Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
19. Wherefore my sentence is ] Lit. I decide. The pronoun is emphatically expressed, and indicates that the speaker is deciding with authority.
that we trouble not them ] The verb is only found here in N. T., and signifies to trouble by putting obstacles in the way of another. Thus the idea of the speaker is “We will not by needless impediments deter the new converts from joining us.”
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God ] The same phrase is used elsewhere in the Acts (cp. Act 9:35, Act 14:15, Act 26:20), but of the converts at Antioch (Act 11:21) the whole expression is “a great number believed and turned unto the Lord,” thus shewing what constituted the true turning unto God.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
My sentence – Greek: I judge krino that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion, or counsel.
That we trouble not them – That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress them by imposing on them unnecessary fires and ceremonies.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is] , Wherefore I judge. There is an authority here that does not appear in the speech of St. Peter; and this authority was felt and bowed to by all the council; and the decree proposed by St. James adopted.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
St. James here gives his opinion, confirming and approving what Peter had done in conversing with and baptizing of the Gentiles; whom he would not have afflicted or disturbed with such things as were not necessary, lest that it should hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and the church should lose the substance for a shadow.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Wherefore, my sentenceor”judgment.”
is, that we trouble notwithJewish obligations.
them which from among theGentiles are turned to Godrather, “are turning.” Thework is regarded as in progress, and indeed was rapidly advancing.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore my sentence is,…. Opinion or judgment in this case, or what he reckoned most advisable to be done; for he did not impose his sense upon the whole body, but proposed it to them:
that we trouble not them; by obliging them to be circumcised, which would have been very afflicting and disturbing to them; not only because of the corporeal pain produced by circumcision, but because of the bondage their minds would be brought into, and they become subject to the whole law, and all its burdensome rites and ceremonies:
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; the one true and living God, Father, Son, and Spirit, and from idols, and the worshipping of them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Wherefore (). “Because of which,” this plain purpose of God as shown by Amos and Isaiah.
My judgment is ( ). Note expression of .
I give my judgment . ( ). James sums up the case as President of the Conference in a masterly fashion and with that consummate wisdom for which he is noted. It amounts to a resolution for the adoption by the assembly as happened (verse 33).
That we trouble not ( ). Present active infinitive with in an indirect command (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1046) of , a common late verb, occurring here alone in the N.T. This double compound (, ) is from the old compound ( and , crowd, annoyance) seen in Luke 6:18; Heb 12:15, and means to cause trouble beside () one or in a matter. This is the general point of James which he explains further concerning “those who are turning from the Gentiles unto God,” the very kind of people referred to in Amos.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Trouble [] . Only here in New Testament. See on vexed, Luk 6:18.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
THE CONFERENCE’S CONCLUSION AND LETTER TO THE GENTILES OF ANTIOCH, SYRIA, CILICIA, ETC. V. 19-27
1) “Wherefore my sentence is,” (dis ego krino) “Based on this, my judgement, my conclusion is;” James spoke as a presiding officer or moderator over a conference, summarizing what appeared to be general judgement of the conferees, then gave the essence of what became essentially a practical resolution of the issue and problem that the conferees had encountered.
2) “That we trouble not them,” (me parenochlien tois) “That we are not to trouble those,” those already troubled, those already troubled, any further or to any further extent, than the practical resolution that follows, by not imposing Jewish ceremonies and customs upon them.
3) “Which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:(apo ton ethnon epistrephousin epi ton theon) “Who are turning (in repentance) to God,” from among the Gentiles, such as had been reported by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, and certain other brethren from the church at Antioch in Syria, Act 10:36-37; Act 11:18; Act 15:2; Even as the Thessalonians later did, 1Th 2:9-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
19. That we must not trouble. He denieth that the Gentiles must be driven from the Church through the disagreement about ceremonies, seeing they were admitted by God; yet it [he] seemeth contrary to himself, when he denieth that they ought to be troubled, and yet prescribeth certain rites. The answer is easy, which I will hereafter more at large prosecute. First, he requireth nothing at their hands but that which they were bound to do by brotherly concord; secondly, these precepts could no whir trouble or disquiet their consciences, after that they knew that they were free before God, and that false and perverse religion was taken away, which the false apostles sought to bring in. The question is now, why James doth enjoin the Gentiles these four things alone? Some say that this was let [derived] from the ancient custom of the fathers, who did not make any covenant − (136) with any people which they could enforce to obey them but upon this condition; but because there is no fit author of that thing brought to light, I leave it in doubt and undecided. −
(136) −
“
Qui non soldant foedus percutere,” who were not accustomed to enter into any covenant.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) Wherefore my sentence is.Literally, Wherefore I judge. The tone is that of one who speaks with authority, but what follows is not given as a decree, but as a resolution which was submitted to the judgment of the Apostles and elders. (Comp. Act. 16:4.)
That we trouble not them.The verb is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, and expresses the idea of worrying or harassing.
Are turned to God.More accurately, are turning, as acknowledging that the work was going on at that very moment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. My sentence is Literally, I judge, or vote. It was the ordinary phrase, agreeing with the Latin Ego censeo, which a Roman senator used in giving his vote. It will not bear the meaning, by some forced upon it, that James, as bishop, finally decides the whole question by authority. What he actually does is to propose the compromise upon which they all harmonize.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not those who from among the Gentiles turn to God.”
Having satisfactorily settled from Scripture that God had promised in the last days to call many Gentiles to Himself, and that therefore the calling of the Gentiles as Gentiles was Scriptural, James now gives his own judgment, and that is that in general they do not trouble Gentiles who turn to God with the details and intricacies of Jewish Law. God has called them as Gentiles, not as Jews. They are not therefore under the Law, but under grace (compare Gal 5:4).
‘My judgment is.’ There is an emphasis on ‘my’. (Literally he says ‘I (emphasised) judge that — ‘). James knew how important his view would be to those who were most likely not to approve of abandoning the need for circumcision. But his view showed how closely he sought the mind of God, and having come to that mind, he wanted all to know that as far as he was concerned it was decisive. It was his judgment as one who had sought the mind of God. And it was seen as that because all knew James, and what he was. It was not that he had not listened to all the arguments. It was that in the end compared with the mind of God they were superfluous.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 15:19-21. Wherefore my sentence is, &c. This passage, on which the critics have so much differed in sentiment, and written so much, may, I think, be thus paraphrased: “Wherefore I cannot but determine in my ownmind, and I doubt not but you will readily concur with me, that we ought not to disquiet those who from among the Gentiles are converted by divine grace to the knowledge and worship of the true God, and to obedience to the gospel, with such observances as those now in question; but only to write to them, that they abstain from things grossly scandalous, and such as would give the greatest offence to their brethren of the circumcision; particularly from the abominable pollutions of things sacrificed to idols, and fornication, and from eating that which is strangled, and from blood. And though the latter of these have no moral and universal evil in them, yet it is necessary to join the prohibition of them to that of the former; for we know that Moses hath had from ancient generations, and still continues to have, those who preach him and his institutions in everycity, being read in all the Jewish synagogues every sabbath-day; and these things are so expressly forbidden in his law, that while the Gentile Christians indulge themselves in any of them, it will be impossible there should be that communion and harmony between them and the Jewish converts, which the honour and edification of the church require.” In short, though neither things sacrificed to idols, nor the flesh of strangled animals, nor blood, have, or can have, any moral evil in them, which should make the eating of them absolutely and universally unlawful; (compare 1Co 1:8-9. Rom 14:14; Rom 14:23. 1Ti 4:4. Mat 15:11.) yet they were here forbidden to the Gentile converts, because the Jews had such an aversion to them, that they could not converse freely with any that used them. This is plainly the reason which St. James assigns in Act 15:21 and it is abundantly sufficient. And were weinlikecircumstanceswiththoseconvertedGentiles,Christiancharitywouldsurely require us to lay ourselves under the same restraints. As to fornication, as the infamy of it was not so great among the Gentiles, as the nature of the crime deserved, it has been generally thought, that the church at Jerusalem chose to add this prohibition, though it might be a kind of digression from the immediate design of their lett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 15:19-20 (29). ] For my part I vote.
