Acts 1:14-26

Verse 14. These all continued, etc. The word continued denotes persevering and constant attention. The main business was devotion. Acts 6:4, "We will give ourselves continually--to the ministry of the word." Rom 12:12, "Continuing instant in prayer:" Rom 13:6, "Attending continually upon this very thing." It is their main and constant employment, Col 4:2.

With one accord. With one mind; unitedly; unanimously. There were no schisms, no divided interests, no discordant purposes. This is a beautiful picture of devotion, and a specimen of what social worship ought now to be, and a beautiful illustration of Ps 133. The apostles felt that they had one great object; and their deep grief at the loss of their Master, their doubts and perplexities, led them, as all afflictions ought to lead us, to the throne of grace.

In prayer and supplication. These words are nearly synonymous, and are often interchanged. They express, here, petitions to God for blessings, and prayer to avert impending evils.

With the women. The women that had followed the Lord Jesus from Galilee, Lk 8:2,3, 23:49,55, 24:10, Mt 27:55. The women particularly mentioned are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee's children, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna. Besides these, there were others whose names are not mentioned. Most of them were relatives of the apostles or of our Saviour; and it is not improbable that some of them were wives of the apostles. Peter is known to have been married, (Mt 8:14,) and had his wife in attendance, (1Cor 9:5;) and the same was doubtless true of some of the other apostles, (1Cor 9:5.) Mary is here particularly mentioned, the mother of Jesus; showing that she now cast in her lot with the apostles. She had, besides, been particularly entrusted to the care of John, (Jn 19:26,27,) and had no other home. This is the last time she is mentioned in the New Testament.

And with his brethren. Mt 12:46. At first they had been unbelieving about the claims of Jesus, (Jn 7:5;) but it seems that they had been subsequently converted.

(*) "accord" or, "one mind" (b) "the women" Lk 23:49,55, 24:10 Verse 15. In those days. On one of the days intervening between the ascension of Jesus and the day of Pentecost.

Peter stood up. Peter standing up, or rising. This is a customary expression in the Scriptures when one begins to do a thing, Lk 15:18. The reason why Peter did this may be seen in the Note Mt 16:16,17. It is not improbable, besides, that Peter was the most aged of the apostles; and from his uniform conduct we know that he was the most ardent. It was perfectly characteristic, therefore, for him to introduce the business of the election of a new apostle.

The disciples. This was the name which was given to them as being learners in the school of Christ. Mt 5:1.

The number of the names. The number of the persons, or individuals. The word name is often used to denote the person, Rev 3:4, Acts 4:12, 18:15, Eph 1:21. In Syriac it is, "the assembly of men was about an hundred and twenty." This was the first assembly convened to transact the business of the church; and it is not a little remarkable that the vote in so important a matter as electing an apostle was by the entire church. It settles the question that the election of a minister and pastor should be by the church, and not be imposed on them by any right or presentation by individuals, or by any ecclesiastical body. If a case could ever occur where a minister should be chosen by the ministry only, such a case was here in the election of another apostle. And yet in this the entire church had a voice. Whether this was all the true church at this time, does not appear from the history. This expression cannot mean that there were no more Christians, but that these were all that had convened in the upper room. It is almost certain that our Saviour had, by his own ministry, brought many others to be his true followers. Verse 16. Men and brethren. This is a customary mode of address, implying affection and respect, Acts 13:26. The Syriac has it more appropriately than by the introduction of the conjunction "and"-- "Men, our brethren."

This Scripture. This portion or prediction contained in the writings of the Old Testament. Scripture, writing. Jn 5:39. The passage to which Peter refers is commonly supposed to be that recorded in Ps 41:9, "Yea, mine own familiar friend--hath lifted up his heel against me." This is expressly applied to Judas by our Saviour, in Jn 13:18. But it seems clear that the reference is not to the 41st Psalm, but to the passage which Peter proceeds to quote in Acts 1:20.

Must needs have been fulfilled. It would certainly happen that it would be fulfilled. Not that there was any physical necessity, or any compulsion; but it could not but occur that a prediction of God should be fulfilled. This makes no affirmation about the freedom of Judas in doing it. A man will be just as free in wickedness if it be foretold that he will be wicked, as if it had never been known to any other being.

The Holy Ghost, etc. This is a strong attestation to the inspiration of David, and accords with the uniform testimony of the New Testament, that the sacred writer spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2Pet 1:21.

Concerning Judas. In what respect this was concerning Judas, see Acts 1:20.

Which was guide, etc. Mt 26:47, Jn 18:3.

(c) "which the Holy Ghost" Ps 41:9, Jn 13:18 (d) "guide to them" Mt 26:47, Jn 18:3 Verse 17. He was numbered with us. He was chosen as an apostle by the Lord Jesus, Lk 6:13-16, This does not mean that he was a true Christian, but that he was reckoned among the apostles. Jesus knew that he never loved him. Long before he betrayed him, he declared that he was a devil, Jn 6:70. He knew his whole character when he chose him, Jn 2:25. If it be asked why he chose such a man to be an apostle--why he was made the treasurer of the apostles, and was admitted to the fullest confidence--we may reply, that a most important object was gained in having such a man --a spy--among them. It might be pretended when the apostles bore testimony to the purity of life, of doctrine, and of purpose, of the Lord Jesus, that they were interested and partial friends; that they might be disposed to suppress some of his real sentiments, and represent him in a light more favourable than the truth. Hence the testimony of such a man as Judas, if favourable, must be invaluable. It would be free from the charge of partiality. If Judas knew anything unfavourable to the character of Jesus, he would have communicated it to the sanhedrim. If he knew of any secret plot against the government, or seditious purpose, he had every inducement to declare it. He had every opportunity to know it: he was with him; heard him converse; was a member of his family, and admitted to terms of familiarity. Yet even Judas could not be bought, or bribed, to testify against the moral character of the Saviour. If he had done it, or could have done it, it would have preserved him from the charge of treason; entitled him to the reputation of a public benefactor in discovering secret sedition; and have saved him from the pangs of remorse, and from self-murder. Judas would have done it if he could. But he alleged no such charge; he did not even dare to lisp a word against the pure designs of the Lord Jesus; and his own pangs and death are the highest proof that can be desired of his conviction that the betrayed Redeemer was innocent. Judas would have been just the witness which the Jews desired of the treasonable purposes of Jesus. But that could not be had, even by gold; and they were compelled to suborn other men to testify against the Son of God, Mt 26:60. We may just add here, that the introduction of such a character as that of Judas Iscariot into the number of the apostles, and the use to be made of his testimony, would never have occurred to an impostor. An impostor would have said that they were all the true friends of the Lord Jesus. To have invented such a character as that of Judas, and to make him perform such a part in the plan as the sacred writers do, would have required too much art and cunning, was too refined and subtle a device to have been thought of, unless it had actually occurred.

(e) "he was numbered with us" Lk 6:16 Verse 18. Now this man, etc. The money which was given for betraying the Lord Jesus was thrown down in the temple, and the field was purchased with it by the Jewish priests. See Mt 27:5,10, Mt 27:5, Mt 27:5. A man is said often to do a thing, when he furnished means for doing it.

The reward of iniquity. The price which he had for that deed of stupendous wickedness--the betraying of the Lord Jesus.

And falling headlong. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder, Mt 27:5.

(a) "this man" Mt 27:5-10 (b) "reward of iniquity" 2Pet 2:15 (*) "purchased a field" or, "Caused a field to be purchased" Verse 19. It was known, etc. Mt 27:8. The scene in the temple, the acts of the priests in purchasing the field, etc., would make it known; and the name of the field would preserve the memory of the guilt of Judas.

