Studies in the Acts of the Apostles

[Resource Manager]

The imitation of Christ

 

It is impressive at this point to review this part of the story of Paul and to observe certain remarkable features of his experience at Lystra:

 

He preaches the gospel,

and is greatly applauded by the multitude,

especially as a result of a remarkable work of healing.

Because of this he is acclaimed as a divine messenger.

Bitter Jewish opposition

brings about his rejection.

He is punished as a blasphemer, and left for dead outside the city.

When the disciples come to him, he rises up (the Greek word for "resurrec­tion")

and comes into the city again.

Then he goes away to a remote place,

but later on he returns,

confirming the souls of the disciples,

and talking about entering the kingdom of God.

 

Those who have no doubts about the divine character of the Bible records will not be surprised at features of this kind. Those who do will have some difficulty in shrugging off these resemblances to the experience of Christ as either coincidence or imagination.

 

It may be taken as fairly certain that Luke framed this part of his record in such a way as to bring out this parallel for the benefit of his readers, for apparently the resemblances were already familiar to the Galatians at the time. In his epistle to them, written within a year of concluding the journey, Paul refers to this providential

type as being readily recognizable by his readers:

 

"O foolish Galatians, who hath be­witched you ... before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" (Gal. 3:1).

 

"From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord "Jesus" (6:17).

 

"Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first" (4:13) – an allusion probably to his experience at Lystra sending him on, battered and bruised, to Derbe? or else to the way in which, persecuted at Antioch (13:50), he brought the Good News to Iconium and Lystra?

 

In each ecclesia a formal pattern of meetings and communal procedure was appointed, and elders were "ordained." The word means "to appoint by vote, literally, by show of hands." Other exam­ples in Acts (1:23–26; 6:6; 13:1–3) strengthen the impression that men were selected for office by a vote of the assembly and these were then confirmed in office (but not invariably; 1 Tim. 5:22) by the apostles.

[Resource Manager]

Mission accomplished

 

With deep concern for the well–being of these new converts, the apostles ex­pressed their distress at having to leave them, by fasting and by special prayers on their behalf. Apparently, also, there was further preaching throughout Pisidia. What was in those days the chief city of Pisidia is today called by the name of Paul, and it has the ruin of a very ancient church! Perga also, the claims of which had been ignored on the way out, was also given its opportunity to hear the Word of Christ, and so also (according to Codex Beza) the sea–port Attalia. Presumably this last burst of preaching took place whilst the apostles were waiting for a passage back to Antioch.

On their arrival there was a special assembly of the ecclesia to hear all the exciting news about their journey and its God–blessed success – "they rehearsed all that God had done with them," a splendid phrase which humbly put the emphasis on God being at work rather than on what they had achieved. Almost from beginning to end their story told how, in one place after another, God had "opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles" – another splendid phrase cog­nate with that about Peter's keys, which passed into the vocabulary of the early church (1 Cor.16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3).The context of Rev.3:8–"Behold, I have set before thee an open door" –suggests the idea of a door through which Gentile seekers for truth may be brought into the household of God.

 

On setting out Paul and Barnabas had been "commended unto the grace of God" (13:2), that is, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and under that guidance and protection the commission had been worthily and faithfully fulfilled.

 

There was evidently much work still to be done here in Antioch; for the two preachers who might have been tempted to go up to Jerusalem forthwith to tell their exciting news to the apostles, instead settled down in Antioch for an appreciable time, evidently picking up the threads of their earlier activity there – or was it that they were in hopes of being able to go off to Galatia again before long?

 

 

Notes: 14:19–28

19. For a like change of attitude by the crowd, see Lk. 19:38; 23:21; and also Acts 28:6.

20. The disciples, but apparently not Barnabas. Evidently the brethren insisted that he stay indoors lest he too be overtaken by a further display of savagery.

Rose up. It is this verb which has begotten the more familiar anastasis, resurrection.

22. Much tribulation. Other instances in Acts: 9:16; 3:18; 17:3; 26:23. But the classic passage is, of course, 2 Cor. 11:23ff.

Enter the kingdom. There is here a plain implication that the kingdom is future and not present, and also that tribulation is the safest path to it.

23. Ordained. There is some evidence in Josephus that this word for "show of hands" was also given a more general meaning: "appointed."

In every church. So also Tit. 1:5. 27. The door of faith, not of works or circumcision.

[Resource Manager]

57. Judaist Controversy (Gal. 2:1–17)

 

In the few months following the apostles' return from their Galatian mission there blew up the most serious crisis to be encountered by the early church. The earlier details regarding this are pre­served only in the Epistle which Paul felt impelled to write to the Galatian brethren. Then, in Acts 15, Luke provides the story of the formal council at Jerusalem and the decisions it arrived at.

 

The controversy which led to these events has itself occasioned long–lasting controversy amongst the commentators as to the precise order of events. No one questions the correctness of the details in the two sources, but how to dovetail them together so as to resolve all difficulties is another matter. Also, Paul's phraseology in several places in Galatians 2 compli­cates the issue with several lesser prob­lems, so that the whole subject is beset with uncertainty regarding chronology and interpretation.

 

A rough chronology

 

Paul speaks of a visit to Jerusalem along with Barnabas and Titus "after a space of fourteen years." Not a few authorities, including the prestigious Sir William Ramsay, equate this with the occasion (11:30; 12:25) when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch with help for the poor brethren. This view, although not the only possibility, will be followed here.

 

The chronological sequence in the period under consideration was probably as set out here:

 

The Crucifixion........................................ A.D. 29 or 30

The conversion of Saul .......................... A.D. 33

In Arabia (40 days?)

Damascus (3 years; Gal. 1:18)

Paul's first (short) visit to Jerusalem

(Gal. 1:18; Acts 9:26–30) ....................... A.D. 36

Work in Tarsus and in Antioch (11:25; Gal. 1:21)

The second visit to Jerusalem (11:30; Gal. 2:1–10) A.D. 46

The first mission – Cyprus and Galatia .... A.D. 47–48

Work in Antioch (14:28)

Judaist contention at Antioch

(Gal. 2:12–14; Acts 15:1,2a)

The Epistle to the Galatians ..................... A.D. 49

Paul's third visit to Jerusalem (15:2–4)

The Council at Jerusalem.

The second mission – Galatia, Macedonia,

Achaia.................................................... A.D. 50–52

 

Paul says (Gal. 2:2) that he went up to Jerusalem "by revelation." This, presum­ably, is a reference to the prophecy made by Agabus (11:28) of the impending famine in Judaea. Barnabas was in charge of this relief project. The two friends were accompanied also by Titus who had already been picked out as a competent helper. Titus was not a Jew, and yet (as Paul was later at pains to point out to the Galatians) he was received by the brethren at Jerusalem without any insistence on circumcision.

 

Paul used the opportunity presented by that visit to discuss with the leaders of the ecclesia the format of his preaching amongst the Gentiles in Syria and Cilicia. He did this privately, not before the whole assembly, for to make this a matter for general discussion would have invited an explosion from the strong Judaist party in the church there. But he did take care to have the discussions not only with the apostles available for consultation but also with the very influential Judaist leaders – "them of reputation" – who were highly regarded there because of the great stress they put on the import­ance of continuing to observe the Law of Moses. He wanted to satisfy their scru­ples regarding Gentile conversions "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain," that is, lest their open opposition should vitiate this work by maligning it as inadequate or perverted. He did not need their sanction, but he did not want the hindrance of their disapproval.

[Resource Manager]

The Jewish plot

 

Alas, some of the prominent Judaists were not genuine believers at all. Paul became aware of the fact that a deliberate attempt was being made by the Pharisee enemies of the Faith to infiltrate into the ranks of the brethren with the set intention of doing as much damage as possible to the movement by their surreptitious activi­ties. The full force of Paul's blunt descrip­tion has mostly gone unappreciated, but indeed his phraseology is so trenchant and emphatic as to allow of no other meaning: "False brethren unawares (RV: privily) brought in, who came in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage (the bondage of the Law, as the context plainly shows)" (2:4). In other words the inten­tion was to convert the Christians back to Judaism by stealth through the machina­tions of clever unscrupulous men wreck­ing the movement from within. (See Appendix3; "The Jewish Plot").

