where meals were eaten in common. James added, in concluding his speech, that Moses from ancient times had men in all cities that proclaimed him in the synagogues, since he was read in the services on every Sabbath, that is, his books were read and explained in the services. The chances were, therefore, that these Mosaic customs would be well known everywhere, and their non-observance might cause offense, as though the way of salvation in the New Testament were different from that of the Old. Then, also, there was danger that the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians would cease entirely unless the latter would be willing, for charity’s sake, to observe a decree which would make brotherly communion possible. And finally, those that still clung to the outward observance of the Mosaic customs need not be apprehensive, since Moses was at this time still being read. James knew very well that this would change in time, but did not propose to force the issue by tactless haste. Note: The draught which James proposed was not a Compromise resolution, as has been stated. It was not his opinion that the heathen Christians should indeed not be burdened with the entire Law of Moses, but only with certain ordinances. Even the smallest particle of the Mosaic Law, laid upon them as a condition of salvation, would have taken away the faith of the Christians in the free grace and mercy of the Savior. His suggestion was merely a proposal for the sake of Christian order, not to burden believing hearts, but to simplify the problem of uniting two races in the same congregations without the danger of continual friction. These directions did not concern the way of salvation, for this the Gentile Christians had learned from the Gospel.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Act 15:13. And after they had held their peace, The silence being renewed, the apostle James made a speech, in which he summed up the debate, and formed the question, to which they all unanimously agreed. Hence it is plain, that the matter was not determined by virtue of any superior authority in St. Peter; and it seems very providential that St. James should have made sucha speech on this occasion; and that he should have used the expression , I determine, Act 15:19 which, had it been found in St. Peter’s speech, would have been a much more plausible argument in favor of his weakly boasted supremacy, than the whole scripture now affords.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 15:13 . When these had finished speaking ( ), James, not the son of Alphaeus, but the brother of the Lord (Act 12:17 ), a strict legalist, and highly esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, delivered his address having reference to these matters ( ). He first confirmed, by a prophetic testimony, the divine call of the Gentiles brought into prominence by Peter (Act 15:13-17 ), and then made his conciliatory proposal for the satisfaction of both parties in concise, but all the more weighty language.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Chapter 50
Prayer
Almighty God, we thank thee that thou hast called us to stand still awhile and talk with thee. This is thy day oh that it might have no night! We would make it a day of elevation of soul, enlargement of faith, and drawing out of our best affections. This is no common time. In the morning of this day we see the Resurrection and the Life. We come to a grave, and find it emptied of the dead. The angels meet us, kind Heaven bows down its arch of light, and, behold,. the earth is touched with the subtle glory of the skies. This is the Lord’s day thou didst make it; upon it are the marks of thy fingers; this is the day of the opening of the gates of righteousness, and of high fellowship, of liberty, and of hope. To-day we begin the year of Sabbaths; may all the year be one long summer day. Give us the Morning Star. Shine upon us from between the Cherubim. Let the light of the sun be a dim splendour compared with the infinite glory that shall shine upon our inmost life. If thou dost inspire great prayers, it is because thou hast prepared great replies. Our prayer can never be equal to thine answer; where our prayer abounds, thy response doth much more abound so that we forget our little words in the infiniteness of thy benefactions. But have we not all things in Christ? Have we not in him unsearchable riches of wisdom, truth, grace, consolation, and hope? The Sun of Righteousness never sets; there is no night in his love, there is no slumber-time in all his watchfulness. The God of Israel neither slumbereth nor sleepeth; and as for Christ, he ever liveth to make intercession for us. We are rich, and yet know it not. We have all things, and yet is there a tone of reproach and discontent in our voices. Lord, increase our faith. Carry it onward to assurance, and from assurance to triumph yea, to victory upon victory, until we know not which is earth and which is heaven, because of the gracious transport which excites and thrills the soul. Grant us seasons of singular joy yea, of great uplifting and broadening of life so that we shall look down from high and sacred heights upon the day’s duties and the day’s mean trials and burdens. To every work may we go up by revelation, and it shall be done ere we touch it; to every suffering may we advance in the spirit of the Cross; then shall we glory in tribulation also. The Lord’s great comfort fill our hearts as the summer light fills the whole sky; may there be in us no darkness at all; may our hope be bright as the morning, and our gladness high as the noontide. We would forget the past except as an inspiration; we would not lay again foundations, but arise and build; we would be better men. We would have deeper holiness, tenderer sympathy, wiser realization of truth and doctrine. Thou knowest our frame, thou rememberest that we are dust, and thou art always fashioning us out of the dust that we may become men in Christ Jesus. He is the Son of man; he is the Saviour of man; he shed his blood for man; may we live through him, in him, and for him, and then, death’s cold shadow past, we shall live with him. Grant to all the old men here a renewal of youth; may they forget their three-score years and more in the warmth of a New Year’s Sabbath morning. Take up all the little children that are here, and kiss them into beauty. Speak to all the men of business who are here, and show them that the bread unleavened with dishonesty makes the best sustenance. Comfort the weak; speak a word to him that is ill at ease; be the counsel of those who are entering upon new schemes, undertaking strange adventures, or entering into unfamiliar enterprises. Go with our loved ones on long journeys by land and sea; keep them, give them gladness of heart by the way, and a safe return to the love that awaits them. Succor those who are so sick that we cannot help them. Come thyself Maker, Healer, Redeemer of Life and let thy blessing make up the lack of our ability. Amen.
Act 15:13-29
13. And after they had held their peace [G. became silent] James answered [Act 12:17 , James, the brother of the Lord not the son of Alpheus answers the messengers of Antioch as the president of the meeting. Note how fatally conclusive this whole narrative is against the primacy of Peter], saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
14. Symeon [ Luk 24:34 Hebrew form of Simon] hath rehearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:
16. After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and I will build again the ruins thereof.
17. and I will set it up: that the residue of men [Luke translates freely from the lxx. The Hebrew text has “residue of Edom,” i.e., those whom Amaziah ( 2Ki 14:7 ) had left unsubdued. But the idea on which James’s argument rests is supplied by the next clause] may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,
18. who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world [“saith the Lord who doeth,” i.e., accomplishes “these things,” is the Hebrew close of Amo 9:11 , Amo 9:12 . Either the Hebrew text James quoted from memory, or the lxx. text Luke translated from may have had the addition ” things known from the beginning of the world.” Or, this may be a remark of James or Luke. The idea is, that God is doing nothing new or strange to him when he thus brings in the Gentiles].
19. Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble [G. “burden”] not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God;
20. but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols [ Exo 34:15 ], and from fornication [ so common among Gentile idolaters, that the abstaining therefrom would appear rather a ritual than an ethical change], and from what is strangled, and from blood [( Gen 9:6 ). These regulations were not equivalent to the “seven precepts of Noah,” observed by “devout” Gentiles, but simply avoidances of heathen ritual rendered necessary by the heathen of that time].
21. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath [and so the Jews and devout persons attending these synagogues would be scandalized if these four points were not strictly observed].
22. Then it seemed good to [ Act 15:25 and Act 15:28 . This commonest of Greek phrases has been made into an ecclesiastical formula by the hierarchists] the apostles and the elders [G. has no comma], with the whole church, to choose men [ Act 15:25 ] out of their company [out of the church meeting], and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas called Barsabbas [mentioned only in this passage], and Silas [Silvanus, 1Pe 5:12 ], chief men [Luk 22:26 ; lit.: leaders] among the brethren:
23. and they [those who chose, i.e., the meeting] wrote thus by them [G. “by their hand,” i.e., sent this letter with and by means of them]. The apostles and the elder [hierarchist copiers have omitted the following words “and the” in many MSS. Sahidic 34 omits also “brethren”; Tischendorf retains “and the brethren”; but our Revisers have followed the hierarchists. Were this unprecedented Greek phrase possible at all, the adjective would be very emphatic. “The Elder brethren.” Or, as the Americans suggest, it may be imagined to mean, “the Elders: brethren,” i.e., the Apostles and the Elders in their capacity of brethren (church members) greet the Gentile brethren (the churches at Antioch, etc.). The meaning given by the Revisers’ reading (comp. Act 15:24 ) is that the “subverters” having falsely alleged the authority of the Apostles and the Elder brethren, the Antiochian Church sent the deputation to sift this allegation, and now the Jerusalem Church sends back two of its own members, sending with and by them a letter, in which the Apostles and the Elder brethren explicitly deny the “subverters'” report concerning themselves. Tischendorf is, however, right. Read harmoniously with Act 15:22 , “the Apostles and the Elders and the brethren,” i.e., the church] unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting [G. “Rejoice!”].
24. Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us [Gal 2:4 , Paul styles them “false brethren.” Incontestably they were not either apostles or elders, as the hierarchical gloss of the Revisers implies, but Jerusalem Church members, “From us” is equivalent to “their company” of Act 15:22 ] have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment;
25. it seemed good unto us [the event of Act 15:22 is being related here] having come to one accord [Act 15:7 , Act 15:12 ], to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26. men that hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27. We [ Act 15:22 ] have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth.
28. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost [G. no comma], and to us [note how similarly Paul, being sent on this errand by the Antiochian Church, says he “went up by revelation.” For the question who were the “us,” see also Act 15:20 , “that we write,” etc., and the “brethren” of Act 15:13 ], to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary [ i.e., of present necessity; things rendered indispensable by the circumstances of the heathen cities] things;
29. that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols [“concerning” which see 1Co 8 , and, for the general principle of these four temperance pledges, the last verse], and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [put here separately last, with sense of the graver ethical point involved]; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well,
The Decision of the Council
WE now come to the conclusion of the whole matter. Some decision must be pronounced upon the vexed question which we have been considering, and that decision cannot but be of vital historical importance. This was a crisis in the history of the Church. The very greatest disasters might have befallen the Christian cause at this critical time. The man who, humanly speaking, saved the Church was Paul. From a human standpoint I have no doubt whatever that the Christian cause would have been lost in that furious debate but for this chosen vessel of the Lord. There was in him a fine spirit of conciliation as to manners and methods and usages; but when it came to the liberty of Christ, and the independence of the Church, he stiffened into inflexibility, and he “gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.” He was no circumcisionist, no baptist, no ritualist; he would let nothing stand between the soul and Christ, or between Christ and the soul; and the soul having begun in the faith, was not allowed to conclude in the letter having begun in the Spirit, it must not conclude in the flesh. The maxim of Paul was Upward, higher still from one attainment to another, without coming back to do anything that could minister to the desire of the flesh or the vanity of the eye.
The little picture that is before us enables us to look a little into the detail of early Church life. We have seen how high the controversy ran; there was no small dissension and disputing; every man thought he saw the truth and knew it, and sometimes the dust was so vast and” thick that we could scarcely tell how the fight was going. In the fact that there was full discussion of the question, let us recognize the place of human thought and human independence in the consideration of Christian problems. We may all speak; no man is to be put down who speaks upon a question sincerely: every man who is not speaking intelligently or sincerely will put himself down. I know of nothing in the record which would justify us in supposing that men were hooted down on whatever side they were speaking. In modern Christian controversy we have all seen lamentable spectacles in relation to this very matter of putting men down. I have never been ashamed of the Christian cause more deeply and insufferably than when I have heard an orthodox man employ a heterdox tone for the purpose of putting down an opponent. I have listened to the opponent and disagreed with nearly every sentence he uttered, and if the man who interrupted him had spoken, I might probably have agreed with every proposition he was seeking to establish; but, in my soul, having heard the tone of the one man and the tone of the other, I have said the heretic may have the heterodox doctrine, but he has the orthodox soul, and this man has called “time” in a tone which proves him to be a heretic in his heart. Take care how you maintain a good cause. I have seen an infidel display a nobler spirit than has been shown by his nominally Christian antagonist. We stand not in the word only, but in the spirit: the Gospel must be preached in its own key. We may spoil the music of heaven by the harshness of a poor and selfish tone. So far as I can gather from the narrative, then, the discussion was full, impartial, and thorough. In the midst of all this due deference was paid to the apostles and elders, and the decision was pronounced by the President or Bishop. All things were done decently and in order. Decency and order are not accidents in chronology they belong to the fixed calendar of progress, and are always in date, and when they are wanting the sanctuary is turned into a common place of assembly. Throughout all this intellectual and spiritual tumult there was a line of order, a spirit of decency; every man was heard, and when every man had expressed himself, the proceedings were summed up, and sentence was delivered not in the terms of the Bishop’s own choosing, but in words which seemed to gather up into themselves the common sentiment of the excited and earnest assembly. That is our notion of the Christian Church.