Their proper tongue. The language spoken by the Jews--the Syro-Chaldaic.

Aceldama. This is composed of two Syro-Chaldaic words, and means, literally, "the field of blood." Verse 20. For it is written, etc. See Ps 69:26. This is the prediction, doubtless, to which Peter refers in Acts 1:16. The intermediate passage in Acts 1:18,19, is probably a parenthesis; the words of Luke, not of Peter. It is not probable that Peter would introduce a narrative like this, with which they were all familiar, in an address to the disciples, The Hebrew in the Psalm is, "Let their habitation (Heb., fold, enclosure for cattle; tower, or palace) be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents." This quotation is not made literally from the Hebrew, nor from the Septuagint. The plural is changed to the singular, and there are some other slight variations. The Hebrew says, "Let no men dwell in their tents." The reference to the tents is omitted in the quotation. The term habitation, in the Psalm, means evidently the dwelling-place of the enemies of the writer of the Psalm. It is an image expressive of their overthrow and defeat by a just God: "Let their families be scattered, and the places where they have dwelt be without an inhabitant, as a reward for their crimes." If the Psalm was originally composed with reference to the Messiah and his sufferings, the expression here was not intended to denote Judas in particular, but one of his foes, who was to meet the just punishment of rejecting, and betraying, and murdering him. The change, therefore, which Peter made from the plural to the singular, and the application to Judas especially, as one of those enemies, accords with the design of the Psalm, and is such a change as the circumstances of the case justified and required. It is an image, therefore, expressive of judgment and desolation coming upon his betrayer--an image to be literally fulfilled in relation to his habitation, drawn from the desolation when a man is discomfited, overthrown, and his dwelling-place given up to desolation. It is not a little remarkable that this Psalm is repeatedly quoted as referring to the Messiah. Ps 69:9, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up," expressly applied to Christ in Jn 2:17. Ps 69:21, "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The thing which was done to Jesus on the cross, Mt 27:34. The whole Psalm is expressive of deep sorrow--of persecution, contempt, weeping, being forsaken, and is throughout applicable to the Messiah; with what is remarkable, not a single expression to be, of necessity, limited to David. It is not easy to ascertain whether the ancient Jews referred this Psalm to the Messiah. A part of the title to the Psalm in the Syriac version is, "It is called a prophecy concerning those things which Christ suffered, and concerning the casting away of the Jews." The prophecy in Ps 69:25 is not to be understood of Judas alone, but of the enemies of the Messiah in general, of which Judas war one. On this principle the application to Judas of the passage by Peter is to be defended.

And, His bishopric let another take. This is quoted from Ps 109:8: "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." This is called "a Psalm of David," and is of the same class as Psalms 6, 22, 25, 38, and 42. This class of Psalms is commonly supposed to have expressed David's feelings in the calamitous times of the persecution by Saul, the rebellion of Absalom, etc. They are all also expressive of the condition of a suffering and persecuted Messiah; and are many of them applied to him in the New Testament. The general principle on which most of them are applicable, is not that David personated or typified the Messiah, which is nowhere affirmed, and which can be true in no intelligible sense; but that he was placed in circumstances similar to the Messiah; encompassed with like enemies; persecuted in the same manner. They are expressive of high rank, office, dignity, and piety, cast down, waylaid, and encompassed with enemies. In this way they express general sentiments as much applicable to the case of the Messiah as to David. They were placed in similar circumstances. The same help was needed. The same expressions would convey their feelings. The same treatment was proper for their enemies. On this principle it was that David deemed his enemy, whoever he was, unworthy of his office; and desired that it should be given to another. In like manner, Judas had rendered himself unworthy of his office, and there was the same propriety that it should be given to another. And as the office had now become vacant by the death of Judas, according to one declaration in the Psalms, so, according to another, it was proper that it should be conferred on some other person. The word rendered "office" in the Psalm, means the care, charge, business, oversight of anything. It is a word applicable to magistrates, whose care it is to see the laws executed; to military men who have charge of an army, or a part of an army. In Job 10:12, it is rendered "thy visitation"--thy care; in Nu 4:16, "and to the office of Eleazar," etc.; 2Kgs 11:18. In the case of David it refers to those who were entrusted with military or other offices, and who had treacherously perverted them to persecute and oppose him; and thus shown themselves unworthy of the office. The Greek word which is used here--επισκοπην--is taken from the Septuagint, and means the same thing as the Hebrew. It is well rendered in the margin, "office, or charge." It means charge of any kind, or office, without in itself specifying of what kind. It is the concrete of the noun --επισκοπος--, commonly translated "bishop," and means his office, charge, or duty, That word designates simply having the oversight of anything; and as applied to the officers of the New Testament, it denotes merely their having charge of the affairs of the church, without specifying the nature or the extent of their jurisdiction. Hence it is often interchanged with presbyter, or elder, and expresses the discharge of the duties of the same office. Acts 20:28, "Take heed (presbyters or elders, Acts 1:17) therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers"--επισκοπους--bishops." Heb 12:15, "Looking diligently," etc.--επισκοπουντες Php 1:1, "with the bishops and deacons." "Paul called presbyters, bishops; for they had at that time the same name."--Theodoret, as quoted by Schleusner. 1Pet 5:2, "Feed the flock of God, (i.e., you who are elders, or presbyters, 1Pet 5:1;) taking the oversight thereof,"--επισκοπουντες. These passages show that the term in the New Testament designates the supervision or care which was exercised over the church, by whomsoever performed, without specifying the nature or extent of the jurisdiction. It is scarcely necessary to add that Peter here did not intend to affirm that Judas sustained any office corresponding to what is now commonly understood by the term "bishop."

(c) "Let his habitation" Ps 69:25 (d) "and, His bishophoric" Ps 109:8 (1) "bishoporic" or, "office" Verses 21, 22. Wherefore of these men. Of those who had witnessed the life and works of Christ, and who were therefore qualified to discharge the duties of the office from which Judas fell. Probably Peter refers to the seventy disciples, Lk 10:1,2.

Went in and out. A phrase signifying that he was their constant companion. It expresses, in general, all the actions of the life, Ps 121:8, De 28:19, 31:2.

Beginning from the baptism of John. The words "beginning from," in the original, refer to the Lord Jesus. The meaning may be thus expressed: "During all the time in which the Lord Jesus, beginning (his ministry) at the time when he was baptized by John, went in and out among us, until the time when he was taken up," etc. From those who had during that time been the constant companions of the Lord Jesus must one be taken, who would thus be a witness of his whole ministry.

Must one be ordained. It is fit or proper that one should be ordained. The reason of this was, that Jesus had originally chosen the number twelve for this work, and as one of them had fallen, it was proper that the breach should be filled by some person equally qualified for the office, The reason why it was proper that he should be taken from the seventy disciples was, that they had been particularly distinguished by Jesus himself, and commanded to preach, and endowed with various powers, and had been witnesses of most of his public life, Lk 10:1-16. The word ordained, with us, has a fixed and definite meaning. It denotes to set apart to a sacred office with the proper form and solemnities, commonly by the imposition of hands. But this is not, of necessity, the meaning of this passage. The Greek word usually denoting ordination is not used here. The expression is, literally, must one be, or become--γενεσθαι--a witness with us of his resurrection." The expression does not imply that he must be set apart in any particular manner, but simply that one should be designated, or appointed for this specific purpose, to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ.

(e) "of these men" Lk 10:1,2, Jn 15:27 Verse 22.