 

Becoming aware of the activities of these schemers, Paul stood up to them boldly, for he saw in more clear–sighted fashion that any others just how great was the threat posed by their intrigue. Even though they were men of considerable prestige, "we gave place to them by subjection no, not for an hour ... but of these who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:), for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me."

 

It is difficult to believe that Paul would use such language with reference to any of the apostles. He must have been writing about these self–confident Judaists who later even went so far as to arrogate to themselves the qualifications of apostleship (2 Cor. 11:13,22). For all their cleverness and academic standing they were not able to insist on the inclusion in Paul's preaching of anything which he did not already teach: "they added nothing to me."

 

There was also the impressive fact (2:7) that Paul had received personal revelations from the Lord Jesus regarding his special task as an apostle to the Gentiles, a commission which they could hardly question without openly calling Paul a liar. They may have insinuated this innuendo behind his back, but it was more than they dare attempt to his face.

 

In any case did not the facts validate Paul's apostolic status and soundness? Already it was becoming evident that Paul's work was being blessed just as much as Peter's was (v.8)

 

Support from the leaders

 

Certainly there had been no doubts expressed by the leaders about the soundness of Paul's outlook. James, the Lord's brother, was a man in very high esteem among the Law–observant believ­ers in the Jerusalem ecclesia because of his own continuing dedication to "the customs and ordinances," and he found nothing amiss with Paul's approach to the Gentiles. And Peter and John who were pillars, the Jachin and Boaz of the new temple of the Lord, men unmatched in their authority, concurred in approving Paul's outreach to the Gentiles. Before all the rest these leaders gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, approving beforehand the forward–look­ing policy which by the leading of the Holy Spirit ("the grace that was given unto me") these pioneers were already con­sidering.

 

At the same time the Jerusalem leaders had used the opportunity to impress on the two eager evangelists that if in future preaching projects prosperous Gentile converts were encouraged to send gener­ous help to their poor Jewish brethren in Judaea, this would go a long way towards removing existing suspicions and pre­judices. Not that Paul needed any urging in this matter, for from the very first, having a conscience still very sensitive regarding the fierce persecuting and ravaging of the early church which he had been personally responsible for, he had been eager by both personal example and exhortation to do all in his power to make good the wreck and ruin he had spread abroad in those earlier days. The "benevolent fund" was always a promin­ent feature in Paul's ecclesial activities; "which very thing I was also zealous to do" (v.10RV).

[Resource Manager]

Antioch crisis

 

Later, when Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, they were visited there by Peter, who without any scruple fell in with the easy way of life which had grown up in that ecclesia, believing Jews and Gentiles readily extending both social and religious fellowship to one another, unfettered by Jewish laws and customs which were still de rigueur in Jerusalem. Here, just as when he visited the home of Cornelius, Peter "did eat with the Gen­tiles" (v. 12).

 

But then there came to Antioch a group of the Jewish extremists from Jerusalem. These men, whom (here and in several other epistles) Paul carefully refrains from naming, claimed to have come with specific authority from James. Perhaps they had persuaded James that a closer liaison was desirable between the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and those in out­lying ecclesias. Encouraged in this seemingly well–intentioned activity, they now went far beyond their commission (see 15:24), using this as a cloak for the sinister policy of pressing for a return to full Judaistic practice. It is not for nothing that twice in one verse (v.13 Gk.) Paul uses the word "hypocrisy."

 

Subversion in Galatia

 

Apparently at the same time others of the same kidney went further afield, visiting the newly–founded Gentile eccle­sias in Galatia. Here the new babes in Christ, scarcely out of swaddling bands, were no match for these astute unprinci­pled dissemblers. Of course they must be listened to. Did they not come from the mother–ecclesia and the home of the Law of Moses? – men who had actually known the Lord Jesus in person, so were they not as good as apostles? And if James, the Lord's brother, had committed this work into their hands, of course their emphatic requirement of circumcision for all believ­ers and the assiduous following of an undiluted Judaism must be right.

 

So these somewhat bewildered Gala­tian converts settled down to learn how to be good Jews in order that they might acquire good standing as members of the New Israel. To be sure, there were a handful with firmer confidence in the earlier teaching they had had from Paul and Barnabas: "By him (Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (13:39). These suspected that there was something wrong somewhere, and very soon a letter was on its way to Paul and Barnabas in Antioch. Was Timothy the bearer of it, and able to reinforce its details with a vivid description of Judaistic pressure brought to bear on himself?

 

Judaist argument

 

Meantime, the wily Judaists in Antioch were having a field–day. There, instead of a ponderous assertion of authority, they probably adopted more foxy methods, perhaps on these lines: In your ecclesia here we find Jewish and Gentile brethren sharing the holy meal (the Agape) before the Breaking of Bread! When this becom­es generally known that there is indiscri­minate fellowship of this kind in the ecclesias, there will be set up in the minds of all Jewry everywhere such a prejudice against the Christian gospel that we shall thereafter never convert a single Jew; with good intentions, doubtless, we shall be shutting out the chosen people from salvation in Christ. Then, for a while at least, why not respect this outlook universal in Jewry, and keep separate from our Gentile brethren? – that is, unless they choose to accept circumcision and keep the food laws, and then indeed we can really enjoy holy fellowship together at the Lord's table.

 

 

An argument as plausible as this would be difficult to resist, especially when put by Jewish brethren to Jewish brethren. How many would see it for what it really was? – what the sordid modern world calls blackmail! Either you do what we say, or we withdraw fellowship! The same unscrupulous methods have been piously applied not infrequently in this twentieth century.

[Resource Manager]

Peter overborne

 

The effect on Peter was all that these men desired. That remarkable apostle had more than once shown a timid reaction after making a brave venture – as when he walked on the water, and in his great Messianic confession and its after­math, and in his bold defence of an arrested Jesus followed by equally stre­nuous denials. And now, once again, after consistently applying what God had taught him through Cornelius, he "with­drew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision," The form of the Greek verbs suggests that this was not a quick sudden decision, but a gradually implemented policy.

 

Naturally enough, the other Jewish brethren in Antioch followed suit. Who were they to set themselves against the example of the chief of the apostles? In any case many of them would not be loth to join in a public expression of zeal for the Law. Biggest surprise of all – Barnabas also went back on what that much–blessed missionary journey in Galatia had already expressed. He too, gentle soul that he was, gave way before the con­fident dogmatism of these aggressive Pharisee brethren from Jerusalem.

 

It was a time of crisis which meant days of misery for Paul, for he only was clear–sighted enough to perceive that this sinister Judaistic campaign was intended to lead the Christian ecclesias back to the fold of Moses. Worse than that, it was wrong in principle, for by saddling the Jewish brethren with traditional laws and customs it either shut out the Gentile believers completely or else set a great stumblingblock before those who had happily sought, and (as they thought) found, salvation through faith in Christ. How could Paul and others go into all the world and preach this gospel to every creature?

 

Rebuke

 

So, with little loss of time, Paul chose his moment and courageously expost­ulated with Peter before all the assembly there at Antioch. If this had happened at Jerusalem he would have stood, humanly speaking, no chance at all of success. But here at Antioch was a considerable body of Gentile believers unwilling to be blink­ered by Judaistic spectacles, and they gave moral support. Even so, it was touch and go.

 

Paul's argument was bluntly put: You, Peter, were born and bred a Jew. Yet since the days of your vision at Joppa, and certainly here at Antioch, you have lived with Gentile brethren, following their Gentile way of life. Yet now, all at once, you go back on your fully expressed conviction that keeping the Law of Moses, however desirable it may be in the eyes of a Jew, is not necessary for others. Justification by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law, is a basic principle with us, is it not? Then why by your own influential example do you apply to our Gentile brethren the moral suasion, as good as compulsion, that they turn Jewish in order to be truly Christian?

 

Paul, learning also that away in Galatia the nefarious teaching of these Judaists was doing even worse damage than it was now achieving in Antioch, found time to dash off a letter of strong warning, expostulation, argument and reproach –his powerful Epistle to the Galatians.