This little picture marks the beginning of Christian liberty. A wrong step here, and Christian liberty would have been lost. Paul was raised up at the very moment of time. He who made havoc of the Church kept it together; it was an arm terrific, whether to strike or to build its energy was superhuman. Paul enlightened the whole Church even James himself became almost a poet under the inspiration of this new voice. James quoted prophecies with a new tone and emphasis; under the teaching and illumination of Paul’s ministry the horizon of James widened, until he dwelt no longer in the ecclesiastical cage, but ranged the whole liberty of God’s boundless firmament! Sometimes the Church needs inspiration more than information. When the grate is full of fuel, what is wanting is not more fuel, but a light. James began to see that Christian liberty was founded on prophecy, “and to this,” said he, “agree the words of the prophets.” How did James become so great a man all of a sudden? Because he had touched the Pauline spirit. Great men make great men. He who walketh with the wise becomes wise. No man could become less who held fellowship with Paul. The Apostle always saw some higher height, and always urged the soul on to some nobler liberty. Whilst many wanted to remain behind, cutting themselves with circumcision, washing and plunging and sprinkling themselves in baptism, he seemed to take hold of them, and say, “Halt!” “Why, yes,” said he, parenthetically, “there were one, or two, or three whom I baptized, but the circumstance was so transient that I paid no attention to it, for I have been sent to preach the Gospel.” When our leading men become entangled in alphabets, conjugations, tenses, and declinings; when they begin to betake themselves to “standing orders” and “by-laws,” I know not in what terms to describe the disaster. Christian liberty was also attested by facts, as well as founded on prophecy. There was no novelty in it; what we think is novelty has been in the Bible all the time. As we have often said, we do not need a new Bible; we need new readers. Inspired books prove their inspiration by always revealing some new aspect of truth, some new phase of beauty. It was actually found that in the Old Testament this very question had been settled. In every synagogue Moses was read, and nobody understood him. Paul did not add one single line to the revelation; he only said, “Brethren read it so.” And after he read it, the Bishop of Jerusalem said, “Why, the question has been settled from immemorial time I see it now.” This man has caused the Bishop of the letter to burn with the fire and presence of the spirit. There are no new liberties. Even your Acts of Parliament, in so far as they are good, are only transcripts of the Bible. We may have references in the readings, and marginal notes, but here in God’s Volume is the great stream of thought, doctrine, liberty, out of which all that is good in collateral directions flows.
This little picture not only shows us early Church life, and not only shows us the beginning of Christian liberty, it also shows us the right way of treating new converts. Here we do need instruction. The Apostles taught new converts the doctrine of abstention; according to the teaching of the Apostles, new converts were to begin by not doing things. The trouble with our new converts in some instances is, that they are converted on Monday, and that on Tuesday they are promoted to eminences compared with which the elevation of Paul was a very small advancement. The Apostle said, “Brethren Gentiles, you will do well to begin by not doing certain things.” For example, in every Gentile’s house, other things being equal, there were figures of idols, figures of gods, castings of deities. When the Gentile entered into his house, and passed in, he uncovered his head, or he made obeisance in some way he acknowledged the stone god that was in his house; he may have held his food before the god prior to eating it himself. The apostles and elders, and the whole Church at Jerusalem, said to the Gentiles, “We do not want you to grind your stone idols to powder, but we want you to abstain from paying any religious attention to them. Regard them as works of art; but let there be no religious distance between them and you except the distance that ought to intervene between an immortal man and a stony figure.” The Gentiles were accustomed to have many wives; the Apostles laid their interdict upon polygamy. The Gentiles were accustomed to follow certain savage rites and customs; the Apostles desired that these arrangements might be abandoned. Therefore, I say, they began with the new converts by imposing a discipline of abstention. That is where we ought to begin. I do not say to a young heart, “Are you perfect?” I should thereby discourage the modest, self-distrustful soul. Rather would I say, “Do you want to be better?” And if the answer is a healthy “Yes; please God, I should like to be better,” that will do to begin with. Let no man vex you with words, seeking to subvert your souls by making metaphysical problems of the redeeming blood of Christ and love of God. The Apostles were content if men began by doing that which is well; that is all they said in their letter, which concludes with these words: “from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well.” We might have lived in the apostolic days, say some of us; we would have felt warmer in soul if we had lived under apostolic rays than under modern criticism. The Apostles would have said to some of us, “You shall abstain from strong drink”; to others of us, “You shall keep away from exciting we will not say demoralizing amusements.” The Apostles would have said to others of us, “You shall go regularly to church.” If this were called legalism, the Apostles were accustomed to be stoned, and they thought nothing of it. If this were called morality, legality, the doctrine of merits, and of self-righteousness, the Apostles would not have been afraid to go to their duty, even though they had to go to it through the dangers of a hail-storm. The men who were accustomed to walk out under tempests of thunderbolts made but small account of hailstones of unintelligent and narrow criticism.
Thus would I speak this New Year Sabbath morning, to some who feel as if they needed a word of encouragement, because they could not go to the inner places of the sanctuary. Will you make me your teacher and drill-master in the sanctuary for one little day? Then I accept the appointment, and I begin in your case by telling you what you are not to do. Come now; I am not a hard task-master, am I? You said you wanted to be better; you supplied the initial ground. I only stand upon it, and instead of burdening you with great weights, and chafing you with unfamiliar yokes, and perplexing you by high intellectual exercises, I begin by saying to you, “Thou shalt not.” Come to me at the end of a month, and tell me that you have kept the law, and I shall say, “You have done well.” Next month I may appoint you something to do. We must grow; we cannot shoot up into men in one short Sabbath day. Some of us must be fed with milk as babes, because we are children and not men. Do not expect too much of newborn souls. I would rather suspect the newborn souls that are precocious especially if they turn their precocity into the criticism of their seniors. Men who are newly born into Christ’s kingdom must be treated as little children are; and the first lesson to the child is “Thou shalt not.”
This little picture shows some of the happier aspects of controversy. But for this controversy, who knows when Paul and James might have been brought together? And after the controversy was over, the Bishop writes these words: “Our beloved Barnabas and Paul.” That was a happy ending of controversy. James wrote more than that. James looked at the question partly from the characters of the men who had sustained one side of it, and he called them “men that have hazarded their lives for our Lord Jesus Christ.” So judge in every controversy. I have never known an infidel who was worthy to be spoken of in the same moment with the Apostle Paul. Against him were men sincere but uninformed, and also false brethren who crept in privily unawares. From them he separates himself by the infinite diameter of self-sacrifice and a heroic devotion to a cause so much greater than himself.
In all such cases ask who the men are? What have they done? What have they suffered? On the other side you will find “men who have hazarded their lives.” This proof of devotion must go for something in the exciting controversy. It is not enough to be clever; we must be true. It is not sufficient to imagine speculative difficulties; we must live a life of unselfish devotion. The man who does most to enlighten human darkness, mitigate human distress, and comfort human hearts, is more likely to be true and sound in spiritual philosophy and doctrine than the man who is only critical and not self-sacrificing. The Bible heroes of this kind claim the confidence beyond all other men that have lived their doctrine, their testimony, brought them martyrdom; they shrank not from the fire which sealed their sincerity and proved their conscientiousness. What have we done for the Lord Jesus? Come now, we will put it down on paper and look at it. I will be scribe, you dictate. I am waiting what, not one line? Have we not begrudged every penny we ever gave him? Have we not begun our economies by pinching the bread of Christ? Have we not kept Him waiting at the door past midnight when the dews were falling thickly upon him? Have we not neglected his house on the smallest pretexts? We who have stood for hours in the rain to see a man perform a trick and deliver the poetry of another man have we not neglected Christ’s house because of the weather? We in whose cellars are dozens of choice wine have we not neglected Christ’s poor? Could we choose an epitaph, what would be so sublime as this: “A man who hazarded his life for the Lord Jesus”? Heaven might be condemned as too short of beauty and light for such a tenant. Methinks God’s omnipotence would be moved to make some nobler heaven for heroism so sublime!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Ver. 13. James answered ] Who seemed to be a pillar, Gal 2:9 , and was so, both of the college of apostles and of the Church at Jerusalem.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13. ] , viz. Paul and Barnabas. Both had spoken : doubtless wonders, unrecorded, had been wrought by the hand of Barnabas, which he had recounted.
] See note, ch. Act 12:17 , and the prolegg. to the epistle of James. I assume here, that this is James the Just, the brother of the Lord, the author of the Epistle: and though an (Gal 1:19 ; see also note on ch. Act 14:4 ), not one of the twelve. If we may presume to judge from the character of his Epistle, to say nothing of the particulars which tradition has handed down concerning him, his decision would come with remarkable weight on this occasion. For he is, among all the sacred writers of the N. T., the representative of the strictest adherence to and loftiest appreciation of the pure standard of legal morality . All that the law was, from its intrinsic holiness, justice, and goodness ( Rom 7:12 ), capable of being to Christians, he would be sure to attribute to it. And therefore when his judgment , as well as that of Peter, is given in favour of the freedom of the Gentiles, the disputers, even of the Pharisaic party, are silenced. There does not seem to be in the following speech any decision ex cathedra , either in the , or in the ( Act 15:19 ): the decision lay in the weightiness, partly no doubt of the person speaking, but principally of the matter spoken by him.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 15:13 . ., i.e. , after Barnabas and Paul had ceased speaking. . . .: his speech may be divided into two parts: (1) reference to the prophecy foretelling the reception of the Gentiles; (2) his opinion on the conditions of that reception. . : only here and in Jas 2:5 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
held their peace. Same as kept silence in Act 15:12.
James. See note on Act 12:17.
answered. App-122.
hearken unto = hear. Same word as “gave audience” in Act 15:12, and “hear”, verses: Act 15:7, Act 15:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] , viz. Paul and Barnabas. Both had spoken: doubtless wonders, unrecorded, had been wrought by the hand of Barnabas, which he had recounted.
] See note, ch. Act 12:17, and the prolegg. to the epistle of James. I assume here, that this is James the Just, the brother of the Lord, the author of the Epistle: and though an (Gal 1:19; see also note on ch. Act 14:4), not one of the twelve. If we may presume to judge from the character of his Epistle, to say nothing of the particulars which tradition has handed down concerning him, his decision would come with remarkable weight on this occasion. For he is, among all the sacred writers of the N. T., the representative of the strictest adherence to and loftiest appreciation of the pure standard of legal morality. All that the law was, from its intrinsic holiness, justice, and goodness (Rom 7:12), capable of being to Christians, he would be sure to attribute to it. And therefore when his judgment, as well as that of Peter, is given in favour of the freedom of the Gentiles, the disputers, even of the Pharisaic party, are silenced. There does not seem to be in the following speech any decision ex cathedra, either in the , or in the (Act 15:19): the decision lay in the weightiness, partly no doubt of the person speaking, but principally of the matter spoken by him.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 15:13. , after that) All things were done in order.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Men and brethren
Dispensationally, this is the most important passage in the N.T. It gives the divine purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next.
(1) The taking out from among the Gentiles of a people for His name, the distinctive work of the present, or church-age. The church is the ecclesia–the “called-out assembly.” Precisely this has been in progress since Pentecost. The Gospel has never anywhere converted all, but everywhere has called out some.
(2) “After this viz. the out-calling I will return.” James quotes from Amo 9:11; Amo 9:12. The verses which follow in Amos describe the final regathering of Israel, which the other prophets invariably connect with the fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant (e.g.); Isa 11:1; Isa 11:10-12; Jer 23:5-8.
(3) “And will build again the tabernacle of David,” i.e. re-establish the Davidic rule over Israel 2Sa 7:8-17; Luk 1:31-33.
(4) “That the residue of men Israelites may seek after the Lord” cf Zec 12:7; Zec 12:8; Zec 13:1; Zec 13:2.
(5) “And all the Gentiles,” etc. cf Mic 4:2; Zec 8:21; Zec 8:22. This is also the order of Rom 11:24-27.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
after: 1Co 14:30-33, Jam 1:19
James: Act 12:17, Act 21:18, Mar 15:40, Gal 1:19, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12, Jam 1:1
Men: Act 2:14, Act 2:22, Act 2:29, Act 7:2, Act 22:1
Reciprocal: Mat 10:3 – James Mar 3:18 – James Luk 6:15 – James Act 1:13 – James Act 1:16 – Men
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Plan and Purpose of God
Act 15:13-21
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We are once more back in Jerusalem in attendance at the council called by the Church at Jerusalem to consider the demands of certain from the sect of the Christian Pharisees, who were demanding that the Gentile believers should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.