(*) "ordained" or, "Appointed" Verse 23. And they appointed two. They proposed, or, as we should say, nominated two. Literally, they placed two, or made them to stand forth, as persons do who are candidates for office. These two were probably more distinguished by prudence, wisdom, piety, and age, than the others; and were so nearly equal in qualifications, that they could not determine which was the best fitted for the office.

Joseph called Barsabas, etc. It is not certainly known what the name Barsabas denotes. The Syriac word bar means son, and the word sabas has been translated an oath, rest, quiet, or captivity. Why the name was given to Joseph is not known; but probably it was the family name--Joseph son, of Sabas. Some have conjectured that this was the same man who, in Acts 4:36, is called Barnabas. But of this there is no proof. Lightfoot supposes that he was the son of Alpheus, and brother of James the Less, and that he was chosen on account Of his relationship to the family of the Lord Jesus.

Was surnamed Justus. Who was called Justus. This is a Latin name, meaning just, and was probably given him on account of his distinguished integrity. It was not uncommon among the Jews for a man to have several names, Mt 10:3.

And Matthias. Nothing is known of the family of this man, or of his character, further than that he was numbered with the apostles, and shared their lot in the toils, and persecutions, and honours of preaching the gospel to mankind.

(a) "Barsabas" Acts 15:22 Verse 24. And they prayed. As they could not agree on the individual, they invoked the-direction of God in their choice--an example which should be followed in every selection of an individual to exercise the duties of the sacred office of the ministry.

Which knowest the hearts of all men. This is often declared to be the peculiar prerogative of God. Jer 17:10, "I, Jehovah, search the heart," etc.; Ps 139:1,23, 1Chr 28:9. Yet this attribute is also expressly ascribed to Jesus Christ. Rev 2:18,23, "These things saith the Son of God--I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts." Jn 2:25, 6:64, 16:19. There are strong reasons for supposing that the apostles on this occasion addressed this prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ.

(1.) The name Lord is the common appellation which they gave to him, Acts 2:36, 7:59,60, 10:36, 1Cor 2:8, Php 2:11, Rev 11:8, etc.

(2.) We are told that they worshipped him, or rendered him divine honours after his ascension, Lk 24:52.

(3.) The disciples were accustomed to address him after his crucifixion by the names Lord or God indifferently, Acts 1:6, Jn 20:28, Acts 7:59.

(4.) This was a matter pertaining especially to the church which the Lord Jesus had redeemed, and to his own arrangement in regard to it. He had chosen the apostles; he had given their commission; he had fixed their number; and what is worthy of special remark here, he had been the companion of the very men, and knew their qualifications for their work. If the apostles ever called on the Lord Jesus after his ascension, this was the case in which they would be likely to do it. That it was done is clear from the account of the death of Stephen, Acts 7:59,60. And in this important matter of ordaining a new apostle to be a witness for Jesus Christ, nothing was more natural than that they should address him, though bodily absent, as they would assuredly have done if he were present. And if on this occasion they did actually address Christ, then two things clearly follow. First, that it is proper to render him Divine homage, agreeably to the uniform declarations of the Scriptures. Jn 5:23, "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." Heb 1:6, "And let all the angels of God worship him." Php 2:10,11, Rev 5:8-14, 1Thes 3:11,12. Secondly, he must be Divine. To none other but God can religious homage be rendered; and none other can be described as knowing the hearts of all men. The reason why they appealed to him on this occasion as the Searcher of the heart, was doubtless the great importance of the work to which the successor of Judas was to be called. One apostle of fair external character had proved a traitor; and with this fact full before them, they appealed to the Saviour himself, to select one who would be true to him, and not bring dishonour on his cause.

Shew whether, etc. Show which of them.

Thou hast chosen. Not by any public declaration, but which of the two thou hast judged to be best qualified for the work, and hast fitted for it.

(b) "knowest the hearts" Jer 17:10, Rev 2:23 Verse 25. That he may take part of this ministry. The word rendered --κληρον--is the same which in the next verse is rendered lots. It properly means a lot, or portion; the portion divided to a man, or assigned to him by casting lots; and also the instrument or means by which the lot is made. The former is its meaning here; the office, or portion of apostolic work which would fall to him by taking the place of Judas.

Ministry and apostleship. This is an instance of the figure of speech hendiadys, when two words are used to express one thing. It means the apostolic ministry. See instances in Gal 1:14, "Let them be for signs, and for seasons," i.e., signs of seasons. Acts 23:6, "Hope and resurrection of the dead," i.e., hope of the resurrection of the dead.

That he might go to his own place. These words by different interpreters have been referred both to Matthias and Judas. Those who refer them to Matthias say that they mean, that Judas fell that Matthias might go to his own place, that is, to a place for which he was fitted, or well qualified. But to this there are many objections.

(1.) The apostolic office could with no propriety be called, in reference to Matthias, his own place, until it was actually conferred on him.

(2.) There is no instance m which the expression, to go to his own place, is applied to a successor in office.

(3.) It is not true that the design or reason why Judas fell was to make way for another. He fell by his crimes; his avarice, his voluntary and enormous wickedness.

(4.) The former part of the sentence contains this sentiment: "Another must be appointed to this office which the death of Judas has made vacant. "If this expression, "that he might go," etc., refers to the successor of Judas, it expresses the same sentiment, but more obscurely.

(5.) The obvious and natural meaning of the phrase is to refer it to Judas. But those who suppose it to refer to Judas differ greatly about its meaning. Some suppose it refers to his own house; that he left the apostolic office to return to his own house; and they appeal to Nu 24:25. But it is not true that Judas did this; nor is there the least proof that it was his design. Others refer it to the grave, as the place of man, where all must lie; and particularly as an ignominious place where Judas should lie. But there is no example of the word place being used in this sense; nor is there an instance where a man by being buried is said to return to his own, or proper place. Others have supposed that the manner of his death, by hanging, is referred to, as his own or his proper place. But this interpretation is evidently an unnatural and forced one. The word place cannot be applied to an act of self-murder. It denotes habitation, abode, situation in which to remain; not an act. These are the only interpretations which can be suggested of the passage, except the common and obvious one of referring it to the future abode of Judas in the world of woe. This might be said to be his own, as it was adapted to him; as he had prepared himself for it; and as it was proper that he who had betrayed his Lord should remain there. This interpretation may be defended by the following considerations:

(1.) It is the obvious and natural meaning of the words. It commends itself by its simplicity, and its evident connexion with the context. It has in all ages been the common interpretation; nor has any other been adopted unless there was a theory to be defended about future punishment. Unless men had previously made up their minds not to believe in future punishment, no one would ever have thought of any other interpretation. This fact alone throws strong light on the meaning of the passage.

(2.) It accords with the crimes of Judas, and with all that we know of him. The future doom of Judas was not unknown to the apostles. Jesus Christ had expressly declared this: "it had been good for that man if he had not been born;" a declaration which could not be true if, after any limited period of suffering, he were at last admitted to eternal happiness. See Mt 26:24, and Mt 26:24. This declaration was made in the presence of the eleven apostles, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, at a time when their attention was absorbed in deep interest in what Christ said; and it was therefore a declaration which they would not be likely to forget. As they knew the fate of Judas, nothing was more natural for them than to speak of it familiarly as a thing which had actually occurred when he betrayed his Lord, hung himself, and went to his own place.