 

In it he firmly asserted his own apostolic authority (ch.1; evidently there had been much personal denigration of him by the visiting Judaists). By sustained and powerful argument based on God's prom­ises to Abraham (ch.3) and on types in Genesis and Exodus specially suited to Judaist reasoning (4:21–31) he drew his readers back to justification by faith. He warned bluntly against the unprincipled methods of his opponents (2:4ff; 4:17; 5:12,15; 6:1–13). And he appealed in moving terms for a return to the high tone of their former life in Christ (4:10–16–5:7–16).

 

And the letter did its work. The situation was saved.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: Gal. 2:1–17

1. Took Titus; s.w. 12:25; 15:37,38. In a similar capacity?

2. Which I preach. The present tense implies: I still preach it; the message has not been modified.

Them. .. of reputation. Verse 6 and 6:3 suggest that reference is not to apostles but to prestigious brethren out of the Pharisee party.

Run. Emphatically not a reference to the Greek games (as so many of the commentators), but Hebrew idiom for a prophet urgent to communicate the Word of God: Jer. 23:21; Ez. 1:18,20; 1 Kgs. 18:46; Ps. 147:15; 2 Chr. 16:9; Hab. 2:2; Am. 8:12; Zech. 4:10; Is. 55:5; Dan. 12:4; 2 Th. 3:1 RV; Rev. 5:6; Phil. 2:16; Jude 11. 3–5 An almost impossible sentence in Greek. "This shipwreck of grammar" (Lightfoot).

3. Titus, whom you Galatians know. See the separate study about this fine disciple (ch. 59).

Compelled to be circumcised. Emphasis on 'compelled.' Titus almost certainly had been circumcised before or during the Galatian journey, on the principle behind 16:3. Evidently (see Gal. 5:11) this was given a twisted interpretation by the Judaist opponents in Galatia.

Greek means Gentile, as in 3:28, Mk. 7:26.

4. Perhaps the difficulties of this passage (in Gk.) are alleviated by assuming an ellipsis:' 'but this problem arose because of..."

False brethren. Allusions to these men and this movement come in many N.T. passages: 1:7; 4:17; 5:12; 6:12;13; 2 Th. 2:2; 3:2; 2 Cor. 11:3,4, 12–15, 18–23; 10:2, 3, 10, 12, 17, 18; 12:7,10; 2 11; 3:1; Eph. 4:14,25; 5:11,12; Phil. 1:15,16; 3:2,18; Col. 4:11; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:3–7; 4:1–3; Rev. 2:4, 6, 9; 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:1,10; 3:15–17; Acts 20:29,30;Tit. 1:10; 1 Jn. 2:26.

Brought in; s.w. 2 Pet. 2:1. Classically, the word describes the introduction of foreign enemies into a city by a hostile group outside.

To spy out; s.w. 2 Sam. 10:3; 15:10LXX; Heb. 11 31.

Bring us into bondage. In Gk. a very strong word, and in a form implying confidence.

5. Subjection. A hint of the prestige of these men; note v.6; 2 Cor. 11:13,14,22.

6. God accepteth no man's person. Paul quotes the Law against these Law enthusiasts: Dt. 10:17, and context! Added nothing to me; i.e. did not excel me – in qualifications? in argument?

7. Committed. The Gk. perfect tense implies a permanent trust. No man takes it from me!

9. James. A telling mention, for his faultless keeping of the Law was known to everyone.

Seemed. No irony here. The N.T. meaning is stronger than this. The implication here is: These Judaizers had confidence in them, but not in me.

That we should go to the Gentiles. And how right, too, that two renegades from the Sanhedrin should concentrate on a Gentile ministry. What hope that they would make much impression on Jewish prejudice?

The right hand of fellowship, as apostles. Equal status!

12. Them.. .of the circumcision. The preposition implies:

1. converts from Pharisee extremists; Acts 15:5; or (and more likely)
   
2. those who stood for emphasis on circumcision; cp. "of faith ... of works" (Gk.) in Romans.

Fearing them. Cp. an earlier occasion (Mt. 15:12) when Peter feared them of the circumcision. In their determination to clear Peter from blame, the early fathers' coined some weird explanations; e.g. this Cephas was not the apostle Peter; e.g. it was a put–up job between the two apostles to bring the Judaisers to confusion; e.g. there was a lifelong antagonism between Peter and Paul. Pathetic!

Them.. of the circumcision. Not = born Jews; but = those Jews who stood for circumcision as a necessary part of acceptable religion.

14. Walked (not) uprightly. The exact equivalent of this phrase comes in Ez. 1:7.

15. Sinners of the Gentiles. A Judaist phrase, full of contempt.

[Resource Manager]

58. Growing Controversy (15:1–5)

 

Luke's version of Paul's head–on collision with Judaists in Antioch is very brief. For him the ensuing council at Jerusalem is more important, so the Antioch prelimi­naries get only brief mention.

 

"Certain men (Codex Beza: of them which believed of the sect of the Phar­isees) ... came down from Judaea" to Antioch. In harmony with Paul's withering exposure of their false motives (Gal. 2:4), they are not dignified with the normal description as "brethren." These pursued a persistent campaign of teaching (Gk. imperfect) the Gentile converts there: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

 

At first (Gal. 2:12) they had been content to insist on separation from the Gentile believers (a divided fellowship, the One Body in two halves!), except there be acceptance of circumcision. But now intensified discussion brought them right out into the open. Their real intention all along had been to require of the Gentile converts not only the receiving of cir­cumcision but also a full observance of the Law of Moses (Gal. 5:2, 3). Without this, "ye cannot be saved."

 

Barriers going down

 

The widening spread of the gospel net was bound to provoke a crisis of this sort:

 

1. It included proselytes as well as Jews (6:5).
   
2. Stephen challenged the dominance of Mosaic practices (6:14).
   
3. The Samaritans heard the word (8:5).
   
4. A eunuch, excluded from the con­gregation of the Lord, was accepted (8:35).
   
5. Peter was sent to a Roman centu­rion – to his house! (10:20).
   
6. The principle of taking the gospel to Gentiles was officially accepted (11:18).
   
7. Grecian Jews, that is, Jews with a Gentile way of life were also brought into the church (11:20).
   
8. And now the issue, stark and clear: Does it matter whether believers keep the Law of Moses, or not? (15:1). The Jerusalem decision: a temporary compromise (15:28).

 

Pro–circumcision

 

The Biblical case which these Judaists could build up would be impressive. Was there not Isaiah's explicit declaration concerning "Jerusalem, the holy city" that "henceforth there shall not come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean" (52:1)? And that prophet's plainly con­ditional anticipation of the acceptance of Gentiles: "The sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant (the covenant of circumcision! Gen. 17:19–21)" (Is. 56:6).

 

Had not the Lord Jesus said to Barna­bas: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt. 19:17)? The Lord himself had observed the Law of Moses; and he had most emphatically asserted: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt. 5:17,18).

[Resource Manager]

The Judaist faction

 

Already "the Circumcision" was a party label (the twentieth century has its para­llels!). It is instructive to note how this faction developed:

 

1. "A great company of priests obe­dient to the Faith" (6:7).
   
2. "They of the circumcision ... asto­nished ... because that on Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit" (10:46).
   
3. “They that were of the circumcision" in Jerusalem "contended with Pe­ter," not over the acceptance of Cornelius and other Gentiles but because of the Apostle's social and religious fellowship with them (11:2, 3).
   
4. Now, a full–scale controversy about it in Antioch and Jerusalem (15:1,5).
   
5. And later on, lies disseminated in Jerusalem about Paul's attitude to the Law of Moses (21:20, 21).

 

The situation was serious. Why hadn't the heavenly visions and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and the rest settled the whole question? Probably these Pharisee–minded members of the church argued that the special revelation to Peter made that a special case from which it was not possible to generalise concerning other Gentiles.

 

Deep–rooted prejudice

 

In these days it is difficult to appreciate the cast–iron bigotry with which Jewish extremists of that period regarded cir­cumcision. Two quotations from the Tal­mud illustrate:

 

"So great is circumcision (said Rabbi Judah the Holy) that but for it the Holy One, blessed be he, would not have created the world; for it is said (in Jer. 33:25): 'But for My covenant (of circumci­sion) I would not have made day and night, and the ordinance of heaven and earth.'"

