The
Important Council at Jerusalem -- Acts 15
It was almost by accident that
the most epoch-making things were happening in Antioch so that the gospel was
being preached to Jew and Gentile alike and they were living together as
brethren. There were certain Jews
to whom all this was quite unthinkable. They
could never forget the position of the Jews as the chosen people.
They were quite willing that the Gentiles should come into the Church but
on the condition that first they became Jews.
If this attitude had prevailed, Christianity would have become nothing
other than a sect of Judaism. Some
of these narrower Jews came down to Antioch and tried to persuade the converts
that they would lose everything unless they first accepted Judaism.
Paul and Barnabas argued strongly against this and matters were at a
deadlock.
There was only one way out.
An appeal must be made to Jerusalem and the apostles for a ruling.
The case which Paul and Barnabas put forward was simply the story of what
had happened. They were prepared to
let the facts speak for themselves. But
certain of the Pharisees who had become Christians insisted that all converts
must be circumcised and keep the Law.
The principle at stake was
quite simple and completely fundamental. Was
the gift of God for the select few or for all the world?
If we possess it ourselves are we to look on it as a privilege or as a
responsibility? The problem may not
meet us nowadays in precisely the same way; but there still exist divisions
between class and class, between nation and nation, between color and color.
We fully realize the true meaning of Christianity only when all middle
walls of partition are broken down.
At this point in the narrative our historian makes a
sudden transition from the conflicts of the disciples with the unbelieving world
to one almost as serious among themselves. There never was a national antipathy
more intense than that felt by the Jews to the whole Gentile world. It was the
more intense, from the fact that it was imbedded in their deepest religious
sentiments, and was cultivated in all the devotions.
In the hearts of the disciples this feeling had, by
this time, been so far overcome, that they had admitted the propriety of
receiving uncircumcised Gentiles into the Church. But they found it more
difficult to convince themselves that Gentiles were to be admitted into social
and domestic intimacy. Hence, when Peter returned from the house of Cornelius to
Jerusalem, the chief objection urged against him was, not that he had immersed
Gentiles, but "Thou didst go into the
house of men uncircumcised, and didst eat
with them."
This was the full extent to which the judaizing party
in the Church were prepared, at that time, to push their objections. But [180]
when men take an unreasonable and obstinate stand against any cause, they
frequently assume more extravagant ground as the cause they are opposing
advances. While but a few Gentiles had come into the Church, the pharisaic party
objected only to domestic association with them; but now that Paul and Barnabas
had succeeded in opening a door of faith to the whole Gentile world, and it was
likely that the Jews, who had hitherto constituted almost the whole body of the
Church, were soon to become only a small element in its constituency, their
fears were excited, and their demands became more exorbitant. Paul and Barnabas
were still in Antioch.
(1) "And certain men came down from Judea,
and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the law of
Moses, you can not be saved." As we learn from a subsequent part of
this chapter, they were not content with merely enjoining circumcision, but also
exacted the observance of all the law of Moses, to which circumcision was only
preliminary.{1} The success of this party would
have perpetuated Judaism, and forever have neutralized those philanthropic
principles of the gospel which the experience of the world and the wisdom of God
alike had shown to be necessary to the moral renovation of the human race.
Circumcision:
before Christ, circumcision had been the physical sign that a man was a follower
of the true God. It was the sign that a man believed the promises that God had
made to Abraham and Israel (cp. Genesis 17:10-14; Romans 4:11). God never
intended circumcision to have any value other than being a sign. It was not
meant to bring righteousness to any man—not even to Abraham (Romans 4:9-10).
It was given only as a sign, a sign of the faith that a man already had in
God’s promises. Righteousness was imputed to the man because he believed
God’s promises; then the man was circumcised as a sign of his faith in God
(Romans 4:11-12).
However,
many abused God’s purpose for circumcision.
1. Some made
circumcision a substitute for true righteousness. A man was thought to be safe
and secure in the arms of God if he was circumcised. Believing God and loving
men had little to do with being a child of God. Many forgot the circumcision of
a pure heart and became Jews of the circumcision in name only. Circumcision
became merely a handmade, external, physical sign.
2. Some used
circumcision as a way to divide and categorize people. A great wall of division
was thrown up around the uncircumcised (cp. 1 Samuel 17:26, 36; 2 Samuel 1:20).
Any man who was uncircumcised was thought to be cut
off and far off, not only from those thought to be the people of God (the
Jews and the circumcised), but from God Himself. An uncircumcised man was looked
upon with bitter contempt. In the mind of the Jew, God was thought to love only
Israel, despising and rejecting the Gentile nations.