(3.) The expression, to "go to his own place," is one which is used by the ancient writers to denote going to the eternal destiny. Thus the Jewish tract, Baal Turim, on Nu 24:25, says, "Balaam went to his own place, i.e., to Gehenna," to hell. Thus the Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase on Eccl 6:6, says, "Although the days of a man's life were two thousand years, and he did not study the law, and do justice, in the day of his death his soul shall descend to hell, to the one place where all sinners go." Thus Ignatius in the Epistle to the Magnesians says, "Because all things have an end, the two things death and life shall lie down together, and each one shall go to his own place." The phrase his own place, means the place or abode which is fitted for him, which is his appropriate home. Judas was not in a place which befitted his character when he was an apostle; he was not in such a place in the church; he would not be in heaven. Hell was the only place which was fitted to the man of avarice and of treason. And if this be the true interpretation of this passage, then it follows,

(1,) that there will be such a thing as future, eternal punishment. One such man there certainly is in hell, and ever will be. If there is one there, for the same reason there may be others. All objections to the doctrine are removed by this single fact; and it cannot be true that all men will be saved.

(2.) Each individual in eternity will find his own proper place. Hell is not an arbitrary appointment. Every man will go to the place for which his character is fitted. The hypocrite is not fitted for heaven. The man of pride, and avarice, and pollution, and falsehood, is not fitted for heaven. The place adapted to such men is hell; and the design of the judgment will be to assign to each individual his proper abode in the eternal world.

(3.) The design of the judgment of the great day will be to assign to all the inhabitants of this world their proper place. It would not be fit that the holy and pure should dwell for ever in the same place with the unholy and impure; and the Lord Jesus will come to assign to each his appropriate eternal habitation.

(4.) The sinner will have no cause of complaint. If he is assigned to his proper place, he cannot complain. If he is unfit for heaven, he cannot complain that he is excluded. And if his character and feelings are such as make it proper that he should find his eternal abode among the enemies of God, then he must expect that a God of justice and equity will assign him such a doom. But

(5) this will not alleviate his pain; it will deepen his woe. He will have the eternal consciousness that that, and that only, is his place--the doom for which he is fitted. The prison is no less dreadful because a man is conscious that he deserves it. The gallows is not the less terrible, because the man knows that he deserves to die. And the eternal consciousness of the sinner that he is unfit for heaven; that there is not a solitary soul there with whom he could have sympathy or friendship; that he is fit for hell, and hell only, will be an ingredient of eternal bitterness in the cup of woe that awaits him. Let not the sinner, then, hope to escape; for God will assuredly appoint his residence in that world to which his character here is adapted.

The character and end of Judas is one of the most important and instructive in history. It teaches us,

(1.) that Christ may employ wicked men for important purposes in his kingdom. Acts 1:17. He does no violence to their freedom, suffers them to act as they please, but brings important ends out of their conduct. One of the most conclusive arguments for the pure character of Jesus Christ is drawn from the silent testimony of Judas.

(2.) The character of Judas was eminently base and wicked. He was influenced by one of the worst human passions; and yet he cloaked it from all the apostles. It was remarkable that any man should have thought of making money in such a band of men; but avarice will show itself everywhere.

(3.) We see the effects of avarice in the church. It led to the betraying of Jesus Christ, and to his death; and it has often betrayed the cause of pure religion since. There is no single human passion that has done so much evil in the church of God as this. It may be consistent with external decency and order; it is that on which the world acts, and which it approves; and it may therefore be indulged without disgrace, while open and acknowledged vices would expose their possessors to shame and ruin. And yet it paralyzes and betrays religion probably more than any single propensity, of man.

(4.) The character of an avaricious man in the church will be developed. Opportunities will occur when it will be seen and known by what principle the man is influenced. So it was with Achan, (Josh 7:21;) so it was with Judas; and so it will be with all. Occasions will occur which will test the character, and show what manner of spirit a man is of. Every appeal to a man's benevolence, every call upon his charity, shows what spirit influences him, and whether he is actuated by the love of gold, or by the love of Jesus Christ and his cause. Verse 26. And they gave forth their lots. Some have supposed that this means they voted. But to this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1.) The word lots--κληρους--is not used to express votes, or suffrage.

(2.) The expression; "the lot fell upon," is not consistent with the notion of voting. It is commonly expressive of casting lots.

(3.) Casting lots was common among the Jews on important and difficult occasions, and it was natural that the apostles should resort to it in this. Thus David divided the priests by lot, 1Chr 24:5. The land of Canaan was divided by lot, Nu 26:55 Josh 15:1-17:18. Jonathan, son of Saul, was detected as having violated his father's command, and as bringing calamity on the Israelites, by lot, 1Sam 14:41,42. Achan was detected by lot, Josh 7:16-18. In these cases the use of the lot was regarded as a solemn appeal to God, for his direct interference in cases which they could not themselves decide. Prov 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." The choice of an apostle was an event of the same kind, and was regarded as a solemn appeal to God for his direction and guidance in a case which the apostles could not determine. The manner in which this was done is not certainly known. The common mode of casting lots, was to write the names of the persons on pieces of stone, wood, etc., and put them in one urn; and the name of the office, portion, etc., on others. These were then placed in an urn with other pieces of stone, etc., which were blank. The names were then drawn at random, and also the other pieces, and this determined the case. The casting of a lot is determined by laws of nature, as regularly as anything else. There is properly no chance in it. We do not know how a die may turn up; but this does not imply that it will turn up without any regard to rule, or at haphazard. We cannot trace the influences which may determine either this or that side to come up; but still it is done by regular and proper laws, and according to the circumstances of position, force, etc., in which it is cast. Still although it does not imply any special or miraculous interposition of Providence; though it may not be absolutely wrong, in cases which cannot otherwise be determined, to use the lot, yet it does not follow that it is proper often to make this appeal. Almost all cases of doubt can be determined more satisfactorily in some other way than by the lot. The habit of appealing to it engenders the love of hazards and of games; leads to heart- burnings, to jealousies, to envy, to strife, and to dishonesty. Still less does the example of the apostles authorize games of hazard, or lotteries, which are positively evil, and attended with ruinous consequences, apart from any inquiry about the lawfulness of the lot. They either originate in, or promote, covetousness, neglect of regular industry, envy, jealousy, disappointment, dissipation, bankruptcy, falsehood, and despair. What is gained by one is lost by another, and both the gain and the loss promote some of the worst passions of man: boasting, triumph, self-confidence, indolence, dissipation, on the one hand; and envy, disappointment, sullenness, desire of revenge, remorse, and ruin, on the other. God intended that man should live by sober toil. All departures from this great law of our social existence lead to ruin.

Their lots. The lots which were to decide their case. They are called, theirs, because they were to determine which of them should be called to the apostolic office.

The lot fell. This is an expression applicable to casting lots, not to voting.

He was numbered. By the casting of the lot--συγκατεψηφισθη--. This word is from --ψηφος--a calculus, or pebble, by which votes were given, or lots were cast. It means, that by the result of the lot he was reckoned as an apostle. Nothing further is related of Matthias in the New Testament. Where he laboured, and when and where he died, is unknown; nor is there any tradition on which reliance is to be placed. The election of Matthias throws some light on the organization of the church.

(1.) He was chosen to fill the place vacated by Judas, and, for a specific purpose, to be a witness of the resurrection of Christ. There is no mention of any other design. It was not to ordain men exclusively, or to rule over the churches, but to be a witness to an important fact.

(2.) There is no intimation here that it was designed that there should be successors to the apostles in the peculiar duties of the apostolic office. The election was for a definite object, and was therefore temporary. It was to fill up the number originally appointed by Christ. When the purpose for which he was appointed was accomplished, the peculiar part of the apostolic work ceased, of course.