] to trouble them withal (at their conversion). Dem. 242. 16; Polyb. i. 8. 1, iii. 53. 6; Plut. Timol . 3; frequently also in the LXX., both with the dative and the accusative.
] to despatch a writing to them (Heb 13:22 ; often with Greek writers, see Loesner, p. 207) that they should abstain (aim of the ).
] may be referred either to only, or to all the following particulars. The latter, as is not repeated with , is the more natural: therefore: from the pollutions, which are contracted through idols and through fornication , etc. , from the Alexandrian , polluere (LXX. Dan 1:8 ; Mal 1:7 ; Mal 1:12 ; Sir 40:29 ; Sturz, de Dial. Al . p. 145; Korai on Isocr . p. 299), is a word entirely foreign to the other Greek; therefore Hesychius explains it merely in reference to its present connection with : .
] What James meant by the general expression, “pollutions of idols,” was known to his hearers, and is evident from Act 15:29 , where the formally composed decree required as unambiguous a designation as possible, and therefore is chosen; hence: pollutions occasioned by partaking of the flesh of heathen sacrifices (Exo 34:15 ). The Gentiles were accustomed to consume so much of the sacrificed animals as was not used for the sacrifice itself and did not belong to the priests, in feasts (in the temple or in their houses), or even to sell it in the shambles. See on 1Co 8:1 ; also Hermann, gottesd. Alterth . xxviii. 22 24. Both modes of partaking of flesh offered in sacrifice, for which the Gentile Christians had opportunity enough either by invitations on the part of their heathen friends or by the usual practice of purchase, were to be avoided by them as fellowship with idolatry, and thus as polluting Christian sanctity.
] As in the decree, Act 15:29 , the same expression is repeated without any more precise definition, and a regulative ordinance, particularly in such an important matter, proceeding from general collegiate deliberation, presupposes nothing but unambiguous and well-known designations of the chief points in question; no other explanation is admissible than that of fornication generally , [30] and accordingly all explanations are to be discarded, which assume either a metaphorical meaning or merely a single form of ; namely: (1) that it denotes figuratively idolatry , and that merely the indirect idolatry, which consists in the partaking of , so that . and . form only one point (so, entirely opposed to the order in Act 15:29 , Beza, Selden, Schleusner); (2) that it is the fornication practised at the heathen festivals (so Morus, Dindorf, Stolz, Heinrichs); (3) that the is meant, the gains of prostitution offered in sacrifice (Heinsius and Ittig); or (4) the “actus professionis meretriciae, in fornice stantis viri vel mulieris mercede pacta prostitutae et omnium libidini patentis” (Salmasius); or (5) the concubinage common among the Gentiles (Calvin); or (6) the nuptiae intra gradus prohibitos (Lightfoot, comp. Hammond), incest (Gieseler in Staeudlin and Tzschirner’s Archiv . IV. p. 312; Baur, I. p. 162, Exo 2 ; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 129; Zeller, p. 246; Sepp, and others; also Wieseler, who, however, on Gal . p. 149, takes it generally, and only treats incest as included); or (7) marriage with a heathen husband (Hering in the Bibl. nov. Brem . IV. p. 289 ff.; Teller); or (8) deuterogamy (Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt . I. p. 127). Bentley has even recourse to conjectural emendation, namely, or ( swine’s flesh ). Such expedients are only resorted to, because all the other particulars are not immoral in themselves, but , which only become immoral through the existing circumstances. But the association of with three adiaphora is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favour, nay, practised without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a thing really indifferent; [31] Grotius in loc ., Hermann, Privatalterth . 29, 13 ff. Compare the system of Hetaerae in Corinth, Rome, etc., and the many forms of the worship of Aphrodite in the Greek world. See also on 1Co 6:12 . Baumgarten, Ewald, Bleek, Weiss have with reason retained the proper and in the N.T. prevailing literal sense of .
] i.e. the flesh of such beasts as are killed by strangling (strangulation by snares, and the like), and from which the blood is not let out . [32] This is based on Lev 17:13-14 , Deu 12:16 ; Deu 12:23 , according to which the blood was to be let out from every hunted animal strangled, and without this letting out of blood the flesh was not to be eaten. Comp. Schoettgen in loc . That the prohibition here refers to Roman epicurism ( e.g. to the eating of fowls suffocated in Falerian wine), is very inappropriately assumed by Schneckenburger, especially considering the humble position of most of the Gentile-Christians. ] denotes generally any partaking of blood , in whatever form it might be found. Lev 3:17 ; Lev 7:26 ; Lev 17:10 ; Lev 19:26 ; Deu 12:16 ; Deu 12:23 ff., Deu 15:23 . The prohibition of eating blood, even yet strictly observed by the Jews (Saalschtz, Mos . R . p. 262 f.), is not to be derived from the design of the lawgiver to keep the people at a distance from all idolatry (as is well known, the sacrificing Gentiles ate blood and drank it mingled with wine, Michaelis, Mos . R. IV. 206), or from sanitary considerations, but from the conception expressly set forth in Gen 9:6 , Lev 17:11 ; Lev 13:14 , Deu 12:23-24 , that the blood is that which contains “the soul of all flesh.” On this also depended the prohibition of things strangled, because the blood was still in them, which, as the vehicle of life, was not to be touched as food, but was to be poured out (Lev 17:13 ; Deu 12:15 ff.), and not to be profaned by eating. See Ewald, Alterth . pp. 51, 197; Delitzsch, bibl. Psych . p. 242 ff. The very juxtaposition of the two points proves that Cyprian, Tertullian, and others (see Wolf in loc .), erroneously explain of homicidium . With the deep reverence of the Hebrews for the sanctity of blood was essentially connected the idea of blood-sacrifice; and therefore the prohibition of partaking of blood, in respect of its origin and importance (it was accompanied with severe penalties), was very different from the prohibition of unclean animals. Comp. also Bhr, Symbol . II. p. 240.
[30] But that the apostles had here in view a sanctification of marriage by the cognizance or approval of the rulers of the church, so that the germ of the ecclesiastical nuptial ceremony is to be found here, is very arbitrarily assumed by Lange, apost . Zeitalt . II. p. 185.
[31] That even among the heathen the sinfulness of sexual abuse was recognised (as Hofmann, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 131, objects), makes no difference as regards the whole of their moral attitude and tendency. Voices of earnest and thoughtful men in Greece and Rome were raised against all vices. Hofmann attaches to the notion of a width which the word, as actually used, has not: “Unbridledness of natural sexual conduct, which neither knows nor desires to know moral restriction.” Thus the word, in his view, applies not only to sexual intercourse in relationship, but also to sexual conduct in marriage (?).
