Acts 15

— a certain woman.] Named Eunice, 2 Tim. i. 5. She was a convert to Christianity from Judaism, but his father was a Gentile. Bp. Mann.

If we select a youthful character from the Scriptures, as an object worthy of imitation, none is found more exemplary than Timothy. Happy in being educated in the bosom of a religious family, he imbibed a knowledge of the sacred writings in his earliest years. By these he was well prepared for the reception of the pure doctrines of Christianity, to which the Jewish Scriptures only led the way: and, fortified with these, he was thoroughly furnished for the conduct of a strictly pious life. At this period of St. Paul’s visit to Lystra, “he was well reported of by the brethren:” and every change in his condition confirmed their good opinion. An early education in sound religious principles is the best pledge of a persevering piety. Brewster.

Acts 15:20

20. But that we write unto them, &c.] But it is expedient, he says, as the present state of the Church now stands, composed of Jews and proselytized Gentiles, that we should still oblige these converts to these four things, as proper to keep them at a further distance from the idolatrous worship they have renounced. Pyle. It seems probable that the things here mentioned were particularly forbidden the Gentiles, as giving peculiar scandal to the Jews, because Moses had so signally marked them out as things contrary to the holiness of a people, and to their separation unto God. So of things strangled or dead in their blood, God says, Dent. xiv. 21, “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, for thou art an holy people unto the Lord.” Fornication is declared to be a thing not to be admitted in the commonwealth, Dent. xxiii. 17; the eating of things offered to idols as forbidden as contrary to the worship of the true God; the precept which commands the abstaining from blood was also enforced by the strongest penalties, Lev. vii. 26; xvii. 10. Since therefore these things were so solemnly forbidden to the Jewish nation, this may have been the reason that they were also on the present occasion forbidden to the Gentile Christians, that they might not follow practices so abominable in the sight of Jews. Dr. Whitby.

—from pollutions of idols.] In respect to things offered to idols, and blood, the Jews were not only forbidden the use of them, but were likewise forbidden all communication with those who did use them, though they were strangers and not bound by the law of Moses. Bp. Sherlock.

—from fornication.] Which was not only often regarded with indifference by the heathens, but was even practised sometimes as a part of their idolatrous worship. Beausole. All fornication it was no doubt intended hereby strictly to prohibit. Bp. Pearce.

—and from things strangled.] From the flesh of animals, the blood of which was not drained out of them when they were warm. Abp. Newcome.

Where idolatrous worship has wholly ceased, and no such ground of offence can possibly exist, these prohibitions relating to things strangled and to blood lose their force, and the use of them becomes, what it is in its own nature, a matter of indifference. Dr. Graves.

Acts 15:21

21. For Moses of old time &c.] The meaning seems to be, Because Moses, who forbids these things, is constantly read in the synagogues, therefore the Jewish Christians must be alienated from those who practise them. Abp. Newcome.

In these words St. James gives the reason for the decree he proposed. The Jews inhabiting the cities where Gentile churches were planted, having been born and bred under the law of Moses, could not easily be persuaded to depart from it; and, therefore, unless the Gentile Christians could be brought to avoid giving them any offence, there could be no hope of peace in the Christian Church. Bp. Sherlock.

Acts 15:22

22.—Judas surnamed Barsabas.] Not the Barsabas mentioned at chap. i. 23, for his name was Joseph. Some think it is his brother. It appears from ver. 32, that this Judas Barsabas was a Prophet.

Acts 15:23

23.—of the Gentiles in Antioch &c.] This decree is addressed to the Gentiles in three places only, where there were many Jews, but the spirit of it extended to all Gentile converts who lived with Jews; that social and brotherly intercourse might subsist between them, that the Gentile Christians might not be seduced to idolatry, by joining in some of the heathen rites, and that the Jews might not be averse to Christianity. Abp. Newcome.

Acts 15:24

24.—subverting your souls.] By the doctrine advanced, ver. 1. Abp. Newcome.

Acts 15:27

27. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas.] If St. Paul and St. Barnabas alone had been the bearers of the decree, their opposers might perhaps have raised some suspicion of its authenticity and strict correctness; the council therefore sent with them two other preachers, of signal reputation and piety, Judas and Silas, who had never been engaged in the contest, and would therefore be unsuspected vouchers of the sentence pronounced to decide it. Dr. Graves.

Acts 15:28

28.—the Holy Ghost, and to us.] To the “Holy Spirit,” guiding us in the conclusions which we have made concerning the matter proposed to us. Abp. Newcome.

Acts 15:29

29. That ye abstain from [&c.] The matter here controverted, and settled by decree of the council, was determined by prudential considerations, arising from the circumstances of the Christian Church at that time. It is one thing to be bound to observe the law of Moses as matter of necessary duty; it is another thing to comply with some parts of the law, upon motives of Christian charity and prudence. It was lawful for the Gentile converts to live without observing any part of the ceremonial law of Moses; but, though “all things are lawful, yet, as St. Paul says, “all things are not expedient,"—“all things edify not.” And again, “meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse,” 1 Cor. viii. 8.