(3.) There could be no succession in our times to the peculiar apostolic office. They were to be witnesses of the work of Christ. For this they were sent forth. And when the desired effect resulting from such a witnessing was accomplished, the office itself would cease. Hence there is no record that after this the church even pretended to appoint successors to the apostles to discharge their peculiar work. And hence no minister of the gospel can now pretend to be their successors in the peculiar and original design of the appointment of the apostles.

(4.) The only other apostle mentioned in the New Testament is the apostle Paul, not appointed as the successor of the others, not with any peculiar design except to be an apostle to the Gentiles, as the others were to the Jews, and appointed for the same end, to testify that Jesus Christ was alive, and that he had seen him after he rose, 1Cor 15:8, 9:1 Acts 22:8,9,14,15, 9:15, 26:17,18. The ministers of religion, therefore, are successors of the apostles, not in their peculiar office as witnesses, but as preachers of the word, and as appointed to establish, to organize, and to edify and rule the churches. The peculiar Work of the apostleship ceased with their death. The ordinary work of the ministry, which they held in common with all others who preach the gospel, will continue to the end of time.

Acts 15:1-29

CHAPTER 15

Verse 1. And certain men. These were men undoubtedly who had been Jews, but who were now converted to Christianity. The fact that they were willing to refer the matter in dispute to the apostles and elders, Acts 15:2, shows that they had professedly embraced the Christian religion. The account which follows is a record of the first internal dissension which occurred in the Christian church. Hitherto they had been struggling against external foes. Violent persecutions had raged, and had fully occupied the attention of Christians. But now the churches were at peace. They enjoyed great external prosperity in Antioch. And the great enemy of souls took occasion then, as he has often done in similar circumstances since, to excite contentions in the church itself; so that when external violence could not destroy it, an effort was made to secure the same object by internal dissension and strife. The history, therefore, is particularly important, as it is the record of the first unhappy debate which arose in the bosom of the church. It is further important, as it shows the manner in which such controversies were settled in apostolic times; and as it established some very important principles respecting the perpetuity of the religious rites of the Jews.

Came down from Judaea. To Antioch, and to the regions adjacent, which had been visited by the apostles, Acts 15:23. Judea was a high and hilly region; and going from that toward the level countries adjacent to the sea, was represented to be descending or going down.

Taught the brethren. That is, Christians. They endeavoured to convince them of the necessity of keeping the laws of Moses.

Except ye be circumcised. This was the leading or principal rite of the Jewish religion. It was indispensable to the name and privileges of a Jew. Proselytes to their religion were circumcised as well as native-born Jews, and they held it to be indispensable to salvation. It is evident, from this, that Paul and Barnabas had dispensed with this rite in regard to the Gentile converts, and that they intended to found the Christian church on the principle that the Jewish ceremonies were to cease. When, however, it was necessary to conciliate the minds of the Jews and to prevent contention, Paul did not hesitate to practise circumcision, Acts 16:3.

After the manner of Moses. According to the custom which Moses commanded; according to the Mosaic ritual.

Ye cannot be saved. The Jews regarded this as indispensable to salvation. The grounds on which they would press it on the attention of Gentile converts would be very plausible, and such as would produce much embarrassment. For,

(1.) it would be maintained that the laws of Moses were the laws of God, and were therefore unchangeable; and,

(2.) it would doubtless be maintained that the religion of the Messiah was only a completing and perfecting of the Jewish religion; that it was designed simply to carry out its principles according to the promises, and not to subvert and destroy anything that had been established by Divine authority. It is usually not difficult to perplex and embarrass young converts with questions of modes, and rites, and forms of religion; and it is not uncommon that a revival is followed by some contention just like this. Opposing sects urge the claims of their peculiar rites, and seek to make proselytes, and introduce contention and strife into an otherwise peaceful and happy Christian community.

(e) "certain men" Gall 2:3 (f) "be circumcised" Jn 7:22 (g) "after the manner of Moses" Lev 12:3 Verse 2. Had no small dissension and disputation. The word rendered dissension (στασεως) denotes sometimes sedition or intestine war, and sometimes earnest and violent disputation or controversy, Acts 23:7,10. In this place it clearly denotes that there was earnest and warm discussion; but it is not implied that there was any improper heat or temper on the part of Paul and Barnabas. Important principles were to be settled in regard to the organization of the church. Doctrines were advanced by the Judaizing teachers which were false, and which tended to great strife and disorder in the church. Those doctrines were urged with great zeal, were declared to be essential to salvation, and would therefore tend greatly to distract the minds of Christians, and to produce great anxiety. It became therefore necessary to meet them with a determined purpose, and to establish the truth on an immovable basis. And the case shows that it is right to "contend earnestly for the faith," (Jude 1:3;) and when similar cases occur, it is proper to resist the approach of error with all the arguments which may be at our command, and with all the weapons which truth can furnish. It is further implied here, that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to defend the truth and to oppose error. Paul and Barnabas regarded themselves as set for this purpose, (comp. Php 1:17, "Knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel;") and Christian ministers should be qualified to defend the truth; and should be willing, with a proper spirit and with great earnestness, to maintain the doctrines revealed.

They determined. There was no prospect that the controversy would be settled by contention and argument. It would seem, from this statement, that those who came down from Judea were also willing that the whole matter should be referred to the apostles at Jerusalem. The reason for this may have been,

(1,) that Jerusalem would be regarded by them as the source of authority in the Christian church, as it had been among the Jews.

(2.) Most of the apostles and the most experienced Christians were there. They had listened to the instructions of Christ himself; had been long in the church; and were supposed to be better acquainted with its design and its laws.

(3.) Those who came from Judea would not be likely to acknowledge the authority of Paul as an apostle: the authority of those at Jerusalem they would recognize.

(4.) They might have had a very confident expectation that the decision there would be in their favour. The question had not been agitated there. They had all been Jews. And it is certain that they continued as yet to attend in the temple-service, and to conform to the Jewish customs. They might have expected, therefore, with great confidence, that the decision would be in their favour, and they were willing to refer it to those at Jerusalem.

Certain other of them. Of the brethren; probably of each party. They did not go to debate; or to give their opinion; or to vote in the case themselves; but to lay the question fairly before the apostles and elders.

Unto the apostles. The authority of the apostles in such a case would be acknowledged by all. They had been immediately instructed by the Saviour, and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization of the church. Mt 16:19; Mt 18:18.

And elders. Acts 11:30. Greek, Presbyters. Acts 14:23. Who these were, or what was their office and authority, it is not easy now to determine. It may refer to the aged men in the church at Jerusalem, or to those who were appointed to rule and to preach in connexion with the apostles. As in the synagogue it was customary to determine questions by the advice of a bench of elders, there is no improbability in the supposition that the apostles would imitate that custom, and appoint a similar arrangement in the Christian church. (Grotius.) It is generally agreed that this is the journey to which Paul refers in Gall 2:1-10. If so, it happened fourteen years after his conversion, Gall 2:1. It was done in accordance with the Divine command, "by revelation," Gall 2:2. And among those who went with him was Titus, who was afterwards so much distinguished as his companion, Gall 2:3.

About this question. The question whether the ceremonial laws of Moses were binding on Christian converts. In regard to the nature and design of this council at Jerusalem, Acts 15:30, Acts 15:31. Verse 3. And being brought on their way by the church. Being attended and conducted by the Christian brethren. Rom 15:24. It was customary for the Christians to attend the apostles in their travels. Comp. 1Cor 16:6,11, 3Jn 1:6.

Through Phenice. Acts 11:19.

And Samaria. These places were directly on their route to Jerusalem.

Declaring the conversion, etc. Of the Gentiles in Antioch, and in the regions in Asia Minor, through which they had travelled. These remarkable events they would naturally communicate with joy to the Christians with whom they would have intercourse in their journey.

