Acts
15
1 “And
certain men which came down from
said, Except
ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
Came down... and taught for which came down... taught, Authorized Version;
saying for and said, Authorized Version; custom (ἔθος – ethos) for manner,
Authorized Version. Except ye be circumcised, etc. The question thus raised nearly
effected the disruption of the Church, and was the most serious controversy that had
yet arisen. If the views broached by these Judaean Christians had prevailed, the
whole character of Christianity would have been changed, and its existence probably
cut short. How great the danger was appears from even Peter and Barnabas having
wavered in their opinion. (For Paul's treatment of the subject, see Romans 2:25-29;
4:9-25; Galatians
5:2-6; 6:12-15) The expression, Τινὲς κατέλθοντες ἀπὸ τῆς
Ἰουδαίας – Tines katelthontes apo taes Ioudaias
– Some men coming down from
tou elthein tinas a po Iakobou – before that certain came from James - as to suggest
very strongly the consideration whether Peter was not at
whether the scene related in Galatians 2:11, etc., did not precede, and in fact cause,
the Council of
in v. 2 would include and directly point to the memorable rebuke given by Paul to
Peter; and we should understand that Peter, accepting Paul's rebuke, preceded him
and Barnabas, and prepared the way at
indeed, Peter's words at
him at
would the more readily have been accepted by them as one of the embassy. The
chief objection to this hypothesis is that in Galatians 2:11 Peter's
visit to
seems to be spoken of as something subsequent to the journey of Paul and Barnabas
to
of his visit to
which was another example of his own independence. Farrar places Peter's visit to
time indicated in v. 35 of this chapter (vol. 1. Acts 23.), and so do Conybeare and
Howson (vol. 1. p. 238), Meyer, and Alford ('Proleg.,' p. 24; note on Acts 15:36,
and Galatians
2:11). Renan ('
place it after Paul's return to
journey (ch. 18:22-23). No absolute certainty can be arrived at, but see note to v. 35.
Custom (see ch. 16:21); τὰ ἔθη - ta ethae - is the technical term for the Mosaic
institutions, used by Josephus and Philo (see too ch. 6:14; 21:21, note).
Circumcision and Salvation (v. 1)
Revised Version, “Except ye be circumcised after the custom
of Moses, ye
cannot be saved.”
It was inevitable that the claims of Judaism and of
Christianity should presently come into conflict. The
conflict, when it
came, would be sure to rage round some one particular point
of difference;
not necessarily the most important point, but the one which
would give
most prominence to the essential differences. Circumcision
was only a
formal rite, and its importance might easily be
exaggerated; but it sealed
the exclusiveness of the Jewish system, and it illustrated
its ceremonial
character, so it formed a good ground on which to fight.
The Jews had this
vantage-ground. Circumcision was unquestionably a Divine
institution; and
the Christian could bring no proof whatever that it had
been formally
removed. The Christian teachers could only urge that the “life in Christ”
no
longer needed formal bonds, and that God’s grace in Christ
Jesus was
given to those who were not of the circumcision. Paul took
very firm
ground on the question. While prepared to go to the very
limits of
charitable concession in dealing with those who felt the
helpfulness of rites
and ceremonies, he was prepared to resist to the death any tampering with
the gospel condition of salvation, or any attempt to declare that saving
grace could be found in any formal ordinance or ceremony.
“When the very
foundations of Christianity were in danger of being
undermined, it was not
possible for Paul to “give place by subjection.” (Galatians 2:5)
reformation; not
religion; not material prosperities; not intellectual
attainments; not
culture; but DISTINCTLY SALVATION! - which is a
moral good, and bears direct
relation to personal sins and to a sinful state,
and is conceivable only by some DIVINE INTERVENTION, and on
REVEALED DIVINE
TERMS! Man’s final cry is, "What
must I do to be
saved?” “How can man
be just with God?” Salvation,
conceived as man’s
reconciliation with God, was the idea of
Judaism, and it was represented by
man’s being brought into covenant
relations, and kept in them by sacrifice and
ceremonial. Judaism had a moral life within its ritual, and this
finds expression
in the Psalms and in the
prophets. Salvation, as apprehended by Christianity,
is man’s
reconciliation to God, upon his penitence for sin, and faith in the
Lord Jesus
Christ, as the all-sufficient Sacrifice for sin and Savior entrusted
with authority to
forgive. The two systems are related,
as a shadow is
related to the figure that
throws it; but the two cannot be combined; the
shadow must pass altogether when
the substance has come. The salvation man
wants is A SOUL SALVATION and that no
rite, no ceremonial, can touch.
was a Divine favor granted to
one particular race. The Abrahamic
relations, standing, and rights
were secured to all who adopted the
appointed sign and seal of
circumcision. In later years outsiders were
admitted to share the “salvation,”
or “standing with God,” of the
Abrahamic race, by submitting to the rite of circumcision. As
spirituality
faded from the Jewish life,
increasing importance became attached to the
mere rite, and zealots contended
for it as if in it alone lay the hope of
salvation. There is an important
place for ritual, but it is ever perilous to
spiritual truth if it
is put out of its place. It is a
useful handmaid; it is a
tyrannous mistress.
REVEALED TO THE APOSTLES. Not works of righteousness, but
“faith,” which presupposes penitence. How is a
sinner saved? Apart from
all systems or ceremonies, he must accept the
salvation freely offered to
him by God in the
person of His Son Jesus Christ. The
act of acceptance is
called “faith.” We cannot wonder
that this new and most gracious
condition of salvation should
have pushed the older idea altogether out of
the apostles’ minds. It seemed
new; they would not even try to think how it
fitted the old. Conscious of the
new life and joy it brought, they would find
themselves gradually being
weaned from Jewish ceremonial, and the more
advanced thinkers, such as Paul,
would be even in some danger of
exaggerating the contrasts
between the old and the new.
and practices which have long
absorbed the interest of men do not die
without a struggle. Some
champions linger on, and show fight at every
opportunity. A wealth of
interests gather round every religious system, and
generations must pass before
these can be wholly changed. So we cannot
wonder that the sterner Judaism showed
fight against the apostles, or that
paganism again and again made
desperate efforts to resist advancing
Christianity. The Jewish tethers
seem on this occasion to have acted in an
underhanded and unworthy way. “The
course they adopted, in the first
instance, was not that of open
antagonism to Paul, but rather of
clandestine
intrigue. They came as ‘spies’ into an
enemy’s camp, creeping
in unawares, and gradually
insinuating or openly inculcating their opinion
that the observance of the
Jewish Law was necessary to salvation.” Two
things need to be considered.
Ø
Why their teaching had
to be so vigorously resisted.
o
Because it tended to
confuse the minds of the disciples;
o
because it was
fundamentally opposed to the Christian teaching.
Ø
On what grounds the resistance
could be made. These were
o
the exclusiveness of
the Christian condition of salvation —
by faith;
o
the supreme claims of
the teaching of Christ, who laid no
such burden on His
disciples;
o
the fact that the Holy
Ghost sealed believers from among the
uncircumcised. This is enough,
then and now. “Whosoever
believeth on the Son
of God hath EVERLASTING LIFE!
(John 3:16)
2 “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small
dissension and disputation
with them, they determined
that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them,
should go up to
And when for when therefore, Authorized Version; questioning for
disputation,
Authorized Version; the brethren (in italics) appointed for they determined,
Authorized Version. Certain other of them. One of these would be Titus
(Galatians 2:1). The circumstance that, on this occasion, Paul did go up to those
who were apostles before him, to consult with them on a matter of doctrine,
shows at once why he refers so pointedly to this visit in Galatians 2:1, etc., and is
almost conclusive evidence that this visit is the one there referred to. The
companionship of Barnabas; the agreement of the expression, "I went up by
revelation," with the fact that he was sent by the Church, doubtless in obedience
to some voice of the Spirit, like that mentioned in ch. 13:2; the occasion, a dispute
about the circumcision of Gentile converts; the line taken by Paul and Barnabas in
declaring the conversion of the Gentiles (vs. 4, 12; ch. 14:27), and the result
(v. 19; Galatians 2:5, 7, 9), are all strong, not to say conclusive, marks of the
identity of the two visits. The apostles and elders. This phrase marks the constitution
of the governing part of the
"the whole Church," and (according to the Textus Receptus) of "the brethren," shows
the part the body of the believers had in approving and sanctioning the decisions of
the elders. The transaction marks the position of the
metropolitan
3“And being brought on their way by the church, they
passed through Phenice
and
joy unto all the
brethren.” They therefore... passed for
and... they passed,
Authorized Version; both
on their way (προπεμφθέντες – propemphthentes – being sent forward). The word
προπέμπω – propempo - has two distinct though allied meanings: one is "to conduct
a person on his
way," as in ch. 20:38; 21:5; the other is "to help a person on his way,
by supplying him with all necessaries for his journey," as in Romans 15:24;
I Corinthians 16:6; II Corinthians 1:16; Titus 3:13; III John 1:6. This last is the
meaning here. Being the messengers of the Church, they traveled at the Church's
expense. Both
especial reason for doing so, as it had a strong bearing upon the great controversy
about to be decided at
4 “And when they were come to
and of the
apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done
with them.” The apostles for of the apostles,
Authorized Version; the
elders for
elders, Authorized Version; rehearsed for
declared, Authorized Version. They were
received
of the Church, etc. Being
themselves the formal envoys of the
by the apostles and elders.
The
Christianity started out from
command, and “began at
Christian believers, first at
intimate that, when the other disciples were scattered
abroad, the older and
prominent apostles remained behind in the holy city, and
exercised a kind
of supervision over the work of the various Christian
teachers. The
constitution of the
clear that Peter had no exclusive authority, and that if disputes and
controversies were submitted to an apostolic council, their
decision took
the form of recommendation and not of command. As the
subject will be
treated from several points of view, according to the bias
of the preacher,
we give only the general outline of the topics that may be
usefully
considered.
teachers were Jews; and
Christianity is not only the proper outcome and
perfection of Judaism, but it
bears the Jewish stamp. It links on to the
fundamental ideas of God, sin,
redemption, which were revealed to the
Jews. If it were wholly new, it
could not be true.
Church. Observe how its council
of apostles and elders was sought when
difficulties of doctrine or
practice arose; and how the Gentile Churches
sent their charitable gifts to
the poor saints at the mother Church.
present a model may be disputed.
Any model would be efficient by reason
of its illustrating working
principles, not by virtue of its mere form.
claimed authority on the ground
of their knowledge of Christ, inspiration,
miraculous gifts, and power to
give or bring the Holy Ghost, needs to be
carefully considered.
5 “But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees which believed, saying,
That it was needful
to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law
of Moses.” Who for which, Authorized Version; it is for that it was, Authorized
Version; charge for command, Authorized Version. There rose up, etc. As soon
as Paul and Barnabas had finished their recital of the conversion of the heathen to
whom they had preached the gospel, certain Christian Pharisees who were at the
meeting disturbed the joy of the brethren and the unanimity of the assembly by
getting up and saying that all the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep
the Law. This, of course, would have included Titus, who was present with Paul
(Galatians 2:1, 3). The Epistle to the Galatians deals directly and forcibly with this
question.
The Judaizers at
There must needs be heresies, that is, divisions and
separations of opinion,
in order that that which is approved may be made manifest.
In conflicts of
this kind, the chaff of falsehood is sifted from the
genuine wheat of truth.
Ø It was a reactionary position. It aimed at
the re-establishment of
circumcision as
the condition of salvation. This was going back from the
“spirit” to the “flesh,” from the
principle of an internal to that of an
external
religion. It was substituting
works for faith, doing for
being,
as the
condition of salvation.
Ø It was a revolutionary position. Such a
claim convulses the very heart of
the Christian
Church. Wherever it has come up, a deep mark has been left
in history.
This was essentially the conflict of Isaiah and other prophets
against the
ceremonialists of the day. The question came up again at the
Reformation.
Law or gospel — Moses or Christ? Behind this question lies
a world. Is
religion stationary and stagnant or ideal, Divine, and possessed
of the power of
an expansive and endless life?
Ø Private dissension. Alas! often
is it so. The loving missionary comrades,
Paul and Barnabas,
are disunited. But we must remember, “Though Plato
is my friend,
truth is my friend still more.” Paul felt that evangelical
freedom was
threatened (Galatians 2:4). And the gospel was dearer to
him than life.
Truth must not be compromised in the supposed interests of
friendship.
Indeed, the supposition is illusory. For if it be “a strong and
habitual
inclination in two persons to promote the good and happiness of
each other,” this cannot be at the expense of TRUTH!
