The Apostolic Council and Its Aftermath (Acts 15)
The Apostolic Council and Its Aftermath (Acts 15)
We are at the point in St. Paul’s missionary career in which the first missionary journey is over, and Antioch has become the centre of the missionary work. The date is probably A.D. 50 or 51, but how is it ascertained? The removal of Felix and the arrival of Festus (Acts 24:27; 25:1), this seems to have occurred in A.D. 60. The notice of the centurions from the point of the boat departing from Caesarea. So the chronology looks like this: 1) two years in Jerusalem A.D. 58–60 (Acts 24:27); 2) return to Greece A.D. 57, 58 (Acts 20:3, 6); 3) three years at Ephesus A.D. 54–57 (Acts 19:3, 10; 20:31); 4) two years at Corinth A.D. 52–54 (Acts 18:11, 18); 5) start of second missionary journey A.D. 51.
The Importance of the Epoch. 1) In St. Paul’s Life—The history now begins to have parallels with the Epistles; 2) in the history of the church, the liberation of the Gentile churches. Gentile Christendom enters upon an independent career. I will defer the comparison with the references in the Epistle to the Galatians until the passage is gone through.
On the matter of text criticism, we have various curious interpolations in the Western text here in vss. 1-5 e.g. one of D’s curious additions in vs. 1 is περιπατῆτε, so also Syr. Peshit. margin. These same witnesses interpolate largely again in vs. 2 ζητήσεως. In vs. 4 C***, G, H, and others add καὶ ὅτι ἤνοιξε τοῖς ἔθνεσι. And in vs. 5 D and Syr. Peshit. margin again interpolate largely.
Vs. 1 Καί τίνες κατελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ιουδαίας The same τίνες in Acts 15:24. What is their relationship to the Apostles of the circumcision? Their external connection is allowed, but their representative character in this particular matter must be denied. See vs. 24 οἷς οὐ διεστειλάμεθα. This accords with St. Paul’s language in Gal 2:4 παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους. A later analogous instance occurs in Gal 2:12 πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, which this passage serves to explain, the occasion being similar but not identical. Epiphanius Pan. xxviii.4 (p. 112) says Cerinthus was the leader of this group. This is an impossibility for Cerinthus belongs to the last days of the Apostolic Age.
What of the Conduct of the Apostles of the Circumcision? 1) There is no concurrence with the principles of these Judaizers, but 2) there is a disposition to concession in practice, for the sake of peace. This disposition occasionally degenerates into complicity, as in the case of St. Peter at Antioch. κατελθόντες (vs. 1) leads to ἀναβαίνειν (vs. 2) and Gal 1:18; 2:1 (ἀνέβην). So κατελθεῖν from Judaea to Caesarea (Acts 21:12; 12:19), κατέβαινεν from Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke 10:30). But the former of these terms can have two meanings—a journey by land or a voyage (e.g. Acts 18:22). But Antioch was not strictly a seaport. κατελθεῖν, κατέβαινεν probably refer to the high mountainous country in Judaea. Comp. κατέβαινεν in Luke 10:30 and Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, p. 416. κατέρχεσθαι occurs about fifteen times in Luke and Acts, always in 2nd aorist form, and in only one place besides in the New Testament—James 3:15. St. Luke is more vivid than the other Evangelists in marking out peculiarities of natural scenery? [Investigate.]
περιτμηθῆτε—the correct reading. Their argument is—unless you have been circumcised (circumcision being a preliminary condition to acceptance), holy living is in vain.
Vs. 2 ζητήσεως—the right reading here, and probably also in Acts 15:7. Observe the order here τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρναβᾷ . . . Παῦλον καὶ Βαρναβᾶν and also in Acts 15:22. Whenever St. Luke speaks in his own manner or from the Antiochene point of view, this is always the order. But at Jerusalem it is different. At Acts 15:12 Barnabas is mentioned first, at vs. 22 Barnabas is again mentioned first. Who can doubt the authenticity of the letter and of this narrative? St. Luke is evidently incorporating some earlier record.
Down to Acts 13:2 the order has consistently been ‘Barnabas and Saul’ but from that point at which Paul’s missionary zeal appears and at which his name changes from Saul to Paul (Acts 13:9), the order is reversed. Paul is henceforth the principal person (Acts 13:13, 43) and that order is consistently maintained until here and vs. 25. Barnabas is heard first here and mentioned first in the circular letter as being better known at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 4:36). There is one other apparent exception to this rule, Acts 14:14, where it is determined by the circumstances narrated (see vs. 12).
τινας ἄλλους Comp. Gal 2:1, whether there was anyone else other than Titus, as is probable, we are not told. Certainly, Titus was there. St. Paul is only concerned with Titus (as he is the subject of the subsequent dispute) but his narrative does not exclude others. Titus was a representative of Gentile Christianity ( Ἕλλην ὤν—Gal 2:3). He is especially mentioned because of the dispute. Titus is not mentioned anywhere in the Acts.
πρεσβυτέρους first mentioned at Acts 12:30.
ζητήματος question, and its cognate ‘questioning.’
Vs. 3 προπεμφθέντες set on their way. Acts 20:38; 21:5 (3 times in Acts, 5 in Paul, once in 3 John and not elsewhere in the New Testament).
τήν τε Φοινίκην καὶ Σαμάρειαν treated as one region for the purposes of this narrative. Φοινίκην ‘the land of palms’ (see Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 263).
τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς on the evangelizing of Samaria (Acts 8) and of Phoenica (Acts 11:19).