3. God has done away
with circumcision as a sign of righteousness since Christ has come (Galatians
5:6; Galatians 6:15; Col. 2:11). Righteousness is now of the heart and in the
spirit, not in the letter of rules and regulations (cp. Romans 2:25-29; Romans
4:8-12, 23-25). The truly righteous man is the man who is God’s inwardly—the
man whose spirit has been recreated
into the very nature of God. God’s very own righteous nature is implanted into
the very nature of man when he is born
again. A man born again by the
Spirit of God is God’s new creation
(John 3:3f; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 1:4).
2. If Paul and Barnabas had ever been, since their
conversion, blinded by these narrow views, their labors among the Gentiles would
have wrought a change in their feelings, and prepared them to see the subject in
a better light. They opposed the new propositions with all their powers; and
though they did not succeed in silencing their opponents, they brought the
discussion to a fortunate conclusion. (2) "When therefore Paul and
Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that
Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the
apostles and elders about this question."
If the brethren in Antioch had estimated at its
proper value the authority of an inspired apostle, they would have yielded
implicitly to Paul's decision without this mission to Jerusalem. But they were
as yet too little accustomed to reflection upon the profound mystery of
apostolic infallibility to properly accredit it; and their deep prejudices on
the subject under discussion was a serious obstacle in the way of clear thought.
It is probable that apostolic authority is more highly appreciated now than it
was then; yet the prejudices of sect and party are so intense, that even now the
dictum of a living apostle would prove
insufficient, in millions of cases, to convince men of their errors. Like the
disciples in Antioch, who had the testimony of Paul, men now are not easily
satisfied with a single inspired statement upon a point in dispute, or with the
statements of a single apostle, but demand an accumulation of even divine
testimonies.
It is probable that Paul would have objected to
making this appeal to the other apostles, on the ground of its apparent
inconsistency with his own claims to inspired authority, had not the proposition
been sustained by an express revelation of the divine will. In the second
chapter of Galatians, where Mr. Howson very clearly proves that Paul has
reference to this journey,{2} he says: "I
went up by [181] revelation and
communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles." It was
the divine purpose to settle the question, not for the Church in Antioch alone,
but for all the world and for all time.
3. Their journey to Jerusalem, which was accomplished
by land, lay through two sections of country which had already been evangelized
to a considerable extent. (3) "Being sent forward by the Church, they
passed through Phenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles:
and they caused great joy to all the brethren." The Churches in
Samaria did not, of course, sympathize with the Jewish prejudices, and although
in Phenicia there were doubtless many Jews, yet the Gentile element sufficiently
predominated to enable the brethren there, like the Samaritans, to rejoice that
the gospel was spreading into the heathen world.
4. After a pleasant journey among rejoicing Churches,
they reached Jerusalem. (4) "And when they arrived in Jerusalem, they
were received by the Church, and by the apostles and elders, and they declared
all that God had done with them." They proceeded, in Jerusalem, as
they had upon their return to Antioch, to give a history of their missionary
tour. This was done in the presence of the Church, the apostles also being
present.
The
dissenters from the Judean churches were a powerful force, so powerful that
their argument and emphasis have continued down through the centuries. Note that
the visitors from Jerusalem moved among the Antioch believers and taught their
own ideas. The dissenters were...
·
teachers
and leaders.
·
well-versed
in the Scripture.
·
some
of the very first believers, considered mature.
·
elder
statesmen.
·
esteemed
highly.
Therefore, what they said was considered very important. The problem was
this: if the dissenters were allowed to continue, the believers of Antioch were
bound to become upset and confused. The result would have been explosive and
devastating: the Antioch church would have been split and its ministry and
witness made ineffective.
Scripture
clearly declares what the dissension was; there can be no mistake about what was
being said: “Except ye be circumcised...ye cannot be saved.” Note
three critical facts.
a. A
person’s eternal fate was at stake. The dissenters did not say you should
undergo the ritual...
·
to
be obedient to Scripture
·
to
please God
·
to
please the church
·
to
demonstrate your love
·
to
identify with believers
·
to
keep from being a stumbling block
The dissenters were saying believers must undergo the ritual and be
circumcised to be saved. They were
saying it was the ritual, the circumcision that saved
them; a believer was just not saved unless he was ritualized. They were claiming salvation was...
·
God’s
grace plus a ritual.
·
God’s
grace plus man’s own hand.
·
God’s
grace plus man’s own work.
·
a
spiritual thing (God) plus a physical thing (circumcision).
b. The
issue was not whether a believer should be circumcised. Paul never said that
circumcision was wrong. He maintained that since Christ had come, circumcision
was a personal matter and a matter of conscience. If a person wished to be
circumcised, let him be. Down through the centuries a host of Gentile believers
(even two thousand years after Christ) have been circumcised and not become
Jews. The physical act of circumcision does not make a person a Jew any more
than any other physical ritual makes a person a member of any other race. It is
the nature and commitment of one’s
body, mind, and soul that makes a person a true member of a race or of anything
else.