Ø Public discussion. The
difference between Paul and Barnabas could not
be ignored. The
topic must have been on the tongue of every one. See how
good comes out
of controversy as well as evil. Private pain is often the
condition of
public blessing. A cloud comes between two minds, but the
truth shines
presently the more brightly forth.
and Barnabas to consult the
apostles and elders at
appropriateness of this decision.
Ø As to the men sent — Paul representing the
Gentiles and the missionary
work, Barnabas
the Church at
we see that
Paul had a special inward direction to proceed thither.
Ø The destination.
the seat of apostolic
authority. Yet
government, the
lesson may be drawn that no particular community should
act for itself
in important questions without consulting the general sense of
the Christian
Church.
Ø
They had a conduct
from the
expression of confidence in the
men, and of deep interest in the result.
Said the electoral Prince of
Brandenburg to his envoy, proceeding to a
conference with the papists,
“Bring me the little word sola, i.e.” alone,
faith only, back — or come not
back at all.
Ø
They told good
news on the way. They told of the
conversion of the
heathen, and. the news was
received with great joy. Here was a great
argument for Paul, gathered on
the way. So does God solve our disputes
in words by the irresistible
logic of his facts.
Ø
At
facts of the past are
prophetic of the future. Divine mercy as
an
historical fact
is the
basis of sure hope and confidence. The
temper
of devout recollection and
thanksgiving fits the mind for the view of
present duties.
6 “And the apostles and elders came together for to
consider of this matter.”
The elders for elders, Authorized Version; were gathered for came, Authorized
Version; to for for to, Authorized Version. The question was too important, and,
perhaps, the persons who advanced the objections too considerable, to allow of a
decision to be taken on the spot. A special meeting of the Church was called to
consider the matter.
7 “And when there had been much disputing, Peter
rose up, and said unto them,
Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among
us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.”
Questioning for
disputing, Authorized Version, as in v. 2; brethren for men
and
brethren, Authorized Version, as in ch.7:2, etc.; you for us, Authorized Version
and Textus Receptus; by my mouth the Gentiles for the Gentiles by my mouth,
Authorized Version. Questioning. It was a repetition of the same scene that took
place at
meeting to exhaust itself by fruitless disputations before he rose to speak. His rising,
with all the authority of his person and position, commanded immediate attention.
A good while ago;
literally, from ancient days, or still more
exactly, from the days
of the beginning of the gospel (ἡμεραὶ ἀρχαίαι
– haemerai archaiai - days belonging
to the beginning (ἀρχή - archae – a beginning) of the Church's existence, and dating
far back in Peter's own apostolic life. Nothing can be more natural than this allusion
to the conversion of Cornelius, and the gift of the Holy Ghost to the Gentile inmates
of his house, as related in ch. 10:44.
8 “And God, which knoweth
the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the
Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us;” Heart for hearts, Authorized Version
(καρδιογνώστης - kardiognostaes – heart knower). Bare them witness; i.e. set
the mark of His approval upon them, vouched for their sincerity (see the use of
the verb μαρτυρέω – martureo – witness; testify - in Luke 4:22; John 3:26; here
9 “And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith.”
He made no distinction for put no difference, Authorized Version (compare ch. note);
cleansing for purifying, Authorized Version. This is exactly the doctrine of
Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:30, with which compare also v. 11.
The Spirituality of the Gospel (v. 9)
“Purifying
[cleansing] their hearts by faith.” Purity comes from within. The
influence of pure thought and pure feeling on practice. The
purification of
Judaism typical. The Holy Ghost did the work. When the
temple was
closed, the kingdom of grace opened. The Spirit must
operate upon the
spirit. All ritualism, as such, contradicts the essential
principles of gospel
liberty.
Ø Of
its falsehood. The heathen world a world of lies. The
tendency of
fallen nature
to believe strong delusions.
Ø Of
its corrupt desires. The Fall
was a lowering of the spirit of humanity
to the level of
the inferior races. Animalism is the characteristic of
heathenism and
of an unregenerate state.
Ø Of its self-justification and pride. The evil holds to it. A broken and
contrite heart
is required.
bestowed.
Ø The conscience, by a sense of forgiveness;
“perilous stuff” cleansed
away.
Ø An object of love revealed to whom the
heart is surrendered. “Thou
knowest that I love thee.” The germ of the new life in the soil of the
affections.
Ø Consecration. Circumcision was a covenant sign. “Out of
the heart are
the issues of
life.” A pure will is that which is pledged by a changed course
of action and a
new position.
old covenant and the new. The
truth accepted becomes the power of God
unto salvation. Spiritual
cleansing differs from:
Ø Mere ritual purification.
Ø Mere nominal separation from the world by
an external life.
Ø Mere slavish obedience to the letter of
the Law. A purity which rests
upon faith is a
purity embracing thoughts and desires, lifting the heart with
joy, securing
it against the temptation to self-righteousness and superficial
morality. Believe; give your
mind to the message; welcome the personal
Savior; follow
the leading Spirit. Rejoice in the liberty of God’s children.
Christ’s yoke
is easy, His burden light. (Matthew
11:30)
10 “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the
disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”
That ye should put for to put, Authorized Version. The Greek words cannot be
construed as the Authorized Version takes them. It is not a Greek construction to
say πειράζειν τινα ποιεῖν κακόν
– peirazein tina poiein kakon - to tempt
any one
to do evil. The infinitive ἐπιθεῖναι – epitheinai – to place on - must be taken
gerundially, "by placing," or "putting," and the sense is - Why do you try God's
patience by your provocation in putting an unbearable yoke upon the necks of
those who believe? Or, "as if he had not power to save by faith" (Chrysostom).
11 “But we believe that through the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ we shall
be saved, even as
they.” We shall be saved through the grace, etc., for
through
the grace... we shall be saved, Authorized Version; Jesus for Jesus Christ, Authorized
Version and Textus Receptus; in like manner for even, Authorized Version.
"How full of power are these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle
to the Romans, the same says Peter here" (Chrysost., ' Hem.,' 32.).
Lessons from a Grave Crisis in the
The crisis of the kingdom will be found in the life of the
Divine Leader of
the faith. In those hours when all that was human in Him
shrank from the
sufferings and sorrows which were before Him, or from the
agony which
was upon Him, or from the darkness which enshrouded Him,
then was “the
crisis of the world” and of the
a crisis, grave and serious. If the Church at
“false brethren”
(Galatians 2:4), when they came to invade its liberty;
or if — a much greater peril — the Church at
favor of the Judaizers, and had
passed a sentence that circumcision was
necessary to salvation; and if Christian truth had thus been
narrowed to the
small dimensions of a mere adjunct to Judaism, where would
Christianity
have been today? From the incident here related we draw the
lessons:
came down from
“which believed” (v. 5); they were formal adherents of the Christian
faith; they spake
reverently of Christ, and believed themselves to be acting
in the interests of His kingdom.
Yet we know that they were taking a
course which, if they had
carried their point, would have simply
extinguished the faith in a few
years. Often, since then, has blind zealotry
done its best to bring about a
condition which would have proved fatal to
the cause of God and of redeemed humanity.
US. How different from
evangelizing risks and toils, and from the fraternal
intercourse which followed
these, how much beneath both the one and the
other, how much more uninviting
this controversy with false brethren,
narrow-minded, mistaking a rite
whose significance was exhausted for an
essential of salvation! How
uncongenial, to the spirit of the apostle this
“dissension and
disputation” (v. 2)! But it was
necessary; it was as much
a part of their bounden duty and
their loyal obedience to their Lord as the
preaching of the gospel or the
indicting of an Epistle. The Christian
workman cannot always choose his
work. He must sometimes give up the
congenial for the unpleasant,
the inviting for the repellent.
OF THEIR ANXIETY.
Those who constituted the deputation were
“brought on their
way .by the Church” (v. 3). In the
profound anxiety
which must have filled the
sagacious and earnest mind of Paul at this
critical juncture, such gracious
attention on the part of the Church must
have been exceedingly
refreshing. No “moral support’ of tried and anxious
leaders, in times of supreme
solicitude, is thrown away; it is well-spent time
and trouble.
CONSULTATION OUR BRETHREN IN A HIGHER POSITION. The
Church at
had no jurisdiction entitling it
to decide the disputes of the former. But it
was becoming and it was wise,
and therefore it was right, to refer the
matter in dispute to “the
Church [of
elders” (vs. 4, 6). Often when no written constitution obliges us
to refer
to authorities, it is a matter
of practical wisdom, and therefore of rectitude,
to go outside our own “body”
and submit our case to those in high repute.
We may gain far more than we
lose thereby.
would not have taken the side he
took now had not his eyes been opened
by the event in which he had
borne so large and so honorable a share
(ch.
10.). We should grow more charitable and more large-minded as
we grow in years.
IMPOSTS. (v. 10.) Why
tempt God by putting on the neck of the
disciples an intolerable yoke?
Why invite defeat? Why multiply difficulty
and ensure disappointment by
requiring of the whole Gentile world a
conformity which they will not
render and which God does not demand?
Why make burdensome the yoke
which the Master Himself made easy
(Matthew 11:30)? The gospel of
His grace was meant to be a source of
blessedness and deliverance; how
insensate the folly of tying to it any
institutes which would make it
become an insufferable vexation!
outward sign of admission to the
privilege and obligation of the Law. The
Law was but the schoolmaster to
bring men to Christ. Those, then, who
were saved by the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ (v. 11) had the very
essence and substance of which
the old Jewish rite was but the sign and
symbol (Philippians 3:3; Romans
2:28-29).
Salvation by Grace for All (vs. 9-11)
This passage is part of the speech delivered by Peter at
the conference,
His words ought to be weighty words, seeing that God had
been pleased to
reveal directly to him the relations in which the Gentiles
should stand to his
gospel. Peter would have been an intensely Jewish man but
for his
experiences at Joppa and
lesson of the broadness of
the Christian platform; and yet even
he
subsequently faltered, and brought himself under the rebuke
of Paul.
After reminding his hearers of the part which he himself
had taken in
admitting the Gentiles into the Christian Church, Peter
urges this point:
“The communication
of the Holy Ghost was the true test of God’s
acceptance; and
God had shown that he was no respecter of persons by
shedding abroad
the same miraculous gifts on Jew and Gentile, and
purifying by
faith the hearts of both alike.” He
further reminds them what a
heavy yoke the Jewish Law had proved for many generations;
how
thankful they were to be relieved from the legal bondage by
the salvation
offered through faith; and how unreasonable it would be to
attempt to
impose on others a burden which neither they nor their
fathers had ever
been able to bear. Dean Plumptre gives
thus the conclusion of Peter’s
speech: “The Pharisee might regard the Law as binding; but
even he, if he
believed in Christ, was compelled to confess that his hope of salvation was
found in the work of Christ as the Savior; and if so, then, as regards that
hope, Jew and Gentile were on the same level, and the
judgment that men
could not be saved without the Law was but the
inconsistency of an
intolerant dogmatism, insisting on imposing that which was
acknowledged
to be profitless.” There is in Peter’s speech a firm
declaration of the
great evangelical principles.
purchase or desert is wholly
excluded from it. Salvation by perfect
obedience to formal rules, and
faithful keeping of covenant terms, had been
thoroughly tried in Judaism, and
it had certainly and hopelessly failed,
because sinning man lacked the power.
Man could no more save himself by
the attempted obediences of Judaism than by the human schemes devised in
heathenism. It was evident that salvation for man must be an intervention
of Divine love, a
manifestation of Divine grace. And
this is the very
essence of the gospel message
concerning God: “What the Law could not
do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” (Romans
8:3-4) Salvation is a Divine gift, offered freshly and freely, apart from all
previous revelations and conditions,
on terms which God Himself is pleased
to arrange. And, without
bringing forward any older ideas or customs, our
simple duty is to listen to God
as He tells us the conditions upon which He is
pleased to offer forgiveness and
life. We may be quite satisfied if we can
find the terms laid down in the
new covenant of grace, and they are these:
“God hath given unto
us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that
hath the Son hath life.” (I
John 5:11-12)
can be of value unless there is
a proper preparedness to receive it. We do
not simply scatter our common
earthly gifts, we choose to whom we shall
give them, and we expect them to
be in such a state of mind and feeling
towards us as shall ensure that
they will accept and make good use of our
gifts. Such conditions apply to
the gift of salvation. Of free grace, though it
is, it requires something in man
which can alone secure that the gift will be
valued. The spiritual preparedness
of man for the spiritual gift is called
faith. It is illustrated in the disposition of mind which Christ
required in
those whom he miraculously
healed. And it includes:
Ø
surrender of
self-trust;
Ø
confidence in God’s
provision and promise; and
Ø
a full desire for and
expectancy of Divine help.
Faith, as a disposition or mood
of mind, is to be distinguished from faith as
an act. The state of faith sets
us ready to receive the gift; the act of faith
appropriates the gift. So
presenting man’s faith, it will be clearly seen that
no kind of “merit,” as a saving work, can
attach to it.