[32] The omission of in D and Fathers, though approved by Bornemann (here and in ver. 29), can only be regarded as a copyist’s error occasioned by Homoioteleuton ( ). So decisive are the witnesses in favour of these words.
The following general observations are to be made on Act 15:20 compared with Act 15:29 . The opinion of James and the resolution of the assembly is purely negative; the Gentile brethren were not to be subjected to , but they were expected merely , and that from four matters, which according to the common Gentile opinion were regarded as indifferent, but were deeply offensive to the rigidly legal Jewish-Christians. The moral element of these points is here accordingly left entirely out of account; the design of the prohibition refers only to the legal strictness of the Jewish-Christians, between whom and the Gentile-Christians the existing dispute was to be settled, and the fellowship of brotherly intercourse was to be provisionally restored. The Gentile-Christian, for the avoidance of offence towards his Jewish brother, was to abstain as well from that which exhibited the fundamental character of heathenism (pollutions of idols and fornication; comp. on the latter, Rom 1:21 ff.), as from those things by which, in the intercourse of Christian fellowship, the most important points of the restrictions on food appointed by God for Israel might be prematurely overthrown, to the offence of the Jewish-Christians. 2. That precisely these four points are adduced , and neither more nor other, is simply to be explained from the fact, that historically, and according to the experience of that time, next to circumcision these were the stumbling-blocks in ordinary intercourse between the two sections of Christians; and not, as Olshausen and Ebrard, following many older commentators, suppose (comp. also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 129; Wieseler, p. 185; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth . p. 571 f.), from the fact that they were accustomed to be imposed on the proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts of Noah (see the same in Sanh . 56 a b ; Maimonides, Tr. Melach . 9. 1), and that the meaning of the injunction is, that the Gentile-Christians had no need to become proselytes of righteousness by circumcision, but were only obliged to live as proselytes of the gate, or at least were to regard themselves as placed in a closer relation and fellowship to the Jewish people (Baumgarten). Were this the case, we cannot see why the decree should not have attached itself more precisely and fully to the Noachic precepts, [33] to which not a single one of the four points expressly belonged; and therefore the matter has nothing at all in common with the proselytism of the gate. Comp. also Oertel, p. 249; Hofmann, h. Schr. d. N.T. I. p. 128 ff. 3. That the proposal of James, and the decree drawn up in accordance with it, were to have no permanent force as a rule of conduct , is clear from the entire connection in which it arose. It was called forth by the circumstances of the times; it was to be a compromise as long as these circumstances lasted; but its value as such was extinguished of itself by the cessation of the circumstances namely, as soon as the strengthening of the Christian spirit, and of the Christian moral freedom of both parties, rendered the provisional regulation superfluous. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 138 f. Therefore Augustine strikingly remarks ( c. Manich . 32. 13): “Elegisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequaquam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentes propter angularem illum lapidem duos in se condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo illi duo parietes, unus de circumcisione, alter de praeputio venientes, quamvis in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distinctius eminebant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appareat: quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, si manu a cervice percussus nullo cruento vulnere occisus est? Et qui forte pauci tangere ista formidant, a caeteris irridentur, ita omnium animos in hac re tenuit sententia veritatis.” In contrast to this correct view stand the Canon, apost . 63 ( , , . , ), and not less the Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, and many Fathers in Suicer, Thes . I. p. 113, as also the Concil. Trull. II. Can. 67, and exegetical writers cited in Wolf. [34] It is self-evident withal, that not only the prohibition of , but also the general moral tenor and fundamental thought of the whole decree (the idea of Christian freedom, to the use of which merely relative limits given in the circumstances, and not an absolute ethical limitation, must be assigned), have permanent validity, such as Paul exhibited in his conduct and teaching. 4. The Tbingen criticism, finding in Gal 2 the Archimedean point for its lever, has sought to relegate the whole narrative of the apostolic council and its decree to the unhistorical sphere (see besides, Baur, I. 119 ff. Exo 2 , Schwegler, Zeller, Holsten, especially Hilgenfeld in Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal ., and in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol . 1858, p. 317 ff., 1860, p. 118 ff., Kanon u. Krit. d. N.T. p. 188 ff.); because the comparison with Gal 2 exhibits contradictions, which cause the narrative of the Acts to be recognised as an irenic fiction. It is alleged, namely, that by its incorrect representation the deeply seated difference between the Jewish-Christianity of the original apostles and Paulinism free from the law was to be as much as possible concealed, with a view to promote union. Holtzmann, Judenth. und Christenth . p. 568 ff., more cautiously weighs the matter, but still expresses doubt. For a defence of its historical character, see Wieseler, Chronol . p. 189 ff., and in his Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal.; [35] Ebrard, 125; Baumgarten, p. 401 ff.; Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. K. p. 252 ff., Exo 2 ; Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit . 1855, p. 551 ff.; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt . p. 396 ff. (also in the Stud. d. Wrtemb. Geistl . 1847, 2, p. 94 ff.); Lange, apost. Zeitalt . I. p. 103 ff.; Thiersch, p. 127 ff.; Lekebusch, p. 296 ff.; Ewald, p. 469 ff.; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 148 ff.; Hofmann, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 127 ff., who, however, calls to his aid many incorrect interpretations of passages in the Epistle to the Galatians; Trip, l.c. p. 92 ff.; Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch . p. 226 ff. The contradictions, which serve as premisses for the attack upon our narrative, are not really present in Gal 2:1 ff. For and these are the most essential points in the question in Gal 2 . Paul narrates the matter not in a purely historical interest, but in personal defence of his apostolic authority, and therefore adduces incidents and aspects of what happened at Jerusalem, which do not make it at all necessary historically to exclude our narrative. Moreover, even in Gal 2 the original apostles are not in principle at variance, but at one, with Paul (comp. Bleek, Beitr . p. 253 f.); as follows from Act 15:6 , from the reproach of hypocrisy made against Peter, Act 15:12-13 (which supposes an agreement in conviction between him and Paul), from the , Act 15:14 , and from the speech in common, Act 15:16 ff. (see evasions, on account of , in Schwegler and Baur). Further, in Gal 2 . Paul is not contrasted with the original apostles in respect of doctrine (for the circumcision of Titus was not demanded by them ), but as regards the field of their operations in reference to the same gospel, Act 15:9 . By , again, Gal 2:2 , is meant a private conference (comp. on Act 15:6 ), which had nothing to do with the transactions of our narrative; nor is the care for the poor determined on, Gal 2:10 , a matter excluding the definitions of our decree, particularly as Paul only describes an agreement which had been made, not in any sort of public assembly, but merely between him and the three original apostles; the observance of the decree was an independent matter, and was understood of itself. In fine, the absence of any mention of the council and decree in the Pauline Epistles, particularly in the Epistle to the Galatians (and even in the discussion on meats offered in sacrifice, 1Co 8:10 ; 1Co 8:13 ff.), is completely intelligible from the merely interim nature and purpose of the statute; as well as, on the other hand, from the independence of his apostleship and the freedom of believers from the law, which Paul had to assert more and more after the time of the council in his special apostolic labours, and always to lay greater stress on, in opposition to the Judaism which ever raised itself anew (see on Gal ., Introd. 3). Indeed, the very circumstance that the proposals for the decree proceed from James , is in keeping with his position as the highly respected head of the Jewish-Christians, and is a testimony of his wise moderation, without making him answerable (comp. Jas 1:25 ; Jas 2:12 ) for the Judaistic narrowness and strictness of his followers (Gal 2:12 ). And there could be the less scruple to consent on the part of Paul , as, in fact, by this henoticon the non-circumcision of the Gentiles had completely conquered, and he thereby saw the freedom and the truth of the gospel securely established (Gal 2:3 ff.), while at the same time the chief vice of heathenism, , was rejected, and the right application of the other three prohibitions, in accordance with the and which his Gospel promoted, was more and more to be expected in confidence on the Lord and His Spirit (2Co 3:17 ; Rom 8:15 ). See, in addition, on Gal 2 .