Vs. 4 παρεδέχθησαν corresponding to προπεμφθέντες [?]. The more normal word for this sort of reception is ἀποδέχεσθαι and so ἀπεδέχθησαν is substituted in some manuscripts. But παρεδέχθησαν is probably more appropriate here as denoting reception from the hands of another, and so thus corresponding to προπεμφθέντες. It links together the departure and the arrival better. See παρεδέχθησαν in Polybius, vi.2.14—‘he was so warmly received.’ Bengel says it corresponds to προπεμφθέντες in vs. 3.
ἀπὸ is doubtless correct here. They received a welcome ‘from’ the church. ἀπό is a bit more expressive than ὑπό. See Winer, no. 44, p. 463sq. (Moulton).
καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων The καὶ singles out and emphasizes, but does not super-add(?). ‘and more especially’ in Acts 1:14; 4:5-6 see especially 1 Cor 9:5 which this passage will illustrate. Hegisippus in Eusebius H.E. ii.23—‘the Jews, and the scribes, and the Pharisees.’
μετ’ αὐτῶν In vs. 12 it is δι’ αὐτῶν. “Cum ipsis et per ipsis” (Bengel). They are συνεργοὶ θεοῦ (1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess 3:2). The E.V. ‘done with them’ is ambiguous.
Vs. 5 τινες . . . τῶν Φαρισαίων See Acts 6:7. The same party as mentioned in vs. 1. There is more to decipher in Gal 2, not that they were insincere in their profession but that their principles were inconsistent with Christianity.
πεπιστευκότες ‘which believed’ not ‘having accepted the faith.’ This verb is used frequently see e.g. Rom 13:11 ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν.
δεῖ περιτέμνειν These are the words of these Pharisaic Christians. The ὅτι is recitative as frequently in St. Luke. Thus the αὐτούς becomes natural here. ‘Saying it is needful to circumcise them and command them to observe. . . etc.’ The deputation appears to have delivered their message previously. There are plenty of instances of the insertion of the words of others, including in Acts—Acts 14:22 and below Acts 15:38. It is obvious from the discussion here that circumcision had not hitherto been imposed on the Gentiles.
Vss. 5-7 The previous discussions which are not very accurately defined here and of which St. Luke probably had no very exact information leave ample room for the disputes we find in Gal 2. In vs. 7 there is an interpolation in D. ἐν ὑμῖν, with A, B, C, Tisch. is to be preferred, as opposed to ἐν ἡμῖν in the Received Text, E, G, H, etc.
Vs. 6 Συνήχθησάν . . . οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι That others were present appears from vss. 12, 22 comp. Acts 15:23 and Acts 15:25. This is apparent from the superscription of the circular letter.
ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε
Vs. 7 ἀρχαίων See Acts 21:6. Days belonging to the ἀρχῇ of the Gospel. Compare Acts 11:15—ἐν δὲ τῷ ἄρξασθαί (twelve or thirteen years before). This speech spoken in A.D. 51. How early Cornelius was converted we cannot say; but probably from the sequence of St. Luke’s narrative, soon after the conversion of St. Paul. This was 14 years before the present time, allowing for the Hebrew reckoning of years (i.e. 37 or 38) i.e. but a few years after the day of Pentecost and (a reference to the present time) in the first primitive age of the Gospel.
ἐν ὑμῖν—the right reading. Thus emphasizing the appeal to their direct personal experience, and he also identifies the movement in the direction of liberty to them.
The ἐν ἡμῖν of the Received Text, besides not having such good support, is less possible though prima facie it is more natural.
ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη St. Peter first preached to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, thus the prediction of Christ that ‘on this rock I will build my church’ was fulfilled. This is to be understood historically not doctrinally. The historical interpretation is as amply fulfilled in the New Testament as the doctrinal one is negated. The primacy is historical and personal, not doctrinal and continuous. The St. Peter as the Πέτρα idea must be refined. Πέτρος both as the chief of the Apostles, and having received the first heathen convert speaks. This is the last mention of him in Acts, but he is mentioned in Galatians and 1 Corinthians.
Vs. 8 ὁ καρδιογνώστης θεὸς Only once elsewhere in the New Testament—Acts 1:24 in a prayer where St. Peter is probably the mouthpiece for the Apostles (see Bengel). Comp. Luke 16:15—the Pharisee and the publican where there is a similar antithesis implied. The expression ‘to know the heart’ does not seem to appear elsewhere in the Gospels. The phrase is emphatic, here as in Luke 16. ‘Qui cor, non carnem, spectat’—Bengel. See vs. 9 τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν.
δοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα See Acts 10:44-45. See St. Peter’s words Acts 11:15.
καθὼς καὶ ἡμῖν Comp. Acts 11:15.
Vs. 9 οὐθὲν or οὐδὲν here?
It is not circumcision of the flesh that cleanses the heart, but rather τῇ πίστει καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν. On the force of πίστις, it is a cleansing, purifying agent. The direct antagonism, or empirical exclusion, of faith and works would not be in the mind of the Apostles. Faith necessarily implies a godly life. It was an agent, and a more effective agent than the law for it affected not only the words and action but influenced the secret springs of action—καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας.
Vs. 10 πειράζετε i.e. endeavor to make Him reverse his decree. I do not find the expression elsewhere in the New Testament except in the quotation from Deut 6:16 (‘thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God’) in the Gospels and comp. Heb 3:9 citing the LXX. See Meyer ἐπιθεῖναι marks ‘das beabsichtigte Resultat zu dem πειράζετε τὸν Θεόν.’ See Winer, 45.3—loosely ‘imponando jugo,’ or ‘tempt God’ to make Him reverse his decree as regards to the free acceptance of Gentiles.