Again, the issue was not whether a person should be circumcised or ritualized,
but whether a ritual was necessary to be saved. The answer was critical,
affecting all generations of believers. The answer would determine a man’s primary relationship to Jesus Christ: Is a man’s confrontation and
saving experience to be focused upon Jesus Christ or upon Jesus Christ and
something else?
Þ Is
a person’s mind and attention to be upon Jesus alone, or upon Jesus and a ritual?
Þ Is
a person’s faith to be in Jesus alone,
or in Jesus and a ritual?
Þ Is
a person’s profession to declare Jesus alone,
or Jesus and a ritual?
Þ Is
a person’s life to bear testimony to Jesus alone,
or to Jesus and a ritual?
Þ Is
a person’s witness to be Jesus alone,
or Jesus and a ritual?
Does God save a person whose body, mind, and soul are focused upon His
Son alone or upon Jesus and...
·
some
ritual?
·
some
ceremony?
·
some
act?
·
some
work?
·
some
human effort?
·
some
physical substance?
The answer should be clear to all who think and are honest and unselfish. God
has only one Son who loves Him
supremely, only one Son who has proven His love by obeying God supremely, even
to the point of suffering for all the sins of the world. And God loves His dear
Son supremely.
Þ Could
God add anything to the plan of salvation, add anything that would divert
man’s attention from His Son, especially in the very first moments of
confrontation?
Þ Could
God want a man’s mind to be upon anything other than His Son, to be upon
rushing to experience some ritual
instead of focusing his attention solely upon His dear Son?
Þ Is
it possible that something else is needed other than Jesus Himself?
Þ Is
there honestly some physical substance
needed in addition to God’s only Son?
Þ Is
there really a ritual, an ordinance, that has a heart that can reach out and
save a man from death? Or, do people alone have hearts, and the Person of God
alone have the heart of salvation?
c. Paul
and Barnabas argued time and again against this teaching, declaring that ritual
(circumcision) is not necessary for salvation. Note the words, “no small
dissension and disputation [questioning].” The arguments...
·
were
frequent and long.
·
involved
the questioning and challenging of each other as well as dissension.
·
were
unyielding, with neither side giving an inch.
The issue was bound to be critical to Paul or else he would not have gone
to such limits in arguing the point. Paul’s great commitment to the Lord would
not allow him to waste time in useless argument (cp. 2 Tim. 2:16, 23-26). This
fact alone should speak to the hearts of any who stand on the other side.
There
was the decision of the Antioch church to seek counsel from the Jerusalem
church. The Antioch church had no doubt about its position. Note that the
Antioch church was not seeking for the Jerusalem church to enlighten them on the
doctrine of salvation. The church sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for three
reasons.
a. God
told Paul to go: “I went up by revelation” (Galatians 2:2). God willed a
great church council (one that would include the earliest apostles)—a council
that would issue a great verdict proclaiming the truth to every generation.
b. A
declaration by the apostles would carry great weight and help tremendously in
silencing those who would add a ritual to the requirements for salvation.
c. A
declaration by the Jerusalem church would provide a great weapon to use in the
struggle against “ritual salvation.” The Jerusalem church was the ritual
center, the home base of those preaching the error. Therefore, if the Jerusalem
church would issue a strong verdict denying the necessity of ritual for
salvation, the position of “salvation by grace” alone would be greatly
strengthened.
There
was the triumphant and glorious march of a great church, encouraging and loving
God’s servants. Note the revealing words, “And being brought on their way by
the church.” As Paul and Barnabas began their journey to Jerusalem, a great
company from the Antioch church escorted them as a mark of great affection and
honor. Despite the ever present opposition to Paul that seemed to be in
practically every church, there were some believers who loved and respected him
deeply.
The
servants utilized every opportunity to preach. As Paul and Barnabas travelled
toward Jerusalem, they proclaimed Christ
to the believers where churches had been founded. They also proclaimed the
great movement of God that had taken place among the Gentiles. Note the “great
joy” of the Christian brothers.
Þ The
Phenician churches were founded by laymen over a decade before (cp. Acts 11:19).
Þ The
Samaritan churches had been founded by Philip and Peter and John (cp. Acts 8:5,
25).
5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully
their own position. (5) "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who
believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command
them to keep the law of Moses." This party is here identified as
converts from the old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of
any large accessions to the Church from this party; but this incidental remark
shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the truth had yielded, and were
now occupying positions of influence in the congregation. Paul now once more
meets some of his companions in the persecution of the disciples, not to
harmonize with them, nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the
claims of Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same
disposition to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight against the
gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which must have been well-founded,
or he would not have given the public utterance to it which he did at a
subsequent period.