[33] These forbade: (1) idolatry; (2) blasphemy; (3) murder; (4) incest; (5) robbery; (6) disobedience to magistrates; (7) partaking of flesh cut from living animals.
[34] Comp. also the Erlangen Zeitschr. f. Protest, u. K. , July 1851, p. 53, where the abstinence from things strangled and from blood is reckoned as a “precipitate on the part of the external Levitical ordinances” to be preserved in the church.
[35] Who, however, still (see the article “Galaterbrief” in Herzog’s Encykl . XIX.) identifies the journey in Gal 2 with that mentioned in Act 18:21 f., an opinion which it is impossible to maintain. Comp. on Gal 2:1 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Ver. 19. That we trouble not ] Gr. . Trouble them more than needs; they will meet with trouble enough otherwise in the way to heaven. “I would they were even cut off” that thus trouble their consciences, Gal 5:12 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] , not as E. V. ‘ are turned .’ but are turning : the converts daily gathered into the church. In . there is no meaning of ‘ prter, insuper , molestiam creare:’ but simply ‘molestiam creare:’ see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 15:19 . : “wherefore my judgment is”. St. James apparently speaks as the president of the meeting, Chrysostom, Hom. , xxxiii., and his words with the emphatic (Weiss) may express more than the opinion of a private member he sums up the debate and proposes “the draught of a practical resolution” (see however Hort, Ecclesia , 79; Hackett, in loco; and on the other hand Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood , p. 147). If a position of authority is thus given to St. James at the conference, it is very significant that this should be so in Jerusalem itself, where the Twelve would naturally carry special weight. But this presidency and Apostolic authority of St. James in Jerusalem is exactly in accordance with the remarkable order of the three names referred to by St. Paul in Gal 2:9 ( cf. Act 12:17 ; Act 21:18 ). At the same time Act 15:22 shows us that neither the authority of St. James nor that of the other Apostles is conceived of as overriding the general consent of the whole Church. : only here in N.T.; “not to trouble,” A. and R.V.; it may be possible to press the , “not to trouble further,” i.e. , by anything more than he is about to mention, or in their conversion to God. The verb is found with dative and accusative in LXX; for the former cf. Jdg 14:17 , 1Ma 10:63 SR, Act 12:14 ; and for the latter Jer 26 (46):27, 1Ma 10:35 . Bengel takes as = prter , but whilst it is very doubtful how far the preposition can be so rendered here, he adds fides quieta non obturbanda . . cf. Act 11:21 , “who are turning to God”; present participle, as in acknowledgment of a work actually in progress.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
my sentence is = I judge, or decide. Greek. krino. App-122.
that we trouble not = not (Greek. me. App-105) to trouble or harass. Greek. parenochleo. Only here. Compare kindred verbs in Act 5:16. Heb 12:15.
from among. Greek. apo. App-104.
are turned = are turning. Greek. epistrepho. See Act 15:3, and Act 9:35.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] , not as E. V. are turned. but are turning:-the converts daily gathered into the church. In . there is no meaning of prter, insuper, molestiam creare: but simply molestiam creare: see reff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 15:19. ) , besides, over and above what is necessary, unnecessarily. Quiet faith ought not to be disturbed.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Wherefore
The scope of the decision goes far beyond the mere question of circumcision. The whole question of the relation of the law to Gentile believers had been put in issue (Act 15:5), and their exemption is declared in the decision (Act 15:19; Act 15:24). The decision might be otherwise stated in the terms of Rom 6:14. “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Gentile believers were to show grace by abstaining from the practices offensive to godly Jews.
Act 15:20; Act 15:21; Act 15:28; Act 15:29 cf; Rom 14:12-17; 1Co 8:1-13
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
that: Act 15:10, Act 15:24, Act 15:28, Gal 1:7-10, Gal 2:4, Gal 5:11, Gal 5:12
turned: Act 26:20, Isa 55:7, Hos 14:2, 1Th 1:9
Reciprocal: Luk 1:3 – seemed Act 9:35 – turned Act 11:21 – turned 1Co 7:18 – being 1Co 8:1 – touching Gal 2:14 – why
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
Act 15:19. Sentence is from KRINO, and Thayer’s definition at this place is, “To be of opinion, deem, think.” But we must bear in mind that this opinion was inspired by the Holy Ghost. (See verse 28.) That opinion was that the Gentiles converted to Christ were not to be troubled with the Jewish ordinances.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 15:19. Wherefore my sentence is. Better rendered, My decision,that is, I for my part decide we ought not to burden them, etc. There is no authoritative judgment here on the part of James. It is simply a weighty opinion of the presiding elder; an opinion which, coinciding with the already expressed judgment of Peter in favour of the Gentile mission, was finally adopted by the majority of the Council, and taken as the basis of their official decree.
That we trouble not them, viz. by imposing upon these foreign converts burdensome rites and ceremonies, which would effectually separate them from the peoples among whom they live, and would render impossible the ordinary life either in the city or country.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 15:19-21. Wherefore my sentence My judgment in this matter; is, that we trouble not With such observances as those now in question; them which from among the Gentiles The ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; are turned unto God Are converted by divine grace to the knowledge and worship of the true God, and to obedience to his gospel. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from all things grossly scandalous, and particularly from pollutions of idols From every species of idolatry: that they should have no manner of fellowship with idolaters in their idolatrous worship, or in the feasts they hold upon their sacrifices; see 1Co 10:14; 2Co 6:14. And from fornication Which even the philosophers among the heathen did not account any fault. It was particularly frequent in the worship of their idols, on which account these sins are here named together. And from things strangled That is, from whatever has been killed without pouring out the blood; and from blood When God first permitted man to eat flesh, he commanded Noah, and in him all his posterity, whenever they killed any creature for food, to abstain from the blood thereof. It was to be poured upon the ground as water; doubtless, 1st, To be a token to mankind, in all ages, that they would have had no right to take the life of any animal for food, if God had not given them that right, who, therefore, to remind them of it, and impress it on their minds in all generations, denied them the use of blood, and required it to be spilt upon the ground. 2d, In honour of the blood of atonement, Lev 17:11-12. The life of the sacrifice was accepted for the life of the sinner; and blood made atonement for the soul; and therefore must not be looked upon as a common thing, but must be poured out before the Lord, (2Sa 23:16,) and especially in honour of that blood which was in due time to be shed for the sins of the world. Now this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites in the law of Moses, and which was never revoked, is here confirmed and made of perpetual obligation. See the notes on Gen 9:4. For Moses hath, &c. The sense and connection here may be: To the Jews we need to write nothing on these heads, for they hear the law continually, and are there most solemnly and repeatedly enjoined to abstain from these things.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
See notes on verse 13
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
19. Therefore I judge that we trouble not those from the Gentiles turning unto God,
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 19
My sentence; that is, my judgment.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:19 {8} Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
(8) In indifferent matters, we may be patient with the weakness of our brethren with the end in view that they may have time to be instructed.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Troubling the Gentiles meant imposing the requirements of Jewish proselytes on them, namely, circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
2
Chapter 10
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN COUNCIL.