Caused great joy. At the news of the extensive spread of the gospel. It was an indication of their deep feeling in the interest of religion, that they thus rejoiced. Where Christians are themselves awake, and engaged in the service of Christ, they rejoice at the news of the conversion of sinners. Where they are cold, they hear such news with indifference, or with the utmost unconcern. One way of testing our feelings on the subject of religion is by the emotions which we have when we hear of extensive and glorious revivals of religion. Comp. Acts 8:8.

(a) "brought on their way" Rom 15:24, 1Cor 16:6,11, 3Jn 1:6 (b) "declaring the conversion" Acts 14:27 (c) "great joy" Lk 15:7,10 Verse 4. They were received of the church. By the church, in a hospitable and friendly manner. They were acknowledged as Christian brethren, and received with Christian kindness. See Gall 2:9.

And they declared. Paul and Barnabas, and those with them. That is, they stated the case; the remarkable conversion of the Gentiles, the evidence of their piety, and the origin of the present dispute.

(*) "received of the church" "by" (*) "of the apostles" "by" (d) "they declared" Acts 21:19 (+) "declared" "related" (*) "with" "by" Verse 5. But there rose up, etc. It has been doubted whether these are the words of Paul and Barnabas, relating what occurred at Antioch; or whether they are the words of Luke, recording what took place at Jerusalem. The correct exposition is probably that which refers it to the latter. For,

(1.) this seems to be the most obvious interpretation.

(2.) The use of the words "rose up" implies that. Those who disturbed the church at Antioch are said to have come down from Judea, Acts 15:1 and if this place referred to that occurrence, the same words would have been retained.

(3.) The particular specification here of "the sect of the Pharisees," looks as if this was an occurrence taking place at Jerusalem. No such specification exists respecting those who came down to Antioch; but it would seem here, as if this party in Jerusalem resolved still to abide by the law, and to impose those rites on the Christian converts. However, this interpretation is by no means certain.

Which believed. Who maintained, or taught.

That it was needful, etc. Acts 15:1.

(1) "rose up", or "rose up, said they, certain" (e) "saying" Acts 15:1 Verse 6. And the apostles and elders, etc. They came together in accordance with the authority in Mt 18:19,20. It would seem, also, that the whole church was convened on this occasion; and that they concurred, at least, in the judgment expressed in this case. See Acts 15:12,22,23.

For to consider this matter. Not to decide it arbitrarily, or even by authority, without deliberation; but to compare their views, and to express the result of the whole to the church at Antioch. It was a grave and difficult question, deeply affecting the entire constitution of the Christian church, and they therefore solemnly engaged in deliberation on the subject.

(f) "together for to consider" Mt 18:20 Verse 7. Much disputing. Or, rather, much inquiry, or deliberation. With our word disputing, we commonly connect the idea of heat and anger. This is not necessarily implied in the word used here. It might have been calm, solemn, deliberate inquiry; and there is no evidence that it was conducted with undue warmth or anger,

Peter rose up, and said. Peter was probably the most aged, and was most accustomed to speak, Acts 2:14, 3:6,12. Besides, there was a particular reason for his speaking here, as he had been engaged in similar scenes, and understood the case, and had had evidence that God had converted sinners without the Mosaic rites, and knew that it would have been inexpedient to have imposed these rites on those who had thus been converted.

A good while ago. Acts 10. Some time since. So long since that there had been opportunity to ascertain whether it was necessary to observe the laws of Moses in order to the edification of the church.

God made choice, etc. That is, of all the apostles, he designated me to engage in this work. Comp. Mt 16:18, with Acts 10.

That the Gentiles. Cornelius, and those who were assembled with him at Caesarea. This was the first case that had occurred, and therefore it was important to appeal to it.

(g) "ye know how" Mt 16:18,19, Acts 10:20 469

Verse 7. Verse 8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, Acts 1:24. God thus knew whether they were true converts or not, and gave a demonstration that he acknowledged them as his.

Giving them the holy Ghost, etc. Acts 10:45,46.

(h) "which knoweth the hearts" Acts 1:24 (*) "witness" "Bore testimony to them" (+) "holy Ghost" "Spirit" Verse 9. And put no difference, etc. Though they had not been circumcised, and though they did not conform to the law of Moses. Thus God showed that the observance of these rites was not necessary in order to the true conversion of men, and to acceptance with him. He did not give us, who are Jews, any advantage over them, but justified and purified all in the same manner.

Purifying their hearts. Thus giving the best evidence that he had renewed them, and admitted them to favour with him.

By faith. By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. This showed that the plan on which God was now about to show favour to men, was not by external rites and ceremonies, but by a scheme which required faith as the only condition of acceptance. It is further implied here, that there is no true faith which does not purify the heart.

(a) "purifying their hearts by faith" Heb 9:13,14, 1Pet 1:22 Verse 10. Why tempt ye God? Why provoke him to displeasure? Why, since he has shown his determination to accept them without such rites, do you provoke him by attempting to impose on his own people rites without his authority, and against his manifest will? The argument is, that God had already accepted them. To attempt to impose these rites would be to provoke him to anger; to introduce observances which he had shown it was his purpose should now be abolished.

To put a yoke. That which would be burdensome and oppressive, or which would infringe on their just freedom, as the children of God. It is, called in Gal 5:1, "a yoke of bondage." Mt 23:4. A yoke is an emblem of slavery or bondage, 1Timm 6:1 or of affliction, Lam 3:27; or of punishment, Lam 1:14; or of oppressive and burdensome ceremonies, as in this place; or of the restraints of Christianity, Mt 11:29,30. In this place they are called a yoke, because,

(1.) they were burdensome and oppressive; and,

(2.) because they would be an infringement of Christian freedom. One design of the gospel was to set men free from such rites and ceremonies. The yoke here referred to is not the moral law, and the just restraints of religion; but the ceremonial laws and customs of the Jews.

Which neither our fathers, etc. Which have been found burdensome at all times. They were expensive, and painful, and oppressive: and as they had been found to be so, it was not proper to impose them on the Gentile converts, but should rather rejoice at any evidence that the people of God might be delivered from them.

Were able to bear. Which are found to be oppressive and burdensome. They were attended with great inconvenience, and many transgressions, as the consequence.

(b) "a yoke on the neck" Gal 5:1 Verse 11. But we believe. We apostles, who have been with them; and have seen the evidences of their acceptance with God.

Through the grace, etc. By the grace or mercy of Christ alone, without any of the rites and ceremonies of the Jews.

We shall be saved, even as they. In the same manner, by the mere grace of Christ. So far from being necessary to their salvation, they are really of no use in ours. We are to be saved not by these ceremonies, but by the mere mercy of God in the Redeemer. They should not, therefore, be imposed on others.

(c) "through the grace of the Lord Jesus" Rom 3:24, Eph 2:8, Tit 3:4,5 (+) "even" "In like manner" Verse 12. Then all the multitude. Evidently the multitude of private Christians who were assembled on this occasion. That it does not refer to a synod of ministers and elders merely, is apparent,

(1.) because the church, the brethren, are represented as having been present, and concurring in the final opinion, Acts 15:22,23; and,

(2.) because the word multitude (τοπληθος) would not have been used in describing the collection of apostles and elders merely. Comp. Lk 1:10,11,13, 5:6, 6:17, 19:37, Jn 5:3, 21:6, Acts 4:32, 6:2, Mt 3:7.

Gave audience. Heard; listened attentively to.

Barnabas and Paul. They were deeply interested in it; and they were qualified to give a fair statement of the facts as they had occurred.