On ἐπιθεῖναι see Winer, no. 44, p. 400 (Moulton).
Vs. 11 διὰ τῆς χάριτος, emphatic position, not by ‘works of the law.’ Comp. Eph 2:5, 8; Rom 11:6; Gal 5:4.
τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Thus, a few words describe the difference between the old and new dispensations: 1) the revelation of the person κυρίου Ἰησοῦ;2) the mode of working—χάρις rather than works of the law. C, D, G add Χριστοῦ after ‘Lord Jesus.’
σωθῆναι not σωθῆσεσθαι. But σωτηρία is a present fact.
καθ’ ὃν τρόπον There is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. We are not saved by works of the law, and they by faith, for the same rule applies to all.
Vs. 12 Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου They hear Barnabas first as being the more well-known, more important, more highly esteemed, person in Jerusalem. Comp. Acts 15:25; 4:36; 9:27. There is an important interpolation in D and Syr. Peshit. here.
Vss. 13-21: Textual Issues
At vs. 17 the Byzantine (Majority) text adds πάντα after the final ταῦτα.
At vs. 18 the Byzantine text adds ἐστιν τῷ θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ after αἰῶνός.
At vs. 20 D, sah, Cyprian adds καὶ ὃσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε.
Vs. 13 ἀπεκρίθη Always in reference to something that has gone before. Not necessarily in reply to spoken words, but frequently to acts or expectations. Here is is a sort of judicial summing up—comp. Acts 3:12; 5:8; 8:34.
Relative positions of Peter and James. Peter is the most prominent leader in the church at large. James is the foremost person, officially, in the church at Jerusalem. Comp. Acts 12:17; 21:18. This relative position present in Galatians comp. Gal 1:18-19; 2:7 with Gal 2:9-10. Hence their respective parts here. Peter takes the initiative, he suggests the line of approach. James puts the resolution into shape, acting as a sort of chairman, διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω.
James is the brother of the Lord, the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem. For his position in Jerusalem see Acts 12:17 (Ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰακώβῳ); Acts 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:12. Universal tradition makes him identical with the brother of the Lord (Mt 13:55), see especially Hegisippus in Eusebius H.E. ii.23, also in the apocryphal Gospels, and e.g. the Pseudo-Clementines. This is inferred also from comparing Galatians with James 1:1 and Jude 1. On Galatians, there is strong reason for believing: 1) that James was a brother of the Lord in some closer sense than cousin, probably a son of Joseph by a former wife (see Jerome); 2) that he was not one of the Twelve and therefore distinct from ‘James of Alphaeus’ who is probably to be identified with James son of Zebedee (Mark 15:40). He is here president of the council. He speaks authoritatively (ἀκούσατέ μου, διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω, Acts 15:19), and his proposal is accepted.ἀκούσατέ μου A Jewish form of address? Acts 2:22; 21:1 or is it an appeal to a tumultuous audience?
Vs. 14 Συμεὼν, שִׁימוֹן What authority does Meyer have for preferring the rabbinical form of the name? The above form is the proper name in 1 Chron 4:20 which the LXX renders Σεμεών or Σεμών, the Hebrew form of the name. James naturally uses the strict Jewish form. Here Συμεών and elsewhere in the New Testament only at 2 Pet 1:1, and even there the use is doubtful (B and several others have Σιμών). Peter’s Greek autograph would probably have been Συμεών that would easily be changed into more common Greek form, remembering the practice of substituting a Greek name that nearly resembles in sounds the Hebrew one. Note the naturalness of its occurrence here. On the meaning of the Hebrew word see Gen 29:33. Σιμών a Grecized form of the name—Simon, Simonides from the Greek σίμος. See below Acts 15:22 on Silas and above note Acts 11:8. Peter is nowhere else called simply Simon or Simeon except in the Gospels. Here it is natural enough.
ἐπεσκέψατο The ἐπισκοπή of God through some great prophet (Lk 7:46) and more especially through the coming of Messiah (Lk 1:68, 78). These words ἐπεσκέψατο, ἐπισκοπή are not found in the Gospels outside of St. Luke (comp. Lk 19:44 and here), but we do find it in 1 Pet 2:12—the day of ἐπισκοπής. Appropriate in the mode of St. James.
ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν See Acts 4:25, 27; Rom 9:25-26 from Hos 2:1, hence λαός is a special, elect, peculiar people. On the difference between λαός and ἔθνη see Clem. of Rom. 29 (in Lightfoot p. 109). See λαός of Caesarea Acts 10:2, and δημός Acts 12:2. The language here is borrowed from the Old Testament, see especially Deut 4:34; 14:4 (quotes in Clement of Rome l.c.). The spiritual Israel is analogous to the actual Israel, 1 Pet 2:9-10. St. Luke especially avoids the word λαός when he is speaking of any other people (e.g. Acts 12:22). δημός used for a mixed multitude of Romans, Greeks, and others such as would be found at Caesarea (cf. Acts 17:5 at Thessalonike, Acts 19:30, 33, at Ephesus. The term only occurs these four times in the New Testament). On λαός and ὄχλος see Hegisippus in Eusebius H.E. ii.23. On the v.l. ἐξελέξατο here is taken from Deut 14:2.