Act 15:1-2; Act 15:6; Act 15:19
I HAVE headed this chapter, which treats of Act 15:1-41 and its incidents, the First Christian Council, and that of set purpose and following eminent ecclesiastical example. People often hear the canons of the great Councils quoted, the canons of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, those great assemblies which threshed out the controversies concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ and determined with marvellous precision the methods of expressing the true doctrine on these points, and they wonder where or how such ancient documents have been preserved. Well, the answer is simple enough. If any reader, curious about the doings of these ancient assemblies, desires to study the decrees which proceeded from them, and even the debates which occurred in them, he need only ask in any great library for a history of the Councils, edited either by Hardouin or Labbe and Cossart, or, best and latest of all, by Mansi. They are not externally very attractive volumes, being vast folios; nor are they light or interesting reading. The industrious student will learn much from them, however; and he will find that they all begin the history of the Christian Councils by placing at the very head and forefront thereof the history and acts of the Council of Jerusalem held about the year 48 or 49 A.D., wherein we find a typical example of a Church synod which set a fashion perpetuated throughout the ages in councils, conferences, and congresses down to the present time. Let us inquire then into the origin, the procedure, and the results of this Assembly, sure that a council conducted under such auspices, reported by such a divinely guided historian, and dealing with such burning questions, must have important lessons for the Church of every age.
I. The question, however, naturally meets us at the very threshold of our inquiry as to the date of this assembly, and the position which it holds in the process of development through which the Christian Church was passing. The decision of this Synod at Jerusalem did not finally settle the questions about the law and its obligatory character. The relations between the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church continued in some places, especially in the East, more or less unsettled well into the second century; for the Jews found it very hard indeed to surrender all their cherished privileges and ancient national distinctions. But the decree of the Jerusalem Assembly, though only partial settlement, “mere articles of peace,” as it has been well called, to tide over a pressing local controversy, formed in St. Pauls hands a powerful weapon whereby the freedom, the unity, and the catholicity of the Church were finally achieved. Where, then, do we locate this Synod in the story of St. Pauls labours?
The narrative of the Acts clearly enough places it between the first and second missionary tours in Asia Minor undertaken by that apostle. Paul and Barnabas laboured for the first time in Asia Minor probably from the autumn of 44 till the spring or summer of 46. Their work at that time must have extended over at least eighteen months or more. Their journeys on foot must alone have taken up no small time. They traversed from Perge, where they landed, to Derbe, whence they turned back upon their work, a space of at least two hundred and fifty miles. They made lengthened sojourns in large cities like Antioch and Iconium. They doubtless visited other places of which we are told nothing. Then, having completed their aggressive work, they retraced their steps along the same route, and began their work of consolidation and Church organisation, which must have occupied on their return journey almost as much, if not more, time than they had spent in aggressive labour upon their earlier journey. When we consider all this, and strive to realise the conditions of life and travel in Asia Minor at that time, eighteen months will not appear too long for the work which the apostles actually performed. After their return to Antioch they took up their abode in that city for a considerable period. “They tarried no little time with the disciples” are the exact words of St. Luke telling of their stay at Antioch. Then comes the tale of Jewish intrigues and insinuations, followed by debates, strife, and oppositions concerning the universally binding character of the Jewish law, terminating with the formal deputation from Antioch to Jerusalem. These latter events at Antioch may have happened in a few weeks or months, or they may have extended over a couple of years. But then, on the other hand, we note that St. Pauls second missionary journey began soon after the Synod of Jerusalem. That journey was very lengthened. It led St. Paul right through Asia Minor, and thence into Europe, where he must have made a stay of at least two years. He was at Corinth for eighteen months when Gallio arrived as proconsul about the middle of the year 53, and previously to that he had worked his way through Macedonia and Greece. St. Paul on his second tour must have been then at least four years absent from Antioch, which he must therefore have left about the year 49 or 50. The Synod of Jerusalem must therefore be assigned to the year 48 A.D. or thereabouts; or, in other words, not quite twenty years after the Crucifixion.
II. And now this leads us to consider the occasion of the Synod. The time was not, as we have said, quite twenty years after the Crucifixion, yet that brief space had been quite sufficient to raise questions undreamt of in earlier days. The Church was at first completely homogeneous, its members being all Jews; but the admission of the Gentiles and the action of St. Peter in the matter of Cornelius had destroyed this characteristic so dear to the Jewish heart. The Divine revelation at Joppa to St. Peter and the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius had for a time quenched the opposition to the admission of the Gentiles to baptism; but, as we have already said, the extreme Jewish party were only silenced for a time, they were not destroyed. They took up a new position. The case of Cornelius merely decided that a man might be baptised without having been previously circumcised; but it decided nothing in their opinion about the subsequent necessity for circumcision and admission into the ranks of the Jewish nation. Their view, in fact, was the same as of old. Salvation belonged exclusively to the Jewish nation, and therefore if the converted Gentiles were to be saved it must be by incorporation into that body to which salvation alone belonged. The strict Jewish section of the Church insisted the more upon this point, because they saw rising up in the Church of Antioch, and elsewhere among the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, a grave social danger threatening the existence of their nation as a separate people. There were just then two classes of disciples in these Churches. There were disciples who lived after the Jewish fashion., -abstaining from unlawful foods, using food slain by Jewish butchers, and scrupulous in washings and lustrations; and there were Gentiles who lived after the Gentile fashion, and in especial ate pork and things strangled. The strict Jews knew right well the tendency of a majority to swallow up a minority, specially when they were all members of the same religious community, enjoying the same privileges and partakers of the same hope. A majority does not indeed necessarily absorb a minority. Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority in Ireland and France; yet it has not absorbed the small Protestant minority. The adherents of Judaism were scattered in St. Pauls day all over the world, yet Paganism had not swallowed them up. In these cases, however, the minority have been completely separated from the majority by a middle wall, a barrier of rigid discipline, and of strong, yea even violent religious repugnance. But the prospect now before the strict Jewish party was quite different. In the Syrian Church as they beheld it growing up Jew and Gentile would be closely linked together, professing the same faith, saying the same prayers, joining in the same sacraments, worshipping in the same buildings. All the advantages, too, would be on the side of the Gentile. He was freed from the troublesome restrictions-the more troublesome because so petty and minute-of the Levitical Law. He could eat what he liked, and join in social converse and general life without hesitation or fear. In a short time a Jewish disciple would come to ask himself, What do I gain by all these observances, this yoke of ordinances, which neither we nor our fathers have been able perfectly to bear? If a Gentile disciple can be saved without them, why should I trouble myself with. them? The Jewish party saw clearly enough that toleration of the presence of the Gentiles in the Church and their admission to full communion and complete Christian privileges simply involved the certain overthrow of Jewish customs, Jewish privileges, and Jewish national expectations. They saw that it was a case of war to the death, one party or the other must conquer, and therefore in self-defence they raised the cry, “Unless the Gentile converts be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved.”
