Acts 15

Chap. XV. Ver. 1—21. A dissension in the church respecting circumcision.—Men whose hearts are not deeply engaged in spiritual religion, are the first to spend their zeal on its external services. The persons here spoken of were “certain men which came down from Judea” to Antioch; and they are afterwards mentioned (verse 5) as being of the sect of the Pharisees, who believed it necessary to observe the moral law. These men not only taught the perpetuity of circumcision, but its absolute necessity to salvation: they insisted, therefore, that the Gentile converts should be circumcised to be received into the Christian church: or, in other words, that the Gentiles must become Jews, before they could be Christians. “It is good always to be zealously affected in a good cause;”

but it is much to be regretted, when men not only confine their zeal to external religion, but spend it in promoting schisms. It is moreover to be feared, that this zeal has its foundation generally in the ambition of personal distinction; at least, this was certainly the case with the heresiarchs of the first centuries. While they remained in the church, many of them had neither character nor talents to raise them above others; but the propagation of a new doctrine excited popular attention, and the ability called forth in its defence often excited much greater admiration than the same, or even superior, talents, exerted in the common cause of Christianity. This remark is not meant to discourage freedom of inquiry into the truths of Scripture; but only to check the affectation of novelty and sectarian zeal, by which the peace of the church has been so often unhappily disturbed.

These Christian Pharisees ventured to dispute even with Paul and Barnabas; the church at Antioch therefore deputed those apostles to go and consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. On the way thither, through Phenicia and Samaria, these deputies from Antioch related the success with which God had favoured them in preaching among the heathen, which occasioned great joy to all the brethren who heard it: but when they came to Jerusalem, they found there certain Christian Pharisees, maintaining the same opinions with those who had excited these disputes, and who had probably been deputed from them. The apostles and elders being assembled, Peter, who had returned to Jerusalem after Herod Agrippa’s death, “opened the debate by observing, that a considerable time ago God had selected him to preach to the Gentiles, and had blessed his labours with unequivocal success, in purifying their hearts by faith, and in dispensing the Holy Ghost among them, no less than on the Jews.

After God himself had thus decided, he said it appeared presumptuous in any person to impose a yoke on the Gentiles, from which the divine indulgence had exempted them. He insisted that the yoke itself, especially when laid on the neck of the disciples, was one which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; and he concluded, that even they who still, for charitable and prudential reasons, persisted in the ritual observances, were yet obliged to repose for salvation only on the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,” as well as these Gentiles, who never had observed them at all. This full testimony of Peter was supported by Paul and Barnabas, who gave large proof of the divine grace vouchsafed to the Gentiles. James, who seems to have been the standing pastor of Jerusalem, confirmed the same argument, by the prophets of the Old Testament, agreeably to Peter’s declaration of the mercy of God in visiting the Gentiles.

He gave his opinion that the Gentiles should no longer be molested with notions subversive of the grace of God, and tending to teach them dependence on human works, instead of the atonement of Christ, for salvation. Only he recommended that the council should direct them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (Milner’s Ch. Hist. vol. i. Chap. 1.) On this we shall only here add, that so far from Peter here appearing as “the prince of the apostles,” as the Roman Catholics consider him, he speaks with no authority, but as an individual apostle. He does not even appear to have presided as moderator; that office being filled by James, who sums up the argument, and concludes with adding—“Wherefore my opinion (or decision) is,”

&c.: which words, though in themselves unassuming, yet had they been used by Peter, (as Doddridge observes,) would have been pleaded as decisive of his superiority. As the case stands, they are content to argue from his speaking first on this occasion: a clear proof, as we understand it, that he was not even the president on this occasion, much less did he dictate the decree which was adopted. (See Rhemish Annot. in (Acts 15)) Ver. 22—41. The decree of the Apostles, formed on the suggestion of James, sent to Antioch.—Though James claimed no superiority, it is evident that he presided; and it is much to the honour of his wisdom and prudence, that his suggestions in the council were so unanimously adopted.

On the decree itself, we offer the following observations. 1. The introduction severely censures those who, without a divine command, attempt to introduce laws and regulations into the church of God: especially when those laws are of a nature to “subvert the faith,” and trouble the consciences of believers, as was the

Notes on the verses

Ver. 13. The priest of Jupiter.—Doddridge remarks, (after Elsner,) that it was customary for the Greeks to build temples to their tutelar deities, in the suburbs of the cities, and to set up their images before the city, at the gates. According to this practice, the priest of Jupiter, who was esteemed the titular deity of the place, and whose image was placed in a temple erected to him before the gates of the city, “brought oxen and garlands,” (or chaplets,) with which they crowned both gods and sacrifices on such occasions.

Ver. 14. The apostles, Barnabas and Paul.—It is plain, both here and in verse 4, that Barnabas is called an apostle; yet we hear nothing of his being chosen to the apostleship.

Some think that Barnabas and Paul are here so called, as messengers of the churches, (Acts 13:1-3). Yet as Paul was an apostle in the other sense, we can hardly think Luke would name Barnabas before him, had he been only a messenger of the churches. One thing is remarkable, that Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas, is heard no more of after his election; yet Barnabas is one of the most conspicuous characters in the book of Acts. It is most certain, that we have only an abstract of the transactions of the apostles, as well as of the Lord Jesus: Is it not possible, therefore, (though not recorded,) that Matthias might have died, and Barnabas have been chosen in his stead?

Ver. 23. And when they had ordained them elders in every church.—Almost every word in this short passage has afforded ground for controversy, of a nature which we purposely avoid.