EMBRACE ALL HUMANITY.
Jew and Gentile too. This is Peter’s
point in vs. 9,11. The grace of
the universal Father can, without doubt,
reach and bless and save all.
And faith is so common, so universal a human
faculty that it can be made a
condition for all. Every one can thankfully
open hand and heart to receive a
gift. Everybody can trust.
12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave
audience to Barnabas and
Paul, declaring what
miracles and wonders God had wrought among the
Gentiles by
them.” And for then,
Authorized Version; they
hearkened for gave
audience, Authorized Version; rehearsing what signs for declaring what miracles,
Authorized Version. Kept silence; marking the contrast between the noisy questionings
and disputings which had preceded Peter's speech, and the quiet orderly attention with
which they now listened to Paul and Barnabas, telling them of the conversion of the
Gentiles. It recalls Virgil's description of the effect of the presence of a man of grave
piety upon an excited crowd:
"Tum,
pielate gravem ac meritis si forte virum quem
Aspexere, silent, arrectisque auribus adslant."
(AEneid,’
1:152)
13 “And after they had held their peace, James
answered, saying, Men and
brethren, hearken unto me:” Brethren for men and brethren, Authorized Version
as v. 7. James answered. James's place as presiding bishop is here distinctly marked
by his summing up the debate. "This (James)was bishop, as they say, and, therefore,
he speaks last" (Chrysost., ' Hem.,' 33.). And again, "No word speaks John here,
no word the other apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the
chief rule." "He says well with authority, 'My sentence is" (ibid.). A
remarkable
testimony against papal supremacy.
14 “Simeon hath declared how God at the first did
visit the Gentiles, to take
out of them a people for His name.” Symeon for Simeon, Authorized Version;
rehearsed for declared, Authorized Version; first God for God at the first,
Authorized Version. Symeon. This is the only place (unless Symeon is the right
reading in II Peter 1:1) in which Simon Peter's name is given in this Hebrew form,
which is most proper in the month of James speaking to Palestine Jews. Singularly
enough, Chrysostom was misled by it, and thought the prophecy of Simeon in
Luke 1:31 was meant, How first; corresponding to the “good while ago" of v. 7.
Did visit, etc. The
construction ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν
– epeskepsato labein - visits
to be obtaining - is very unusual, and indeed stands alone. The verb always has
an accusative case after it (ch. 6:3; ch. 7:23; here v.36), unless Luke 1:68 is an
exception, which, however, it hardly is. There are two ways of construing the phrase.
One is to consider it as elliptical, and to supply, as the Authorized Version and
Revised Version do, ἐξ ἐθνῶν – ex ethnon – out Gentiles. So Alford, who compares
the construction in Luke 1:25, where ἐπ ἐμέ - ep eme - must be supplied. But this is
a harsh construction. The other and better way is to take ἐπεσκεψατο, not in the sense
of" visiting," but of" looking out," or "endeavoring to find something." The sense of
the infinitive after the verb is nearly equivalent to" look out for and took," literally,
looked out how he might take. With a slight modification of meaning, Irenaeus
(in 'Speaker's Commentary') renders it" Excogitavit accipere," "planned" or
"contrived to take." A people for His Name; i.e. to be called by His Name.
Λαός – naos - was the peculiar designation of "the people" of God, answering
to the Hebrew עַם
(compare I Peter 2:10,
Οἱ ποτὲ
οὐ λαὸς
νῦν δὲ
λαὸς Θεοῦ -
Hoi pote ou laos
nun de laos Theou - the once not a people, now yet the
people of God).
15 “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as
it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again
the tabernacle of David, which
is fallen down; and I
will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:”
These things for this, Authorized Version; I will for will, Authorized Version;
fallen for fallen down, Authorized Version.
17 “That the residue of men might seek after the
Lord, and all the Gentiles,
upon whom my name is
called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
May for might, Authorized Version.
18 “Known unto God are all His works from the
beginning of the world.”
Who maketh these things known, etc., for who doeth all these things (in v. 17 of
the Authorized Version); known for known unto God are all His works, Authorized
Version and Textus Receptus. Known from the beginning of the world. The above
passage from Amos 9:11-12, is quoted, not very exactly, though with no change
of sense, from the Septuagint, where it ends with the words,
"saith the
Lord, who
doeth all these things," as in the Authorized Version. But the Septuagint v. 17
differs widely from the present Hebrew text. For whereas the
Hebrew has, "That
they may possess the
remnant of
my Name," the
Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) have ὅπως ἂν ἐκζητήσωσιν οἱ
κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον
, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη κ.τ.λ., - hopos an
ekzaetaesosin hoi kataloipoi
ton anthropon ton kurion, kai panta ta
ethnae, k. t. l.
That the residue of men might
seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, etc,
where it is evident that they read יִדְרְשׁוּ, seek after, for
יֵרְשׁוּ, possess, and אָדָם,
men, for אֶדום,
by St. James, having preserved the true reading. As regards the reading of the Revised
Version in v. 18, it is a manifest corruption. It is not the reading of either the Hebrew
or the Greek version of Amos, or of any other version; and it makes no sense.
Whereas the Textus Receptus, which is the reading of Irenaeus (3:12.), as Meyer
truly says, "presents a thought completely clear, pious, noble, and inoffensive as
regards the connection," though he thinks that a reason for rejecting it. Nothing
could be more germane to St. James's argument than thus to show from the words
of Amos that God's present
purpose of taking the Gentiles to be His people was,
like all His other works, formed from the beginning of the world (compare
Ephesians 1:9-10 (not only Jews and Gentiles but the angelic hosts of heaven –
CY – 2017); Ephesians 3:5-6; II Timothy 1:9, etc.). As regards the
interpretation of the prophecy of Amos intended, the idea seems to be that
that apparent ruin of the house
and family of David which culminated in the
crucifixion of the Lord Jesus would be followed by those "sure mercies of David,"
which consisted in:
·
His resurrection
from the dead,
·
His exaltation to
the right hand of God, and
·
the gathering in of
the Gentiles to His kingdom.
The phrase, "the tabernacle of David," is rather difficult, because the word in the
Hebrew is סֻכַּת דָזִיד, tabernacle or booth of David. It is the word used for the booths
at the Feast of Tabernacles, and denotes a temporary shed of branches or the like of
a very humble character. It is difficult to say why this word was used, unless it was
to show that the house of
David had fallen to a low estate before it was pulled
down.
19 “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not
them, which from among the
Gentiles are turned
to God:” Judgment for sentence,
Authorized Version (ἐγὼ κρίνω
- ego krino – I am deciding);
turn for
are turned, Authorized Version (ἐπιστρέφουσιν –
epistrephousin – ones on-turning. Judgment. Sentence is the best word, as expressing
the decisive judgment of James, which, being delivered with the authority of his office
at the close of the debate, carried with it the suffrages of the whole council. The things
decreed by them were called Τὰ δόγματα
τὰ κεκρίμενα
ὑπὸ σῶν
ἀποστόλων
καὶ τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων
– Ta dogmata ta kekrimena hupo son apostolon kai ton presbuteron –
Turn. It applies to those that should hereafter turn as well as to those who were
already turned.
20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain
from pollutions of idols,
and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
The
pollutions for pollutions,
Authorized Version; what
is strangled for things
strangled, Authorized Version. The pollutions. In the decree itself (v. 29) this is
explained by εἰδωλοθύτων – eidolothuton – of idol sacrifices; things offered to idols,
though some apply the "pollutions" to all the things here mentioned, not the idols
only. Later Paul somewhat enlarged the liberty of Gentile converts in respect to meats
offered to idols (see I Corinthians 8:4-13; 10:25-28). What is strangled, etc. The
things forbidden are all practices not looked upon as sins by Gentiles, but now
enjoined upon them as portions of the Law of Moses which were to be binding
upon them, at least for a time, with a view to their living in communion and
fellowship with their Jewish brethren. The necessity for some of the prohibitions
would cease when the condition of the Church as regards Jews and Gentiles was
altered; others were of eternal obligation.
21 “For Moses of old time hath in every city them
that preach him, being read
in the synagogues every sabbath day.” From generations of old for of old time,
Authorized Version; sabbath for sabbath day, Authorized Version. The meaning
of this verse seems to be that, in requiring the above compliances, the council
was not enjoining anything new or strange, because the Gentiles who attended
the synagogues were familiar with these Mosaic doctrines. It has been often
stated that these four prohibitions were in substance the same as the so-called
seven precepts of Noah, which were binding upon proselytes of the gate. This is,
however, scarcely borne out by the facts. The four prohibitions seem to have
been a temporary arrangement adapted to the then condition of the Church, with
a view to enabling Christian Jews and Gentiles to live in brotherly fellowship.
The Jew was not to require more of his Gentile brother: the Gentile was not to
concede less to his Jewish brother.
The First Council: Spiritual
The controversy between a corrupt Judaism and the gospel of
Christ was certain
to be brought to a crisis. The conversion of Saul, taken in
connection with his
special mission to the Gentiles, forced the matter on the
attention of the Church.
The scene of the controversy was
But
was assigned to the spot, but because there could be
gathered a more really
representative assembly of the whole Church. Notice:
acknowledged. The acceptance of
the Gentiles, the blessing on the ministry
of Paul and Barnabas, the gift
of the Holy Spirit bestowed on others than
the Jewish believers.
section of the Jewish Church, of
Pharisaic spirit, to impose on the new
Gentile converts the obligations
of the Mosaic Law, particularly
circumcision. This showed that they
regarded Christ as only a Reformer of
the Law, not as substituting the
gospel for the Law.
ciders are the speakers and
leaders, but the multitude is present, and to
them (v. 22) the decision is
referred.
and wonders wrought, is plainly the voice of God to the apostles. Both
Peter and James stand firmly on
that foundation — God hath called them.
Therefore we must obey His
voice. The witness of the facts agrees with the
witness of the word.
dictates of
brotherly love. Stumbling-blocks
should not be thrown in the
way of weak brethren. Let the
Gentiles use their liberty, only let them
respect the feelings of Jews and
the moral demands of the Law.
men. They are condemned by the
letter sent to
epistle was to silence them and
produce a happy peace.
for Christ and souls. Judas and
Silas, the messengers from
forgot the trouble in much
higher topics and cooperation with the Church
at
ecclesiastical settlement shows the Church pervaded with the
spirit of
brotherly love
and faith. They had no conception of
Church authority apart
from the voice of
God’s Spirit. They came together in
perfect equality.
They reverenced age and
spiritual distinction, and the mind of the brethren
gathered together in conference,
but their chief dependence was on the
promise of the
Holy Ghost and His guidance, so that
they could say,
“It seemed good to
the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
The Council at
The claim of the Judaizers is
sharply and absolutely put. Circumcision is a
necessity; the Law of Moses must be observed. The whole
question is
open, and the air is full of debate.
Ø The question whether the Mosaic Law is
binding upon the heathen or no
is referred by
him to experience. This is the great guide of all. In no case
may it be
neglected. In every case recurrence to it as a whole will be found
helpful. Now,
at
the Jewish
Christians, had received the Holy Spirit. This fact the apostle
considers to be
significant proof that God had already decided the question
in debate. God,
he had before learned, was no “respecter of persons.” Here
he expresses
the same truth by saying that God has made no difference
between them;
has placed the two upon one footing. He has testified to the
Gentiles by
imparting to them the Holy Spirit, His grace and good pleasure.
Ø The reference to immediate experience
leads to the larger reference to
history — the
history of the sacred past. The entire revelation of God in
both testaments
rests on history and consists in history. Christ “lived His
doctrine and
preached His life.” And the living experience of prophets and
apostles offers
a rich fund of instruction. Paul’s doctrine is his own life
translated into
consciousness and knowledge. And the doctrine of Peter is
his own life
wrought out in views of duty and principles of Christian
thought.
Christian doctrine is the expression of the results of Christian
history. The
discourse of Peter evidently produces a great impression.
Silence
follows, broken only by the voices of Barnabas and Paul, who
relate the
significant occurrences which have befallen among the heathen.
Ø
He, like a true Jew,
trained in ear and memory by the prophetic oracles,
reverts to
them, and finds confirmation there of the views wrought out in
the minds of the
others by the certain discipline of experience. The writings
of the prophets
were used by the apostles as a guide to the interpretation of
the signs of
the present, and for directions as to present duty. Now, the
oracle from
Amos adduced by James refers in the first instance to the
house of David.
His royal house is fallen into ruins. But God would raise it
up out of the
ruins, would restore and extend it among the Gentiles among
whom His Name
shall be known — that is, among those who shall decide
to acknowledge
and serve Him. All this God would bring about in
accordance with His eternal designs
(v. 18).