 

"Abraham was not called perfect till he was circumcised. It is as great as all the other commandments (i.e. as great as all the rest)."

 

Thanks to Paul's staunch attitude, Barnabas was now once more on an even keel. The two now "had no small dissen­sion and disputation" with the Judaists. In derivation that word for "dissension" means taking up a stand, i.e. sticking one's toes in. Classically it was used to describe a row between democrats and oligarchs in the Greek city states; in the New Testament the uproar on behalf of Diana of the Ephesians (19:40), and the insurrection organized by Barabbas (Lk. 23:19, 25). And "disputation" implies seeking out arguments or the weaknes­ses of an opponent's case; it has a marked legal flavour (6:9; 9:29). There is also a neat implication, supported by the Bezan text, that Paul and Barnabas were not disposed to be apologetic for their un–Judaistic attitude, but on the contrary sought to expose the error of the circumci­sion party. Truth was at stake. Paul's position was that "they (the Gentile converts) should abide even as they had believed" (Codex Beza; cp. 1 Cor. 7:20).

 

Realising that they were making no headway, the Judaists insisted that here was an issue important enough to be resolved by the mother–church at Jeru­salem (so Codex Beza). Of course in Jerusalem they would be playing on their home ground and would doubtless derive no small reinforcement from the sym­pathies of the solidly Jewish ecclesia there.

[Resource Manager]

The journey to Jerusalem

 

The Antioch brethren concurred, and promptly appointed Paul and Barnabas and others unnamed (including Titus?) as their representatives at what was now bound to be a full–scale investigation into the whole vexed question.

 

The Judaists went off quickly to Jeru­salem, doubtless intending to use every minute there in mobilising beforehand as much support as possible. On the other hand Paul and his party decided to take their time over the journey to Jerusalem, calling at as many ecclesias as possible.

 

Leaving Antioch there were open ex­pressions of goodwill from the brethren, a number of them accompanying the dele­gates on the first stage of their journey. There was no question as to where the sympathies of the Antioch ecclesia lay. They parted, doubtless, with heartfelt prayers for a wise and happy outcome to the impending deliberations.

 

Arrival and welcome

 

En route to Jerusalem (a journey which asserted their principles) time was taken to bring the ecclesias up to date regarding the sensational progress which, under God, had been made by Paul and the others in taking the gospel to the Gentiles in Galatia. It was news which those in Phoenicia and Samaria, also Gentiles, received with great joy. There was also a great welcome given to them in Jeru­salem, the Judaists looking on without enthusiasm, and somewhat dismayed, doubtless.

 

The welcome was occasioned by the detailed story by Paul and Barnabas of "all things that God had done with them" – not what they had done for God. It would not escape notice that the Judaists had nothing to tell of what God had done with them!

 

However, those gentlemen were un­quenchable in propagating their gospel of circumcision. So the controversy started again, these ex–Pharisees declaring with unflagging confidence and dogmatism that "it is needful (literally: necessary) to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses" – both!

 

So there was nothing for it but to convene an authoritative conference to settle this vitally important issue once and for all. The church was at the crossroads.

 

 

Notes: 15:1–5

2. Dissension and disputation. It is difficult to see why Paul and the Twelve did not assert their apostolic authority to settle this issue. Were they over–impressed by the high status of these Pharisee debaters? The same word as "dissension" is translated "uproar" (19:40) and "sedition" (Lk. 23:25).

3. Brought on their way. A lovely characteristic of life in the early church. 20:6, 7,17; 21: 4–8,17; 27:3; Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:6. The Greek text underlines a significant contrast between v.3a and v.5a.

Phoenicia, Samaria. This journey through Gentile ecclesias asserts the principle Paul and Barnabas stood for. In the Greek text there is a neat hint of unity amongst these brethren of the uncircumcision by contrast with disunion in Jerusalem.

Great joy. as on a former occasion in Samaria (8:8). Nearly always this word describes the joy of fellowship, the highest joy of all.

4. Received. "Welcomed" is better. Bezan text adds: with great honour.

The church... the apostles and elders; i.e. first a general assembly, and then a committee meeting with the leaders (Gal. 2:2). Omission of Peter's name might suggest that he deemed it best (because of Gal. 2:11–14) to avoid prominence.

[Resource Manager]

59. Titus

 

It is difficult to compile a biography of this splendid helper of Paul's preaching work, because there is so little that is told about him explicitly. So, such conclusions as can be reached mostly have to be regarded as tentative. Yet some effort must be made to do justice to this fine young man who was so whole–hearted in the service of Christ.

 

1. He was very probably the brother of Luke:
    
   
1. 2 Cor.8:18:"We have sent with him (with Titus) the brother, whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches." Here "the brother" is an idiomatic expression for "his brother" (1 Cor. 5:1; 1:1; Mt. 9:10;13:25 his men; Lk. 16:8;Col. 4:9; Jn. 11:3, 8, 12; Acts 7:25 etc.). It seems very probable that his brother is Luke whose gospel, just published, commanded general en­thusiasm. Apart from this it is difficult to assign a meaning to the express­ion. And certainly only a few years later Luke's gospel was well–estab­lished as "Scripture" (1 Tim. 5:18).
   
2. It is surely significant that, although it is known from the epistles that Titus was one of Paul's foremost helpers, there is no mention of him at all in Luke's Acts narrative. Nor does Luke mention himself, except by implication in the famous "we" passages although he was with Paul for a considerable time. Also, 2 Corinthians makes it very evident that on the third missionary journey Titus was exceedingly active, yet there is not a word in Acts about the grievous Corinthian problems with which he was much concerned.

 

[*] Certain other evidence (ch. 110) sug­gests that Luke may have been a Samar­itan. In that case, so also was Titus. It is noteworthy that all Titus's association with Paul was in connection with Gentile ecclesias. Even Jews who were Christ­ians would not take too kindly to having a Samaritan teacher.

[*] Titus was converted to the Faith by Paul (probably at Antioch in Syria). The apostle calls him "my true son" (Tit. 1:4).

[*] When Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29) with a contribu­tion from the Antioch benevolent fund, Titus went with them (Gal. 2:1). At that time there was no insistence on Titus receiving a formal (token) Jewish cir­cumcision in addition to his normal Samaritan circumcision. Acts 8:5–17 and Acts 10 had already dealt with that problem.

[*] There are one or two hints (e.g. 13:13; 14:22) that on the first mission Paul and Barnabas had other helper(s) besides John Mark; and the Book of the Acts of Paul and Thekla mentions Titus in connection with their coming to Iconium. So perhaps the remarkable details about Paul at Antioch and Lystra were passed on to Luke by Titus.

[*] Returning with the apostles, Titus would be present in Antioch at the collision between Peter and Paul (Gal. 2:11–15) which was provoked by the Judaists. And when Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem for the special council, Titus had to be included in the party (Gal. 2:1), because of the Judaist's insistence: "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (15:1). This phraseology is very pointed with reference to such as Titus, for even though circumcised at birth, this Samaritan rite would not be recognized by Jews as being "after the manner of Moses."

[*] It is highly likely that Titus set off with Paul on the second journey but was left to consolidate the work in Galatia (16:1), his place in the team being taken by Timothy (16:1–3); or else he stayed on with Luke in Philippi (16:16 is the end of a "we" passage).

[*] Titus must have been glad to join Paul again in the course of the third journey. Because of problems at Corinth and Paul's inability to leave Ephesus at the time, Titus was twice sent to Corinth. The first time was with Paul's rebuke for their waywardness. It was an onerous duty, for, although older than Timothy (1 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 2:15), he was still a young man. However, his personality was such as enabled him to achieve complete success – to Paul's great relief and delight when they met in Macedonia. Paul promptly wrote 2 Corinthians and sent Titus off again to Corinth with it. Now he had the further duty of tactfully en­couraging the brethren there to expedite the organization of their contribution to Paul’s benevolent fund for the poor brethren in Judaea.