We shall only remark on the word (Greek, presbuteros,) that it is agreed, 1st, to refer to age; and 2dly, to official character, and that consequently, it may, in different texts, refer to persons reverend either in age or office. See Parkhurst.

Ver. 24. Pisidia.—[Pisidia was a province of Asia Minor, situated between Phrygia on the north and west, Lycaonia on the east, and Pamphylia on the south.]

Ver. 25. Perga.—[Perga was a considerable city of Pamphylia, towards the sea coast, and near the Caystrus, famous for a temple of Diana.—Attalia.—Attalia, now Antalia, or Satalie, was a maritime city of Pamphylia, the chief residence of the prefect.]—Bagster.

Ver. 27. With them.—Doddridge, “By them.”—Door of faith.—That is, had given them also the privilege of believing.

See “Door of hope.” (Hosea 2:15.)

Chap. XV. Ver. 3. Brought on their way.—See (Acts 20:38); xxi. 5, &c.—Phenice.—[Phenice, or Phoenicia, was a province of Syria, whose boundaries were different at different times. It may be said, generally, to have extended from Tripoli on the north, to the termination of the ridges of Mount Lebanon on the south, where it met the border of Palestine; and comprehending in breadth the narrow tract between Lebanon and the Mediterranean. Ptolemy, however, makes it extend from the Eleutherus, below Aradus, to Pelusium in Egypt, including all the sea coast of Palestine.]—Bagster.

Ver. 7. After much disputing.—Not among the apostles, but between them and the advocates of the necessity of circumcision.—A good while ago.—It was about ten years before that Peter had preached to Cornelius and his company, according to the vulgar chronology; but some refer this expression to the divine decrees.

See ver. 18, also note of ver. 13.

Ver. 14. Simeon—i. e. Simon Peter.

Ver. 17. The residue of men.—In (Amos 9:12), our translation reads, “The remnant of Edom;” but the LXX. and Arabic read Adam (or men) for “Edom:” and this is generally considered as the true reading. See Kennicott and Newcome.—Whom my name is called—i. e. who are converted to the true God.

Ver. 18. All his works—i. e. all his doings or designs; not confining it to the works of Nature.—From the beginning of the world—Or “from eternity.”

Ver. 19. My sentence is.—Doddridge, “I determine.”—Are turned.—Doddridge, “are converted.”

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also, case here, when these men attempted to lay the yoke of the Mosaic law upon the necks of the Gentiles.—2.

What relates to the question of circumcision itself, is only negatively expressed: “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than” is specified in the articles following; neither of which mention circumcision; consequently, that is neither enjoined nor forbidden.—3. The articles are stated to be “necessary”—that is, things to be necessarily refrained from. Not, indeed, all equally so; for which reason it may be proper to examine them distinctly. 1. To abstain from “meats offered to idols,” knowing them to have been so offered; and more especially from partaking of idolatrous feasts, in which the meats had been so offered. To these, no doubt, Christians were frequently invited, and often probably with the view of ensnaring them: we, in this age, (Paganism being abolished,) are not under the same temptations; but it deserves to be considered, whether the attendance of Christians at convivial feasts, where “Jolly Bacchus”

and “Glorious Apollo” are invoked and eulogized in song, does not involve conduct very similar to that here prohibited. Meats hung up in the shambles, or presented for food, without any notification of having been so offered, we are elsewhere directed to eat, asking no questions. (1 Corinthians 10:25.)—2. As to refraining “from blood and from things strangled,” so far as this is merely a repetition of the precept given to Noah, we consider it binding on Gentiles, as well as Jews. (See exposition and notes on (Genesis 9:1-7).) But farther than that, we consider it binding only in cases wherein our liberty, as Gentiles, might hurt the minds of conscientious Jews.—3. “Things strangled and blood,” are understood to comprehend all creatures killed for food without discharging the blood from them; but perhaps the original precept to Noah did not go so far, (see our exposition above referred to,) and farther than that we Gentiles are not bound, otherwise than may be necessary to avoid hurting the consciences of our weaker brethren.

(Romans 14:15–20. 1 Corinthians 8:8–13; 10:28.)—4. Fornication: this is, in all cases, a crime against the moral law; but the prohibition seems to be here given with particular reference to the licentious and abominable rites practised in Pagan temples, where the worst crimes made part of their religious services. With this definitive decree, Paul and Barnabas were dismissed, to return back to the church at Antioch, accompanied by Judas, surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, both “prophets,” or inspired men, who confirmed the testimony of the apostles, and exhorted the brethren to resist the doctrine of the Judaizing teachers. Thus was harmony restored to the church, and the common cause of Christianity advanced and prospered. This has been usually called the first Christian council, and so it was; but it was also unique, as consisting chiefly (if not entirely) of the apostles and other inspired persons; on which account we may the more admire the mild and gentle terms with which the apostolic epistle concludes:—Not, “If any man dispute our authority let him be Anathema;”

but, “From which (namely, the things here prohibited) if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” A dissension, however, soon arose between Paul and Barnabas. They had agreed to revisit the churches they had already established among the Gentiles; but they differed as to the most suitable person to take with them. Barnabas determined to take with him his relation, John Mark; but Paul, offended with his conduct in deserting them before, refused; and thus they divided, Barnabas went to his native country with his relation above named, but Paul travelled through Syria and Cilicia, accompanied by Silas, who had come with them from Jerusalem. Paul’s farther labours and sufferings form the chief subject of the remaining chapters of this book.