Ø Here, then, is light on the question of
debate. Observe that the
theocracy, the
not the Law as
such. Further, the “calling on the Name of God” is laid
down as the
condition or incorporation with the
condition has
been already, fulfilled by the converted heathen Lastly, it is
“the
Lord who doeth these things.” It is not our short-sighted counsel and
prudence which
have to make new history and new laws, but God has
promised
that He will do it. Already
has He adopted a people out of the
heathen (v.
14). If, then — this is the argument of James — we should
lay a burden on
the Gentile Christians, this would be going against the
teaching of
facts, striving against the current of history, thwarting the will
of God therein
revealed.
Ø The decision of James. He would not have
the Gentile Christians
harassed, who
are turning in repentance and good works to God. He
would recognize
their evangelical freedom; would reject the demands of
the Pharisaic
party; in fact he fully, though on different grounds, coincides
with Paul. At
the same time, he insists on certain moral and ceremonial
abstinences.
The whole illustrates the mild, gentle, and loving character of
this apostle.
There was in him, with the greatest strictness towards himself,
the most
compassionate love to others. Unceasingly in the temple, on his
knees, he
prayed for forgiveness for his people (Eusebius, ‘Eccl. Hist.,’
2.
25). He who loves his own household best will be the kindest to them
without. The true patriot is the true
philanthropist; the loyal adherent of his
Church the best
friend of universal Christianity and progress.
22 “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with
the whole church, to send chosen
men of their own
company to
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:” It seemed good
to for pleased it, Authorized Version; the elders for elders, Authorized Version;
to
choose men out of their company and send them, etc., for to send chosen men
of their own company, Authorized Version; Barsabbas for Barsabas, Authorized
Version and Textus Receptus, as ch. 1:23. (Barsabbas was the one not chosen
to take Judas’ place – here we find him in the work – CY – 2017) To choose men, etc.
This is a necessary, change, because the middle aorist (ἐκκεξαμένους – ekkexamenous –
choosing)
cannot have a passive meaning (chosen); see v. 40. Chief
men (ἡγουμένους –
hagoumenous – one leading); literally, leaders. So in Luke 22:26 Ὁ ἡγούμενος is
rendered, "He that
is chief." In Hebrews 13:7,
Οἱ ἡγούμενοι
ὑμῶν – hoi hagoumenoi
humon is, "Them which have the rule over you;" your spiritual rulers. Silas seems to
be a contraction of Silvanus, like Lucas for Lucanus. In the Acts he is always called
Silas, in the Epistles of Paul and Peter, Silvanus. Going as direct emissaries from
James and the
Jews in
23 “And they wrote letters by them after this
manner; The apostles and elders
and brethren send
greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in
after this manner, Authorized Version; the elder brethren for elders and brethren,
Authorized Version; unto... greeting for send greeting unto, etc., Authorized Version,
as ch. 23:26. The elder brethren, etc. The grammar of the sentence is irregular, as
there is nothing for γράψαντες – grapsantes – wrote - to agree with. But "the elder
brethren" is a phrase unknown to the Scriptures, and it is much more in accordance
with the feeling of the times that "the brethren," i.e. the whole Church, should be
included in the salutation. Greeting. It is remarkable that the only other place in
the New Testament where this Greek salutation occurs is James 1:1.
24 “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which
went out from us have
troubled you with
words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye
must be circumcised,
and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:” The words in the
Authorized Version and the Textus Receptus, saying, Ye must be circumcised and
keep the Law, are omitted in the Received Text and the Revised Version;
commandment for such
commandment, Authorized Version. The certain which
went out from us are the same
as the "certain men" which "came down from
of v. 1. The word rendered subverting (ἀνασκευάζοντες – anaskeuazontes –
dismantling) occurs nowhere else in Scripture or in the Septuagint. It is spoken
properly of a person who moves and carries off all the goods and furniture from
the house which he is quitting. Hence to "disturb,"
"throw into confusion, turn
upside down," and the like. To whom we gave no commandment. Observe the
distinct disavowal by James of having authorized those who went forth from him
and the
Version expresses the meaning most clearly.
25 “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one
accord, to send chosen
men unto you with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul,” Having come to for
being
assembled
with, Authorized Version; to choose out men and send them for to send
chosen men, Authorized Version (see note on v. 22). Having come, etc. The Greek
is capable of either meaning. Alford prefers that of the Authorized Version. Others
think that stress is laid upon the decree being unanimous. Our beloved Barnabas
and Paul. James and the council thus gave their full and open support to Barnabas
and Paul. Observe that Barnabas is named first, as in v. 12.
26 “Men that have hazarded their lives for the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Self-Sacrifice for Christ (v. 26)
There are two classes of men of whom we are reminded by
these words of
the
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BUT THE BEST AND HIGHEST.
The soldier for victory; the
sportsman for excitement; the explorer for the
gratification of curiosity; the
Alpine climber for credit; the artist for fame;
the sailor for love of the sea,
etc. There is no lack of men who risk life for
something. But we have to
consider that while:
Ø there is a touch of nobility in some of
these cases which wins our
admiration; yet
Ø often the end is not worth the sacrifice,
— life and all that life means to
its holder and to
those who are related to him and dependent on him are
too precious to
be parted with for a slight object, too valuable to be
sacrificed for
any but a serious and great end. And
Ø when thus lost, it is often laid down from
instinct or passion rather than
from principle.
There is something essentially unsatisfactory in it; for it is a
material loss
with no corresponding gain. It brings sadness to the heart,
loneliness and
misery to the home, and does not bring adequate consolation
to the mind.
SACRIFICE LITTLE OR
NOTHING TO IT. We should, perhaps, say to
him; for:
Ø The highest and best meet in a living One,
even Jesus Christ. It is,
indeed, to
honor His Name (see text), but it is also and chiefly to exalt and
extol Him and
make Him very high (Isaiah 52:13) in the estimation and
affection of
the world, that His servants strive and suffer.
Ø Ourselves and all that we have are his
due; therefore our lives, when he
asks us to lay
them down at his feet.
Ø There are those who recognize His claim,
but do not comply with His
desire. There
are those who do; men that have hazarded their lives for
Jesus Christ,
from Paul and Barnabas down to our own Christian martyrs;
men and women
who, on various fields of holy, daring, and heroic
suffering, have
cheerfully sacrificed all to honor Him and do His bidding; but
there are too
many that acknowledge the validity of His claim but do not
respond to His
call. There are in our congregations and even in our
Churches:
o
men who
withhold themselves from missionary or ministerial service,
because, though
well fitted for it, they are not prepared to make the
necessary
sacrifices;
o
men
that will not step into the breach when some other kind of holy
activity is
demanded, because they shrink from the burdens or the
annoyances it
will entail;
o
men
that will not encourage some good work of Christ, because, to do
so, they must
part with that which the world counts precious. These
are far from
being numbered with the “good and faithful servants.”
The Highest Christian Commendation (v. 26)`
Nothing could be said more fitted to ensure the confidence
of the Churches
in the messengers sent from the conference than this
description: “Men that
have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus.” It may be
observed that men have established this test of sincerity,
nobility, or belief
in any truth: “Could the man stake his life on it?” “Was he
willing to die for
it?” The heroic traveler is the man who stakes his life on
his purpose, as did
Livingstone. The heroic soldiers are they who volunteer for the
forlorn
hope, and die to serve their country. The heroic martyrs
are the men who
can die for their faith and opinion. No man’s faith has
come under the full
testing unless, in some form, it is proved whether he will
die for it. The
sublimest of all illustrations is found in our Lord’s purpose of perfect
obedience to his Father’s will. That purpose came under many and various
testings, but we could not feel that it was perfect, and indeed the
infinite
example, if He had not kept it through the trial of that
agonizing death, He
not only “hazarded,” He actually yielded his
life in maintaining that
obedience. By the same test Barnabas and Paul had been
proved, and in
their first missionary journey their lives had again and
again been in peril;
once indeed Paul had been left for dead after the riotous
stoning of the
populace (ch. 13:50; 14:19). From
the Christian standpoint the
noblest and best men are:
characteristic of the unrenewed man, toned, however, by amiability,
kindness of disposition,
generosity, motherhood, etc., as elements of the
natural character. Self-denial is the highest conception of purely human
virtue, and is
the noblest adornment of human character. In a thousand
forms “self-denial” is demanded
in our common life and relations; and none
of the responsible positions in
life can be occupied without this virtue being
demanded. Self-sacrifice is
seldom required; but the man who can meet this
demand gains the first place in
the world’s esteem. Illustrate by the doctor
who dies for his patient; the
mother who dies for her child; the rescuer who
dies in rescuing; the missionary
who yields his life in his mission, The
extreme demand may not always be
made; it often has to be faced. And we
may test our own hold of truth,
duty, or hope, by putting to ourselves this
question, “Could I die for it?”
Show what kind of moral Power the heroic
leaders in self-sacrifice gain
over their fellows.
Ø
They declare that duty
is before pleasure.
Ø
They attest the
grandeur of a cherished idea.
Ø
They glorify the
conception of right.
Ø
They uphold faith in
God.
Ø
They affirm the
insignificance of this life in view of the life that is to
come.
Ø
They keep up the
standard of life for us all; and are, as angel-ministrants,
ever beckoning us on to
higher and nobler things.
CHRIST’S NAME. Taken
in two senses:
Ø For the sake of upholding the honor of
Christ’s Name, seeing that He is
ever honored in
the conduct of His servants. Men praise Him through what
they see of Him
in us. He “laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay
down
our lives for the brethren.” (I John 3:16)
Ø For the sake of making witness for Christ.
No witness can have the
power of a
martyrdom. Illustrate Stephen’s witness in his death.
o
Self-sacrifice
sets Christ up in the view of men, for all gather round
the martyr,
and wonder over his calmness and victory.
o
Self-sacrifice
proves the truth of doctrine.
o
Self-sacrifice
for Christ impresses upon us the extraordinary fascination
which the Lord
Jesus can exert on men’s souls. How we must love those
for whom we are
willing to die! None can take our love so that for the
sake of it we
will yield our life, as does the Lord Jesus Christ. Conclude
by showing that
passing ages do not change the Divine demands, only
change the
forms in which they find expression. The heroic life of
self-denial in many
things, and even of self-sacrifice sometimes, as our
witness to
Christ, is still demanded, in these indulgent times, of all who
name the Name
of the Lord Jesus.
27 “We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who
shall also tell you the same
things by mouth.” Themselves also shall for shall also, Authorized Version;
by word of mouth for by mouth, Authorized Version. Judas (Barsabas) and Silas.
28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us,
to lay upon you no greater
burden than these necessary things;” It seemed good, etc. The formula is
remarkable. It implies the consciousness on the part of the council that they had
"the mind of the Spirit" (Romans 8:27), but how this mind of the Spirit was
communicated we are not expressly told. There may have been some "revelation,"
similar to that recorded in ch.13:2; 10:19. It is, however, generally understood as
resting upon Christ's promise to be with His Church always. (Matthew 28:20)
Hefele ('Hist. of Christian Councils,' pp. 1,2, English translation) quotes Cyprian
as writing to Pope Cornelius in the name of the Council of A.D. : "Placuit nobis,
Sancto Spiritu suggerente;" and the Synod of Aries as saying, "Placuit, praesenti
Spiritu Sancto."
And this is the general language of the synods.
for the decrees of the three hundred bishops at
had been "solius Filii Dei sententia." But, as Bishop Wordsworth on here, v. 28
wisely says, "It cannot be held that councils of the Church now are entitled to
adopt the words of the text in the framing of canons."
29 “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and
from blood, and from
things strangled, and
from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves,
ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Things sacrificed for meats offered, Authorized
Version; it shall be well with you for ye shall do well, Authorized Version. The
phrase εῦ πράσσειν – eu prassein – ye shall do well - means to “prosper," to
"fare well" (compare Ephesians 6:21, "How I do").
The Decision of the Council at
This, the first council of the Church, is generally
considered an example for all times.
Ø
In the selection
of emissaries. It had reference partly
to the Churches,
partly to Paul and Barnabas. The
Churches were assured that the
emissaries were not delivering
their own private opinion, but the
deliberate judgment of the
Church. And the apostles had the legitimacy
and purity of their office
sealed by the highest Church authority.
the taking of some such step,
the Judaizers in
would remain unchecked, and left
to pursue their disturbing and factious
intrigues. And by this step a
new bond of sympathy and affection was
established between Jew and
Gentile, between
Holy Ghost, and to
us.” The words may be abused or used
with genuine
devout feeling. The Holy Spirit is the Source of light and wisdom in the
mind — the Judge and
Decider in spiritual things. The conclusion
of a
matter, discussed by the
faithful in the light of the Holy Spirit, may justly
be looked upon as the decision
of the Holy Spirit. The whole stamp of the
message is spiritual,
impressive, full of Christian piety and love. Its closing
word, promising blessing on the
conditions laid down, is far better than a
threat of pains on disobedience
would have been. The Christian
“Farewell!” contains not only the wish for a brother’s happiness, but
that
he may abide in Christ, and
walk as He walked in the world.