Declaring what miracles and wonders, etc. The argument here evidently is, that God had approved their work by miracles; that he gave evidence that what they did had his approbation; and that as all this was done without imposing on them the rites of the Jews, so it would follow that those were not now to be commanded.

(*) "audience" "hearkened to" (d) "God had wrought" Acts 14:27 Verse 13. James answered. James the Less, son of Alpheus. Acts 12:1.

Hearken unto me. This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such authority in the church as the Papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less than that of Peter. It is possible that he might have been next in age, (comp. 1Cor 15:7;) and it seems morally certain that he remained for a considerable part of his life in Jerusalem, Acts 12:17, 21:18 Gal 1:19, 2:9,12.

(|) "peace" "were silent" (**) "saying" "spoke" Verse 14. Simeon. This is a Hebrew name. The Greek mode of writing it commonly was Simon. It was one of the names of Peter, Mt 4:18.

To take out of them a people. To choose from among the Gentiles those who should be his friends.

(e) "declared" Lk 2:31,32 Verse 15. The words of the prophets. Amos 9:11,12. It was a very material point with them, as Jews, to inquire whether this was in accordance with the predictions of the Scriptures. The most powerful revivals of religion, and the most striking demonstrations of the Divine Presence, will be in accordance with the Bible, and should be tested by it. This habit was always manifested by the apostles and early Christians, and should be followed by Christians at all times. Unless a supposed work of grace accords with the Bible, and can be defended by it, it must be false, and should be opposed. Comp. Isa 8:20.

(f) "as it is written" Amos 9:11,12 Verse 16. After this. This quotation is not made literally either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, which differs also from the Hebrew. The 17th verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint; but in the 16th the general sense only of the passage is retained. The main point of the quotation, as made by James, was to show that, according to the prophets, it was contemplated that the Gentiles should be introduced to the privileges of the children of God; and on this point the passage has a direct bearing. The prophet Amos Amos 9:8-10 had described the calamities that should come upon the nation of the Jews, by their being scattered and driven away. This implied that the city of Jerusalem, and the temple, and the walls of the city, should be destroyed. But after that (Heb. "on that day," Amos 9:11; that is, the day when he should revisit them, and recover them) he would restore them to their former privileges; would rebuild their temple, their city, and their walls, Amos 9:11. And not only so--not only should the blessing descend on the Jews, but it should also be extended to others. The "remnant of Edom," "the heathen upon whom" his "name would be called," (Amos 9:12,) should also partake of the mercy of God, and be subject to the Jewish people; and the time of general prosperity and of permanent blessings should follow, Amos 9:13-15. James understands this as referring to the times of the Messiah, and to the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles. And so the passage (Amos 9:12)is rendered in the Septuagint. See Acts 15:17.

I will return. When the people of God are subjected to calamities and trials, it is often represented as if God had departed from them. This returning, therefore, is an image of their restoration to his favour, and to prosperity. This is not, however, in the Hebrew, in Amos 9:11.

And will build again. In the calamities that should come upon the nation, (Amos 9:8,) it is implied that the temple and the city should be destroyed. To build them again would be a proof of his returning favour.

The tabernacle of David. The tent of David. Here it means the house, or royal residence of David, and the kings of Israel. That is, he which was the work of Solomon; but to the magnificence and splendour of the dwelling place of David; that is, to the full enjoyment of their former high privileges and blessings.

Which is fallen down. Which would be destroyed by the captivity under the king of Babylon, and by the long neglect and decay resulting from their being carried to a distant land.

The ruins thereof. Hebrew, "Close up the breaches thereof." That is, it should be restored to its former prosperity and magnificence; an emblem of the favour of God, and of the spiritual blessings, that should in future times descend on the Jewish people. Verse 17. That the residue of men. This verse is quoted literally from the Septuagint, and differs in some respects from the Hebrew. The phrase, "the residue of men," here is evidently understood, both by the Seventy and by James, as referring to others than the Jews-- to the Gentiles. The rest of the world--implying that many of them would be admitted to the friendship and favour of God. The Hebrew is, "that they may possess the remnant of Edom." This change is made in the Septuagint by a slight difference in the reading of two Hebrew words. The Seventy, instead of the Hebrew shall inherit, read , shall seek of thee; and instead of Edom they read , Man, or mankind, i.e. men. Why this variation occurred, cannot be explained; but the sense is not materially different. In the Hebrew, the word Edom has undoubted reference to another nation than the Jewish; and the expression means, that in the great prosperity of the Jews, after their return, they should extend the influence of their religion to other nations; that is, as James applies it, the Gentiles might be brought to the privileges of the children of God.

And all the Gentiles. Heb., All the heathen; i.e., all who were not Jews. This was a clear prediction that other nations were to be favoured with the light of the true religion, and that without any mention of their conforming to the rites of the Jewish people.

Upon whom my name is called. Who are called by my name, or who are regarded by me as my people.

Who doeth all these things. That is, who will certainly accomplish this in its time. Verse 18. Known unto God, etc. Acts 1:24. The meaning of this verse, in this connexion, is this. God sees everything future; he knows what he will accomplish; he has a plan; and all his works are so arranged in his mind, that he sees all things distinctly and clearly. As he foretold these, it was a part of his plan; and as it was a part of his plan long since foretold, it should not be opposed and resisted by us. (a) "Known unto God" Nu 23:19, Isa 46:10 Verse 19. My sentence. Gr., I judge, (κρινω) that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion or counsel.

That we trouble not them. That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress them, by imposing on them unnecessary and burdensome rites and ceremonies.

(*) "my sentence is" "judgment" (b) "turned to God" 1Thes 1:9 Verse 20. That we write unto them. Expressing our judgment, or our views of the case. This verse has greatly perplexed commentators. The main grounds of difficulty have been,

(1.) why fornication--an offence against the moral law, and about which there could be no dispute--should have been included; and,

(2.) whether the prohibition to abstain from blood is still binding.

That they abstain. That they refrain from these things, or wholly avoid them.

Pollutions of idols. The word rendered pollutions means any kind of defilement. But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Acts 15:29. That flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1Cor 10:25-29. It became a very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the idolatrous worship where it had been offered. See this subject discussed at length in 1Cor 8:4-13. As idolatry was forbidden to the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices to idols, in their feasts, might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace, James advised that they be recommended to abstain from this. To partake of that food might not be morally wrong, (1Cor 8:4,) but it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.

And from fornication, The word used here--πορνειας-- is applicable to all illicit intercourse; and may refer to adultery, incest, and licentiousness in any form. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. Interpreters have been greatly perplexed to understand why this violation of the moral law has been introduced amidst the violations of the ceremonial law; and the question is naturally asked, whether this was a sin about which there could be any debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts? Were there any who would practise it, or plead that it was lawful? If not, why is it prohibited here? Various interpretations have been proposed. Some have supposed that James refers here to the offerings which harlots would make of their gains to the service of religion, and that James would prohibit the reception of it. Beza, Selden, and Schleusner, suppose the word is taken for idolatry, as it is often represented in the Scriptures as consisting in unfaithfulness to God, and as it is often called adultery. Heringius supposes that marriage between idolaters and Christians is here intended. But, after all, the usual interpretation of the word, as referring to illicit intercourse of the sexes of any kind, is undoubtedly here to be retained. There is no reason for departing from the ordinary and usual meaning of the word. If it be asked, then, why this was particularly forbidden, and was introduced in this connexion, we may reply,

(1.) that this vice prevailed everywhere among the Gentiles, and was that to which all were particularly exposed.