On λαός in a special sense, ‘a peculiar people,’ in this sense λαός is opposed to ἔθνη, in Hebrew עַם as opposed to גּוֹיִם. Hence λαός is used: 1) of a chosen people, the people of Israel; the meaning of λαός would be as precise and definite for Jews as δημός would be for Athenians. It involved a peculiar relationship with God. Cf. especially Ps 2:1-2 as interpreted in Acts 4:25-27 (cf. also Acts 19:4; 21:28; 23:4, especially 26:17, 23; 28:17 and see the note at Acts 10:2; 2) of a chosen people, the spiritual Israel, as here. Acts 18:10 cf. also Rom 9:25 from Hosea 2:1; Titus 2:14, and especially 1 Pet 2:9-10 which shows clearly, to my mind, that that Epistle was not written to Jews. Διασπορᾶς in 1 Pet 1:1 is about a spiritual dispersion, just as λαός here is a spiritual λαός. The distinction between ἔθνη and λαός to the Jew in Rev 21:3 can be illustrated by the distinction between ἔθνη and πόλις to the Greek. Cf. e.g. Aristotle Polit. ii.2 (also i.2). The word λαός is used about 140 times in the New Testament and probably not once without this peculiar sense [investigate more closely]. See Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 14:6; 17:15. In an exhaustive enumeration, a word would naturally be employed which involved a new idea, though the precise sense has no special bearing on the particular subject.
τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ for his name. The ἐπί of the received text is explained by the passage of Amos quoted below.
Vs. 15 τούτῳ is neuter, not masculine—‘with this statement,’ ‘hereunto.’
Vs. 16 Amos 9:11 LXX quoted at length here. The principal variations from the LXX here are: 1) μετὰ ταῦτα for ‘in those days’ because of the content and the context there, there is nothing for the latter to refer; 2) κατεστραμμένα for κατεσκαμμένα. The reading κατεσκαμμένα, though very highly supported, has apparently been introduced here from the LXX. While the B text of the LXX has this reading, the A text has κατεστραμμένα; 3) the addition of τὸν κύριον (in vs. 17) to complete the sentence. Though τὸν κύριον is added in some copies of the LXX it was obviously no part of the original text; others supply the accusative with με; 4) the omission of the phrase ‘just as in the days of αἰῶνος,’ for in the Christian teacher’s eyes, the restoration has assumed a higher significance; 5) the addition of γνωστὰ ἀπ’ αἰῶνος (vs. 18), of which more presently.
The LXX differs from the Hebrew in one important point. For, לְמַעַן יירְשׁׁוּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִית אֱדֹום ‘that they may inherit (possess) the remnant of Edom,’ the LXX must have read ‘restore’ for ‘possess’ (a small lexical difference from the verbal form יירְשׁוּ with a daleth instead of the resh) and אדום (‘Adam’) for אֱדֹום (Edom) and then either omitted the אֶת־ or treated it as introducing the subject of the verb. See Gesenius, 168, and arguing for his statement Ewald, Gram. no. 277 (pp. 600-01). On the phrase, ‘the remnant of Edom’ see 2 Kings 14:7. There is no case exactly analogous to this, where an active verb is followed by a noun introduced by אֶת־. If possible, its force would be ‘I mean the remnant of men.’ If it had preceded the verb, the difficulty would have vanished ‘as for the remnant of men, they shall seek etc.’
John Lightfoot (II, p. 698) supposes that the later Jews altered this due to hostility to Edom. Evidence, and probability alike, are against this supposition. The typical significance which was given to Edom by the rabbis (see John Lightfoot l.c.) is important because the difference in general purport between the Hebrew and the Greek is reduced to a minimum. The Greek becomes a loose paraphrase of the Hebrew original. Either would fairly express St. James’ meaning. If he spoke Hebrew, his Greek report might intentionally introduce and substitute the familiar Greek reading. If it was in Greek, he might not think it necessary to alter the well-known form of words, unless there was not conformity with the original. The Hebrew says in effect that the tabernacle of David was and held sway over all the nations; the Greek, that all the nations should seek it, seek the Lord (see Alford).
τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ This rebuilt tabernacle of David is the church of Christ, the abode of David’s son. See especially the form of the Hosanna in St. Mk 11:10—εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ· ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις; Luke 1:32—τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ; comp. Acts 13:34 τὰ ὅσια Δαυὶδ. Comp. Is 16:5 where this is associated with messianic days.
Vs. 17 ἐφ’ οὓς . . . comp. James 2:7, the only [other] passage in the New Testament where the phrase occurs. Either 1) the expression is proleptic—‘they shall then be called by my name’ or 2) this is a declaration of the immense Sovereignty and Fatherhood of God, as in Eph 3:15.
ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς A combination only occasionally found in classical Greek, but it is common in the LXX and the New Testament because it reproduces the Hebrew idiom.
Vs. 18 γνωστὰ ἀπ’ αἰῶνος, that this is the right reading will appear from 1) external authorities—in its favor as B, Aleph, C, 13, 61, Memph. Teb. and others; there is no such report for any other reading. The two minor variants are a) the addition of ἐστί after γνωστά in A, D, and the Harclean Margin, and b) the same addition plus the adding of πάντα before ‘his works’ in E, H, L, 31, Syr. Pesh. and the Harclean (txt). 2) the internal evidence, the greater difficulty of the simple reading; a) is an addition to bring out the meaning, and b) is a further improvement on a).
γνωστὰ ἀπ’ αἰῶνος means known to God. Comp. Eph 1:4 καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμοῦ. For the γνῶσις of God see Rom 9:33; 2 Cor 10:5; and in connection with the calling of his people Rom 11:2 τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν προέγνω, and 1 Pet 1:2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ. The γνωστὰ ἀπ’ αἰῶνος is a comment of the speaker who has freely changed the notes of these in the quotation. Compare Βαβυλῶνος in Acts 7:43. It might be possible to take γνωστὰ to mean ‘known to men,’ either a) ‘who does these things which are known,’ or b) ‘who makes these things to be known’ (to men). There is nothing in Amos that corresponds with this phrase, which is probably the right reading.