He styles them, in the Epistle to the Galatians, "False
brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."{3}
Having witnessed a rapid increase of the
congregations under the pressure of the persecutions and disputations to which
they had formerly resorted, these wily enemies of the truth determined at length
to corrupt and destroy, under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress
they could not impede by open enmity. They well knew, what some of the brethren
had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered powerless
if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even to this day the mass of
religious teachers have failed to learn this lesson, though the experience of
ages has demonstrated its truth.
The essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees
had reference to the [182] perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of
Christ, and the same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that
day to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten circumcision
on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant
immersion, and finally, infant
sprinkling as a substitute. What the early Pharisees failed to accomplish in
the face of apostolic opposition, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a
thin disguise.
The unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to "spy
out the liberty which the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into
bondage" under the law, has been successfully accomplished by these,
in teaching men that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham's family, and
that the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one
identical Church.
The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous ritual and
daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter Canaanites in the
form of modern heretics; professed Christians go to war under the old battle-cry
of "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon;" the Latter-day Saints
emulate the Turks in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions
authority is found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent
reader of the New Testament knows scarcely which of these errors is most
repugnant to the truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and
ceaseless vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men.
6. After the Pharisees had stated their position,
distinctly affirming that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law,
it seems that the assembly adjourned to meet up again at another hour. The next
meeting is then announced in these words: (6) "Now the apostles and
elders came together to consider this matter."
The
apostles were not lording it over the
elders, nor the elders over the people. The issue being considered was of such
great magnitude that the leaders were demonstrating humility and sensitivity to
the needs of all. Note also there was “much disputing.” No one was ignored
or silenced. All were allowed to say what they thought.
In answer to the
stricter Jews Peter reminded them how he himself had been responsible for the
reception of Cornelius into the Church ten years before this.
The proof that he had acted rightly was that God had granted his Holy
Spirit to these very Gentiles who had been received.
As far as the Law's claims went they might have been ceremonially
unclean; but God had by his Spirit cleansed their hearts.
The attempt to obey the Law's multifarious commands and so to earn
salvation was a losing battle which left every man in default.
There was only one way-the acceptance of the free gift of the grace of
God in an act of self-surrendering faith.
Peter went right to the heart
of the question. In this whole
dispute the deepest of principles was involved.
Can a man earn the favour of
God? Or must he admit his own
helplessness and be ready in humble faith to accept what the grace of God gives?
In effect, the Jewish party said, "Religion means earning God's
favour by keeping the Law." Peter
said, "Religion consists in casting ourselves on the grace of God."
Here is implicit the difference
between a religion of works and a religion of grace.
Peace will never come to a man until he realizes that he can never put
God in his debt; and that all he can do is take what God in his grace gives.
The paradox of Christianity is that the way to victory is through
surrender; and the way to power is through admitting one's own helplessness.
Neither this nor the former meeting was composed
exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from verse
fifth, that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from
the twenty-second
verse below, that at this second meeting the whole Church were present.
There had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview
between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of coming to some
distinct understanding of the subject before it was laid before the multitude.
This we learn from Paul himself, who says: "I
communicated to them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately
to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in
vain."{4} This language implies that his
course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who were, doubtless, the
apostles and other inspired men. Their approval of his course shows that the
objections afterward urged were preferred by another class of men. The public
discussion was not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they really did not differ after the facts were
stated by Paul and Barnabas. But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles,
to bring the other brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had
already united.
7-11. Luke does not report all that was said, but
only those speeches that were decisive, and that brought the controversy to a
close. Merely alluding, therefore, to the first part of the discussion, he says:
[183] (7) "And when there had been much discussion, Peter arose and
said to them, Brethren, you know that, a good while ago, God made choice among
us that the Gentiles through my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and
believe. (8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness for them,
giving to them the Holy Spirit even as he did to us. (9) He made no
difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now,
then, why do you put God to the proof, by putting a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But
we believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ, in
the same manner as they."
The position of the Pharisees not only condemned the
course of Paul and Barnabas, but also involved a censure of Peter, who was the
first of all the apostles, as he here asserts, to preach the Word to Gentiles.
When arraigned once before for his conduct in the case of Cornelius, he had
vindicated his procedure by relating the miraculous evidences of God's will
which had been his guide; and now, to accomplish the same end with these
brethren, he adduces the most decisive of those miracles, the gift of the Holy
Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. Having given to them the same gift as to the
apostles on Pentecost, and having imposed upon them none of the purifying rites
of the law, but simply purifying their hearts
by faith, he assumes that God had made
no difference between them and the Jewish brethren. Now, to attempt to impose
the law upon them, in the face of these evidences of God's will to the contrary,
would be putting God to the proof of his determination to maintain his own
authority. It would, moreover, be imposing a yoke which the Jews themselves had
never been able to bear successfully. This yoke is not circumcision, for there
is no difficulty in submitting to that; but it was the law, under whose
provisions no man could live without incurring its condemnation.