Antioch was recognised at Jerusalem as the centre of Gentile Christianity. Certain, therefore, of the zealous, Judaising disciples of Jerusalem repaired to Antioch, joined the Church, and secretly proceeded to organise opposition to the dominant practice, using for that purpose all the authority connected with the name of James the Lords brother, who presided over the Mother Church of the Holy City.
Now let us see what position St. Paul took up with respect to these “false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out the liberty he enjoyed in Christ Jesus.” Paul and Barnabas both set themselves undauntedly to fight against such teaching. They had seen and known the spiritual life which flourished free from all Jewish observances in the Church of the Gentiles. They had seen the gospel bringing forth the fruits of purity and faith, of joy and peace in the Holy Ghost; they knew that these things prepare the soul for the beatific vision of God, and confer a present salvation here below; and they could not tolerate the idea that a Jewish ceremony was necessary over and above the life which Christ confers if men are to gain final salvation.
Here, perhaps, is the proper place to set forth St. Pauls view of circumcision and of all external Jewish ordinances, as we gather it from a broad review of his writings. St. Paul vigorously opposed all those who taught the necessity of Jewish rites so far as salvation is concerned. This is evident from this chapter and from the Epistle to the Galatians. But on the other hand St. Paul had not the slightest objection to men observing the law and submitting to circumcision, if they only realised that these things were mere national customs and observed them as national customs, and even as religious rites, but not as necessary religious rites. If men took a right view of circumcision, St. Paul had not the slightest objection to it. It was not to circumcision St. Paul objected, but to the extreme stress laid upon it, the intolerant views connected with it. Circumcision as a voluntary practice, an interesting historical relic of ancient ideas and customs, he never rejected, -nay, further, he even practised it, as we shall see in the case of Timothy; circumcision as a compulsory practice binding upon all men St. Paul utterly abhorred. We may, perhaps, draw an illustration from a modern Church in this respect. The Coptic and Abyssinian Churches retain the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. These Churches date back to the earliest Christian times, and retain doubtless in this respect the practice of the primitive Christian Church. The Copts circumcise their children on the eighth day and before they are baptised; but they regard this rite as a mere national custom, and treat it as absolutely devoid of any religious meaning, significance, or necessity. St. Paul would have had no objection to circumcision in this aspect any more than he would have objected to a Turk for wearing a fez, or a Chinaman for wearing a pigtail, or a Hindoo for wearing a turban. National customs as such were things absolutely indifferent in his view. But if Turkish or Chinese Christians were to insist upon all men wearing their peculiar dress and observing their peculiar national customs as being things absolutely necessary to salvation, St. Paul, were he alive, would denounce and oppose them as vigorously as he did the Judaisers of his own day.
This is the explanation of St. Pauls own conduct. Some have regarded him as at times inconsistent with his own principles with regard to the law of Moses. And yet if men will but look closer and think more deeply., they will see that St. Paul never violated the rules which he had imposed upon himself. He refused to circumcise Titus, for instance, because the Judaising party at Jerusalem were insisting upon the absolute necessity of circumcising the Gentiles if they were to be saved. Had St. Paul consented to the circumcision of Titus, he would have been yielding assent, or seeming to yield assent, to their contention. {see Gal 2:3} He circumcised Timothy at Lystra because of the Jews in that neighbourhood; not indeed because they thought it necessary to salvation that an uncircumcised man should be so treated, but because they knew that his mother was a Jewess, and the principle of the Jewish law, and of the Roman law too, was that a mans nationality and status followed that of his mother, not that of his father, so that the son of a Jewess must be incorporated with Israel. Timothy was circumcised in obedience to national law and custom, not upon any compromise of religious principle. St. Paul himself made a vow and cut off his hair and offered sacrifices in the Temple, as being the national customs of a Jew. These were things in themselves utterly meaningless and indifferent; but they pleased other people. They cost him a little time and trouble; but they helped on the great work he had in hand, and tended to make his opponents more willing to listen to him. St. Paul, therefore, with his great large mind, willing to please others for their good to edification, gratified them by doing what they thought became a Jew with a true national spirit beating within his breast. Mere externals mattered nothing in St. Pauls estimation. He would wear any vestments, or take any position, or use any ceremony, esteeming them all things indifferent, provided only they conciliated human prejudices and cleared difficulties out of the way of the truth. But if men insisted upon them as things necessary, then he opposed with all his might. This is the golden thread which will rule our footsteps wandering amid the mazes of this earliest Christian controversy. It will amply vindicate St. Pauls consistency, and show that he never violated the principles he had laid down for his own guidance. Had the spirit of St. Paul animated the Church of succeeding ages, how many a controversy and division would have been thereby escaped!
III. Now let us turn our attention to the actual history of the controversy and strife which raged at Antioch and Jerusalem, and endeavour to read the lessons the sacred narrative teaches. What a striking picture of early Church life is here presented! How full of teaching, of comfort, and of warning! How corrective of the false notions we are apt to cherish of the state of the primitive Church! There we behold the Church of Antioch rejoicing one day in the tidings of a gospel free to the world, and on the next day torn with dissension as to the points and qualifications necessary to salvation. For we must observe that the discussion started at Antioch touched no secondary question, and dealt with no mere point of ritual. It was a fundamental question which troubled the Church. And yet that Church had apostles and teachers abiding in it who could work miracles and speak with tongues, and who received from time to time direct revelations from heaven, and were endowed with the extraordinary presence of the Holy Ghost. Yet there it was that controversy with all its troubles raised its head and “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension” with their opponents. What a necessary warning for every age, and specially for our own, we behold in this narrative! Has not this sacred Book a message in this passage specially applicable to our own time? A great Romeward movement has within the last seventy years, more powerful in the earlier portion of that period than in the latter, extended itself over Europe. English people think that they have themselves been the only persons who have experienced it. But this is a great mistake. Germany forty and fifty years ago felt it also to a large extent. And what was the great predisposing cause of that tendency? Men had simply become tired of the perpetual controversies which raged within the churches and communions outside the sway of Rome. They longed for the perpetual peace and rest which seemed to them to exist within the Papal domains, and they therefore flung themselves headlong into the arms of a Church which promised them relief from the exercise of that private judgment and personal responsibility which had become for them a crushing burden too heavy to be borne. And yet they forgot several things, the sudden discovery of which has sent many of these intellectual and spiritual cowards in various directions, some back to their original homes, some far away into the regions of scepticism and spiritual darkness. They forgot, for instance, to inquire how far the charmer who was alluring them from the land of their nativity by specious promises could satisfy the hopes she was raising. They hoped to get rid of dissension and controversy; but did they? When they had left their childhoods home and their fathers house and sought the house of the stranger, did they find there halcyon peace? Nay, rather, did they not find there as bitter strife, nay, far more bitter strife, on questions like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, than ever raged at home? Did they not find, and do they not find still, that no man and no society can put a hook in the jaws of that Leviathan the right of private judgment, which none can tame or restrain, and which asserts itself still in the Roman Communion as vigorously as ever, even now when the decree of Papal infallibility has elevated that dogma into the rank of those necessary to salvation? Else whence come those dissensions and discussions between minimisers and maximisers of that decree? How is it that no two doctors or theologians will give precisely the same explanation of it, and that, as we in Ireland have seen, every curate fresh from Maynooth claims to be able to express his own private judgment and determination whether any special Papal decree or bull is binding or not? This is one important point forgotten by those who have sought the Roman Communion because of its promises of freedom from controversy. They forgot to ask, Can these promises be fulfilled? And many of them, in the perpetual unrest and strife in which they have found themselves involved as much in their new home as in their old, have proved the specious hopes held out to be the veriest mirage of the Sahara desert. But this was not the only omission of which such persons were guilty. They forgot that, suppose the Roman Church. could fulfil its promises and prove a religious home of perfect peace and freedom from diverging opinions, it would in that case have been very unlike the primitive Church. The Church of Antioch or of Jerusalem, enjoying the ministry of Peter and John and James and Paul, -these pillar-men, as St. Paul calls some of them, -was much more like the Church of England of fifty years ago than any society which offered perfect freedom from theological strife; for the Churches of ancient times in their earliest and purest days were swept by the winds of controversy and tossed by the tempests of intellectual and religious inquiry just like the Church of England, and they took exactly the same measures for the safety of the souls entrusted to them as she did. They depended upon the power of free debate, of unlimited discussion, of earnest prayer, of Christian charity to carry them on till they reached that haven of rest where every doubt and question shall be perfectly solved in the light of the unveiled vision of God.