In our last study we discovered that much disputing had, at the first, arisen. Afterward Peter had stood up and declared how God had by his mouth preached the Gospel unto the Gentiles in Caesarea, and how they had been saved and received the Holy Ghost the same as the Jews. Following Peter, Barnabas and Paul had been called to address the conference, and they detailed before the assemblage the marvelous miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
When the two missionary travelers had concluded their narrations, James arose to speak.
We have just read the words with which James addressed the gathering. It is our purpose, as God enables us, today, to consider a part of these words that are so freighted with meaning-words particularly vital to us in these the closing days of this age.
I. JAMES HAD NO HESITANCY IN DISCLOSING THE PLAN AND PURPOSE OF GOD IN THIS AGE OF GRACE
There are some who have never been able to distinguish between one dispensation and another, imagining that God always works the same in every age.
There are others, of whom we are one, who plainly see various stages in man’s history, in which God is working under distinctive and different methods in order to give men every opportunity of love, light and life.
There are some who delight in quoting from Hebrews this blessed and true word of inspiration: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” “Yesterday,” reaches back into the eternal past; “to day,” encompasses the great present, in which we now live and move; while “for ever,” enters into those eternal ages to come wherein God will reveal the exceeding riches of His grace.
This quotation from Hebrews is particularly used by those who teach Divine healing, as though Jesus Christ healed the same today as when He was upon the earth. However, if such an application be made, the good brethren who so claim should press back of Christ’s earth life, and insist that He healed the same from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses to Christ. Yea, they must look back as far as God’s “yesterday” looks back. They must go into the eternal ages of old, when the eternal Son was with the Father before the world was.
Then, again, the men who force this verse into the realm of present-day methods of Divine healing, must not stop in their application of healing methods with this age of grace. They must also go on into the age of the “thousand years,” and then go beyond into the glories of the New Jerusalem, and so on, through God’s eternal for evermore. “Yesterday” looks back beyond any age known to man; “for ever,” looks on beyond any age known to man,-ages which will be revealed in their time.
Now let us wait a moment. Let no one report that we do not believe in Divine healing, for such is not the case. We believe in the James instructions for this age. These are found in Jam 5:13-16.
However, Divine healing is not the issue just now. The issue is this-are there distinctive ages in which God, in Christ, works in different ways? Does Heb 13:8, the verse we have just quoted, teach that Christ is the same very God of very God; the same in attributes, the same in love, and holiness, and in righteousness in every age,-from everlasting unto everlasting; or, does it teach that Christ works the same in every age, from everlasting to everlasting.
Let us not force Scripture out of its true statement, in order to bolster up some doctrine we wish to enforce. Even if Christ does heal the same in every age, “yesterday, and to day, and for ever,” let us not endeavor to emphasize that fact from a Scripture that does no more than to say that He is the same.
James is not slow to assert the fact of distinctive plans for distinctive ages. The truth is that James, under the teaching of the Spirit, saw that the whole trouble that faced the Church in Jerusalem, had been brought about by the failure of some of the saints to discern God’s “plan of the ages” and to force upon another, and a succeeding age, the religious ceremonials and laws that were in force in another and a preceding age.
We hinted this before-we now press it farther-the whole of the disputations and dissensions among the early believers concerning circumcision, and Mosaic Law-works, was brought about by a failure to rightly divide the Word of Truth.
We say this also,-much, yea, most of the quibbling and quarreling among orthodox saints today is due to the same sad defect-a failure to recognize distinctive dispensations, in which God deals under distinctive methods with men.
The Christ we worship is the same, but the ceremonials in which we acknowledge Him may differ. The creed as to Christ’s ceremonials which substantiate that creed, may change.
Why go back into the age under Law, to enforce upon an age under Grace, the symbolical ordinance of the Sabbath. If the Sabbath was given to the Jews and to the Jews only, and was given to them as a sign between them and their God throughout their generations,-then, why seek to enforce it upon the Gentiles and upon the Church?
Thank God for the conference in Jerusalem! Thank God for the Apostle James! What clear insight he had into the plans and purposes of God! May God anoint our eyes with eyesalve that we also may see.
II. JAMES PLAINLY DECLARED THE AGE-BOUNDARY THAT MARKS THE MINISTRATIONS OF THE CHURCH
Here is the way James bounded this age-“God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name; * * After this I will return.”
In this remarkable sentence James makes plain two vital truths.
1. The Church Has a Particular Age Boundary.
2. The Church Has a Definite Age Mission.
We will take up only the first of these two.
The Church has a particular age boundary. We use the word Church, although James did not use it. James used the word, “Gentiles.” However the Lord is visiting the Gentiles and taking out of them a people through the ministrations of the Church-to this all will agree.
Some, however, may ask, “Where do you get from the words of James any particular age boundary?-that is, where does James express that the Church had a definite age-beginning, or that the Church will have a definite age-ending. We get it from the statement, “God at the FIRST did,” coupled with the statement, “After this I will return.”
From the time that the vail of the Temple was rent in twain, God turned to the Gentiles. This occurred at the death of Christ. Before the death of Christ, under the age of Mosaic Law, Christ held His ministry to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. After His resurrection Christ gave command, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” He also said, “”Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.” That was the beginning of the message of: salvation to all men. That was the time when witnessing was to begin in Jerusalem and reach on through Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
But will the word and work of the Church have a time ending? It will. When? When the Lord comes to take the Church to Himself. James made this plain in his statement, “After this I will return,” saith the Lord.
The age-boundary of the Church, in which God turns to the Gentiles is plainly outlined by James; it is also emphasized in other Scriptures. Let us note a few of these:
1. Mat 23:37-39.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her kings, and ye would not!
“Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
“For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Mat 23:37-39).
Note the word till. Jerusalem’s house was to be left desolate, but not for ever. It has been desolate for two thousand years; it is desolate now, although, thank God, there are some marks of the renaissance that must surely come to the chosen nation. However, her restoration will not come in any abiding sense till Christ comes again and Israel shall say, “Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.”
The till of these verses cover the period of Israel’s desolation. The Church, to be sure, is not mentioned, and yet, no one will deny that it is during this same age boundary (lying between the leaving desolate of Israel’s House, and its final restoration), that the Church is carrying on.
2. Luk 21:20-28. We give here only a part of these marvelous words:
“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring:
“Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
“And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” (Luk 21:20, Luk 21:24-27).