His concluding statement, that "We
believe that we shall be saved through the favor of the Lord Jesus, in the same
manner as they," involves two important conclusions: First,
That it is not through the merit of obedience to the law that we are to be
saved, but through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ. This favor is extended in
the pardon of sins. Second, That the
Gentiles are saved in the same manner as the Jews. By using the plural we
believe, instead of I believe, he
doubtless intended to express not only the conviction of his own mind, but that
of the party with whom he acted, including the other apostles. It was a decision
of the inspired teachers against the Pharisees.
12. This brief statement of facts had so good an
effect upon the multitude, that Barnabas and Paul determined to follow it by a
rehearsal of similar facts in the history of their own labors among the
Gentiles. (12) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and listened to
Barnabas and Paul relating what signs and wonders God had wrought among the
Gentiles through them." Their remarks on this occasion were not a
repetition of what they had said in the former meeting, when they had set forth
"all that God had done with them," but were confined to the
"signs and wonders" by which God had indicated his approbation of
their ministry.{5} The reversal of the order in
which Luke now habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas,
whose [184] name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing
argument on those events.
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.{6}
(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."
We may well believe that the
matter of the reception of the Gentiles hung in the balance; then James spoke.
He was the leader of the Jerusalem church.
His leadership was not a formal office; it was a moral leadership
conceded to him because he was an outstanding man.
He was the brother of Jesus. He
had had a special resurrection appearance all to himself (1 Corinthians
15:7). He was a pillar of the
Church (Galatians 1:19).
His knees were said to be as hard as a camel's because he knelt in prayer
so often and so long. He was so
good a man that he was called James the Just.
Further-and this was all-important-he himself was a rigorous observer of
the Law. If such a man should come
down on the side of the Gentiles then all was well; and he did, declaring that
the disciples should be allowed into the Church without let or hindrance.
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.{7}
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 [185] 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;"{8} that there
should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel.{9}
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."{10}
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."{11} 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."{12} 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. [186]
22-29. The speech of James brought the discussion to
a close. The will of God upon the subject was now so clearly exhibited that the
opposition was totally silenced, and it remained only to determine the best
method of practically carrying out the proposition submitted by James. (22)
"Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to
send chosen men from among themselves with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; Judas
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (23) writing
by their hand these words: The apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the
brethren from the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, greeting:
(24) Since we have heard that certain persons who went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls, telling you to be circumcised
and to keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment, (25) it
seemed good to us, being of one mind, to send chosen men to you with our beloved
Barnabas and Paul, (26) men who have hazarded their lives for the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ. (27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and
Silas, who also will tell you the same things orally. (28) For it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things, (29) that you abstain from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from
which, if you keep yourselves, you will do well. Farewell."
By the construction of the Greek, we learn that it
was Paul and Barnabas, and not Judas and Silas, who are commended in this letter
as "men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus."
Even then the matter of
ordinary social intercourse came in. How
could a strict Jew consort with a Gentile? To make things easier James suggested certain regulations
that Gentiles ought to keep.
They must abstain from the
contamination of idols. One of the
great problems of the early Church was that of meat offered to idols.
Paul deals with it at length in 1 Corinthians
8 and 9. When a heathen sacrificed
in a temple, often only a small part of the meat was sacrificed.
Most of the rest was given back to him to make a feast for his friends,
often in the temple precincts, sometimes in his own house.
The priests received the remainder which was then sold for ordinary
purposes. No Christian must risk
pollution by eating such meat for it had been offered to an idol.
They must abstain from
fornication. It has been said that
chastity was the only completely new virtue that Christianity brought into the
world. In an impure world the
Christian had to be pure.
They must abstain from things
strangled and from blood. To the
Jew the blood was the life and the life belonged to God alone.
They so argued because when the blood flowed away life ebbed away too.
Therefore all Jewish meat was killed and treated in such a way that the
blood was drained off. The heathen
practice of not draining the blood from a slaughtered animal was obnoxious to
the strict Jew. So was the method
of killing by strangulation. So the
Gentile is ordered to eat only meat prepared in the Jewish way.
Had these simple regulations
not been observed there could have been no intercourse between Jew and Gentile;
but their observance destroyed the last barrier. Within the Church the principle was established that Jew and
Gentile were one.
30, 31. The object of sending Judas and Silas with
Paul and Barnabas was doubtless that they, having been entirely unconnected with
the conversion of Gentiles, and above suspicion of undue partiality toward them,
might use their personal influence with the Jewish brethren to induce them to
accept the teaching of the epistle. Their journey, and the effect of the
epistle, are thus stated: (30) "So, then, being sent away, they went to
Antioch, and having assembled the multitude, they gave them the epistle.
(31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the consolation."
Once the Church had come to its
decision, it acted with both efficiency and courtesy.
The terms of the decision were embodied in a letter.