Then, again, we learn another important lesson from a consideration of the persons who raised the trouble at Antioch. The opening words of the fifteenth chapter thus describes the authors of it: “Certain men came down from Judaea.” It is just the same with the persons who a short time after compelled St. Peter to stagger in his course at the same Antioch: “When certain came from James, then St. Peter separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision.” {Gal 2:12} Certain bigots, that is, of the Jewish party, came, pretending to teach with the authority of the Mother Church, and secretly disturbing weak minds. But they were only pretenders, as the apostolic Epistle expressly tells us: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your-souls; to whom we gave no such commandment.” These religious agitators, with their narrow views about life and ritual, displayed the characteristics of like-minded men ever since. They secretly crept into the Church. There was a want of manly honesty about them. Their pettiness of vision and of thought affected their whole nature, their entire conduct. They loved the by-ways of intrigue and fraud, and therefore they hesitated not to claim an authority which they had never received, invoking apostolic names on behalf of a doctrine which the apostles had never sanctioned. The characteristics thus displayed by these Judaisers have ever been seen in their legitimate descendants in every church and society, East and West alike. Narrowness of mind, pettiness and intolerance in thought, have ever brought their own penalty with them and have ever been connected with the same want of moral uprightness. The miserable conception, the wretched fragment of truth upon which such men seize, elevating it out of its due place and rank, seems to destroy their sense of proportion, and leads them to think it worth any lie which they may tell, any breach of Christian charity of which they may be guilty, any sacrifice of truth and honesty which they may make on behalf of their beloved idol. The Judaisers misrepresented religious truth, and in doing so they misrepresented themselves, and sacrificed the great interests of moral truth in order that they might gain their ends.
IV. The distractions and controversies of Antioch were overruled, however, by the Divine providence to the greater glory of God. As the Judaisers continually appealed to the authority of the Church of Jerusalem, the brethren at Antioch determined to send to that body and ask the opinions of the apostles and eiders upon this question. They therefore despatched “Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them,” among whom was Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile convert, as a deputation to represent their own views. When they came to Jerusalem the Antiochene deputies held a series of private conferences with the leading men of Jerusalem. This we learn, not from the Acts of the Apostles, but from St. Pauls independent narrative in Gal 2:1-21, identifying as we do the visit there recorded with the visit narrated in Act 15:1-41. St. Paul here exhibits all that tact and prudence we ever trace in his character. He did not depend solely upon his own authority, his reputation, his success. He felt within himself the conscious guidance of the Divine Spirit aiding and guiding a singularly clear and powerful mind. Yet he disdained no legitimate precaution. He knew that the presence and guidance of the Spirit does not absolve a man anxious for the truth from using all the means in his power to ensure its success. He recognised that the truth, though it must finally triumph, might be eclipsed or defeated for a time through mans neglect and carelessness; and therefore he engaged in a series of private conferences, explaining difficulties, conciliating the support, and gaining the assistance of the most influential members of the Church, including, of course, “James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
Is there not something very modern in the glimpse thus given us of the negotiations and private meetings which preceded the formal meeting of the Apostolic Council? Some persons may think that the presence and power of the Holy Ghost must have superseded all such human arrangements and forethought. But the simple testimony of the Bible dispels at once. all such objections, and shows us that as the primitive Church was just like the modern Church, torn with dissension, swept with the winds and storms of controversy, so too the divinely guided and inspired leaders of the Church then took precisely the same human means to attain their ends and carry out their views of truth as now find place in the meetings of synods and convocations and parliaments of the present time. The presence of the Holy Ghost did not dispense with the necessity of human exertions in the days of the apostles; and surely we may, on the other hand, believe that similar human exertions in our time may be quite consonant with the presence of the Spirit in our modern assemblies, overruling and guiding human plans and intrigues to the honour of God and the blessing of man. After these private conferences the apostles and elders came together to consider the difficult subject laid before them. And now many questions rise up which we can only very briefly consider. The composition of this Synod is one important point. Who sat in it, and who debated there? It is quite clear, from the text of the Acts, as to the persons who were present at this Synod. The sixth verse says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter”; the twelfth verse tells us that “all the multitude kept silence, and hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them”; – in the twenty-second verse we read, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to choose men out of their company, and to send them to Antioch”; while, finally, in the twenty-third verse. we read the superscription of the final decree of the Council, which ran thus, “The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” It seems to me that any plain man reading these verses would come to the conclusion that the whole multitude, the great body of the Church in Jerusalem, were present and took part in this assembly. A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorised Version of the twenty-third verse, “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,” which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the “and” between elders and brethren has formed the battle-ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils.
Upon a broad review of the whole affair this Apostolic Assembly seems to me to have an important bearing upon this point. There are various views involved. Some persons think that none but bishops should take part in Church synods; others think that none but clergymen, spiritual persons, in the technical and legal sense of the word “spiritual,” should enter these assemblies, specially when treating of questions touching doctrine and discipline. Looking at the subject from the standpoint of the Apostolic Council, we cannot agree with either party. We are certainly told of the speeches of four individuals merely, – Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James – to whom may be conceded the position of bishops, and even more. But, then, it is evident that the whole multitude of the Church was present at this Synod, and took an active part in it. We are expressly told (Act 15:4-5): “When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church and the apostles and the elders” “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them.” This indeed happened at the first meeting of the Church held to receive the Antiochene deputation when they arrived. But there does not seem to have been any difference between the constitution and authority of the first and second meetings. Both were what we should call Ecclesiastical Assemblies. Laymen joined in the discussions of the first, and doubtless laymen joined in the discussions and much questioning of the second.