Reasonable and Unreasonable Burdens
(vs. 28-29)
“To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things.” The
precise nature of the things which the council thought
essential to Christian
standing and life are discussed in the Expository Portion
of this
Commentary, and materials for the introduction of our
subject will be
found in it. “The letter does not say why these things were
necessary, and
the term was probably chosen as covering alike the views of
those who
held, like the Pharisee Christians, that they were binding
on the Church for
ever, and those who, like Paul, held that they were
necessary only for a
time, and as a measure of wise expediency.” The letter is a
most wise and
careful one; it avoids the details of the dispute, or any
report of the
discussion in the council. It accuses no one, but by
implication supports the
position which Paul had taken. It effectually checked for a
time the
agitation created by the Judaizing
party. Two dangers attended the young
Christian Church.
1. A false conception
of liberty in Christ, which really meant “license,” and
ruinous loosening of self-restraint and reasonable rule.
2. A mischievous
bondage to mere forms, out of which the life and
meaning had long faded, and passed. The council wisely met
the twofold
danger by declaring that the old forms were no longer
binding, but that the
Christian liberty ought to be set under safe, prudent, and
mutually accepted
rules and restraints. The laying on Gentile Christians of the
old Judaic
burdens was unreasonable. But the laying on them of burdens
coming from
the relations of Christian principles to the sins and evils
of society, all must
recognize to be reasonable. They
were free, but they must not use their
liberty unwisely, or so as to injure the conscience and
sensitive feeling of
even the weakest brother among them. We may gather from this advice
given to the
reasonable and unreasonable in burdens laid on us as
Christians.
“Everybody does it, therefore
you must,” is one which the Christian is
quite justified in rejecting.
Fashion in religious conduct, or in religious
worship, or in religious
doctrine, if it is imposed as a burden, the Christian
may call unreasonable. He is in
no sense obliged to follow such lead unless
he can clearly discern that the
fashion or custom expresses the claim of the
right. Oftentimes customs grow up which become a terrible slavery,
and it
becomes necessary for some
Christians to break the bonds as resolutely as
Paul did the bonds of these Judaizing teachers. Illustrate from the three
spheres:
Ø
religious doctrine;
Ø
religious worship;
Ø
religious society.
Recognizing the progression of
Divine revelation, we see that a step
upwards involves freedom from
the step below. Judaism was one step in
Divine revelation, and it
prepared for the spiritual revelation in Christ,
which was a step higher. It was
unreasonable to press the demands of
formal Judaism, and much more
unreasonable to press the claims of
rabbinical Judaism, on those who
had been lifted up to the spiritual and
Christian platform. This point
is well argued by Phillips Brooks, in a most
suggestive sermon on the ‘Symbol
and the Reality.’ He says, “There is no
better test of men’s progress
than this advancing power to do without the
things which used to be
essential to their lives. As we climb a high
mountain, we must keep our
footing strong upon one ledge until we have
fastened ourselves strongly on
the next; then we may let the lower foothold
go. The lives of men who have
been always growing are strewed along
their whole course with the
things which they have learned to do without.”
What an overburdened life ours
would be if we were compelled to carry all
the old things we once valued
and used with us in our advance to the new!
Yet there is a sense in which,
even in our Christian times, men press on us
the burden of that which is
past, abrogated, and done with. It may be
effectively illustrated in
relation to Christian doctrine. It is said that Judaic
forms of sacrifice explain the
Christian redemption; and we may urge that
this is an unreasonable burden,
and all that we need to accept is, that Judaic
sacrifice was
the figure and symbol, by the help of
which men were
prepared to apprehend and
receive the moral and spiritual redemption
wrought in and by
the Lord Jesus. We, as well as the
early disciples, may
properly refuse the burden of
Mosaic symbols and forms, which have had
their day, done their work, and
ceased to be.
associations of persons together
involve mutual acceptance of conditions
of fellowship; and those conditions
must put limitations on personal liberty.
Illustrate by the necessary
rules of a nation, a club, a family, a
congregation. These are
reasonable, and are no infringements of liberty,
but a proper expression of it.
No one feels such to be a burden. Further
than this, society, as
constituted in each country and age, has an unwritten
code of manners and morals, and
this need not be unreasonable, nor is it
felt to be a burden so long as
it manifestly concerns the preservation of
social virtue and goodness. As
with the early Church, the conditions of
society may make specific
demands on Christians, such as are indicated in
V. 29; but these may reasonably
be accepted as the restraints of the few
for the good of the whole.
upon ground which Paul’s
teaching to the Corinthians has made very
familiar. Christian love even
rejoices to put itself into bonds if thus it can
gain influence on others. In
conclusion, urge that life properly refuses
bonds, and demands free
expression; but the life in Christ willingly puts
itself
under rules for His sake and for others’ sake.
30 “So when they were dismissed, they came to
gathered the
multitude together, they delivered the epistle:” They, when they
were dismissed, came down for when they were dismissed, they came, Authorized
Version; having gathered for when they had gathered,
Authorized Version. The
multitude does not exactly
express the idea of τὸ πλῆθος
– to plaethos – the
multitude, which is the fullness or the whole of the body spoken. Compare
Luke 1:10,
Πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ - Pan to plaethos tou laou – entire
multitude is "The whole
congregation;" Luke 2:13, Πλῆθος στρατιᾶς
οὐρανίου –
Plaethos stratias ouraniou – multitude
of heavenly host is "The whole heavenly
host;"
Luke 19:37, Ἄπαν τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν μαθητῶν
– Hapan to plaethos ton mathaeton –
the
entire multitude of disciples, "The
whole company of the disciples;" also
ch. 6:2
and ch. 4:32, Τὸ πλῆθος
τῶν πιστευσάντων
– To plaethos ton pisteusanton –
is "The
whole company of believers;" ch. 22:36, Τὸ πλῆθος
τοῦ λαοῦ -
To plaethos
tou
laou - is "The whole body of the people;" in v. 12 of this chapter,
Πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος –
Pan to plaethos - is "The whole
"The
whole Church."
31 “Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.”
And when they had read it for which when they had read, Authorized Version.
32 “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also
themselves, exhorted the brethren
with many words, and
confirmed them.” Being themselves also prophets for being
prophets
also themselves, Authorized Version. Being
themselves also prophets,
exhorted, etc. Observe the connection of exhortation with prophecy, and compare
the explanation of the name of Barnabas in ch.4:36, note. Confirmed them;
ἐπεστήριξαν – epestiaerixan – establish them, as v. 41 and ch.14:22; 18:23. Nothing
is so unsettling as controversy; but the preaching of these "chief men" brought back
men's minds to the solid faith and hope of the gospel. How
rich the
Titus, and some, if not all, of those mentioned in Acts 13:1, for their teachers.
33 “And after they had tarried there a space,
they were let go in peace from the
brethren unto the apostles.” Spent some time there for tarried there a space,
Authorized Version. (see ch.18:23; 20:3; James 4:13); dismissed for let go,
Authorized Version; those that had sent them forth for the apostles, Authorized
Version and Textus Receptus.
34 “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.” This verse is omitted
in the Received Text and by the best manuscripts and commentators. It seems to
have been put in to explain v. 40. But Silas may have
returned to
stated in v. 33, and come back again to
attachment to Paul and his views.
Effects of the
The few words of the decision gave rise to a large joy and
consolation at
from the yoke of the Law is only
truly to be enjoyed by those who have
previously smarted and groaned
beneath that yoke.
Silas, by the exercise of their
prophetic gifts, exhorted and strengthened the
brethren. The faithful teacher’s
heart is in his element in bringing souls to
the Savior.
with peace from the brethren to
those who sent them forth. All interchange
of love on earth, all messages
of reconciliation, are prophetic of and
prepare for the home of peace IN HEAVEN!
35 “Paul also and Barnabas continued in
word of the Lord, with many others also.” But Paul for Paul also, Authorized
Version; tarried for continued, Authorized Version. It is at this time that Meyer
and other commentators (see v. 1, note) place Peter's visit
to
in Galatians 2:11. But it is quite inconceivable that Peter, with all the influence of
the Jerusalem Council fresh upon him, and after the part he himself took in it, and
when his own emissaries, Silas and Judas, had just left
there ascribed to him. Nor is it within the region of probability that, so soon after
the council, any should have come "from James" to unsay what James had said
and written at the council. We may with much confidence place Peter's visit to
The Controversy (vs. 1-35)
The apprehension of truth, full, pure, and unmixed with error,
should be
the desire of all good men. And it is a great help towards
attaining truth
when we are able to love it and to seek it absolutely for
its own sake,
without reference to its consequences, without regard to
the wishes of
others or undue submission to their opinions. It is also
necessary for a man
in pursuit of truth to divest himself of prejudices, and
the influence of false
opinions which he has adopted from habit, and without due consideration.
The mind should approach the consideration of truth unwarped and
uncolored by any subjective influences except the love of
God and
innocency of character. Divested of prejudices and of passions, and
possessed of adequate knowledge, the mind would receive moral and
religious truth with as
much certainty as it does mathematical
problems. The object of controversy should be to clear away all
prejudice,
all ignorance, all passion, every groundless opinion and
prepossession,
which stand in the way
of the acceptance of TRUTH! And controversialists
should be ready to admit the probalility
that those who differ most widely
from them may, for that very reason, see some side of truth
which is hidden
from their own eyes, and therefore should be ready to give
a candid
consideration to their arguments. The controversy which is
described in its
origin, progress, and settlement, in the passage before us,
is an instructive
one. We see on the side of the Judaizing
party the types of the hindrances
constantly existing to the reception of new truths. There
was at first a blind
and indiscriminate attachment to old opinions. They had
been brought up in
the belief that the Mosaic institutions were unchangeable.
The very
suggestion of a modification of them was treason against
Moses and
against God. They had been brought up in the belief that
they were
exclusively the people of God. All the pride and
selfishness of their hearts
rebelled against the idea of others being admitted to an
equality of
privileges with themselves. They had cherished a contempt
and hatred for
all other nations of the earth: how could they believe that
those nations
were as much objects of the love of God as they themselves
were? Again,
they had fattened in the opinion of their own
righteousness, of their own
moral superiority over other people: how could they be
willing to accept a
gospel which taught them that they could only be justified
by grace, and
that they must seek that grace on a level with all
other sinners, through the
merits of Jesus Christ? Again, their reverence for their rabbis and great
men, and for their sayings and teaching, which they were
accustomed to
lean upon with a certain superstitious awe, and to quote
with a proud
fondness, was another hindrance to the reception of the
gospel in its
integrity by them. And all these influences, good and bad,
concurred to
close the eyes of their reason against all opposing
evidence. They would,
indeed, admit a Christianity which left the Law of Moses
intact, and
obliged all Christians to become Jews, so to speak. That
exalted their
nation, flattered their pride, increased their
self-importance, left the
prejudices of their childhood undisturbed. But the gospel
as preached by
Paul they could not and would not accept. The controversy
on the other
side was waged with fairness and firmness combined. Paul’s
large
experience, both of the prejudices of his opponents, which he had once felt
himself in their full power, and of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which
had been manifested
to him in so remarkable a manner, gave him
an
unrivalled command of the argument. He had as much
reverence for
Moses, as full a conviction of the Divine origin of the
Law, of the
inspiration of the prophets, and of the infallible
authority of Holy Scripture,
as his opponents had. But he had a deep insight into the doctrines of grace,
borne witness to by the Law and the prophets, which they had not. He saw
the harmony between the Old and New Testaments; how the Law
was a
schoolmaster to bring men to Christ; how Christ was the end
of the Law
for righteousness to every one that believes; and how in
the gospel of
God’s grace in Jesus Christ the Law was not destroyed, but
fulfilled, he
had, therefore, a full certainty as to the main points of
the controversy
which others had not. And yet he was tender and considerate
toward his
opponents (Galatians 4:19), and brought, not abuse, but
argument to
bear against their errors; as in the two wonderful
Epistles, to the Galatians
and to the Romans. And in a similar spirit we find him here
willing to refer
the matters in dispute to the Church at
by James, who had the credit of leaning to the side of his
antagonists. But
combined with this gentleness we have to mark his
unflinching firmness
and boldness. It required no small courage and strength of
conviction to
withstand a person of such weight and authority as Peter,
and to reprove
him before the Church. It required no little heroism to go
into the very
stronghold of Judaism, and there, before James, and Peter,
and the
Pharisees, and the most Judaizing
members of the Churches of Judaea, to
proclaim the gospel of the free grace of God (Galatians 2:2; here, v.12),
and the free admission of the Gentiles into the
And let us mark the result. All the true-hearted men were
won by Paul’s
way. Peter recovered from his weakness and openly sided
with Paul; James
threw his great weight unequivocally into the same scale;
Barnabas shook
off his momentary hesitation; the whole assembly gave a
unanimous vote in
favor of Paul’s view; and the Church was saved from
disruption. In an age
when the peace of the Church is so much disturbed by
controversy, and
when such violence, both of language and of action, is
indulged in by those
who wish to enforce their own views, it is important to
study carefully the
history of this first great and trying controversy, which
threatened at one
time to split the Church to its very foundations, but which
was brought to
such a happy issue, under the blessing of God, by the wisdom, charity, and
firmness of the apostle to the Gentiles. God grant, of His
tender mercy, a
like spirit to the leaders of party in our own days, and a
no less happy
settlement of the questions which separate brother from
brother, and
impede the progress of Christian truth.