[*] The next known contact with Paul was after his first imprisonment in Rome. Evidently the two held a campaign in Crete – "in every city" (Tit. 1:5). Titus was left behind there to consolidate the new ecclesias and to take any necessary action against troublesome Judaists (1:9–11, 13, 14).

[*] That work completed, he met Paul by arrangement at Nicopolis (3:12) pre­sumably with a view to holding a cam­paign in Dalmatia.

[*] In Paul's last imprisonment in Rome, Titus came to him there, but was promptly sent off again to continue the work in Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10, a pas­sage which mentions Titus and Luke side by side). How Paul would have liked to keep Titus with him in Rome! But the work is more important than any personal predilections.

[*] Besides aspects of Titus's charac­ter already mentioned, there are other phrases which help to fill out the picture.

[Resource Manager]

He was "my partner and fellowhelper concerning you" (2 Cor. 8:23). He was a ready volunteer for a difficult duty (8:17), a young man of great enthusiasm and affection for the brethren (7:15), and utterly dependable (12:18). He was clearly a tougher character than Timothy (1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 7:15). 13. This study of Titus offers as likely a solution as any to a textual problem which has plagued commentators on Acts for a very long time. One of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testa­ment, Codex Beza at Cambridge, has a lot of textual additions in the Book of Acts, readings which are often supported by the Syriac and the Old Latin versions, two of the very oldest. A study of these variant readings makes it impossible to believe that they are haphazard additions by an irresponsible scribe. Time after time they ring true, even though they tend to be more wordy than Luke’s delightfully concise style. The problem, then, is how to explain the origin of these Bezan additions which are manifestly too good to lose but which go completely ignored by the mass of New Testament manuscripts. Is it possible that a good deal of the narrative in Acts was supplied to Luke by his brother Titus out of personal experience of being with Paul? It is noticeable that the Bezan additions are much more common in the parts of Acts concerned with the work of Paul when, almost certainly, Titus was with him. Presumably Luke trimmed here and there the narrative supplied to him, hence the standard text of Acts; but, in some way which it is not now possible to know, the fuller text also got into circula­tion. This seems to be a more likely explanation of the Bezan problem than any of the rather freakish suggestions which the commentators have come up with at different times.

[Resource Manager]

60. Peter's Discourse (15:6–12)

 

The conference now called together at Jerusalem was a full assembly of that very numerous ecclesia. Even though at first only the "apostles and elders" are specified, Codex Beza adds "with the multi­tude," using what had become almost a technical term in the early church. This Bezan reading is repeatedly confirmed by later details (v. 12,22,25).

 

The first stage of the deliberations was a kind of open forum, with full opportunity to ventilate all points of view on this increasingly sensitive issue of the relation of Gentile believers to the Law of Moses. Inevitably, then, because there were such widely differing convictions there was not only oratory but downright disputation. It may be assumed that the Judaists were set on making maximum use of the possibilities of publicity which this confer­ence afforded them; and the opinions of many of those brethren, born and bred in the headquarters of Law and Temple, would be firmly on their side, at least, initially.

 

A noble spirit

 

Through all this, Peter must have felt decidedly uneasy as to what part he should play in this important business, for how could he forget the recent crisis in Antioch when his own ill–advised policy had called down upon him the open rebuke of Paul, the former Pharisee zealot. And since the story of that unhappy situation had been told in every ecclesia from Antioch to Beersheba, what right had he (many would doubtless ask themselves) to speak with any authority at all?

 

But Peter knew that as the leading apostle he had a duty at this critical juncture to exercise influence towards a wholesome decision and away from the unBiblical bigotry of ex–Pharisee brethren. To do this would mean eating humble pie, making public admission that at Antioch Paul was right and he wrong. So this last mention of Peter in the Book of Acts is to be read as the chronicle of one of the finest things he ever did.

 

His natural fervour was intensified by a special inspiration imparted by the Holy Spirit (so the Bezan text says).

 

Peter's entire speech is compressed into five verses. Yet one acute commenta­tor has pointed out that in this short space there are no less than twelve phrases which are characteristic of Peter in his epistles and other speeches. The fact makes a neat indirect testimony to the truth of the record.

 

But though the voice is unmistakably that of Peter, the argument is that of Paul, especially in v. 10, 11, where contacts with Paul's reasoning in his Epistle to the Galatians are readily discernible. All hon­our to Peter that he was not afraid to say before them all: "Paul was right!"

[Resource Manager]

Peter's argument

 

It is noteworthy that in all that he had to say, Peter (and also Barnabas and Paul when they followed with their witness) eschewed all appeal to emotion or senti­ment, and stuck strictly to facts. These facts boiled down to three important truths:

 

1. It was common knowledge that in the early days the keys of the kingdom (Mt. 16:19) had been com­mitted to himself. There was here the implied question: Is it likely, then, that God would allow me to misuse those keys? Is he not a "God which knoweth the hearts?" All through it was God who was at work (v.7, 8, 12,18).
   
2. There was the undeniable sequ­ence of experiences which had led Peter to the house of Cornelius, there to witness an outpouring of Holy Spirit power on Gentiles, who were uncircumcised and who were certainly not observant of "the laws and customs" of Jewry. If God "put no difference," making no distinction, between "us and them", why should we attempt discrimination of that sort?
   
3. Every honest Jew must admit that keeping the Law of Moses rigorous­ly was a thing that was quite beyond his powers. Then why be insistent that Gentile brethren wear this "yoke ... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

 

In making this last point Peter appears to have been alluding to what was almost certainly one of the favourite "proof texts" of the circumcision party: "Henceforth there shall not come into thee the uncir­cumcised and the unclean" (Is. 52:1–3); for that passage continues: "Loose thy­self from the bands (yoke) of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion ... Ye have sold yourselves for nought (an inadequate observance of law and ordinances); and ye shall be redeemed without money (the gospel offers a free unearned salvation)." Was it not evident from that experience at Caesarea that God was bringing into the lives of these "uncircumcised and un­clean" a "purifying of their hearts by faith?" Then why "tempt God" with the challenge: "Is the Lord among them or not?" (Ex. 17:7). A lavish outpouring of the water of the Spirit from Jesus, the Rock of their salvation, had surely proved beyond gainsaying that He was.

 

It is possible that in his challenge: "Why tempt ye God?" Peter was making an eloquent allusion to the faithless rebel­lious spirit of Israel in the wilderness when they liked better the possibility of going back to Egyptian bondage than the pros­pect of inheritance of a Land of Promise (Num. 14:2,4; Heb. 3:8,9; 1 Cor. 10:9).

 

So the apostle expostulated against this attempt to fasten the yoke of the Law on the neck of the disciples. The last word proclaimed that these Gentile brethren truly were in Christ – "disciples" – even though as yet the Judaist insistence had not been complied with. And did they not already wear the light and easy yoke of Christ (Mt. 11:28–30)? whereas the yoke of the Law (it was a term the rabbis themselves used – hence Gal. 5:1) was a burden which neither their forefathers (Jer. 5:5) nor themselves (Acts 7:53) had the strength to bear. On this last point Paul was to be unflaggingly emphatic –that the main purpose of the Law was to demonstrate not the way to eternal life but that left to himself every man is a hopeless sinner (Rom. 5:20;3:10;4:15;7:8;Gal 3:19,23,24).

 

It is only through the grace (forgive­ness) in Christ that we (Jews) – like those Gentiles– shall be saved; and as they are justified by faith (v. 9,11; 10:43; 13:39), even so we also. It is remarkable that Peter should put his summary of essential truth this way round, as though intending to warn his Jewish brethren against allowing saving faith in Christ to be swamped by their long–standing zeal for the Law.

 

The text seems to imply that when Peter ended his discourse there was hubbub in the assembly. However, when they fell silent (Gk. aor.) "the elders consented to the things which had been spoken by Peter" (Codex Beza).

[Resource Manager]

The witness of Barnabas

 

Next, Barnabas and Paul were invited to contribute to the discussion. The order of their names, together with the fact that this was Jerusalem where the ravages of Saul of Tarsus were still a vivid memory, makes it almost certain that on this occasion Barnabas was the chief speaker.