But the letter was sent by no common messenger; it was entrusted to Judas
and to Silas who went to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Had Paul and Barnabas come back alone their enemies might have doubted
that they brought back a correct message; Judas and Silas were official
emissaries and guarantors of the reality of the decision.
The Church was wise in sending a person as well as a letter.
One of the earliest Christian
writers declared that he had learned more from the living and abiding voice than
from any amount of reading. A
letter could have sounded coldly official; but the words of Judas and Silas
added a friendly warmth that the bare reception of a letter could never have
achieved. Any amount of trouble
might be avoided many a time if only a personal visit is paid instead of someone
being content with sending a letter.
The brethren residing in Antioch had not become partisans in the controversy, but had been distressed by the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the Pharisees from Jerusalem, and desired only a satisfactory settlement of the question. The epistle, therefore, afforded them "consolation," and they cheerfully yielded to its requirements.
The triumph of Paul and Barnabas over their pharisaic
opponents was most signal and complete. And it appeared all the more signal to
the brethren in Antioch, from a fact not recorded by Luke. We learn from Paul's
own account of the visit to Jerusalem, that Titus, who was a Gentile, went with
him, and that strenuous efforts were there made to have him circumcised; but
Paul returned to Antioch, with Titus still uncircumcised, and with his whole
course indorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church. This ought to
have settled the controversy forever.
Before dismissing the subject of this appeal to the
apostles and elders in Jerusalem, we must notice briefly the use that is made of
it by the advocates of representative assemblies in the Church, for judicial and
[187] legislative purposes. Romanists, and the advocates of episcopacy
generally, find in the assembly in Jerusalem the first "general
council," and have styled it "The Council of Jerusalem." The
Presbyterians find in it the first synod; and others still appeal to it in
general terms, as authority for assemblies of brethren to decide questions of
doctrine and discipline. In order that it may properly be used as a precedent
for any of these assemblies, it must be made to appear analogous to them in its
essential features. But its essential features are: First,
That it was occasioned by an appeal from one
congregation to certain parties in one
other congregation, in reference to a disputed question which the first felt
unable to decide. Second, That the
parties to whom the appeal was made were inspired men, who could say of their
decision, when made, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us;" i.
e., to the Holy Spirit as the
divine arbiter, and to us as obedient subjects of his authority. It was the
inspiration, and, consequently, the infallibility of the party appealed to, that
suggested and that justified the appeal.
In both these peculiarities all the councils and
synods of Catholic and Protestant history are essentially deficient, for,
instead of being called together at the request of some congregations, to decide
some question presented, they consist of representatives from a number of
congregations, or districts of country, assembled for the purpose of discussing
and deciding whatever questions may come up among them; and instead of being
infallible, their decisions are nothing but the fallible opinions of uninspired
men, in reference to which it would be the height of profanity to say, "It
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us."
Not till we have an assembly under the guidance of inspired
men can we allow them to authoritatively decide religious questions after the
precedent of this assembly in Jerusalem. All the duties, responsibilities, and
privileges of disciples have already been authoritatively propounded by inspired
men; and for men now to meet together for the authoritative decision of such
questions, is to assume a prerogative that belongs exclusively to inspired
apostles and prophets, and, at the same time, is to assume that there are
deficiencies in their infallible teachings to be supplied by uninspired men.
In arguing thus upon the merits of all judicial and
legislative assemblies among the Churches, we must not be understood as
condemning the co-operation of different congregations, or of individuals from
them, in performing duties which are
imposed by divine authority. The essential difference between assemblies for
these two purposes is, that in the latter we are simply uniting our energies to
perform duties appointed by the word of God; while, in the former, we undertake
to decide what truth and duty are--a
work which none but inspired men can perform.
32-34. We have said above, that the purpose for which
Judas and Silas were sent to Antioch was to enforce, by their personal
influence, the authority of the epistle. We find this statement confirmed by the
further account of their labors. (32) "And Judas and Silas, being
themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed
them. (33) And when the had remained some time, they were dismissed in
peace from the brethren to the apostles. (34) But it pleased Silas to
remain there." [188]
The manner in which Luke connects the fact that these
brethren were prophets, with the statement that they exhorted the brethren and confirmed
them, shows that the chief work of the New Testament prophets was not to
foretell the future, but to exhort and confirm the brethren. He says,
"being also themselves prophets,
they exhorted the brethren and
confirmed them;" which form of expression makes the fact of being prophets
account for their exhortations. They differed from the Old Testament prophets
only in that the latter gave their chief attention to foretelling future events.
Still, even the predictions of the old prophets were made to answer the purpose
of exhortations to their cotemporaries; so that the difference between the two
is very slight.