What have we here? First of all, we have Israel’s desolation; her being led captive into all of the nations; her being trodden down. All who know of Jerusalem’s history, know that these words have met a literal fulfilment. They know also that Jerusalem and the Jews are still under the heel of the Gentiles. Shall this continue for ever? Impossible. Listen once more to the inerrant word of prophecy as we see what else is here in Luke’s words: “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Not for ever, but until.
Once more the Church is not mentioned, yet we all know that the Church is filling in the gap, and giving her testimony, during this age of Gentile supremacy. We have not yet proved that the Church age covers only the times of the Gentiles, and that when that time runs out the Church will be taken up, and the Children of Israel grafted in again: but we have shown that Israel’s “being trodden down” is only during the times of the Gentiles.
3. Rom 11:25-27.
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
“For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom 11:25-27).
Once more we have the striking word until. Blindness in part is to happen unto Israel, but not for ever and ever and ever; but only until the fulness of the Gentiles come in.
In our preceding verse we had the times of the Gentiles; now we have the fulness of the Gentiles. The word times and fulness both cover the same age boundary; but “times” refers to the whole period during which the Gentiles are to tread down Jerusalem; while “fulness” refers to the out-gathering from among the Gentiles which shall be garnered in before the “times” of the Gentiles can run out.
Here then we have a most decided reference to the Church, but not by name. The whole eleventh chapter of Romans is given to the discussion of Israel’s casting off, or “breaking off” under an answer to the query, “Hath God cast away His people?” The chapter says that Israel’s fall became the riches of the world, and that her diminishing became the riches of the Gentiles.
Israel was a branch broken off from God’s olive tree; the Church was grafted in, and made to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree. However, remember God’s Word-“For God is able to graft them in again.” It is therefore easy to grasp the succeeding statement, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
None need doubt now that Israel’s rejection lies between Calvary and Olivet, between the Cross and the Second Coming, and that, during that same period of time the Church will make God known among men.
4. 1Co 11:23-26.
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
“After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1Co 11:23-26).
Here we have the Church in a very definite way, for Paul in the Spirit writes, “When ye come together in the church”-this is in 1Co 11:18. Then in connection with the Church and her observance of the Lord’s Supper, we have that same striking, “till.” “Ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come.”
The Church gathers around the Supper Table with, as it were, a great rainbow of promise stretching over its head, and marking the period in which the supper is to be observed. One end of the rainbow touches the hill of Calvary, it rests on the Cross; the other end of the rainbow touches Mount Olivet, it rests on the place of the Lord’s Return.
Thus, the Lord’s Supper sets the age boundary of the Church, the same as the three Scriptures noted before, set the age boundary of Israel’s casting off.
How marvelous to consider that the until and the till of Mat 23:1-39, Luk 21:1-38 and Rom 11:1-36, covers the same age limitations as the till of 1Co 11:1-34.
Our conclusion is in evidence-Israel is broken off, trodden down, desolate until. The Church is grafted in, shewing forth the Lord’s death, until. That is, while Israel is in chastisement, scattered among the nations, with her harps hung on the willow trees of weeping; the Church is making God and grace known to the world. The Church is occupying only until He come.
5. Luk 19:11-13.
“And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
“He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
“And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come” (Luk 19:11-13).
Here is yet another “till.” This time it is “Occupy till I come.” The Lord describes Himself under the guise of a nobleman who is taking a journey into a far country to receive a Kingdom, and to return. He calls His servants and tells them to occupy while He is gone and until He returns.
The parable was given because the disciples thought that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear. Christ was making clear that His Kingdom must be received from His Father, and that for this He must go into the skies. Since He went away, nearly two thousand years have elapsed and yet He tarries. However, He will surely come and bring His rewards with Him.
It was just after this parable, with Christ’s command, “Occupy till I come,” that Christ was definitely rejected as King. While His disciples cast their clothes in the way, and hailed Him with a loud voice, saying, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the Name of the Lord”; yet some of the Pharisees from among the people said, “Master, rebuke Thy disciples.” Then it was that Jesus drew near and wept over Jerusalem, saying, “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, “Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
“For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side” (Luk 19:41-43).
Accordingly Israel was rejected, but not for ever. She shall yet return to her Lord, and a nation shall be born in a day.
Accordingly, also, the Church is “occupying,” but she shall occupy only until the Lord comes again and receives her unto Himself,-then she shall have a full reward.
We are now ready to take up the words spoken by James at the council in Jerusalem. James said, “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name. And to this agree the words of the Prophets * * After this I will return.”
What is James saying? He is saying that God is now dealing with the Gentiles, and will be so dealing until He returns to rebuild the Tabernacle of David which is fallen down.
Are we willing to grant what James is proclaiming?
Remember the occasion of James’ remark. There were certain of those who believed from among the Pharisees, These believers were trying to still carry on under the Jewish regime, and were insisting that the Gentile believers should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.
Peter had spoken showing that God had accepted the Gentiles apart from circumcision and Judaic rites, and filled them with the Spirit. Paul and Barnabas had spoken along much the same line, recounting the miracles and wonders that God had wrought among the Gentiles. Finally James is speaking, endorsing the position of Peter and showing that God was now visiting the Gentiles. James withal is contending that this position is in accord with the teaching of the Prophets. Therefore the Pharisees who believed were wrong in their demands, and Paul and Barnabas were right in refusing to place upon the Gentiles a Jewish yoke.