 

Like Peter, he stuck to incontrovertible facts. He told the story of the hardships and successes of their recent missionary journey in Cyprus and Galatia, and – knowing that this would impress the symbolic minds of his audience – he recounted in detail what signs and won­ders had so signally reinforced their message (2:22; Jn. 3:2).

 

At Paphos the cultured reverent Gentile had listened eagerly to their preaching, whilst the obstreperous Jew had been struck blind.

 

At Lystra a Gentile, lame all his life, had been healed by the power of God. Was not this also an acted parable of what God intended with the Gentiles?

 

And it was at Lystra also that Paul's remarkable experience had provided such an impressive recapitulation of the experience of Christ his Lord – a clear demonstration, surely, that the Lord greatly approved of the work these two friends were busy with in Gentile Galatia. Again there was a lot of excited talk, until at last James the Lord's brother, himself a staunch observer of the Law of Moses, rose to sum up the consensus of opinion. And again there was a great silence.

 

 

Notes: 15:6–12

6. Came together. The verb is passive: they were called together. The list of ecclesial assemblies in Acts is impressive: 1:15–26:4:23–32; 6:2–6; 11:2–18;21:18–25; 13:1–3; 14:27; 15:30–32.

The matter. This divisive issue is described by the word LOGOS!

8. Which knoweth the hearts. One word in Greek. Its only other occurrence is 1:24, where not only was Matthias chosen by God to be an apostle but Joseph Justus Barsabbas was rejected, and (unless he was less human than most) he would feel rather sore about it. Justus describes a man zealous for the Law. Barsabbas means ' 'son of the sabbath," another Judaist emphasis. Then by the repetition of "God–which–knoweth–the–hearts" is Luke subtly steering his readers to the identity of the leader of the Judaist party?

9. Purifying their hearts by faith. Cp. 1 Pet. 1:22. And contrast 1 Pet. 3:21.

By faith could, and perhaps should, read: by the Faith.

10. Why tempt ye God? Is Peter perhaps hinting at hypocrisy in the Judaist protagonists? Compare 5:9. 12.

What God did. Not what they had done; cp. v.4; 14:27.

[Resource Manager]

61. James's Discourse (15:13–21)

 

The next speaker was James, the Lord's brother. He was probably the chairman of the meeting. Traditions about him say that he wore a priestly robe of white linen, that he lived unmarried, and gave himself so much to prayer that "his knees were like camels'". He is said to have been nick­named Obliam (= Father of the people, of the ecclesia?).

 

His speech is introduced with: "James answered, saying ... ," an expression often passed off as a meaningless Hebra­ism, but more likely implying that the discourses of the other three brethren had been followed by criticism from the Judaists (see v. 13a), to which criticism James's words were in part a rejoinder.

 

There can be little doubt that he addressed the assembly in Greek, for besides the Jerusalem brethren there were also Gentile believers in his audi­ence. Also, it is noteworthy that in his key quotation from Amos he relied on the Greek version. The one or two Hebraisms in his speech are readily attributable to the Scriptures he alluded to.

 

Biblical reasoning

 

First, conclusions to be drawn from Peter's story: Just as God saved His chosen people out of Egypt, so now He was calling out Gentiles as part of His New Israel. Could there be any resisting the logic of that experience at Caesarea?

 

In any case the testimony of Holy Scripture pointed emphatically to the same conclusion. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." And the outstanding "works" of God are His redemption of men and women knowing their need of salvation (Ps. 145:9–12). There it was, written in the pages of the prophets, a message about the receiving of the Gentiles as Gentiles, a message ill–perceived until recent events and the guidance of the Holy Spirit (v.28) flashed a light on these dark places.

 

The sheet–anchor of James's argument was a remarkable passage from Amos 9 which is not without its difficulties, to be discussed by and by. However its main point is inescapable – here was proc­laimed a future development of God's purpose which would certainly include "all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called," the special point (for James's purpose) being that God's name was to be called upon Gentiles without them becoming proselytes to Mosaic Jewry.

[Resource Manager]

A Spirit–guided proposition

 

After discussing not only this but also various other related prophecies, James came to a concrete proposition. Whilst it was out of question that the Gentile believers should be brought under the yoke of the Law, it was manifestly desir­able that Gentile disciples make some gesture of accommodation to Jewish outlook and the Jewish way of life. Otherwise how could Jews and Gentiles possibly live comfortably together in Christ?

 

Then let there be no continuing harass­ment of the Gentile brethren. They must be encouraged to consider themselves as members in good standing in the ecclesia simply on the ground of their faith in Christ. At the same time let them be strongly urged to observe four prohibi­tions (all from Lev. 17:7–10) regarding which their Jewish brethren were special­ly sensitive:

 

1. "Pollutions of idols," that is, any form of food which had already been dedicated as a sacrifice in an idol's temple (cp. Dan. 1:8).
    
   
2. "Fornication." It was a common­place feature of heathen life to indulge in religious fornication with a priest or vestal "virgin" at one of these temples. In the Gentile world of those days such fornication was honourable, and not at all immoral. Another possibility is that by "fornication" was meant "marriage out of the Faith" (Heb. 12:16).
    
   
3. "Things strangled," e.g. a chicken with its neck wrung. Such a method of killing was not kosher; the blood was still in the flesh.
    
   
4. "Blood," i.e. any other form of killing which did not drain the blood out of the meat.

 

The over–all reason James advanced was: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Here the implication was: Wherever the gospel goes there are Jews; so such Gentile concessions as these to ingrained Jewish sentiment and feeling would be a kindly expression of Christian charity.

 

But James so expressed himself as to imply also: Moses is not being set aside; Jewish believers can still observe the Sabbath and follow the Law they love so much.

[Resource Manager]

Mutual concessions

 

Thus it was all settled on the basis of a principle enunciated in later years by Paul: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" (Rom. 14:1), that is, mutual respect for one another's differing convictions.

 

But this is only possible with teaching that is not deemed to be fundamental. James had ruled that for Gentile brethren the Judaist contention was not fun­damental. More than this, by calling for a fourfold concession to ingrained Jewish ideas, he had tacitly assessed the believ­ers with strong Jewish prejudices as being the "weaker brethren"! And so it is to this day regarding those who seek to insist that fellow–disciples observe food prohibitions.

 

The two parties, between whom there had earlier been "much disputing" now found a working agreement by a middle course in which both sides made conces­sions. The Judaists agreed to accept in full fellowship their Gentile brethren with­out insistence on a full observance of Moses' Law. On their part the Gentiles agreed to avoid giving offence regarding four specific items where Jewish consci­ences were particularly susceptible.

 

It would appear that the prohibitions regarding food came to be regarded as having only temporary force. When Jew­ish brethren had learned to live with this problem it became possible for Paul to write:

 

"Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse" (1 Cor. 8:8).

 

"Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him" (Rom. 14:3).

 

"Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). See also "Studies in the Gospels," ch.98.

 

James's proposal commanded general assent, first from the apostles and elders, and then from the whole assembly. There was, of course, a minority of Judaistic dissentients. Later events were to prove this. But the majority vote in favour was so considerable that for the present the issue could be considered settled.

[Resource Manager]

A difficult text from Amos

 

It now remains to examine in greater detail James's proof–text from Amos 9:11,12:

 

"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: 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."

 

Apart from the obvious application of the words, already mentioned, there are not a few difficulties about this passage. Two of these are: (a) there are palpable differences between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint quoted here; (b) the LXX reading is itself quoted with minor diverg­ences.

 

Briefly, the answers to these problems are on these lines: (a) since James was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and knew himself to be inspired, then the text he quotes from LXX must be a correction of a defective Hebrew text in Amos 9; (b) the apostle introduced his quotation thus: "And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written ..." – a clear indication that he was not building his case on just one Bible passage; the small variants from the LXX are indications neatly worked into the text by Luke as pointers to the other Scriptures James made use of.

 

Now to specific details:

 

1. In place of the Hebrew reading: "that they may possess the remnant of Edom," LXX has "that the residue (remnant) of men might seek after (the Lord)." Here the difference between "possess" and "seek after" is the tiniest possible difference between two Hebrew letters. And "men" (adam) has one Hebrew letter missing from the name "Edom." In Amos it looks as though "men" gives better sense than does "Edom". Indeed, the suggestion has been made that this latter reading is due to a rabbinic alteration actuated by nationalistic hatred of Edom.
   