There is not indeed a hint which would lead us to conclude that the Pharisees, who rose up and argued on behalf of the binding character of the law of Moses, held any spiritual office whatsoever. So far as the sacred text puts it, they may have been laymen pure and simple, such as were the ordinary Pharisees. I cannot, indeed, see how any member of the Church of England can consistently maintain either from Holy Scripture, ancient ecclesiastical history, or the history of his own Church, that laymen are quite shut out from councils debating questions touching Christian faith, and that their consideration must be limited to bishops, or at least clergymen alone. The Apostolic Church seems to have admitted the freest discussion. The General Councils most certainly tolerated very considerable lay interference. The Emperor Constantine, though not even baptised, obtruded much of his presence and exercised much of his influence upon the great Nicene Council. Why, even down to the sixteenth century, till the Tridentine Council, the ambassadors of the great Christian Powers of Europe sat in Church synods as representing the laity; and it was only in the Council of the Vatican, which met in 1870, that even the Roman Catholic Church formally denied the right of the people to exercise a certain influence in the determination of questions touching faith and discipline by the expulsion of the ambassadors who had in every previous council held a certain defined place. While again, when we come to the history of the Church of England, we find that the celebrated Hooker, the vindicator of its Church polity, expressly defended the royal supremacy as exercised within that Church on the ground that the king represented by delegation the vast body of the laity, who through him exercised a real influence upon all questions, whether of doctrine or discipline. I feel a personal interest in this question, because one of the charges most freely hurled against the Church of Ireland is this, that she has admitted laymen to discussions and votes concerning such questions. I cannot see how, consistently with her past history as an established Church, she could have done otherwise. I cannot see how the Church of England, if she comes in the future to be disestablished, can do otherwise. That Church has always admitted a vast amount of lay interference, even prior to the Reformation, and still more since that. important event. Extreme men may scoff at those branches of their own Communion which have admitted laymen to vote in Church synods upon all questions whatsoever; but they forget when doing so that statements and decrees most dear to themselves bear manifest traces of far more extreme lay intervention. The Ornaments Rubric, standing before the order for Morning Prayer, is a striking evidence of this. It is dear to the hearts of many, because it orders the use of eucharistic vestments and the preservation of the chancels in the ancient style; but on what grounds does it do so? Let the precise words of the rubric be the answer: “Here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Objections to the determinations, rules, and canons of the Irish Church Synod might have some weight did they profess, as this rubric does, to have been ordained and imposed by the order of laymen alone. But when the bishops of a. Church have an independent vote, the clergy an independent vote, the free and independent vote of the laity is totally powerless by itself to introduce any novelty, and is only powerful to prevent change in the ancient order. I do not feel bound to defend some ill-judged expressions and foolish speeches which some lay representatives may have made in the Irish Church Synod, as again no member of the Church of England need trouble himself to defend some rash speeches made in Parliament on Church topics. In the first moments of unaccustomed freedom Irish laymen did and said some rash things, and, overawing the clergy by their fierce expressions, may have caused the introduction of some hasty and ill-advised measures. But sure I am that every sincere member of the Church to which I belong will agree that the admission of the lay representatives to a free discussion and free vote upon every topic has had a marvellous influence in broadening their conceptions of Scripture truth and deepening their affections and attachment to their Mother Church which has treated and trusted them thus generously.
V. The proceedings of the Apostolic Synod next demand our attention. The account which has been handed down is doubtless a mere outline of what actually happened. We are not told anything concerning the opening of the Assembly or how the discussion was begun. St. Luke was intent merely on setting forth the main gist of affairs, and therefore he reports but two speeches and tells of two others. Some Christian Pharisee having put forward his objections to the position occupied by the Gentile converts, St. Peter arose, as was natural, he having been the person through whose action the present trouble and discussion had originated. St. Peters speech is marked on this occasion by the same want of assumption of any higher authority than belonged to his brethren which we have noted before when objections were taken to his dealings with Cornelius. His speech claims nothing for himself, does not even quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but simply repeats in a concise shape the story of the conversion of Cornelius, points out that God put no difference between Jew and Gentile, suggesting that if God had put no difference between them why should man dare to do so, and then ends with proclaiming the great doctrine of grace that men, whether Jews or Gentiles, are saved through faith in Christ alone, which purifies their hearts and lives. After Peters speech there arose James the Lords brother, who from ancient times has been regarded as the first bishop of Jerusalem, and who most certainly, from the various references to him both here and elsewhere in the Act 12:17; Act 21:18 and in the Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have occupied the supreme place in that Church. James was a striking figure. There is a long account of him left us by Hegesippus, a very ancient Church historian, who bordered on apostolic times, and now preserved tot us in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius, 2:23. There he is described as an ascetic and a Nazarite, like John the Baptist, from his earliest childhood. “He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used the bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camels, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed on account of his exceeding great piety he was called the Just and Oblias, which signifies the Rampart of the People.” This description is the explanation of the power and authority of James the Just in the Apostolic Assembly. He was a strict legalist himself. He desired no freedom for his own share, but rejoiced in observances and restrictions far beyond the common lot of the Jews. When such a man pronounced against the attempt made to impose circumcision and the law as a necessary condition of salvation, the Judaisers must have felt that their cause was lost. St. James expressed his views in no uncertain terms. He begins by referring to St. Peters speech and the conversion of Cornelius. He then proceeds to show how the prophets foretold the ingathering of the Gentiles, quoting a passage {Amo 9:11-12} which the Jewish expositors themselves applied to the Messiah. His method of Scriptural interpretation is exactly the same as that of St. Paul and St. Peter. It is very different from ours, but it was the universal method of his day; and when we wish to arrive at the meaning of the Scriptures, or for that matter of any work, we ought to strive and place ourselves at the standpoint and amid the circumstances of the writers and actors. The prophet Amos speaks of the tabernacle of David as fallen down. The rebuilding of it is then foretold, and James sees in the conversion of the Gentiles this predicted rebuilding. He then pronounces in the most decided language against “troubling those who from among the Gentiles are turned to God” in the matter of legal observances, laying down at the same time the concessions which should be demanded from the Gentiles so as not to cause offence to their Jewish brethren. The sentence thus authoritatively pronounced by the strictest Jewish Christian was naturally adopted by the Apostolic Synod, and they wrote a letter to the disciples in Syria and Cilicia, embodying their decision, which for a time settled the controversy which had been raised. This epistle begins by disclaiming utterly and at once the agitators who had gone forth to Antioch and had raised the disturbances. It declared that circumcision was unnecessary for the Gentile converts. This was the great point upon which St. Paul was most anxious. He had no objection, as we have already said, to the Jews observing their legal rites and ceremonies, but he was totally opposed to the Gentiles coming under any such rule as a thing necessary to salvation. The epistle then proceeds to lay down certain concessions which the Gentiles should in turn make. They should abstain from meats offered in sacrifice unto idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication; all of them points upon which the public opinion of the Gentiles laid no stress, but which were most abhorrent to a true Jew. The decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, as the inspired historian expressly terms them in Act 16:4, were mere temporary expedients. They determined indeed one important question, that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles-that Judaism, in fact, was not in and by itself a saving dispensation; but left unsolved many other questions, even touching this very subject of circumcision and the Jewish law, which had afterwards to be debated and threshed out, as St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians proves. But, turning our eyes from the obsolete controversy which evoked the Apostolic Epistle, and viewing the subject from a wider and a modern standpoint, we may say that the decrees of this primitive Synod narrated in this typical history bestow their sanction upon the great principles of prudence, wisdom, and growth in the Divine life and in Church work. It was with the apostles themselves as with the Church ever since. Apostles even must not make haste, but must be contented to wait upon the developments of Gods providence. Perfection is an excellent thing, but then perfection cannot be attained at once. Here a little and there a little is the Divine law under the New as under the Old Dispensation. Truth is the fairest and most excellent of all possessions, but the advocates of truth must not expect it to be grasped in all its bearings by all sorts and conditions of men at one and the same time. They must be content, as St. Paul was, if one step be taken at a time; if progress be in the right and not in the wrong direction; and must be willing to concede much to the feelings and long-descended prejudices of short-sighted human nature.