Vs. 19 ἐγὼ κρίνω Authoritative, but not necessarily final. The circumstances do not allow the latter.
παρενοχλεῖν to interfere or disturb, to trouble one while about something. A good classical word. The notion of παρά is of doing something beside the main action and so interfering with it.
Vs. 20 ἀπέχεσθαι See Winer, no. 45.4, pp. 376-77.
τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων, to be taken as one idea = εἰδωλοθύτον.
ἀλισγημ. must not be extended to the four words. ἀλισγεῖν is a truly Alexandrian word (apparently strictly confined to Alexandrian Greek, see Mu. Strng., De Dial., mcc. P. 145) and not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It means ‘to pollute.’ It must not be extended to the four words because: 1) a comparison of Acts 15:29 shows that τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων = εἰδωλοθύτον; 2) the verb ἀλισγεῖν wherever it occurs in the LXX has reference to meats. See Sirach 40:29, 33; Mal 1:7, 12; Dan 1:8. For the discussion of these prohibitions, see on vs. 21 below.
τῆς πορνείας, which was regarded as an adiaphoron by the heathen and was even mixed up with the heathen worship. It is worth observing that St. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems to recognize the fact that πορνεία was looked on as a matter of the same kind as the partaking of ‘idol meat’ by the heathen, he combats the one in 1 Cor 5, 7, and then the other in 1 Cor 8, though he is careful to enforce the differences in kind. I see that Bengel also observes this connection. This view of πορνεία as adiaphoron was one of the great errors that the early Christian teachers had to combat. That this sin was especially prevalent at Corinth, we know. That it should be so at Antioch is very probable, since the Syrian Orontes was a proverb for all that was impure and effeminate. It would seem to explain the insertion of πορνεία if we suppose that the question had been brought forward there, and that it had been one of the subjects of complaint.
πνικτοῦ and therefore with the blood in it. Cf. Lev 17:13-14.
τοῦ αἵματος Gen 9:4. The injunction in this letter is referred to in Acts 21:25 in a manner which well illustrates its purpose here.
Vs. 21 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ What is the connection here particularly with vs. 20? To command them to abstain for Moses? In that case, the meaning will be that the fact that the Mosaic law is constantly read would make the contradiction between precept and practice more prominent and offensive to Jews. 1) But against this, it must be said, that the prohibitions though incidentally in the Mosaic law, are only a small fraction of that law, and that the greater matters, circumcision, the Sabbath, the sacrifices, the festivals, were not touched by them. The offense therefore would remain undiminished. But the prohibitions in Moses are read every Sabbath. The subject therefore comes under notice and offense is given. γάρ assigns the reason for abstaining. This shows the ‘animus’ which dictated the circular letter, the wish not to give offense (so Meyers and Alford). 2) Note vs. 19, μὴ παρενοχλεῖν τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν. . . . The majority of the law of Moses is vindicated by being read in the synagogues and being brought before the attention of the Jews, Sabbath after Sabbath. To vindicate it, there is no need to disturb the peace of the Gentiles. This seems to be the right interpretation. Of course James’s speech is abridged. Several observations are offered, but the choices seem to be between the two options mentioned above.
ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων See the note on Acts 13:15. Probably from the epoch of the return. The 2nd lesson from the prophets were added later.
ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς to be taken with what follows?
κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει specifying the place, and time, and manner in which he is preached.
Though συναγωγαῖς might mean the Christian places of meeting, most especially in the mouth of St. James (see James 2:1) and some have taken it so here, yet the statement itself would not be true at this time of the Christian assemblies (ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων κατὰ . . . κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον) and the connection as explained above is in opposition to this interpretation.
ἀναγινωσκόμενος cf. Acts 13:10-15, 26; 15:10; 2 Cor 13:15 and Alford’s notes on the first passage.
κατὰ πόλιν from city to city. See Winer, p. 477.
With regard to these injunctions in vss. 20-21 it is to be observed 1) that they are negative. They do not enjoin the performance of any positive precepts. They lay no burden on the Gentile converts; 2) they are only given as temporary. They are not ordered as involving any principle. It is simply to avoid offense, to cement a union between the Jewish and Gentile Christians (see some good remarks of Meyer’s). This is quite in the spirit of St. Paul. There is no expression in any of St. Paul’s Epistles, as far as I remember, which implies that the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem did wrong in observing the rite of circumcision and other parts of the ceremonial law. See, in illustration of this, Acts 21:25; cf. 1 Cor 8:13.
Vss. 22-29: Textual Issues
Vs. 23—C, D, syr., Peshit. margin add τάδε . . . καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ.
Vs. 24—The words λέγοντες περιτέμνεσθαι καὶ τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον of the Textus Receptus with C, E are not genuine.
Vs. 22 σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ The Apostles and elders originate, the laity confirms (cf. appointment of bishops in the early church). The letter is circulated, as we shall see, in the name of the Apostles and elders.
ἀποστόλοις . . . ἐκλεξαμένους . . . γράψαντες A common change of case that is not particular to Hellenistic Greek (as Alford says). It is quite impossible to take ἐκλεξαμένους, as if it were equal to ἐκλεξαμένοις. The A.V. however so takes it or has so paraphrased the passage so as to commit itself to no opinion, or to the contradiction. ‘To send chosen men’ and so again vs. 25. The accusative ἐκλεξαμένους is in reference to πέμψαι. The γράψαντες because ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις = the judgment of the apostles see Acts 20:3, ποιήσας τε μῆνας τρεῖς . . . ἐγένετο γνώμης and the reference in Winer, no. 63 pp. 709-10 (Moulton).