35. The city of Antioch still continued to be a
profitable field for apostolic labor, and the scene of interesting events. (35)
"Paul and Barnabas also continued in Antioch, with many others,
teaching and preaching the word of the Lord." It is during this period
that the most judicious commentators locate the visit of Peter to Antioch, and
the rebuke administered to him by Paul, as recorded in the second chapter of
Galatians; "When Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed. For before the coming of certain persons from
James, he did eat with the Gentiles;
but when they came, he withdrew and separated
himself, fearing them of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled
likewise with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation."{13}
It has been erroneously supposed that Peter, in this
affair, acted in direct conflict with the epistle which he had just united in
addressing to the Gentile brethren. The harshness of this supposition has led
some writers to hastily conclude that his improper conduct must have occurred at
a period antecedent to the issuing of that epistle. It is also urged in favor of
an earlier date of the incident, that, if it had occurred subsequent to the
publication of that epistle, Paul would naturally have appealed to it in the
controversy with Peter, which he seems not to have done.
Both of these suppositions spring from a mistake as
to the exact fault of which Peter was guilty. He did not insist that the
Gentiles should be circumcised, or that they should keep the law; which were the
points discussed in the apostolic epistle. But, still admitting the right of the
uncircumcised to membership and its privileges, his fault was in refusing to eat
with them in their private circles, although he had himself been the first to do
so in the family of Cornelius, and had done so, for a time, even since he came
to Antioch.
In opposing such conduct, it would not have answered
Paul's purpose to appeal to the epistle from Jerusalem; for it merely asserted
the freedom of the Gentiles from the yoke of the law, without prescribing the
intercourse that should exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised
brethren. The course of argument which he did pursue was the only one available.
He convicted Peter of inconsistency, saying, "If you, being a Jew, live
like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why do you require the Gentiles to live like
Jews?"{14} He had lived like a Gentile while
eating with them; but now, by withdrawing from them, he was virtually saying to
them, You must live like the Jews. This was inconsistent, and made it appear
that either he was now a transgressor, [189] while building up the Jewish
prejudices, or had formerly been, while seeking to break them down. "For if
I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."{15}
But the proof of inconsistency in an opponent never
settles a question of truth or duty. After you have proved your opponent
inconsistent, you have still to prove that his present course differs from what
truth requires, as well as from his former course. Moral inconsistency convicts
a man as a transgressor, but whether a transgressor now, or formerly, is still
an open question. Paul, therefore, proceeded to prove Peter's present conduct
improper, by stating as an undisputed fact, "I, through the law, am dead
to the law, that I might live to God;"{16}
that is, by the limitation which the law prescribes to itself, it has ceased to
bind me, and I have ceased to live under it. This fact was decisive, because all
the distinction assumed to exist between the circumcised and uncircumcised was
based upon the supposition that the former, at least, were still under the law.
This is the last passage in Acts connected with the
Apostle Peter. Before leaving it, we must notice one fact in connection with
this unhappy incident in his life which far outweighs the dissimulation rebuked
by Paul. It is the manner in which he received this rebuke. There is not the
least evidence of any resentment on his part, either for the rebuke itself, or
for the subsequent publication of it to the Churches in Galatia. Most men become
offended when thus rebuked by their equals, and would regard it as an
unpardonable offense to give unnecessary publicity to a fault of this kind. But
Paul knew so well the goodness of Peter's heart, that he did not hesitate to
speak of it to the world and to future generations. That he did not overestimate
the meekness of Peter, is evident from the fact that the latter subsequently
spoke most affectionately of Paul, with direct allusion to his epistles, and
with a publicity equal to that which his own sin had received.{17}
This excellence of Peter's character was known to
other brethren besides Paul, as is evident from the freedom with which all the
four evangelists speak of his denial of the Lord. They might have omitted this
incident from their narratives, if they had been influenced by that pride and
sensitiveness which prompt men to hide the faults of their leaders, or if they
had thought that the publication of it would give serious offense to Peter. But
they knew Peter, and, we must presume, they knew that he was willing for any
fault of his, however discreditable, to be published to the world, if it would
do any good. This is the spirit of self-sacrifice with which every servant of
God should offer himself to the cause of Christ.
36-41. We have lingered long upon the interval spent
by Paul and Barnabas in Antioch. We are now to follow the former upon his second
missionary tour. (36) "But after some days, Paul said to Barnabas, Let
us return and visit our brethren in every city in which we have preached the
word of the Lord, and see how they do. (37) And Barnabas determined to
take with them John surnamed Mark. (38) But Paul thought proper not to
take with them him who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and did not go with
them to the work. (39) Then there was a contention, so that they
separated one from the other: and [190] Barnabas took Mark and sailed
into Cyprus. (40) But Paul chose Silas, and departed, having been
commended to the favor of God by the brethren; (41) and went through
Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches."
Paul was a born adventurer and
could never stay long in the one place. He
decided to take the road again; but the preparations for the journey ended in a
tragic breach. Barnabas wished to
take John Mark but Paul would have nothing to do with the man who had played the
deserter in Pamphylia. The
difference between them was so sharp that they split company never to work with
each other again. It is impossible
to say whether Barnabas or Paul was right.