This being the reason of the case, the circumstances of the Christian Church of the time weighed with the Apostolical council to require of the Gentile converts a compliance with some particulars of the Mosaick law, St. James, who opens this advice, gives the reason of it; he considered, that in all the cities where Gentile churches had been planted, there were Jewish converts likewise, who were zealous of the law, and would hold no communication with the Gentiles who wholly neglected it; and therefore, unless the Gentile Christians complied with some particulars, there must be an irreconcilable division in the church of Christ, to the loss of that charity, on which the Gospel sets so great a price. Bp. Sherlock.

—[from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.] The Apostolick decree pronounced on this occasion, far from betraying any of the folly and violence of enthusiasm, was dictated by reason and sobriety; it bears the clearest marks of prudent attention to the peace and welfare of the Church, and of charitable condescension to the prejudices of the well-meaning.

It is impossible to read over this decree without admiring the humility and moderation of its conclusion: it enumerates the prohibitions already stated, and closes with the words, “from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” How different was this from the high strains of priestly arrogance and papal usurpation in the corrupted ages of the church, or the bitter invectives of angry reformers, and the wild rants of heated enthusiasts, in more modern days! How conformable to that mild and sober dignity which we should expect in men, speaking the dictates of genuine inspi-

ration, and following the example of their meek and humble Lord! Dr. Graves.

Though the Mosaick institution was pronounced by this high authority, not to be obligatory on those who embraced the Gospel, yet the attachment of the Jewish Christians to the rites and ceremonies, to which they had been accustomed, continued to be the cause of frequent dissensions in the Church of Christ; and we find that St. Paul, on several occasions, (chap. xvi. 3; xxi. 26,) subsequent to this council, conformed to the law of Moses, not indeed as a matter of necessity, but in compliance with the prejudices of the Jews, and that he might make them better disposed to the Gospel, 1 Cor. ix. 20. Bp. Tomline.

This temperate decree, dictated indeed by the Holy Spirit, afforded a perfect model to all future general councils, how to maintain the harmony and communion of the catholic or universal Church; thus rejecting and censuring a mischievous heresy, erring in fundamentals, and subversive of the Christian faith; and yet mildly respecting the prejudices of weak and scrupulous brethren, still attached to the Mosaical institutions. The Gentile churches being only required to avoid such gross violations of the law of Moses, as would unavoidably offend their Jewish brethren, so as to break off all communion between them, and produce an irreconcilable schism, while the latter were bound to insist no more on circumcision as necessary to salvation, and on abstinence from all meats forbidden by the law of Moses. And by this sage decree, St. Paul appears to have governed the churches which he planted; shewing the most considerate attention to their prejudices in matters indifferent; holding that all things were not at all times expedient to be required, (1 Cor. vi. 12,) as not tending to edification, 1 Cor. x. 23. Dr. Hales.

Acts 15:31

31.—[they rejoiced for the consolation.] Rejoiced for the comfort they had in knowing they were delivered from the necessity of circumcision, and the other ceremonies of the law. Bp. Mann.

Acts 15:32

32.—[being prophets also themselves.] The word “prophet,” as has been before remarked, is not only used for one who foretells things to come, but for a teacher who, by the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, instructs men in the way of salvation. Bp. Mann.

Acts 15:33

33.—[who departed from them] See chap. xiii. 13. St. Mark was sister’s son to St. Barnabas, Col. iv. 10,

and depart asunder. Paul circumciseth Timothy. Anno DOMINI 43.

Acts 15:39

39. — the contention was so sharp] It is with sensible regret that we read of any difference, much more of a sharp contention, between St. Paul and St. Barnabas, so dear to each other in the bonds both of human and Christian friendship: it arose from some remainder of imperfection in the temper of the one or the other of them, and probably of both. They separated, therefore, but it plainly appears that they did not become enemies; they preached the same Gospel, though in different companies, each taking his proper circuit; and thus the work of the Lord was performed with greater despatch, and perhaps with greater success. Dr. Doddridge.

It does not appear that it once entered in the minds of the sacred writers to consider how this or that action would appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. But, without at all attending to this, they lay the facts before us, at no pains to think whether they would appear creditable or not. They tell the plain truth, and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks like sincerity, and shews that they published nothing to the world but what they believed themselves. Duchal.

The providence of God caused the separation of these two Apostles to turn to the benefit of the Church, by making it the means of diffusing Christianity wider than if they had continued together. Also St. Mark, by St. Paul’s severity, was brought to a sense of his former indifference in the work of the Gospel, and became so useful a minister of Christ, that he not only deserved to be a companion of St. Paul, but received from him a high testimony of his zeal, that he was “profitable to him for the ministry,” 2 Tim. iv. 11. Nelson.

The Apostles themselves were not exempt from the passions of human nature: but whenever they fell, they recovered, by the grace of God, from sin, and were restored to a sense of duty. When we err, may the consequence be the same! We may judge it expedient to differ in opinion from our neighbour; we may think it necessary to withdraw from any familiar intercourse with him: but it is certainly consistent, neither with Christian charity, nor with Christian justice, to remain in a state of impenetrable and obdurate irreconciliation; or to aggravate the evil of separation by irritating and unnecessary contention. Brewster.

Chap. XVI. ver. 1. — named Timotheus.] This is the

THEN came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, “named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: