Act 21:20, Gal 3:21 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 20. They glorified the Lord . They gave praise to the Lord for what he had done. They saw new proofs of his goodness and mercy, and they rendered him thanks for all that had been accomplished. There was no jealousy that it had been done by the instrumentality of Paul. True piety will rejoice in the spread of the gospel, and in the conversion of sinners, by whatever instrumentality it may be effected. Thou seest, brother . The language of tenderness in this address, recognizing Paul as a fellow-labourer and fellow Christian, implies a wish that Paul would do all that could be done to avoid giving offence, and to conciliate the favour of his country-men. How many thousands . The number of converts at this time must have been very great. Twenty-five years before this, three thousand had been converted at one time, , and afterwards the number had swelled to some more thousands, , The assertion, that there were then "many thousands," implies that the work, so signally begun on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, had not ceased, and that many more had been converted to the Christian faith. Which believe . Who are Christians. They are spoken of as believers , or as having faith in Christ, in contradistinction from those who rejected him, and whose characteristic trait it was that they were unbelievers . And they are all zealous of the law . They still observe the law of Moses. The reference here is to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, etc. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember, (1.) that those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance. (2.) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained in Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them, . (3.) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority. (4.) The decision of the council related only to the Gentile converts. It did not touch the question, whether those rites were to be observed by the Jewish converts. (5.) It was to be presumed, that as the Christian religion became better understood-- that as its large, free, and catholic nature became more and more developed, the peculiar institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation and without tumult. Had the question been agitated at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also, (6.) that, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation; which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close for ever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem. (g) "zealous"

Acts 21:20

Verse 20. They glorified the Lord. They gave praise to the Lord for what he had done. They saw new proofs of his goodness and mercy, and they rendered him thanks for all that had been accomplished. There was no jealousy that it had been done by the instrumentality of Paul. True piety will rejoice in the spread of the gospel, and in the conversion of sinners, by whatever instrumentality it may be effected.

Thou seest, brother. The language of tenderness in this address, recognizing Paul as a fellow-labourer and fellow Christian, implies a wish that Paul would do all that could be done to avoid giving offence, and to conciliate the favour of his country-men.

How many thousands. The number of converts at this time must have been very great. Twenty-five years before this, three thousand had been converted at one time, Acts 2, and afterwards the number had swelled to some more thousands, Acts 4:4, The assertion, that there were then "many thousands," implies that the work, so signally begun on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, had not ceased, and that many more had been converted to the Christian faith.

Which believe. Who are Christians. They are spoken of as believers, or as having faith in Christ, in contradistinction from those who rejected him, and whose characteristic trait it was that they were unbelievers.

And they are all zealous of the law. They still observe the law of Moses. The reference here is to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, etc. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember,

(1.) that those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance.

(2.) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained in Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them, Acts 3:1, Lk 24:53.

(3.) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority.

(4.) The decision of the council Acts 15 related only to the Gentile converts. It did not touch the question, whether those rites were to be observed by the Jewish converts.

(5.) It was to be presumed, that as the Christian religion became better understood-- that as its large, free, and catholic nature became more and more developed, the peculiar institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation and without tumult. Had the question been agitated at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also,

(6.) that, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation; which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close for ever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem.

(g) "zealous" Acts 22:3, Rom 10:2

Galatians 3:21

Verse 21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Is the law of Moses to be regarded as opposed to the promises made to Abraham? Does this follow from any view which can be taken of the subject? The object of the apostle in asking this question is, evidently, to take an opportunity to deny, in the most positive manner, that there can be any such clashing or contradiction. He shows, therefore, what was the design of the law, and declares that the object was to further the plan contemplated in the promise made to Abraham. It was an auxiliary to that. It was as good as a law could be; and it was designed to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.

God forbid. It cannot be. It is impossible. I do not hold such an opinion. Such a sentiment by no means follows from what has been advanced. Comp. Rom 3:4.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life. The law of Moses is as good as a law can be. It is pure, and holy, and good. It is not the design to insinuate anything against the law in itself, or to say that as a law it is defective. But law could not give life. It is not its nature; and man cannot be justified by obedience to it. No man ever has yielded perfect compliance with it, and no man, therefore, can be justified by it. Gal 2:16, Gal 3:10.

Verily righteousness should have been by the law. Or justification would have been secured by the law. The law of Moses was as well adapted to this as a law could be. No better law could have been originated for this purpose; and if men were to attempt to justify themselves before God by their own works, the law of Moses would be as favourable for such an undertaking as any law which could be revealed. It is as reasonable, and equal, and pure. Its demands are as just, and its terms as favourable, as could be any of the terms of mere law. And such a law has been given, in part, in order to show that. justification by the law is out of the question. If men could not be justified by a law so pure, and equal, and just, so reasonable in all its requirements, and so perfect, how could they expect to be justified by conformity to any inferior or less perfect rule of life? The fact, therefore, that no one can be justified by the pure law revealed on Mount Sinai, for ever settles the question about the possibility of being justified by law.

(a) "against the promises" Mt 5:17 (b) "if there had been" Gal 2:21