But this much is certain, Mark was supremely fortunate that he had a
friend like Barnabas. In the end,
as we know, Mark became the man who redeemed himself. It may well have been the friendship of Barnabas which gave
Mark back his self-respect and made him determined to make good.
It is a great thing for a man to have someone who believes in him.
Barnabas believed in Mark and in the end Mark justified that belief.
This journey, it should be observed, was undertaken for the prime purpose of revisiting the Churches where these brethren had previously labored, and not, primarily, to preach to the heathen. This shows that the solicitude with which the apostles watched for the welfare of the congregations was not less ardent than their zeal in spreading a knowledge of the gospel.
The desire of Barnabas to take John with them was,
doubtless, prompted, in part, by partiality, arising from the relationship which
existed between them.{18} John, of course,
desired to go, and Barnabas wished to give him an opportunity to atone for his
former dereliction. Paul's reason for refusing to let him go was based upon a
want of confidence in one who would, either through fear or love of ease, desert
him in a trying hour.{19} Each considered the
reason for his own preference a good one; and as neither was willing to yield
for the sake of remaining with the other, they ought to have parted in perfect
peace. But some unpleasant feeling was aroused by the controversy, which Luke
expresses by the term paroxusmos,
of which contention is rather a tame
rendering, though paroxysm which we
have derived from it, would express too high a degree of passion.
This incident shows that the best of men may differ
about matters of expediency, and that, in contending for their respective
conclusions, they may be aroused to improper feelings. But the good man, under
such circumstances, will always be distinguished by the readiness with which
such feelings will be repressed, and by the absence of all subsequent malice. We
know that Paul afterward felt very differently toward John; for, during his
first imprisonment at Rome, he mentions him to Philemon as a fellow-laborer
there present;{20} and to the Colossians as one
who had been a comfort to him;{21} and, during
his second imprisonment, he writes to Timothy: "Take Mark and bring him
with you; for he is profitable to me for the ministry."{22}
The slight heat engendered between Barnabas and Paul also subsided in a short
time; for Paul afterward speaks of him in most friendly terms, in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians.{23}
By returning with Mark to his native land, Barnabas
revisited a portion of the brethren to whom he and Paul had preached, while Paul
visited another portion of them by a different route. Thus, notwithstanding
their disagreement and separation, they did not allow the good cause to suffer,
but accomplished separately the whole of the proposed work. The separation of
Barnabas and Paul is our separation from Barnabas. His name is not mentioned
again by Luke. But as we bid him farewell, the sails are spread which are to
bear him over the sea, that he may make the islands glad with a knowledge of
salvation. The further incidents of his life will yet be known to all who shall
sit down with him in the everlasting kingdom.
We turn with Luke to follow the history of him who
was in labors more abundant and in prisons more frequent than all the apostles,
[191] and to form a better acquaintance with his new companion. The statement
that Paul and Silas were "commended to the favor of God by the
brethren," does not imply, as many writers have supposed, that they refused
thus to commend Barnabas and Mark, or that the brethren sided with Paul against
Barnabas in their contention. It is sufficiently accounted for by the fact that
the attention of the writer is fixed upon the detail of Paul's history rather
than that of Barnabas. No doubt the prayers of the brethren followed them both
to their distant and dangerous fields of labor.
By a northern route through Syria, and then a
westerly course through Cilicia, Paul approached the extremity of his recent
tour in the interior of Asia Minor. He was not altogether a stranger along the
journey, for he had spent some time in Syria and Cilicia before his first visit
to Antioch;{24} and it is most probable that he
now revisited, in these districts, Churches which he had planted by his own
labors.
{1}
Acts
xv: 24.
{2} Vol. i, p. 227, et seq.
{3} Gal.
ii: 4.
{4} Gal.
ii: 2.
{5} Compare Acts
xiv: 3.
{6} Amos
ix: 11, quoted from the Septuagint.
{7} Gen.
ix: 4.
{8} 2
Sam. vii: 16.
{9} 1
Kings ii: 4.
{10} Ps.
lxxxix: 3, 4.
{11} Luke
i: 32, 33.
{12} Rom.
i: 3.
{13} Gal.
ii: 11-13.
{14} Gal.
ii: 14.
{15} Gal.
ii: 18.
{16} Gal.
ii: 19.
{17} 2
Peter iii: 15, 16..
{18} Col.
iv: 10.
{19} See Com. xiii: 13.
{20} Phil.
24.
{21} Col.
iv: 11.
{22} 2
Tim. iv: 11.
{23} 1
Cor. ix: 6.
{24} Comp. Gal.
i: 21 with Acts ix: 30 and xi: 25.
Last modified: July 10, 2008