Acts 18
TFGActs 18:1
- 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” (#Galatians 2:4|). 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 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” [#Galatians 2:4|] 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” [#Jude 7:18,20|]; 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.
(OCA 182-183)
Acts 18:2
- 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.
Neither this nor the former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from #Acts 15:5|, that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from #Acts 15:22|, 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” (#Galatians 2:2|). 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.
(OCA 183)
Acts 18:3
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:
(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.
(OCA 184)
Acts 18:4
(8) And God, who knows the heart, bore witness for them, giving to them the Holy Spirit even as he did to us.
Acts 18:5
(9) He made no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 18:6
(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?
Acts 18:7
(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 [#Acts 11:1-18|]; 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.
(OCA 184)
Acts 18:8
- 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” [#Acts 14:27|], but were confined to the “signs and wonders” by which God had indicated his approbation of their ministry (compare #Acts 14:3|). The reversal of the order in which Luke now habitually names these two brethren indicates that Barnabas, whose name is first, was the first speaker. This gave Paul the closing argument on those events.
(OCA 184-185)
Acts 18:9
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.
(OCA 185)
Acts 18:10
(14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name,
Acts 18:11
(15) and to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written,
Acts 18:12
(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,
Acts 18:13
(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. (h)
(h) #Amos 9:11|, quoted from the Septuagint.
(OCA 185)
Acts 18:14
(18) Known to God from eternity are all his works.
Acts 18:15
(19) Therefore, my judgment is, not to trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God;
Acts 18:16
(20) but to write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 18:17
(21) For Moses, for generations past, has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
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” [#Acts 15:17|], should seek after the Lord; and now, he had, through these apostles, selected from among the Gentiles “a people for his name” [#Acts 15:14|]. 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 [#Acts 15:28|] 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 (#Genesis 9:4|). 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 [#Acts 15:28|]. One would be surprised that it was thought necessary to mention to Gentiles, who had turned to the Lord [#Acts 15:19|], the sinfulness of fornication, did we 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 [#Acts 15:16,17|], 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” (#2 Samuel 7:16|); that there should not fail him a man on the throne of Israel (#1 Kings 2:4|). 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” (#Psalms 89:3,4|). 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” [#Amos 9:11|]. 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” (#Lu 1:32,33|). 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” (#Romans 1:3|). 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.
(OCA 186)
Acts 18:18
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,
(OCA 187)
Acts 18:19
(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:
Acts 18:20
(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,
Acts 18:21
(25) it seemed good to us, being of one mind, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Acts 18:22
(26) men who have hazarded their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
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.”
(OCA 187)
Acts 18:23
(27) We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who also will tell you the same things orally.
Acts 18:24
(28) For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,
Acts 18:25
(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.
Acts 18:26
#Acts 15:30,31|
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.
(OCA 187)
Acts 18:27
(31) When they read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.
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 endorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the whole Church [#Galatians 2:1-5|]. 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 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” [#Acts 15:28|]; that is, 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” [#Acts 15:28|]. 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.
(OCA 187-188)
Acts 18:28
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.
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.
(OCA 188-189)