Ἰούδας, the name is common, hence the further qualifiers (e.g. Iscariot) and here τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν, a patronymic like Bar-Jesus, Bar-nabas etc. This is possibly a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (Acts 1:23), to be carefully distinguished from Joseph Barnabas with whom he is confused in a misprint in Alford. For speculations on the meaning of the name see John Lightfoot, I p. 745; II p. 640. The name Saba occurs several times in the Old Testament.
Σίλας i.e. Silvanus. Has connections with both St. Peter and St. Paul. See mention in 1 Thess 1:1. He is obviously a Jewish Christian (comp. Acts 16:20), but like St. Paul he is also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-38), hence his other name Silvanus.
Vs. 23 γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν, ‘sending a letter by their hands.’ Meyer remarks that the necessary multiplication of copies (κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν and see Acts 16:4) would render it easy to procure a copy, so that St. Luke would be well able to give the document word for word and thus its authenticity is further evidenced by the character of the document itself, which is so framed as to require explanation by word of mouth (cf. vs. 27).
καὶ οἱ to be included? Included doubtless here for: 1) οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ seems a strange phrase in later times; 2) because others besides the Apostles are recognized in the context (Acts 15:4 and especially 22). At the same time the phrase οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ though strange to later ears was a very natural expression at this time. The word πρεσβύτερος had hardly yet got recognized as an official designation and so the addition of the word ‘brothers’ was naturally made. οἱ πρεσβύτεροι unqualified might suggest ‘the elders’ of the Jews. As it stands here, this is an indication of authenticity. I have not yet been able to find a single instance of the use of πρεσβύτερος as an adjective in the New Testament.
τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν Note the limitation of the address.
Χαίρειν Seems in this letter to belong to the hand of St. James as the substance of it certainly suggests him. Comp. James 1:1.
Vs. 24 ἠκούσαμεν, ἐτάραξαν turns to the past time.
ἐξελθόντες should probably be omitted with Aleph and B. It was added to make the sentence more complete, perhaps suggested by 1 Jn 2:9 to obviate a difficulty. ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξελθόντες, like those other Jews who came subsequently from James to Antioch (Gal 2:12).
ἀνασκευάζοντες a hapax here in the New Testament and not found in the LXX but it is found in classical Greek—meaning to demolish, dismantle, derange, disarrange, disturb.
λέγοντες περιτέμνεσθαι καὶ τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον This is a later gloss, not part of the original text.
Vs. 25 ὁμοθυμαδὸν The A.V. seems to combine two interpretations of the word so ‘assembled into one accord.’ The word does not occur in the New Testament except in the Acts where it is frequent (10 times), and in Rom 15:6. It here signifies ‘together.’ Elsewhere the A.V. properly renders it ‘with one accord.’
The γενομένοις here, ‘having come to a unanimous decision,’ ‘having agreed unanimously,’ recognizes the existence of the Πολλῆς δὲ ζητήσεως (Acts 15:7) beforehand.
Vs. 26 ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκόσιν and recommends them.
Vs. 27 ἀπαγγέλλοντας This present tense (as frequently) became ἀγγέλλειν and denotes not so much the final delivery of the message but rather the continuous carrying of it. See Winer no. 45, p. 429sq. Meyer speaks of both the carrying of the written document and their ‘mundlichen Bericht hinzufugen.’ Cf. on this verse Thucydides v, Winer p. 405.
τὰ αὐτά ‘the same which we wrote.’
Vs. 28 ἔδοξεν can only mean ‘to the Holy Ghost and us.’ Attempts to evade the force of this are unsuccessful, as e.g. Neander ‘through the Holy Ghost it seemed good to us also.’ But if St. Paul said of himself solely δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν (1 Cor 7:40), surely there was nothing extravagant in the assumption of the council composed of all the Apostles. If ever, on such an occasion the Holy Spirit must have guided the council of the Church.
ἐπιτίθεσθαι, if a middle comp. Acts 28:10 so e.g. Thucydides ii.24, Xenephon, Anab. iv.5.41, and other examples in Dad. Steph. Thes. s.v. p. 1845. See Kühner, II p. 96. ἐπιτίθεσθαι in the middle voice seems to denote the legislation—‘the means of imposing.’ Hence it is appropriate here as ἐπιθεῖναι is in Acts 15:10.
Vs. 29 εἰδωλοθύτων = τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων of vs. 20, comp. Acts 21:25.
The outcome of sacrifices: 1) partly consumed at the sacrificial feasts, 2) partly sold at the slaughterhouse. See 1 Cor 8:1sq.; 10:7, 14, 19sq.
αἵματος Gen 9:4 comp. Lev 17:13-14; Deut 12:23-24
πνικτῶν Lewin l.c. The Apostolic Constitutions give orders that warn against one of the clergy eating this.
πορνείας Not spiritual fornication but in its literal sense. Nor again in the restricted sense of: a) marriage within forbidden degrees, or b) marriage with unbelievers. But how has this come to be enumerated among the ceremonial observances? What place has a gross breach of the moral law here? Let us examine the character of these:
1) First, as to their character, they are only negative. They impose no burden on the Gentiles, enact no rules, exact no performances. They simply say ‘abstain from certain things.’
2) Their object. They are articles of peace. In themselves they are neither ceremonial nor moral. They are not ceremonial, or else πορνεία would not be included. Not moral, for even though we might see an indirect moral value in abstaining from and possibly in abstaining from ‘blood’ and ‘things strangled’ (though this is more difficult), yet their utter inadequacy seen as an elementary code of morals must be fatal to this view. They might or they might not have a moral value, but the absence or presence of the moral element is not the point of their introduction.
As articles of peace therefore, there is nothing preventing this being ‘extemporaneous.’ They would be dictated by two considerations: 1) on the side of the Judaic Christians who impose them, those things which would give the greatest offense are prohibited. 2) on the side of the Gentile Christians as to why they are imposed, these are offenses of which they were apt to make light. This last motive would seem to explain the introduction of πορνεία. We may talk about the difference Christianity has made in the eliminating of offenses against purity, but modern feeling is no criteria of the language and mode of thinking of the ancients. No moral man would think of justifying such sins, even though he didn’t take a directly Christian point of view. Even the immoral may pay no deference to public opinion but he hides his sin. But to the average [ancient] heathen the case was different: 1) there is the social aspect. They were almost regarded as adiaphora; 2) their religious aspect. There was a religious sanction of immorality (see notes on 1 Thess 2:3, p. 22). Antioch was a very centre of these religious immoralities (see Daphne at Antioch in Euripides v.19, Gibbon c.xxiii. II p. 546). Hence: a) this situation in Jewish countries makes this document intended for heathen reading (cf. Pseudo-Phocyclides 165sq., 177sq.); b) Paul’s disclaimer in 1 Thess 4:2; and c) the constant warnings of St. Paul in writing to Gentiles. These items in the decree were not together in the history of Israel. But they are mentioned together in 1 Cor 10:7-8 with εἰδωλοθύτων and εἰδωλολάτρεια, and comp. Rev 2:14; 21:8.
ἐξ ὧν Not as generally taken ‘abstaining from which,’ but ‘in accordance with which, if you keep yourselves’ (so Meyer), but cf. John 17:15; Rev 3:10.
εὖ πράξετε ‘ye shall do well’ = ‘ye shall fare well’ not ‘ye shall act well’ nor ‘ye shall prosper.’
Vs. 30 ἦλθον so Tisch., A, B, C, D and others which is doubtless the right reading. The κατά has reference to the point of departure, not the place of arrival. The overlooking of this has created the difficulty. An Antiochene would not understand ‘coming down to Antioch.’ He would not think of ‘coming down from Jerusalem.’ Hence probably this is why the Syriac version simply has ἦλθον.
Vs. 31 παρακλήσει may mean either: 1) comfort, consolation, which the pacific character of the letter gave them and which suits the context well, or 2) exhorting because it was less harsh than they had expected. In favor of the latter is vs. 32 παρεκάλεσαν. So Meyer.
Vs. 32 καὶ αὐτοὶ, like Paul, and Barnabas, or ‘equally with Paul and Barnabas’ and several others at Antioch (comp. Acts 13:1).
Παρεκάλεσαν See the notes on Acts 8:24.
Vs. 33 μετ’ εἰρήνης
ἀποστείλαντας αὐτούς The right reading.
Vs. 34 This verse to be struck out. The correct text has nothing, but since on the next mention of Silas we find him at Antioch, the later writer inserted a clause here to assist the narrative, namely, ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ, and others add ‘but only Judas went.’ These sorts of variants are evidence of the incompleteness of the Acts narrative. The importance of this fact in analyzing the Acts and the Epistles [is great]. The Acts is adequate for its own purpose but it is not continuous history. Nor does it relate all that the writer knows. Thus we do not find all the visits to Corinth, or the sojourn in Achaia. And more especially the movements of Silas and Timothy within Greece and Macedonia, as implied in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, are not all delineated here.
Thinking of Acts 15:1-33 as a whole, we note the truthfulness of the account: 1) the propriety of the speeches as words from these very speakers both in terms of a) sentiments (see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 350) and b) in terms of language, for instance St. Peter, ἐξελέξατο with the inf., ἀρχαίων (cf. Acts 11:15), διὰ τοῦ στόματος, the characteristic καθὼς καὶ ἡμῖν (Acts 10:47), and πειράζετε τὸν θεὸν (taken from Alford, more examples there). The speech is natural for the time at which it is given, but quite conventional when distance of time had diminished the point stressed. Or consider the words of St. James, such as Συμεών or ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται.
2) the letter. Its language. The connection with St. James’ [writing] χαίρειν, the archaic language οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ. The prohibitions listed—such a list could not have been invented at a later date. The document requires explanation, by word of mouth and persons who are made for this (vs. 27).
But how did this document come into St. Luke’s hands? Copies are multiplied for distribution (Acts 16:4). In fact we seem to be able to trace exactly the way St. Luke became possessed of a copy of this letter. We find Paul and Silas (Acts 16:4) leaving copies of (or at least orally delivering) the decree. A few verses later (Acts 16:10), during the same journey, St. Luke joins St. Paul. That he was in company with St. Paul at the very time he was delivering the decree is very probable. That he was with him a few months later is almost certain. Elsewhere, even if the ecclesiastical tradition that represents him as a native of Antioch is valueless, the historical connection is established. The genuineness of the document and the truthfulness of the narrative established, we next consider its difficulties in connection with St. Paul’s Epistles.
Vss. 35-36 Between these verses is to be inserted the incident of Peter’s visit to Antioch on which St. Paul dwells in Gal 2:11sq. Silas perhaps returned with Peter or with some of those that came from James. The part that Barnabas had taken in the question at issue may have caused some angry feeling between them or some distrust in Barnabas by St. Paul.
Vs. 36 διέτριβον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ . . . μετὰ καὶ ἑτέρων This allows ample room for the visit of St. Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11), the conduct of Barnabas on that occasion perhaps weakened St. Paul’s confidence in him, and prepared the way for the subsequent contention and separation, so the quarrel over John Mark would follow more naturally.
ἐπιστρέψαντες δὴ see Acts 13:2; Luke 2:15. ‘indeed, let us . . .’
δὴ cf. Acts 13:2.
Vs. 37 Ἰωάνvην τὸν καλούμενον Μάρκον His mother was a disciple—Acts 12:12. He is also a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), which accounts for the part Barnabas has taken in this difference. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on St. Paul’s first missionary tour (Acts 12:25; 13:5) as their ὑπηρέτην (Acts 13:5) as far as Perga (Acts 13:13, whereas in Acts 13:5 he is simply called John), and there left them to return to Jerusalem. Hence the occasion of the difference mentioned here. Μάρκος, probably the same person, was with St. Paul in Rome when he wrote to the Colossians (Col 4:10) and to Philemon (Philem 24). He would seem to have been sent by St. Paul eastward during Paul’s first imprisonment. Was it in this interval that he was with St. Peter? At all events, in writing to Timothy (2 Tim 4:11) during his last imprisonment and probably shortly before his death, he asks Timothy to take up Mark and bring him with him (ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε) ‘for he is profitable to me and for the ministry.’ Whether the Μάρκος ‘my son’ of 1 Pet 5:13 is John Mark is doubtful—of this, hereafter. Ecclesiastical tradition identifies them and this Mark is almost universally represented as the writer of the ‘Gospel according to St. Mark’ and in close connection with St. Peter, as his ἑρμηνευτής (Eusebius H.E. iii.39). At all events, St. Peter’s Mark is probably the writer of the Gospel. On St. Mark as a preacher in Alexandria (Eusebius H.E. ii.15).
Vs. 38 Observe that this altercation happened at Antioch. Luke may have been present. But at all events the force of the expression shows that Luke is repeating St. Paul’s words. We can almost hear the apostle’s tones of indignant remonstrance (I had observed this before reading Alford’s note). Paul speaks of τὸν ἀποστάντα. Acts 12:25; 13:5, 13. John Mark had left them at the critical moment, when their journey became dangerous. ‘Paul is the righteous one, Barnabas ὁ φιλάνθρωπος’ (Chrysostom, and see Alford’s note). This seems to be quite Barnabas’ character e.g. in introducing Paul to the Apostles at Jerusalem. It was perhaps his too great easiness of nature that led him into error that St. Paul notices (Gal 2:13). However great this παροξυσμός may have been at the time, wherever St. Paul speaks of Barnabas subsequently, it is evidently with kindness and affection. This is the case even when he is censuring his conduct as in Gal 2:13 (ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας), and in 1 Cor 9:6 (from which we conclude he was unmarried—see Col 4:10).
τὸ ἔργον = the Gospel in St. Paul’s language. See Phil 2:30 (my note), see also the note at Acts 13:2 above. Cf. Ignatius, Ephes. 14, Rom. 3.
Vs. 39 παροξυσμὸς, here again an indication of the truthfulness of the narrative—a sharp disagreement. All the roughness of the expression has evaporated in the A.V.
εἰς Κύπρον Barnabas’ own country (Acts 4:36). Division of the districts, partly based on familiarity—Cyprus (Acts 13), S.W. of Asia Minor (Acts 14). Barnabas takes Cyprus as his district, Paul the continent as being more familiar with it. He would pass through his native Tarsus on his way.
A. John Mark—subsequent notices of in connection with a) St. Paul, Col 4:10 (cf. Philem 24), 2 Tim 4:14; and with b) St. Peter, 1 Pet 5:13. Barnabas and Mark in ecclesiastical tradition associated together with the church in Alexandria. There is possibly some basis in fact. B. Barnabas—subsequent notices of—Gal 2:13; 1 Cor 9:6; Col 4:10.
Vs. 40 ἐπιλεξάμενος This middle form is a hapax in the New Testament. Having chosen as his companion, taken him to himself. See the same term as defined in Polybius vi.26.6 of a solider choosing his assistant, or a captain his lieutenant. How did Silas get to Antioch? Perhaps he came with Peter, perhaps with the emissaries of James. At all events, communication with Antioch was early and constant. Recognition of the church, being similar to the case of Barnabas. Barnabas has acted on rational but personal motives. Paul had recognized a public duty, and secured public recognition (see Alford’s note).
Vs. 41 διήρχετο Two points to be observed about St. Paul’s missionary tours: 1) he is never without a companion, Barnabas before, Silas now; the word for this συνεργῷ. The mission of the Twelve Apostles (Mark 6:1) and of the seventy disciples (Luke 10:1) even when the mission did not seem to require it, they went two by two (see Mk 11:2); 2) he first traverses the old district, confirming the churches. Then he breaks new ground.
ἐπιστηρίζων confirming in the widest sense.
τὴν Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν On the close alliance of the two provinces, see Acts 15:23, and Lightfoot, Galatians on Gal 1:21 on their geographical connection. There was an ecclesiastical as well as a civic connection. Visiting again the country which had been the scene of his missionary labors during his first apostolic journey, and previously. Barnabas takes the island of Cyprus, which also they had visited in company. Cf. vs. 36. The purpose of St. Paul was accomplished between them.