2. "In that day" (both Heb. and LXX) is changed to "after these things," almost certainly to echo Joel 2:28 LXX: "After these things I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (Gentile believ­ers as well as Jews)," precisely as Peter had been explaining (15:7,8). James may also have gone to Isaiah 2:2, where "last days" is closely similar (in Hebrew) to "afterward." That familiar prophecy goes on to speak of all nations flowing unto Zion.
   
3. There is omission from the Amos text of the words: "as in the days of old." But this is made good by verse 18: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."
   
4. In place of "I will raise up," the text in Acts has: "I will return." Here is a hint of allusion to some other Scripture besides Amos. But which? – for there are several which appear eminently suitable:
    
   
1. Num. 10:36. When the tabernacle was re–built in the midst of the camp of Israel, the people said: "Return, O Lord, to the thousands of Israel."'
   
2. Zech. 1:16: "I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it." Verse 15 has: "I was very sore displeased with the Gentiles," a passage James may have used to show that the Amos promise does not relate to all Gen­tiles.
   
3. Hos. 3:5: "The children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord, and David their king ... in the latter days."
   
4. Is. 63:17–19: "Return, for thy ser­vants' sake ... The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary... they were not called by thy name."
   
5. Jer. 12:15–17, a prophecy addres­sed to both Israel and Gentiles (v. 14): "I will return ... then shall they be built in the midst of my people."

[Resource Manager]

It is difficult to be sure which of these passages James made use of. But probably more than one of them.

 

It remains now to consider the force of the Amos passage in its different possible applications.

 

The primary reference is, almost cer­tainly to the dramatic events of the reign of Hezekiah. The context (v. 1–10) de­scribes vividly the desolation of the Holy Land by the Assyrians at that time. The ruin of "the tabernacle (succah, not mishkan) of David" is probably a prophe­cy of the mortal sickness of Hezekiah, son of David. And "I will raise up the taberna­cle of David" describes the good king's miraculous restoration (both Hebrew and Greek texts have a word commonly used of resurrection).

 

The promised possession of "the remnant of men" probably anticipates the expansion of Hezekiah's kingdom into the territory of the desolated northern kingdom. Also, Gentiles "which are called by my name" were glad to be associated with the worship of Jehovah after that notable rout and destruction of the Assy­rians (2 Chr. 32:23). The passage that follows (9:13–15) is, in the first instance, a lovely description of the lavish blessings which God gave to His people in the ensuing Year of Jubilee (2 Kgs. 19:29,30). All these ideas are worked out in detail in a separate study.

 

With very little difficulty James would be able to make impressive use of Amos 9 with reference to the Judaist problem besetting the church.

 

The tabernacle of David, fallen down and raised up, was Jesus himself (after the pattern of Hezekiah's experience), a figure all the more effective because "the Son of the fallen" was a familiar rabbinic way of referring to the Messiah. James would doubtless emphasize that this tabernacle of God was not a massive permanent temple, such as the Judaists took pride in, and that it was associated with "David" and not Moses.

 

The reference is not only to Jesus but to his church, broken down by the persecu­tion of men like Saul and yet rising to greater influence by including Gentiles also, through the work of Paul and Barnabas. The earlier part of Amos 9 would remind Judaists that lack of faith in, and loyalty to, God's "David" must mean desolation of the Land and a scattering of faithless Israel. And the glorious conclud­ing picture (v. 13–15) of blessedness throughout the Land is without doubt the Messianic kingdom which was then ex­pected, even by inspired apostles, within a very short time.

 

There was plenty more prophetic mate­rial on this theme (e.g. Paul's passages in Rom. 15:9–12), some of it much more explicit than this Amos text. Yet James chose to conclude his exposition with an allusion to Is. 45:21 LXX: "saith the Lord, who doeth all these things" (not so obvious in the English text). It is a passage which emphasizes that God reveals beforehand the great develop­ments of His purpose, including the in–gathering of faithful Gentiles: "To me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear" – Gentiles as well as Jews. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." That context also has this: "Surely... in the Lord (and not in the keeping of laws and ordinances) have I righteousness and strength."

 

There can be little doubt that the profound use of the Old Testament by the inspired men of the New Testament went a long way beyond the normal insight of the twentieth century believer.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 15:13–21

13. Brethren. "Let there be no strife, I pray thee...for we be brethren" (Gen. 13:8). James's "Men, brethren" is exactly as in LXX text here.

14. Simeon. Paul and Barnabas omitted. Their preaching activities had made them less persuasive to the Judaists.

16. There is Talmud evidence that Amos 9:11 was given a Messianic reference by the rabbis.

The tabernacle of David. Cp. Jn. 2:19–22.

Ruins The Greek word was also used of dying.

17. Doeth; continuous – He is even now at work.

18. The world. From the beginning of the Jewish world. This is very often the meaning.

19. My sentence is. Literally: I judge – I, not Peter! Then was Peter pope? But note the consciousness of Holy Spirit guidance; v.28. Even so, it was not an individual decision, but by agreement of "the whole church" (v.22).

20. All four items come in Lev. 17:7, 10 (strangling, by implication). The definite articles in the Greek text suggest an allusion to prohibitions already known (in Lev. 17). The food prohibitions here become less and less binding; 1 Cor. 10:19–29; Rom. 14:1–6, 14, 15; and especially 1 Tim. 4:3–5.Rev. 2:14 shows that the blatant flouting of these prohibitions was one way by which false teachers very deliberately tried to wreck the Faith.

Fornication. Temple practice, as in Col. 3:5.

Trouble. This Gk. word really means "cause extra trouble" s.w. 1 Sam. 28:15 LXX.

[Resource Manager]

62. The Apostolic Letter (15:22–35)

 

James's proposal commanded general agreement – but not immediately, so verse 25 (Gk.) implies. There was now "one accord" (contrast v.7). Evidently a show of hands gave no sign of a dissen­tient vote. The dominant phrase: "it seemed good" (v.22, 25, 28, 34), was a kind of technical term in comtemporary parlance for announcing the decision taken by the assembly, rather like the minutes of a modern business meeting: "It was agreed that.. ." The meaning is stronger than the AV implies: "it has been decided." The word "decree" (16:4; Gk: dogma) is essentially the same word.

 

Later events show that the decision was anything but unanimous. The meet­ing had been noisy at times (so v.7,12 imply). The dissentient Judaists evidently decided that there was no hope of them swaying the meeting, so they dropped all signs of opposition – for the time being. Their later activities were to reveal that they were really as discontented as ever, and still firmly set on making the Faith – even the Gentile segment of it – Judais­tic. However, just at present they had gained something.

 

Doubtless it was as a further sop to this circumcision party that it was decided to send officially–selected delegates to con­vey the formal decision of "the apostles and elders, brethren writing to brethren" their reply to the formal enquiry that had been addressed to "the apostles and elders" in the first place (v.2).

 

Of course Barnabas and Paul, who intended to return to Antioch anyway, could have done this job at least as well as any others who might be chosen. But their sentiments were known to be de­finitely against the Judaist trend. So lest they should appear to be reporting the decisions as though they were their own, it was thought better to choose Judas Barsabbas and Silas as the formal representatives of the Jerusalem ecclesia in this matter.

 

Judas Barsabbas and Silas

 

The former of these was probably the brother of the Joseph Barsabbas (1:23) who came near to being chosen as apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot. The cognomen suggests two men greatly zealous for the Law of Moses. So the choice of this Judas was likewise a move to placate Judaist opinion – though it may be taken (from v.32) that he was not a rigorous extremist. Perhaps his brother was now lined up strongly with the circumcision party, or he would surely have been even better qualified than Judas.

 

More is known about Silas, though not as much as could be wished. He was a Jew (15:22), but also a Roman citizen (16:27). From this point of view he would make an ideal colleague for Paul the missionary. Also, he had a special gift of prophecy (15:32), the context suggesting that this involved outstanding powers in the exposition of the Old Testament. Other details about him come up later on in the course of the Acts narrative. There is a theory that he and Luke are one and the same person, but it comes to grief on the "we" passage in Acts 16.