More Lessons from a Grave Crisis in the
(vs. 12-35)
After Peter’s speech (vs. 7-10) came the narration of facts
by Barnabas
and Paul, in which they laid stress on the Divine tokens of
favor and
support which they had received in the execution of their
work (v. 12);
and then James summed up the matter, evidently giving voice
to the
decision of the Church. We learn:
MEET ONE ANOTHER’S VIEWS IN CHRISTIAN COUNCIL.
Probably it would be hard to
find two good men of any age or country who
have taken more divergent views
of the gospel of Christ than did James
and Paul. Their Epistles show us
how they viewed the one truth from
separate and even distant
standpoints. Had they come to
this Church
meeting intent
on magnifying their own distinctive points, there
would
have ensued bitter
conflict and fatal rupture. But they strove to meet one
another, and the end
was peace and the furtherance of redeeming truth.
HONORABLE SETTLEMENT.
(vs. 19-21.) In concession to the
Gentile party, it was not
required that they should submit to the distinctive
rite; in concession to the
Jewish party, it was required that certain statutes
should be observed by them.
Occasions will very frequently occur when
each side owes it to the other
to make concession. The spirit that strives
only for victory IS NOT the
spirit of Christ. We should, as His
disciples,
count it an honor and a joy to
concede, when we conscientiously can do
so, to Christian brethren who
differ from us.
SETTLEMENT OF TIME.
The particular precepts which James and those
who thought with him desired to
have enforced have long since
disappeared. Their observance at
the time was expedient, for Moses had in
every city them that preached
him, etc. (v. 21). But when the special
reasons for conformity were
removed, then they fell through. Where the
peace of a
Church or a large Christian community is at stake, we do well
to accept small matters which are unessential; time is on
our side.
PUBLIC MORALS. It surprises
and shocks us to read of abstinence from
meat which had been offered to
idols, and from things strangled, being
placed side by side with
abstinence from the sin of fornication, as if, in
morals, these things stood on the
same level. We feel that the latter is a
thing so utterly and inherently
bad that the former is not at all comparable
with it in heinousness of
offence. The fact is that we think thus because our
holy religion has purified our
thoughts, and taught us to see ceremonial and
moral offences in true
perspective. But wherever Christianity has
been
corrupted, where the
traditions of men have overlaid its simplicity with
their ceremonialism, we
find this defective view prevailing.
It was
necessary, at that time and in
the then condition of the world, formally and
expressly to disallow a custom
which we now shudder at and shrink from
as a shameful sin.
COURTEOUSLY AND CAREFULLY CARRIED OUT. (vs. 22-33.)
The Church at
Church at
dismiss the deputation with a
cold and formal resolution. It sent able and
influential men, with letters,
to accompany Paul and Barnabas, and these
greeted the
the end, the two
communities understood one another and rejoiced in one
another the
more. What is done in Christ’s name and cause should be
done with utmost courtesy and with perfect thoroughness.
AND ALL-EMBRACING LOVE OF GOD. (vs. 14-15.) James
intimated that what was then
happening was only the fulfillment of the
Divine intention. God knew from
the beginning what He should accomplish,
and He purposed the recovery and redemption of THE WHOLE
GENTILE WORLD!
Ø
When we are baffled by
the perplexities of the way, let us remember
that all things are in the hands of the OMNISCIENT ONE!
Ø
When we are distressed
by the disappointments and difficulties of our
work, let us be consoled by
thinking that God means to
restore mankind;
His wisdom and
His love WILL PREVAIL, though we see
not our way
and though our fears
abound.
A Great Dissension or, the Threshold of the
Gentile Church,
and
the Apostolic Management of It (vs. 1-35)
One subject knits together very firmly the contents of this
paragraph. And
the subject is one of the greatest importance. Its interest
is all of the
practical kind; and well had it been for the unconverted
world had the
Church through all these centuries abided by the suggested
lessons that we
have here. The one subject is the beginning of ecclesiastical dissension
within the Church catholic itself; not on matter purely
doctrinal, not on
matter purely disciplinary, but on matter that may be for
the time supposed
to lie on the border-land between these two. For some will
insist on making
it mostly a question of veritable doctrine; others would
stickle for it as a
question at least of “decency and order” in discipline.
Let us notice:
great signs and wonders wrought
amongst them, of which they are by no
means simple beholders. They
themselves are “a great part of them.” They
are believed in multitudes of
cases to have become true converts to the
new faith. The apostolic verdict
and pronouncement have gone forth that
“God had opened
the door of faith” to them. And facts
seem to speak for
themselves, saying that they
have received the gifts as well as the gift of the
Holy Ghost. Must these Gentiles
submit to the Jewish initiatory rite of
circumcision?
UPON THIS SIMPLE QUESTION. Certain men, evidently of the Church
in Judaea,
came down to
took upon them to teach the
brethren at
rite necessary for them to
submit to, if they would be saved. Of these men,
before they are condemned as mere
officious idlers or “busybodies,” it
shall
be granted that they had a right
to their own religious views, their own
reading of the Law and prophets,
and their own past history; that they also
had a right to travel and to go and
see the new Gentile converts, whose
Church at
there, they were not bound to
keep a perpetual silence. But from the very
moment that these things are
conceded to the members of any Christian
society dates the solemn
responsibility which rests upon them. One of the
great facts of the “liberty”
(v. 10; Galatians 5:1) of Christ’s Church is
that individual character shall
be called out and strictly tried by the vast
increase of individual responsibility.
But the liberty cannot be had and the
responsibility left. And up to
this point these things may be noted:
Ø
that from the very
first “offences would come,” even within the
Church; but:
Ø
that it was no less “woe”
to them by whom the offence should come;
for that on them lay the
responsibility (of which they should be aware
and be ware), and
not upon any laches on the part of the
Church as a
whole in not legislating, for
instance, to suppress the freedom of
individual thought and word. For
to do this under the rule of Jesus
would be to originate worse “offence.”
The very worst affront to
Jesus is to substitute letter
for spirit, law for love. The origin of a
dissension, then, that excited much disputation, consumed much
precious time,
is certain to have awakened some bitterness of word
and of temper,
as well as to have caused no slight anxiety and pain
to those
concerned, was the gratuitous work of
men who had
not
correct knowledge, did not try
to get it (v. 24), and who went
out of their way to “make
a great stir.”
somewhat indefinite phraseology
of the second verse, compared with the
words of the Apostle Paul in
Galatians 2:2, leaves us in very little
uncertainty that we are to
understand that Paul and Barnabas received
special intimation from the
Spirit that the question should be moved to
this course, and rejoiced to
attend the steps of the apostles and other
delegates to the last, as well
as to commend them in prayer to God.
Ø If, then, the intimation of the Spirit
showed the way for the apostles, it
may be
gathered:
o
what
really important issues were at stake, not in the matter only, but
in the
manner of treating this
dissension; and
o
it
may be assumed that many a time and anxiously and fervently did the
two implore
Divine guidance. The Spirit is
the Ruler in the Church.
How imperfectly
is this vital fact remembered in modern days! And the
Spirit’s
guidance is sought and obtained when clouds and stormy
weather were
presaged. As to the practical uses to be gained by this
reference of
the question to Jerusalem and to the body of the apostles
and elders, it
goes by saying.
Ø When Paul and Barnabas, and certain others
of the Antioch Church with
them, reach
Jerusalem, they are, in the first instance, courteously received
by the whole
Church with “the apostles and elders.” The meeting was a
service, and a
happy, holy service. All hear what God has done (v. 4), and the
joy is great.
And, finally, the question is opened, apparently as temperately
as plainly (v.
5).
Ø The proper council shortly come together.
It consists of “the apostles
and
elders.” But the
matter appears to have been argued in the presence of
the whole
assembly still (vs. 7, 12-13, 22). Four leading speeches and
arguments are
recorded, and the order and the wisdom alike of the
selection of
speakers must be apparent. Who better to begin than Peter?
His argument is
plain, practical, and cannot be gainsaid. But the way in
which he turns
the tables on his brethren of the Jewish sticklers for
circumcision
(v. 11) is most significant. There follow Barnabas and Paul
with their
missionary tidings. These carried volumes of conviction, and
were well
fitted to do so. Men listen still wonderfully in preached sermons
to facts and
reliable history. It is these which weigh, too, with the
unsophisticated
and the mass. And with what keenness of attention and
almost
sympathetic pride they listen to these recitals from the lips of men
who had “hazarded
their lives for the Name” of the Lord Jesus Christ
(v. 26)! And
after these thrilling speeches James (probably “the brother
of
the Lord” and the
writer of the Epistle general) renews argument,
corroborating
it by Old Testament Scripture quotation. Nor does he sit
down without
making definite proposals to meet the present case.
Ø In harmony with those proposals, the
apostles and elders and the whole
Church
agree. And they agree
to write and to send what they write by the
honored hands
of Paul and Barnabas, and two others specially delegated
from their own
home communion to
words of a
letter which, for kindly respect, for conciliatory tone toward all,
for fidelity of
truth (v. 24), for “honor to whom honor”
is due (v. 26),
for religious
calling to witness of the one Ruler of the Church, “the Holy
Ghost” (v. 28), and for the word of exhortation
(v. 29), could not be
surpassed.
Ø The four peacemakers speed on their way to
call “the
multitude” (ch. 4:32; 6:5) together, deliver
their letter, and
congratulate
the Gentiles liberated from many a fear in its “consolation.”
This gentle
touch at the end speaks much of what had been transpiring in
the minds of
those Gentile converts, and helps as practical comment upon
v. 10 of this
chapter. The two visitors, Judas and Silas, also address the
that he stays
at
ministry and in
their pastorate of the flock.
BY THIS HISTORY. We
should observe:
Ø
The
sanction here given to the patient and faithful use of strictly moral
forces in the government
of the Church of Christ. The case had aspects that
might well, on
the one hand, try the forbearance of the large-hearted, and,
on the other
hand, tempt to high-handed dispatch. But a world of trouble is
not grudged to
keep well within the spirit of the Master, and to have
compassion on
the weak, and to consider others in their errors and their
small-mindedness,
“lest they also be tempted,”
with whom confessedly may
lie now the
strength and the right and the goodness.
Ø The honor done to courtesy and respect and
to the observance of “duty
towards
equals,” or those who for the time must be called so. Christianity
often seems to offer us a very clear,
very beautiful outline of the
perfections possible to human society
merely as such.
Ø The kindest attention here paid to human
feelings. It seems to shine out
again and.
again. Where a cold, despotic, hard-and-fast ecclesiasticism
would have
found its occasion for triumphing, the true order of Christ’s
Church finds a
chosen occasion for reverencing feeling. For upon and in
addition to all
the honor shown in the transactions recorded in this chapter
to respect and
courtesy, there is apparent the sympathy of true and
heartfelt
love. Amid great
dangers the least possible damage was done to
the reputation
of young Christianity, and the comment might still be, “See
how
these Christians love one another.”
36 “And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let
us go again and visit
our brethren in every
city where we have preached the word of the Lord,
and see how they do.” After some days for some days after, Authorized Version;
return now for go again, Authorized Version; the brethren for our brethren,
Authorized Version and Textus Receptus; wherein we proclaimed for where we
have
preached, Authorized Version; fare for do,
Authorized Version. After some
days is hardly equivalent to μετά τινας ἡμέρας – meta tinas haemeras – after yet
some days. The expression in Greek is quite indefinite as to time, and may cover
months as well as days. That it does cover a considerable length of time we gather
from the expression in v. 33, that Judas and Silas "tarried some time at
followed by that in v. 35, that after their departure "Paul and Barnabas tarried
(διέτριβον – dietribon - tarried)
in
periods together to have included much less than a year. Let us return, etc.