(2.) That it was not deemed by the Gentiles disgraceful. It was practised without shame, and without remorse.---Terence, Adelph. 1, 2, 21. See Grotius. It was important, therefore, that the pure laws of Christianity on this subject should be known, and that special pains should be taken to instruct the early converts from paganism in those laws. The same thing is necessary still in heathen lands.

(3.) This crime was connected with religion. It was the practice not only to introduce indecent pictures and emblems into their worship, but also for females to devote themselves to the service of particular temples, and to devote the avails of indiscriminate prostitution to the service of the god, or the goddess. The vice was connected with no small part of the pagan worship; and the images, the emblems, and the customs of idolatry, everywhere tended to sanction and promote it. A mass of evidence on this subject, which sickens the heart--but which would be too long and too indelicate to introduce here-may be seen in Tholuck's Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism, in the Biblical Repository, for July, 1832, pp. 441--464. As this vice was almost universal; as it was practised without shame or disgrace; as there were no laws among the heathen to prevent it; as it was connected with all their views of idol worship and of religion, it, was important for the early Christians to frown upon and to oppose it, and to set a peculiar guard against it in all the churches. It was the sin to which, of all others, they were the most exposed, and which was most likely to bring scandal on the Christian religion. It is for this cause that it is so often and so pointedly forbidden in the New Testament, Rom 1:29, 1Cor 6:13,18, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, 1Thes 4:3.

And from things strangled. That is, from animals or birds that were killed without shedding their brood. The reason why these were considered by the Jews unlawful to be eaten was, that thus they would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively forbidden by the law. Hence it was commanded in the law, that when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Lev 17:13.

And from blood. The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Lev 17:11,14. Rom 3:25. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Leg. Hebrm. pp. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, Ed. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, pp. 588--626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the heathens, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., pp. 377--380. But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. Rom 3:25. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; is founded in the nature of things; has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and therefore is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks, when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given; and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Gen 9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps also there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all men naturally revolt from it as an article of food. Verse 21. For Moses. The meaning of this verse is, that the law of Moses, prohibiting these things, was read in the synagogues constantly. As these commands were constantly read, and as the Jewish converts would not soon learn that their ceremonial law had ceased to be binding, it was deemed to be a matter of expediency that no needless offence should be given to them. For the sake of peace, it was better that they should abstain from meat offered to idols than to give offence to the Jewish converts. Comp. 1Cor 8:10-13.

Of old time. Greek, From ancient generations. It is an established custom; and therefore his laws are well known, and have, in their view, not only the authority of revelation, but the venerableness of antiquity.

In every city. Where there were Jews. This was the case in all the cities to which the discussion here had reference.

Them that preach him. That is, by reading the law of Moses. But in addition to reading the law, it was customary also to offer an explanation of its meaning. Lk 14:16, and Lk 4:17-22.

(*) "old time" "From ancient generations" (a) "being read" Acts 13:15,27 Verse 22. Then pleased it. It seemed fit and proper to them.

The apostles and elders. To whom the business had been particularly referred, Acts 15:2. Comp. Acts 16:4.

With the whole Church. All the Christians who were there assembled together. They concurred in the sentiment, and expressed their approbation in the letter that was sent, Acts 15:23. Whether they were consulted, does not particularly appear. But as it is not probable that they would volunteer an opinion unless they were consulted, it seems most reasonable to suppose that the apostles and elders submitted the case to them for their approbation. It would seem that the apostles and elders deliberated on it, and decided it; but still, for the sake of peace and unity, they also took measures to ascertain that their decision agreed with the unanimous sentiment of the church.

Chosen men. Men chosen for this purpose.

Of their own company. From among themselves. Greater weight and authority would thus be attached to their message.

Judas, surnamed Barsabas. Possibly the same who was nominated to the vacant place in the apostleship, Acts 1:23. But Grotius supposes that it was his brother.

And Silas. He was afterwards the travelling companion of Paul, Acts 15:40, 16:25,29, 17:4,10,15. He is also the same person, probably, who is mentioned by the name of Silvanus, 2Cor 1:19, 1Thes 1:1 2Thes 1:1, 1Pet 5:12.

Chief men among the brethren. Greek, Leaders. Comp. Lk 22:26. Men of influence, experience, and authority in the church. Judas and Silas are said to have been prophets, Acts 15:32. They had, therefore, been engaged as preachers and rulers in the church at Jerusalem.

(b) "Barsabas" Acts 1:23 Verse 23. And wrote letters. Greek, Having written. He does not mean that they wrote more than one epistle.

By them. Greek, By their hand.

After this manner. Greek, These things.

Send greeting. A word of salutation, expressing their desire of the happiness (χαιρειν) of the persons addressed. Comp. Mt 26:49; Mt 27:29, Lk 1:28, Jn 19:3.

In Antioch. Where the difficulty first arose.

And Syria. Antioch was the capital of Syria, and it is probable that the dispute was not confined to the capital.

And Cilicia. Acts 6:9. Cilicia was adjacent to Syria. Paul and Barnabas had travelled through it; and it is probable that the same difficulty would exist there which had disturbed the churches in Syria. Verse 24. Forasmuch. Since we have heard.

That certain. That some, Acts 15:1.

Have troubled you with words. With doctrines. They have disturbed your minds, and produced contentions.

Subverting your souls. The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, (ανασκευαζοντες.) It properly means to collect together the vessels used in a house--the household furniture--for the purpose of removing it. It is applied to marauders, robbers, and enemies, who remove and bear off property; thus producing distress, confusion, and disorder. It is thus used in the sense of disturbing, or destroying; and here denotes that they unsettled their minds--that they produced anxiety, disturbance, and distress--by these doctrines about Moses.

To whom we gave no such commandment. They went, therefore, without authority. Self-constituted and self-sent teachers not unfrequently produce disturbance and distress. Had the apostles been consulted on this subject, the difficulty would have been avoided. By thus saying that they had not given them a command to teach these things, they practically assured the Gentile converts that they did not approve of the course which those who went from Judea had taken.

(+) "certain" "Some" (c) "which went out" Acts 15:1 (d) "troubled you" Gal 5:12 (e) "subverting your souls" Gal 5:4 (++) "saying" Unsettling your minds" (f) "To whom we gave" Gal 2:4 Verse 25.

(&) "one accord" "one mind"

Verse 26. Men that have hazarded their lives, etc. See Acts 14. This was a noble testimony to the character of Barnabas and Paul. It was a commendation of them to the confidence of the churches, and an implied expression that they wished their authority to be regarded in the establishment and organization of the church.

For the name. In the cause of the Lord Jesus.

(g) "hazarded their lives" Acts 13:50, 14:19 Verse 27. The same things. The same things that we wrote to you. They shall confirm all by their own statements. Verse 28. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost. This is a strong and undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Mt 18:18-20, Jn 14:26.

No greater burthen. To impose no greater restraints; to enjoin no other observances. Acts 15:10.

Than these necessary things. Necessary,

(1.) in order to preserve the peace of the church.

(2.) To conciliate the minds of the Jewish converts, Acts 15:21.

(3.) Necessary in their circumstances, particularly, because the crime which is specified--licentiousness--was one to which all early converts were particularly exposed. Acts 15:20.

(|) "Ghost" "Spirit" (h) "burthen" Rev 2:24 Verse 29. From meats offered to idols. This explains what is meant by "pollutions of idols," Acts 15:20.

Ye shall do well. You will do what ought to be done in regard to the subjects of dispute.

(i) "abstain from meats" Acts 15:20 (k) "keep yourselves" 2Cor 11:9, Jas 1:27, 1Jn 5:21, Jude 1:20,21