Let us be content to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and not endeavor to lay upon saints what God does not lay upon them. Let us examine our faith and see if we are caught in the same meshes that involved some of the early Christians. If we are so entangled we also are causing no end of trouble and confusion.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
3
Act 15:13. This James was not one of the twelve apostles, but he was a very outstanding man in the church at Jerusalem. (See the notes and references on the subject at chapter 12:17.) He was the next spokesman and his advice will be respected.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 15:13. And after they had held their peace, James answered. The discussion was closed by a very famous character in the early Church. James, the so-called brother of the Lord (see Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9), and the writer of the New Testament epistle which bears his name, who is generally supposed to have presided over this early Council, occupied a peculiar position of authority among the Jerusalem Christians. His history was a strange one. During the Lords earthly life, James, with the rest of His brethren seems to have been a disbeliever in His mission. He was converted by that appearance of the Risen One specially related by Paul (1Co 15:7),After that He was seen of James. At a comparatively early period of the Churchs history he appears to have been selected as the resident head of the Jerusalem community. He possessed two qualifications which marked him out for this peculiar distinction,his relationship after the flesh to the risen Jesus, and his faithful observance of the Mosaic law and ordinances, to which he seems to have added a rigorous asceticism. Hegesippus (in Eusebius, H. E. ii. 23) tells us he was holy from his mothers womb; he drank no wine nor strong drink, neither did he eat flesh; no razor ever touched his head, he did not anoint himself with oil, he did not use the bath; he alone was allowed to enter into the holy place, for he wore no wool, but only fine linen; and he would enter into the temple alone, and be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for the people. This traditionary account, although very ancient, must be accepted with considerable reservation. Still, his surname of the just or righteous, by which name he was generally known in the records of the early Church, is a witness that he was, if not the stem ascetic of the tradition above quoted, at least a rigid observer of the Mosaic ritual and law. It has been happily remarked by Dr. Schaff (History of the Apostolic Church, vol. i. book I), that the influence of James was altogether necessary. He, if any, could gain the ancient chosen nation in a body. God placed such a representative of the purest form of Old Testament piety in the midst of the Jews to make their transition to the faith of the Messiah as easy as possible, even at the eleventh hour. But when they refused to hear this last messenger of peace, the Divine forbearance was exhausted, and the fearful, long-threatened judgment broke upon them. He was not to outlive the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Shortly before it (according to Hegesippus), in the year 69, after having borne powerful testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, he was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple and stored by the Pharisees. His last words were, I beg of Thee, Lord God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. He was buried by the temple. Eusebius and also Josephus speak of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem being looked upon by many of the Jews as a punishment for what they had done to James the Just.
Saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. In bringing the discussion to a close, James pointed out that Simon Peter had related how, years before, God had signified His good pleasure in regard to the Gentiles,Out of these, too, would a people be chosen; and this determination of the Most High agreed with the words of the prophetsas, for instance, with the closing sayings of Amos, who wrote of the ultimate calling home of the Gentiles. As neither the ancient prophets nor the more recent declarations of the will of Godwhile plainly announcing this admission of many Gentiles into the pale which enclosed Gods peoplesaid anything respecting the duty of observing the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, his view, as president of the Council, was: that these strangers ought not to be troubled with these burdens; only, for loves sake not to offend too deeply the tender consciences of scrupulous Jews, with whom they would frequently come in contact, and at the same time to give them a general rule of life which would preserve them from the worst pollutions of the Pagan world around them, he recommended a very few general restrictive rules of life, which these Gentiles might honestly observe without breaking off or even endangering their relations with the world in which they lived and worked.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The excellent order in which this grand debate was managed by the apostles; they do not break in upon one another like proud magisterial talkers, so full of themselves that they could not hear one another speak; but while one speaks, all the rest silently and attentively hear, no one stopping another by rude and uncivil interruption: After they had held their peace, James answered.
Observe, 2. The third and last speech uttered at this council at Jerusalem, was by St. James, the bishop, and residentiary apostle of the place; James said, Hearken unto me.
Where note, 1. He puts the council in mind of the special favour and grace of God in sending the gospel among the Gentiles, which he calls his visiting of them; and the design of God in that gracious visitation, namely, to take out of the Gentile world a people for his name.
Hence learn, 1. That when God gives his gospel to a people, he gives that people a merciful and gracious visitation.
2. That God’s design in visiting a nation with and by the gospel, is to take out of them, and from amongst them, a people for his name; that is, a people to call upon his name, a people to be called by his name, and a people to honour and glorify, to advance and magnify, his holy name.
Note, 2. With what wisdom and caution St. James, the president of the council, proceeds in the final deciding of this controversy: he proposes a mean betwixt the two extremes, between those that would have all the Mosaic rites imposed, and those that would have none at all: designing by this medium that neither the Jews should be too much offended, nor the Gentiles too heavily burdened; but brotherly love between both be maintained and preserved.
Note, 3. How St. James, in deciding of this controversy, appeals to scripture, ver. 15. to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. Not to the authority of the council: the holy canon of the scriptures ought to overrule all debates; this is the infallible judge, which all the councils are to appeal to, and none must presume to appeal from.
Note, lastly, That the sum of the council’s determination came to this, “That circumcision should not be imposed upon the Gentiles; that the Gentiles nevertheless should so far judaize, or comply with the Jews, as to abstain from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood, and from fornication.” All which are called indifferent things, because the three first were made so by the death of Christ, (after which there was to be no more distinction, either of meats or nations,) and the fourth, namely, fornication, is reckoned amongst the indifferent things; because the Gentiles, though falsely, did think and speak it to be so; Non est flagitium adolescentem scortari.
To prevent therefore giving offence to the Jews, the Gentiles are required to abstain from these things, till time and fuller acquaintance with the gospel did better inform them concerning their Christian liberty.
From this example learn, That whatever differences do arise in a church about tolerable matters, and indifferent things, the nearest course to unity, and a charitable compliance, is for both parties to step towards, and meet one another; and what may be left at liberty without apparent prejudice to purity, to be left for peace sake.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
13-21. So far as recent indications of God’s will were concerned, the argument was now complete and unanswerable; but the Jewish mind was prone to an underestimate of passing events, while they looked back with superior reverence to the law and the prophets. The Apostle James, knowing that they would reject all possible cotemporaneous evidences, if they appeared to conflict with the written word, determined to close up this avenue of escape from the argument already presented by sustaining it with the authority of the prophets. (13) “And, after they were silent, James answered, saying, Brethren, hear me. (14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, (15) and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, (16) After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins, and set it upright, (17) that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. (18) Known to God from eternity are all his works. (19) Therefore, my judgment is, not to trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God; (20) but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols. and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” In this speech James shows that God, who knows from eternity what his own works would be, had foretold, through the prophet, the work which he was then performing through the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul. He had said that he would rebuild the tabernacle of David, in order that the residue of men, who had not known the Lord before, “even all the Gentiles, upon whom his name is called,” should seek after the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from among the Gentiles “a people for his name.” The prophesy clearly covered all the ground claimed for it, and made the argument complete.
There was room for no other conclusion than the one which James deduced, that they should impose on the Gentiles, so far as the class of restrictions under consideration were concerned, only those necessary things which were necessary independent of the Mosaic law. Idolatry, with all the pollutions connected with it, was known to be sinful before the law of Moses was given; and so was fornication. The eating of blood, and, by implication, of strangled animals, whose blood was still in them, was forbidden to the whole world in the family of Noah. In the restrictions here proposed by James, therefore, there is not the slightest extension of the law of Moses, but a mere enforcement upon the Gentiles of rules of conduct which had ever been binding, and were to be perpetual. They are as binding to-day as they were then. To deny this would be to despise the combined authority of all the apostles, when enjoining upon the Gentile world, of which we form a part, restrictions which they pronounce necessary. One would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gentiles, who had turned to the Lord, the sinfulness of fornication, did we not know that among heathen nations of antiquity it was deemed innocent, and even sometimes virtuous.
The controversy now pending, in reference to the identity of the Jewish Church with the Church of Christ, renders it necessary that we should here pay some special attention to one remark made by James in this speech. He applies the prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the “tabernacle of David” to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church, and it is hence argued that this prophesy contemplated a reconstruction and extension of the dilapidated Jewish Church, and not the construction of a new one. The whole argument turns upon the meaning of the expression “tabernacle of David.” If the metaphorical word tabernacle here means the Jewish Church, the argument would have force. But the Mosaic institution never sustained such a relation to David that it could, with propriety, be styled the “tabernacle of David.” If such had been the reference, the expression would undoubtedly have been, the tabernacle of Moses, which would have been unambiguous. But David was a king, and had a promise from God, that his “throne should be established forever;” that there should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel. This promise God confirmed with an oath, saying, “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” According to the apparent meaning of this promise, it had long since failed; for it had been many generations since a descendant of David had occupied his throne. It was during this period, in which the royal house of David was in ruins, that Amos uttered the prophesy, “I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; I will build again the ruins thereof, and set it upright.” The term tabernacle, therefore, must be put for the family who dwell in the tabernacle, and the reconstruction of it the re-establishment of the royal dignity which the family had lost. Hence, when the birth of Jesus was announced to Mary, the angel said: “The Lord shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Thus, the promise, when properly understood, is seen to refer neither to a continuous line of Jewish kings, descended from David, nor to a reconstruction of the Jewish Church, but to the perpetual reign of Jesus, the “seed of David according to the flesh.” When, therefore, Jesus sat down upon his throne in heaven, the tabernacle of David was rebuilt, and now, by the labors of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, the remainder of the prophesy of Amos was being fulfilled, by the extension of his kingdom among the Gentiles.
The closing paragraph of this speech appears, at first glance, to have no immediate connection with the preceding argument. But it was, doubtless, designed to anticipate an objection. The Pharisees might object, If you thus ignore the statue of Moses, his writings will fall into contempt, or be neglected by the people. No danger of this, says the speaker, for Moses is preached in every city, and read in the synagogues every Sabbath, and has been for generations past.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
13. Now James, the brother of our Lord and pastor of the Apostolic church at Jerusalem, rises after Peter and proceeds, delivering a number of focalized statements, which speak volumes appertaining to the gospel, church and human destiny.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Act 15:13-21. Speech of James.Who is this James? In Gal 2:9 Paul tells us of the agreement he made with James and Cephas and John. James and John in this account are prima facie to be taken as the two sons of Zebedee; when Paul refers to the other James he calls him the brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19). In Act 1:22 we were told of the murder of James, the brother of John. But the James here will be the same person, if Acts 15 is in the wrong place, and ought to stand before Act 15:12. His being the first martyr of the apostles proves his importance. [On the other hand see Act 12:1*. The importance of James the son of Zebedee is also rendered probable by the fact that he was one of the three disciples specially chosen by Jesus to be with Him on momentous occasions. Nevertheless in Ac. he has no prominence at all; we hear nothing of him but that he was martyred, and the fact is stated in the curtest way (how different from Stephens martyrdom!). Moreover, he is simply James the brother of John (Act 12:2).A. S. P.] In his speech here he says nothing about Paul and Barnabas nor about the church at Antioch; he goes back to the statement of Peter, here called by his Aramaic name of Simeon (in chs. 10f. we have several times Simon who is surnamed Peter, here only the Aramaic name), and accepts his story of how first the conversion of the Gentiles began, and finds in Amo 9:11 f. an explicit prediction that the dispersed of Israel should be gathered again, and not only they but the Gentiles also on whom His name is called. In Gal 2:9-12 James also is and remains an apostle of the Circumcision. His sentence is that no unnecessary trouble is to be put in the way of the Gentiles who enter the Church, but that a letter should be written setting forth the conditions on which they are received. There are some things they must give up: (a) Pollution of idols, i.e. participation in the sacrificial meals of the heathen; (b) Fornication; i.e. perhaps the impure acts done in the name of religion in idolatrous temples; but the word may cover impurity generally, which to the Gentile was no serious sin, but in the Church was entirely forbidden; (c) What is strangled, and blood, mean the same thing. The Jew might cat no meat from which the blood had not been drained away (Gen 9:4*). The synagogue still has its own butcher. Many witnesses (including D), omit things strangled; an omission which might point to a moral rather than a ritual interpretation of the decree. These prohibitions are to be a wall separating the life of the Church from Gentile life.
Act 15:21 probably means that it is unnecessary to say anything to the Jewish Christians about these points, which are familiar to them from their early life. D, with Latin copies, and some versions, give an addition to the decree, which is found also in Irenus; and what they would not have done to themselves, not to do to others, which is not a ritual but a moral injunction and suggests the moralising of the others also (p. 651). But the three members of the decree are more likely ritual; pollution of idols is a technical term (Mal 1:7-12).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 13
James; James the less,–James the brother of John having been slain. (Acts 12:1,2.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:13 And after they had held their peace, {g} James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
(g) The son of Alphaeus, who is also called the Lord’s brother.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
James’ testimony 15:13-21
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
James was Jesus’ half brother, the writer of the Epistle of James, and the leading figure in the Jerusalem church (Act 12:17; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:12). [Note: See Richard Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Church," in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 415-80.] "Simeon" was Peter’s older Jewish name. James’ use of it would have emphasized Peter’s Jewishness as well as implying affection for him. Peter had related the salvation experience of Cornelius, and James’ reference to "first" was to that experience near the beginning of the church.
". . . he showed how he felt about the question at issue by speaking of believing Gentiles as a ’people’ (laos) whom God had taken ’for himself’ (to onomati autou; lit., ’for his name’)-thus (1) applying to Gentile Christians a designation formerly used of Israel alone and (2) agreeing with Peter that in the conversion of Cornelius God himself had taken the initiative for a direct Gentile ministry." [Note: Longenecker, p. 446.]