[Resource Manager]

Appeal to Gentile brethren

 

The apostolic letter was addressed only to the Gentile brethren in the pro­vince of Greater Syria, inasmuch as the problem had first arisen in an acute form there. The specific mention of Cilicia (as part of the Syrian province) implies the establishment of ecclesias there, presumably through the work of Paul in his earliest days as a disciple (9:30; 11:25). It is difficult to understand why there is an almost complete lack of information ab­out them. The fact that no attempt seems to have been made to inform the Galatian ecclesias also, at least not promptly (16:4), is probably explained by the knowledge that Paul had already written forthrightly on this topic in his Epistle to the Galatians. But it is remarkable that other ecclesias far afield were not in­formed about the decision taken – or were there no others to notify?

 

Another question which arises here is why the Jewish brethren were not spe­cially addressed in this encyclical. After all, it was Jewish opinion especially that needed to be placated in this crisis. Yet in the apostolic letter they go ignored. Certainly the "Grecian" Jews of Antioch were less rigid, in their attitude than those of Jerusalem, but there was dogma and prejudice enough in other Jewish communities of the diaspora, as Paul's later experiences were to prove. So the problem still awaits a clear–cut solution.

 

The letter from Jerusalem

 

The letter began with a brusque re­pudiation of the men who had created this crisis by their unauthorised activities.

 

'They went out from us (and they allowed the brethren in Antioch, and Galatia, to go uncorrected in their mis­taken assumption that this mission had apostolic authority), and they have trou­bled you with words (Biblical arguments – of a kind), subverting your souls (the word describes turning house furniture upside–down). They told you to be cir­cumcised and keep the Law; yet to them we gave no commandment at all (neither that, nor any other commission).'

 

'Instead of them, we brethren in Jeru­salem are now sending to you, by com­mon consent, two utterly dependable mes­sengers, Judas and Silas, who not only bring you this approved letter, but will also add to it their own personal witness and especially the Biblical reasons why you should follow the course now recom­mended. And of course with them those well–tried servants of Christ, Barnabas and Paul, but for whose dedicated labours many of you would not know the

 

Faith. For your sakes they have taken all kinds of risk. You know you may depend on the report they bring you. It is only because of the campaign of denigration against them that Judas and Silas come also!'

 

'We exhort you, then – and it is the Holy Spirit which guides the writing of these words! – to realise what a light burden your life in Christ is. There is no intention to saddle you with circumcision and the fine formalities of the Jewish Law (v. 10). But we do ask you to make some concessions to the consciences of your Jewish brethren. Not that these things are necessary to your salvation, but in present circumstances they are neces­sary for the peace of the church.'

 

'Four items, then, which demand no great moral or physical self–denial. Re­fuse, we beg of you, any kind of food which Jews regard as utterly unclean through being dedicated in an idol's temple. Refuse also all meat which Jews consider non–kosher because it has the blood in it. And have nothing to do with the abominable fornications practised in heathen temples under the guise of holiness.'

 

'For your brethren's sakes especially we ask you to reject these things. If you do, you will do a good thing, and the Lord Jesus being pleased with you in this, he will bear you onward by his Holy Spirit, as by the cherubim–chariot of his Glory' (so Codex Beza seems to imply).

[Resource Manager]

Only temporary

 

There is often failure to recognize the temporary and concessive character of this proposal. It was really a temporary expedient, to allow both Jewish and Gentile believers time in which to come to terms with a situation at present full of tension. It was important to save the Jewish extremists from rushing back to the synagogue. Dismayed Gentile brethren must also be reassured that there was neither need nor intention to load them with the cumbersome and distasteful punctilios of Mosaic observ­ance.

 

Within a comparatively short while this Jerusalem letter was a dead letter. The Judaists went ahead just the same with their campaign against Paul and the gospel he preached. And Paul on his part wrote off the food laws, at first in a tentative sort of way (1 Cor. 10:23ff), but later in more explicit fashion (Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:4,5; cp. Mk. 7:15, 18 RV).

 

Back in Antioch

 

The four brethren, accompanied by Titus, John Mark and others, lost no time in getting to Antioch with their news. Codex Beza says they arrived "in a few days," so presumably as soon as they got to Caesarea they had an immediate passage, and a fast one, in a coasting vessel.

 

Without any delay that burgeoning ecclesia at Antioch was called together. The whole multitude of them was excited to hear the outcome of the deliberations at Jerusalem.

 

First, the letter was read, and gave intense satisfaction to all. The explicit claim in it to Holy Spirit guidance was greatly reassuring. Joy was to be seen on every face.

 

Then Judas and Silas added at some length their own inspired testimony and exhortation from the Old Testament Scriptures. There was no need for Paul or Barnabas to say a word. Their approach to current problems was already well–known, and the special com­mendation of them in the Jerusalem letter, even though unnecessary, warmed these Gentile hearts.

 

When the time came for return to Jerusalem the travelling party included only Judas of the four leaders. Silas wanted to stay on, for already a close bond was growing up between Silas and Paul, a friendship destined to be fruitful in the work of the Lord. Gladly he joined Paul and Barnabas in the ceaseless activities of the ecclesia, teaching diligently those already in the Faith and proclaiming the gospel to all others will­ing to hear the Word.

 

Nor were these three the only labour­ers in that part of the vineyard. Many others showed a comparable zeal and energy. Abilities varied and methods and styles of preaching were anything but uniform, but in matters of this sort there was in the ecclesia a praiseworthy broad–mindedness which, in this respect, their successors of the twentieth century might well emulate. "Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" was Paul's outlook then, and to the end of his days.

[Resource Manager]

Notes: 15:22–25

23. Greeting. Chairein is essentially a Gentile greeting to Gentiles. Yet when they in turn send a message to Jerusalem, it is Shalom – v.32: with peace.

Brethren which are of the Gentiles. Reassuring them that they are brethren although they have received no circumcision.

24. Certain which went out from us. See Gal. 2:4,12; 5:12; and cp. 1 Jn. 2:19; 4:1.

Troubled you; s.w. Gal. 5:10.

With words. Perhaps a dogmatic insistence on the Ten Words, and especially on sabbath–observance, the Fourth Commandment (like the modern S.D.A.).

Subverting. Other usages of this word:

 

1. destructive arguments;
   
2. to break camp, to make bankrupt, to ravage (Liddell & Scott).

 

Your souls. The word implies emphasis on a low spiritual level. See 'Studies in the Gospels," p.484,714. Ye must. These two words are in italics. The Judaists were too subtle to say this explicitly

26. Praise of brethren is rare in the New Testament. Cp. 2 Pet. 3:15,16. Contrast the subverters: 2 Cor. 10:12.

27. By mouth. This reading can hardly be right: (a) No point in reading the letter and then saying it over again, (b) The Greek doesn't mean this. Dia logon probably, means 'by means of Bible evidence:' i.e. repeating the Biblical arguments used by James. So also in v.32 "much Scripture."

28. The Holy Spirit: —the Lord Jesus? 13:2 as Chairman of the meeting!

29. Since the first three items have to do with food, it has been suggested most plausibly, to read the fourth as porkeia. (swine's flesh) and not porneia. But alas, the manuscript evidence for this reading is non–existent.

Fornication This Greek word was used in contemporary Jewry for mixed marriages – Jew and Gentile (cp. 1 Tim. 4:3). Contrast the spirit of these elementary prohibitions with the fine idealism Paul brought to bear on the same problem at the same time: Gal. 5:16–26.

Being borne by the Holy Spirit. The same word with a similar usage: 2 Pet. 1:21, 17, 18; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 Jn. 10; Heb. 6 1;. 1:3; Acts 2:2; Jn. 15:2.

Keep yourselves; s.w. Gen. 17:10, but with very different reference!

31. Consolation The same word (v.32 also) as in Jn. 14:16: the Holy Spirit; cp. v.28 here.

32. Confirmed, the very opposite of subverting, v.24.

34. Others; heteroi means different from Paul and Barnabas.