The singular loving care of Paul for his young converts appears here
(compare I Thessalonians 2:7-8; 3:5-8; II Corinthians 1:14,
etc.).
37 “And Barnabas determined to take with them John,
whose surname was
Mark.” Was minded for determined, Authorized Version and Textus Receptus;
John also for John, Authorized Version and Textus Receptus; who was called for
whose surname was, Authorized Version. Was minded. It is doubtful which is
the true reading, ἐβουλεύσατο – ebouleusato or ἐβούλετο – ebouleto. The difference
of meaning is small. The first means "took council with himself," i.e. planned, thought,
to take Barnabas; the second, "wished," i.e. his deliberate will was to take Barnabas.
Singularly enough, Alford, who rejects ἐβούλετο, which is the reading of Received
Text, translates ἐβουλεύετο – ebouleueto by "was minded," which is the translation
of ἐβούλετο in the Revised Version. We see in this choice of Mark by Barnabas the
natural partiality of a near relation. We may also see the same flexibility of disposition
which made him yield to the influence of the emissaries of James (Galatians 2:13).
Who was called. It might seem odd that this description of John should be repeated
here after having been given in ch.12:25. But perhaps it was usual so to designate
him (see Luke 8:2;
22:3; Matthew 10:3; here ch.
1:23; 10:6).
38 “But Paul thought not good to take him with them,
who departed from them
from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. Take with them him for
take him with them, Authorized Version; withdrew for departed, Authorized Version.
Withdrew. The Greek word ἀποστάντα – apostanta – one withdrawing (from which
comes the substantive apostasy) is a strong one, and denotes decided blame, as does
the indication of the opposite course, by way of contrast, which he did not take.
"He did not go with them to the work" to which God called them, as he ought to
have done. The whole phrase, too, which follows is strongly
worded. "Paul thought
good," as regards one who had turned back from the work, "not to take that man."
The μὴ συμπαραλαβεῖν – mae sumparalabein – not to be taking along - of this verse
is sharply opposed to the συμπαραλαβεῖν (to be taking along) of v. 37. Luke evidently
sides strongly with Paul, and almost reproduces the ipsissima verba (the exact words)
of the "sharp contention." One would infer that this passage was penned by Luke
before the reconciliation which appears in II Timothy 4:11, and that we have here an
indication of the early date of the publication of "The Acts." Perhaps also there is an
indication in the narrative, coupled with Mark's subsequent attachment to Peter, that
Mark rather leaned at this time to Judaizing views, and that his previous departure
"from the work" was partly owing to a want of complete sympathy with Paul's
doctrine. Paul would have no half-hearted helper in his grand and arduous work.
39 “And the contention was so sharp between them,
that they departed asunder
one from the other:
and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto
There arose a sharp contention for the contention was so sharp between them,
Authorized Version and Textus Receptus; parted for departed, Authorized Version;
so that for so sharp... that, Authorized Version; and Barnabas for and so Barnabas,
Authorized Version; took Mark with him for
took Mark, Authorized Version; sailed
away for sailed, Authorized Version. There arose a sharp contention, etc. The sense
"between them" must be supplied, if the English word "contention" is used. The word
παροξυσμός – paroxusmos – incensed - only occurs twice in the New Testament: once
in Hebrews 10:24,
in a good sense, "To provoke"
(for a provocation) - " stimulate or
excite" - "unto love and good works," which is its common classical sense; the other
time in this passage, where the sense is attributed to it in which it is used in the
Septuagint, as in Deuteronomy 29:28, Ἐν θυμῷ
καὶ ὀργῇ
καὶ παροξυσμῷ μεγάλῳ
σφόδρα -
En thumo kai orgae kai paroxusmo
megalo sphodra - , "in
great
indignation;" and in Jeremiah 32:37 (39:37, Septuagint,), coupled with the same
words, ἐν παροξυσμῷ μεγάλῳ, "in great wrath;" answering to קֶצפ in Hebrew.
But it is more probable that Luke uses the word here in its common medical sense.
In medical writers - Galen, Hippocrates, etc. - the παροξυσμός is equivalent to
what we call an access, from the Latin aecessio, used by Celsus, when a disease
of some standing takes a turn for the worse, comes to a height, and breaks out into
its severest form. This is the sense in which our English word "paroxysm" is used.
The meaning of the passage will then be that, after a good deal of uncomfortable
feeling and discussion, the difference between Paul and Barnabas, instead of cooling
down, broke out into such an acute form that Barnabas went
off to
leaving Paul to do what he pleased by himself. And Barnabas, etc. The Revised
Version is much more accurate. The consequence of the quarrel is said by Luke to
have been that Barnabas took Mark off with him to
chose Silas is a separate and independent statement, as
appears by Παῦλος
– Paulos –
Paul (in the nominative) and ἐξῆλθεν – exaelthen - came away - in the indicative
mood. Luke's narrative quite sides with Paul, and throws the blame of the quarrel,
or at least of the separation, upon Barnabas. Renan ('
was too severe upon John Mark, and that it was ungrateful of him to break with
one to whom he owed so much as he did to Barnabas for any cause of secondary
importance. He also thinks that the real root of the quarrel lay in the constantly
changing relations between the two apostles, aggravated by a domineering spirit
in Paul. But the force of this censure turns upon the question whether it was a cause
of secondary importance. If Paul had a single eye to the success of his mission, and
judged that Mark would be a hindrance to it, it was a question of primary importance
to "the work," and Paul was right. Renan also remarks upon the extinction of the
fame of Barnabas consequent upon this separation from his more illustrious
companion. "While Paul kept advancing to the heights of his glory, Barnabas,
separated from the companion who had shed a portion of his own luster upon
him, pursued his solitary course in obscurity." Sailed away.
native country (ch. 4:36), and the scene of the earliest mission (ch.11:19), and of
Paul and Barnabas's first joint evangelistic labors (ch. 13:4). Barnabas would have
many friends there, and could form plans at his leisure for his future action. The
friendly mention of him in I Corinthians 9:6 shows both that he continued his
disinterested labors as an apostle and that the estrangement between him and
Paul had passed away. The paroxysm had yielded to the gentle treatment of charity.
Symptoms More Startling (vs. 37-39)
There is a sense in which human nature and Christian
principle are opposed
to each other. When in conflict they are indeed two rare
antagonists. It is
astonishing at how many angles the former can be touched by
the latter,
and how deeply and incisively this cuts into that.
The great dissension in
the matter of circumcision and the new Gentile converts
filled larger space
under the eye; but how often has it faded away from the
mental gaze of
even the most devout reader when the present dissension has
come
immediately after upon his view, and with unwelcome
semi-fascination
riveted attention! Faithful, we may well say, as the “Spirit of all truth” is His
Book. The sins and failings of apostles are not concealed.
Nor are they
even glossed over, though it was the very moment when men
of devout
sympathies would have given anything to veil them from view
and
withdraw them from any permanent record. The record lies here, and it
must be FOR USE! A certain indefiniteness characterizes it
where it would
have particularly suited our curiosity to have exact detail
and pronounced
verdict. That very incompleteness is sure to shelter
valuable hints. We shall
do well, then, to notice as simply as possible the track of
the narrative, and
keep near it. We are taught:
to compare Scripture with
Scripture. The slight hint of ch. 13:13 lies
for a while like a chance seed
dropped in chance soil. But now it has
appeared above ground, and it
takes shape and color, and buds with
meaning. Ch. 20:35 furnishes us
with another kind of instance of the
value of reading Scripture in
this way, where we glean a beautiful saying
of “the Lord Jesus, how He said, It
is more blessed to give than receive."
not recorded elsewhere, though the apostle
calls on those to whom he
was speaking to “remember” it as a thing they
had heard or read.
Here was a quarrel undoubtedly.
There was, without doubt, Divine reason
for writing certain facts of it on
the page of inspiration. But how frugal the
language is! How utterly absent
the least symptom of satisfaction in the
narrating of it! And there is
not an attempt to dilate or expatiate upon it.
MEASURING OUT PRAISE AND BLAME. If Scripture is thus cautious,
with all the resources,
amounting often as in this case to certainty of
knowledge, which it possesses,
how much more careful should we be to
avoid a course for which our
nature seems often to manifest a strong
predilection! It is our very
disappointment here that blame is not
apportioned between Paul and
Barnabas, nor any final verdict pronounced.
But, on second thoughts, is that
disappointment of worthy sort?
VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF DUTY IN SOME ONE PRACTICAL
MATTER.
Ø It is even pleasant and suggestive to note
that the difference was none of
doctrine. The “unity of the faith,” at all events,
is not wounded in the house
of its friends.
Ø It is even possible, though perhaps
scarcely probable, that this difference
of opinion was
abundantly legitimate, and that it proceeded from as much
excellence of
one kind in Barnabas as of another in Paul. Barnabas may
have leaned to John
in compassion and forgivingness and desire to give him
another trial,
instead of shutting him out from it for one offence. And
strong,
trenchant Paul may have been so stricken with the “memory” of the
words of “the
Lord Jesus” about the man who “put his hand to the plough,
and
looked back,” and like
words, that he could not feel it was a case for
human kindness
as against Divine fidelity, and could not entertain two
opinions upon
it. Paul also may have rightly estimated the incalculable
disgrace and reproach
it would bring upon the work of Christ if at some
more
unfortunately critical point than before Mark should fail. It must be
admitted that
both of these good men may have been justified in thinking
that the matter
was not a little matter and not a matter for yielding, but for
allowing
conscience “to have her perfect work.” (James
1:4)
DIFFERING TO GOVERN TEMPER AND RESTRAIN ALL
BITTERNESS. However
possibly motives may have been unimpeachable
on this occasion, and
justifiable room have existed for two opinions, yet it
is impossible to escape the
conviction that difference degenerated into
dispute. The passage-at-arms was
not altogether that of brethren, but it
was “so sharp” that the
sacred phraseology uses an equivalent not less
forcible than the word “exasperation.”
RATHER THAN FIGHT AND
BOTH STOP WORK. The separation of
this place may be regarded as
the typical instance of the New Testament,
as the separation of Abram and
with consequences not altogether
dissimilar. For from this point the star of
Paul is more and yet more in the
ascendant, as it was with Abram, but of
Barnabas henceforth the sacred record
fails to tell.
GOODNESS AND THE PITY THAT STILL USE SINFUL,
IMPERFECT MEN, AND
OUT OF ALL THE TANGLE OF HUMAN
STRIFE BRING TO PASS DIVINE PURPOSES AND THE
SALVATION OF MEN. For when all else is said, and our whole brief
narrative in these few verses is
surveyed, we most gratefully gather this
residuum of good and of comfort.
Ø The purpose that visited Paul’s heart and
his sharing of it with Barnabas
— a purpose
that rose from a heart’s deep and high love, and that was
nothing daunted
by the prospect of danger and suffering.
Ø The outspoken and honest objection taken
by Paul to the company of
Mark. That this
objection, with its blunt honesty, finds room given to it on
the page may be
taken as some indication that the right lay with Paul.
Nothing is
breathed to detract from the propriety of his firm veto of Mark
as a companion.
Ø The prayers of the brethren who send Paul
forth, and their
“recommending
him to the grace of God.” These three things are welcome
reliefs in
the midst of a scene not attractive in its main aspects. Would that
as much
redeeming impression could be found in other cases of “sharp
contention” among Christian brethren and
fellow-laborers in the same
vineyard!
Contentions and Separations (vs. 37-39)
It is sometimes a weakness of dealing with Scripture
characters that
“inspiration” is not distinguished from “perfection.” The
place of human
infirmity in divinely endowed men is not sufficiently
recognized. And yet,
for the correction of this very tendency, the frailty of
good men is always
indicated in the Scripture histories. Of only one man
— the Man Christ
Jesus — can it
be said, “In Him was no sin.” So when it is manifest that
good men have fallen into error and sin, unnatural ways of
explaining the
fact are often resorted to, and men are afraid to recognize
that these great
men of Scripture were really “men of like passions with us”
(James 5:17),
and so, from our own experiences, we can best apprehend
their failings. A point
needing much careful thought is the relation of the Divine regeneration to the
natural disposition and character. It is a renewal of the man if it renews his
will; but it has to be
followed up by a continuous
Divine work which
renews the mind, character, temper, habits, and relations; and we must not
be surprised if, at any particular point of that work,
there remain frailties
and infirmities. Evidently no idea of absolute perfection
of character and
disposition can be entertained concerning either Barnabas
— “a man full of
faith, and of the Holy Ghost” — or of Paul, who had been called to the
apostleship. A
close survey of the relations between these two missionaries
reveals a gradual drifting apart, a kind of widening
distance between them,
which probably neither of them consciously recognized or in
any way
encouraged. When they started out, Barnabas, as the elder
man and the
elder Christian, took the leading place; but circumstances
brought Paul to
the front. There was force of character, power on others,
natural
leadership, which men soon recognized, in spite of his
somewhat
insignificant appearance; and as he gradually subsided into
the second
place, Barnabas could very naturally cherish the idea that
Paul had better
go alone, or with companions of his own choosing. Actual
grounds of
separation usually follow on a period of secretly divided
feeling, and the
difficulty that arose over John Mark need not have been so
serious if there
had been no previous unconscious drifting asunder.
