Act 15:17-31 | Barnes | STEP | 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.

Acts 15:17-31

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 Verse 31. They rejoiced for the consolation. They acquiesced in the decision of the apostles and elders, and rejoiced that they were not to be subjected to the burdensome rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion. This closes the account of the first Christian council. It was conducted throughout on Christian principles, in a mild, kind, conciliatory spirit; and is a model for all similar assemblages. It came together, not to promote, but to silence disputation; not to persecute the people of God, but to promote their peace; not to be a scene of harsh and angry recrimination, but to be an example of all that was mild, and tender, and kind. Those who composed it came together, not to carry a point, not to overreach their adversaries, not to be party men; but to mingle their sober counsels to inquire what was right, and to express, in a Christian manner, that which was proper to be done. Great and important principles were to be established, in regard to the Christian church; and they engaged in their work evidently with a deep sense of their responsibility, and with a just view of their dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit. How happy would it have been if this spirit had been possessed by all professedly Christian councils! How happy, if all had really sought the peace and harmony of the churches; and if none had ever been convened to kindle the fires of persecution, to evince the spirit of party, or to rend and destroy the church of God!

This council has been usually appealed to as the authority for councils in the church, as a permanent arrangement; and especially as an authority for courts of appeal and control. But it establishes neither, and should be brought as an authority for neither. For,

(1.) it was not a court of appeal in any intelligible sense. It was an assembly convened for a special purpose; designed to settle an inquiry which arose in a particular part of the church, and which required the collected wisdom of the apostles and elders to settle.

(2.) It had none of the marks or appendages of a court. The term court, or judicature, is nowhere applied to it, nor to any assembly of Christian men, in the New Testament. Nor should these terms be used now in the churches. Courts of judicature imply a degree of authority, which cannot be proved from the New Testament to have been conceded to any ecclesiastical body of men.

(3.) There is not the slightest intimation that anything like permanency was to be attached to this council; or that it would be periodically or regularly repeated. It will prove, indeed, that when cases of difficulty occur, when Christians are perplexed and embarrassed, or when contentions arise, it will be proper to refer to Christian men for advice and direction. Such was the case here; and such a course is obviously proper. If it should be maintained that it is well that Christian ministers and laymen should assemble periodically, at stated intervals, on the supposition that such cases may arise, this is conceded; but the example of the apostles and elders should not be pleaded as making such assemblies of Divine right and authority, or as being essential to the existence of the church of God. Such an arrangement has been deemed to be so desirable by Christians, that it has been adopted by Episcopalians in their regular annual and triennial conventions; by Methodists in their conferences; by Presbyterians in their general assembly; by Friends in their yearly meetings; by Baptists and Congregationalists in their associations, etc. But the example of the council summoned on a special emergency at Jerusalem should not be pleaded as giving Divine authority to all, or to any, of these periodical assemblages. They are wise and prudent arrangements, contributing to the peace of the church; and the example of the council at Jerusalem can be adduced as furnishing as much Divine authority for one as for another; that is, it does not make all or either of them of Divine authority, or as obligatory on the church of God.

(4.) It should be added, that a degree of authority (compare Acts 16:4) would, of course, be attached to the decision of the apostles and elders of that time, which cannot be to any body of ministers and laymen now. Besides, it should never be forgotten--what, alas, it seems to have been the pleasure and the interests of ecclesiastics to forget--that neither the apostles nor elders asserted any jurisdiction over the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; that they did not claim a right to have these cases referred to them; that they did not attempt "to lord it" over their faith or their consciences. The case was a single, specific, definite question, referred to them; and they decided it as such. They asserted no abstract right of such jurisdiction; they sought not to intermeddle with it; they enjoined no future reference to them, to their successors, or to any ecclesiastical tribunal. They evidently regarded the churches as blessed with the most ample freedom; and evidently contemplated no arrangement of a permanent character, asserting a right to legislate on articles of faith, or to make laws for the direction of the Lord's freemen.

(1) "consolation" "exhortation"