Difficulties and
dissensions occur only too often in family and Church life,
but they seldom
are mere sudden storms which cannot be accounted for; they
follow on a
condition of atmosphere which has necessitated them sooner
or later.
Olshansen says, on this contention between Barnabas and Paul, “Paul
appears, although indeed this cannot be imagined, to have
permanently
violated the principle of love, for on account of a single
fault he entirely
threw off Mark; and of Barnabas it might be feared that
love for his
relative, more than a conviction of his fitness, was the
motive for taking
him as a companion on his missionary journey. But on closer consideration
these surmises are seen to be perfectly groundless.” These considerations
prepare the way for a closer examination of the “contention”
and the
consequent separation of these two good friends and
fellow-laborers.
his probable youthfulness; his
mother’s dependence on him; his particular
office as minister or attendant
on the two missionaries. The difficulties and
dangers of traveling in those
times required that several should go
together; and as men of good
family and associations, both Barnabas and
Paul would be accustomed to, and
dependent on, the daily offices of
servants or attendants. Ministry
to such a person as Paul we would
count honorable indeed.
imagined. Each man took his own
point of view and pressed it too hard.
Each had good show of reason,
but each manifested self-will in presenting
it. The arguments were of little
avail towards producing satisfactory
results, because the divergence
was rather one of sentiment and feeling
than of deliberate judgment. Arguments seldom help the settlement of
disputes that really arise
from diversity
of feeling. Christian principle and
Christian charity and
brotherliness can do more in such cases than the most
convincing arguments.
far as they affected:
Ø
Paul,
Ø
Barnabas,
Ø
Mark,
Ø
Silas.
It may be shown that Paul’s
severity with Mark did not influence his
personal affection for him; and
that if, as a matter of judgment, he declined
his service, he did not take up
a permanent prejudice against him. In
conclusion, lessons may be
learned from this incident concerning:
Ø
the insidious growth
of feelings that tend to separate “very friends;”
Ø
the hopelessness of
settling the disputes which arise between men by
mere argument;
Ø
the hope that lies in
the exercise of mutual forbearance, kindly yielding
of our own, anxiety to find
common ground, and the true Christian
brotherliness, to preserve us
from separating contentions, and to heal
them when they arise.
40 “And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being
recommended by the brethren
unto the grace of God.” But for and, Authorized Version; went forth for departed,
Authorized Version; commended for recommended, Authorized Version; to for unto,
Authorized Version; the Lord for
God, Authorized Version and Textus Receptus.
Chose Silas. If v. 34 of the Textus Receptus is a true reading, it accounts for the
presence of Silas at
Silas, attracted by the holy zeal of Paul and by desire to work among the Gentiles,
had come back to
success of his mission with Judas to the Churches at
41 “And he went through
did not cover a very long time, because the special mention
of "the Churches of
addressed to them by the apostles and elders of the
as we see from ch. 16:4 was the case. Confirming; as ch. 14:22; here v. 32; 18:22
(Textus Receptus). In the passive voice ἐπιστηρίζομαι – epistaerizomai - means to
"lean upon," as in II Samuel 1:6, Septuagint, and in classical Greek. Renan thus
indicates their probable route: "They traveled by land northwards across the plain
of
the northern branch of the
Cilicia, went perhaps through
'Cilician Gates,' one of the most terrible passes in the world, and thus reached Lycaonia, going as far as Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium" ('St. Paul,' p. 123).
The Paroxysm (vs. 36-41)
The proposal of two friends whose fast friendship was of many
years’
standing; of two brethren loving and beloved; of two
apostles of Jesus
Christ, who had long labored together to win souls to
Christ and to
advance the
signal triumphs over the powers of darkness, who had
suffered together,
who had undergone the most appalling dangers together, who
had stuck by
one another under every circumstance of trial and
difficulty; — the
proposal, I say, of two such men to start together on a new
errand of love,
might have seemed to be the very last occasion likely to
produce
contention and strife. Alas! for the infirmity of our poor
fallen nature, that
any evil should arise from purposes so good and holy. The
faithful, truthful
record of the sacred history in our text suggests much caution and many
useful lessons for Christian practice.
1. There was perfect
agreement between the two apostles as to the end in
view — the revisiting the Churches they had planted for the
purpose of
confirming them in the faith of Jesus Christ. As far as we
know, they were
both of one mind, both equally desirous of advancing the
both equally ready to spend and be spent for the Name of
the Lord Jesus
and for the spread of His gospel in the world. Thus far we
may well believe
that their communications on the subject of the new mission
were carried
on in perfect harmony and love, because there was in each a
single eye and
an unmixed motive, viz. the
glory of Christ.
2. The difference arose
when Barnabas proposed that they should take
John Mark as their companion. Here we seem to detect the
entrance in of
human motives. His partiality for his cousin; possibly the
feeling that his
own softer character needed the support of a steady ally to
enable him to
hold his own against the strength of Paul’s will; possibly
too some leaning
towards the Jewish party in the Church, or at least an
unwillingness to
offend them, — made him blind to the inconvenience of
taking a halfhearted
companion with them.
He was consulting with flesh and blood, and
not with the Spirit of God, when he made the suggestion. We
can imagine
that Paul objected at first with mildness, and pointed out
the evils that
might arise. He would dwell upon the vital interests of the
mission, the
dangers and difficulties of the work, the insufficient
guarantee that John
Mark’s constancy would be equal to the task. It is, of
course, possible,
though it does not appear, that Paul may have judged Mark
somewhat
severely, or may have urged his objections without all the
tenderness that
was due to the feelings of Barnabas. But there is not the
slightest evidence
that this was so. Probably at first he hoped to persuade
Barnabas to give up
his project. Probably Barnabas hoped so to state his wish
to reinstate John
Mark that Paul might give way. But when these hopes broke
down on
either side, then gradually, no doubt, the discussion
assumed a growing
tone of asperity, till at length the paroxysm came on.
Barnabas cut the
discussion short by turning upon his heel, and separating
himself from his
old companion and friend, and going forth in self-will with
his cousin to
for Paul to do but to choose another missionary companion, and
pursue his
project in sadness. We
cannot doubt that the peace and joy of both apostles
was clouded by this unfortunate episode. But Paul had probably the
testimony of his conscience that he had acted from the
purest motives, and,
from the friendly mention of Barnabas alluded to in the
note to v. 39, we
may hope that, when the paroxysm had subsided, the old
relations between
the two brethren were restored to their former footing of
cordiality and
love. But the great practical lesson we learn is the
importance of keeping
our motives of action pure and simple. We must try and not
allow our
judgment to be clouded by partialities and personal
influences of any kind.
We must endeavor never to subordinate the great interests of
the Church
and of the gospel to any private feelings or wishes, however innocent in
themselves. And even right feelings and reasonable wishes
must be so kept
under control as never to overflow the banks of reason and
of charity, and
never to injure the great cause of the gospel of
Christ, to which
they ought
always to be made subservient. Generally, the narrative of this paroxysm
enforces the wise words of James, “Let every man be swift to hear,
slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the
righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20).
Apostles at Fault (vs. 36-41)
When a grave and critical juncture had been safely passed
without damage
done to any, there arose a quarrel about an unimportant and
insignificant
matter, which had regrettable, not to say deplorable,
results. The heart of
the earnest and affectionate Paul yearned to know how their
converts fared
in “every city where they had preached the Word
of the Lord” (v. 36).
Barnabas immediately acquiesced in Paul’s proposal to visit
them;
everything promised another useful mission journey, in
which the calmer
and more genial qualities of the one man would supplement
the intenser
and more vehement characteristics of the other. But there
arose a question
as to companionship, which wrecked their agreement to work
in one
another’s company, and which separated the two friends for
life. Barnabas
wished to take Mark, and would not abandon his desire; Paul
would not
consent to take him: “and the contention was so sharp... that
they departed
asunder” (v. 39).
We learn from this incident:
LONGER AND MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAN WE CAN
POSSIBLY FORESEE.
Could Mark have foreseen that his desertion of
the cause in Pamphylia
would have led to the lifelong separation of his
uncle from Paul, he would
probably have remained with them, and
“fulfilled the
work,” even as they did. But he did not reckon on after
consequences. It is well for us
to consider that our acts of minor wrongdoing,
of moral weakness, of spiritual
shortcoming, may do an amount of
mischief from the commission of
which we should shrink with dismay if we
could only look it in the face.
REGRETTABLE FAULT WAS COMMITTED. Their intention to work
together in the cause of Christ
need not and should not have been broken
off by their disagreement. They
ought either to have compromised the
matter by mutual concession, or
one of the two should have yielded to the
other. Paul owed too much to
Barnabas to be justified in pushing his own
will to the point of separation.
Barnabas owed too much to Paul to make it
right for him to insist so pertinaciously on his particular desire. One should
have yielded if the other would
not. It was an unedifying, unseemly,
unchristian thing for two
apostles to throw up a plan on which they had
sought Divine direction, and
which must have received the sanction of the
Church, because they could not agree on a matter of detail. They must both
have lived to regret it. Men in
prominent positions, and those who are
engaged in great matters, are
bound to be above such unseemliness of
behavior. Either:
Ø
the ingenuity of
love should devise a middle way, or
Ø
the sacrificial
spirit of love should yield the point altogether.
SHADOW OF HIS OWN PARTICULAR EXCELLENCY. Probably
both of the apostles were
blameworthy. But so far as Paul was to be
condemned, his failure was the
shadow of his intensity. Such was the
entirety of his devotedness,
such the intensity of his zeal, such the
strenuousness of his soul, that
he could not brook anything which looked
like half-heartedness. And so
far as Barnabas was to blame, his fault was
the shadow of his
kind-heartedness, his willingness to give another chance
to a young man, his reluctance
to exclude from noble service a man who
had made one mistake. Each was
animated by a commendable spirit,
though each may have gone too
far in his own course. Often when we
unsparingly condemn, it would be well to remind ourselves and others
that the faults
of good men are usually but the shadow of their virtues.
AND NOT BY THEIR OCCASIONAL DISPOSITIONS: so also should
we. These two men were not the
less servants of God, ambassadors of
Jesus Christ, because they were
betrayed into temporary ill humor. God
appraised them by their
essential, abiding spirit of love and devotion; He
forgave their passing ebullition.
In the same way we must take care to
estimate men, not by an
occasional outburst which is not really
characteristic and is no true
criterion, but by the “spirit of their
mind “ —
that which really shapes and
colors their life and character.
MEN, A CHRISTIAN ENDING.
Paul afterwards wrote kindly of
Barnabas, and actually sent for
Mark, declaring that he was “profitable for
[the] ministry” (II Timothy
4:11). The sun should not go down upon
our wrath. If any man has a
quarrel against any, he is to “forbear and to
forgive” (Colossians 3:13).
The Beginning of the Second Missionary
Journey (vs. 36-41)
The dissension of Paul and Barnabas, painful in itself, may
yield useful matter of
reflection.
Ø
The fact of it.
Paul judged severely of Mark on moral
grounds. His
desertion of him and Barnabas (ch. 13:13) on a former occasion was
to his mind a strong proof of
inconstancy. But Mark had fallen away
from them, not from Christ. And
Barnabas would lean to the side of
leniency and clemency towards
the young disciple. The contention
became sharp. Both thought
themselves to be contending for Christ;
both were unconsciously
contending for self. Both were in the right,
each from his own point of view
aiming at the good of the young man
and the furtherance of the
kingdom.
Ø The
consolation of it.
o
With
reference to the person concerned. Chrysostom says
that the strife
was of great
service to Mark; for the sternness of Paul brought a change
in his mind,
while the kindness of Barnabas suffered him not to feel
abandoned.
o
With
reference to us. We may be encouraged by the thought that these
holy men were
of like passions with ourselves (James 5:17), bone of
our bone and
flesh of our flesh. Divine love triumphs over and is
made perfect in
human weakness. Apart from that, man’s very virtues
become faults;
the mildness of Barnabas degenerates into softness,
the severity of
Paul into harshness. Divine love converts
faults into
blessings. Mark
is humiliated, and thereby raised in Christian manhood.
The separation
of the apostles divides the stream of saving grace into
two streams, and so the more widely spreads it in
the world.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.