1

St. Peter was the first of the Apostles who rose to address the assem bly. He gave his decision against the Judaizers, and in favour of St. Paul. He reminded his hearers of the part which he himself had taken in admitting the Gentiles into the Christian Church. They were well aware, he said, that these recent converts in Syria and Cilicia were not the first heathens who had believed the Gospel, and that he himself had been chosen by God to begin the work which St. Paul had only been continuing. 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. And then St. Peter went on to speak, in touching language, of the yoke of the Jewish law. Its weight had pressed heavily on many generations of Jews, and was well known to the Pharisees who were listening at that moment. They had been relieved from legal bondage by the salvation offered through faith; and it would be tempting God to impose on others a burden which neither they nor their fathers had ever been able to bear.

The next speakers were Paul and Barnabas. There was great silence through all the multitude, and every eye was turned on the missionaries while they gave the narrative of their journeys. Though Barnabas is mentioned here before Paul, it is most likely that the latter was "the chief speaker." But both of them appear to have addressed the audience. They had much to relate of what they had done and seen together and especially they made appeal to the miracles which God had worked among the Gentiles by them. Such an appeal must have been a persuasive argument to the Jew, who was familiar, in his ancient Scriptures, with many divine interruptions of the course of nature. These interferences had signalised all the great passages of Jewish history. Jesus Christ had proved His divine mission in the same manner. And the events at Paphos, at Iconium, and Lystra, could not well be regarded in any other light than as a proof that the same Power had been with Paul and Barnabas, which accompanied the words of Peter and John in Jerusalem and Judæa.

But the opinion of another speaker still remained to be given. This was James, the brother of the Lord, who, from the austere sanctity of his

1 Acts 3. 7-11.

* Εσίγησε πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος κ. τ. λ. Acts xv. 12. The imperfect ἤκουον mplies atten tion to a continued narrative.

3 This order of the names in the narrative, xv. 12, and in the letter below, v. 25 (not in v. 22), is a remarkable exception to the phrase "Paul and Barnabas," which has been usual since Acts xiii. See below, p. 221, note 5.

4 See v. 13, μετὰ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτούς.

• Acts xiv. 3.

Acts xiv. 8.

5 Acts xiii. 11.

8 Acts ii. v. ix.

* See Acts xv. 13-32. It is well known that there is much perplexity connected

1

character, was commonly called, both by Jews and Christians, "James the Just." No judgment could have such weight with the Judaising party as his. Not only in the vehement language in which he denounced the sins of the age, but even in garb and appearance, he resembled John the Baptist, or one of the older prophets, rather than the other apostles of the new dispensation. "Like the ancient saints, even in outward aspect, with the austere features, the linen ephod, the bare feet, the long locks and unshorn beard of the Nazarite," —such, according to tradition, was the man who now came forward, and solemnly pronounced the Mosaic rites were not of eternal obligation. After alluding to the argument of Peter (whose name we find him characteristically quoting in its Jewish form2), he turns to the ancient prophets, and adduces a passage from Amos to prove that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism. And then he passes to the historical aspect of the subject, contending that this fulfilment was predetermined by God himself, and that the Jewish dispensation was in truth the preparation for the Christian. Such a decision, pronounced by one who stood emphatically on the confines of the two dispensations, came with great force on all who heard it, and carried with it the general opinion of the assembly to the conclusion that those "who from among the Gentiles had turned unto God" should not be "troubled" with any Jewish obligations, except such as were necessary for peace and the mutual good understanding of the two parties.

The spirit of charity and mutual forbearance is very evident in the decree which was finally enacted. Its spirit was that expressed by St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. He knew, and was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. He knew that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one: but all men have not this knowledge: some could not eat that which had been offered in sacrifice to an idol without defiling their conscience. It is good to abstain from everything whereby a weaker brother may be led to with those apostles who bore the name of James. Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 554) says the question is one of the most difficult in the New Testament. Wieseler has written an essay on the subject in the St. u. K. We are not required here to enter into the investigation, and are content to adopt the opinion which is most probable.

1 Stanley's Sermons and Essays, &c., p. 295. We must refer here to the whole of the "Sermon on the Epistle of St. James," and of the "Essay on the Traditions of James the Just," especially pp. 292, 302, 327.

• Evμedv ¿§nyńoato. Acts xv. 14. So St. Peter names himself at the beginning of his Second Epistle, Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος, κ. τ. λ.

3 Amos ix. 11, 12. We are not required to express any opinion on the application of prophecy to the future destiny of the Jews; but we must observe, that the Apostles themselves apply such prophecies as this to the Christian Dispensation. See Acts ii. 17 4 Γνωρτὰ ἀπ' αἰῶνος, κ. τ. λ. v. 18. Compare Acts xvii. 26. Rom. i. 2. Eph. i. 10 ii. 9, 10. Col. i. 26.

stumble. To sin thus against our brethren is to sin against Christ.' In accordance with these principles it was enacted that the Gentile converts should be required to abstain from that which had been polluted by being offered in sacrifice to idols, from the flesh of animals which had been strangled, and generally from the eating of blood. The reason for these conditions is stated in the verse to which particular allusion has been made at the beginning of the present chapter. The Law of Moses was read every Sabbath in all the cities, where the Jews were dispersed.3 A due consideration for the prejudices of the Jews made it reasonable for the Gentile converts to comply with some of the restrictions which the Mosaic Law and ancient custom had imposed on every Jewish meal. In no other way could social intercourse be built up and cemented between the two parties. If some forbearance were requisite on the part of the Gentiles in complying with such conditions, not less forbearance was required from the Jews in exacting no more. And to the Gentiles themselves the restrictions were a merciful condition: for it helped them to disentangle themselves more easily from the pollutions connected with their idolatrous life. We are not merely concerned here with the question of social separation, the food which was a delicacy to the Gentile being abominated by the Jew, nor with the difficulties of weak and scrupulous consciences, who might fear too close a contact between "the table of the Lord" and "the table of Demons," but this controversy had an intimate connection with the principles of universal morality. The most shameless violations of purity took place in connection with the sacrifices and feasts celebrated in honour of heathen divinities. Everything, therefore, which tended to keep the Gentile converts even from accidental or apparent association with these scenes of vice, made their own recovery from pollution more easy, and enabled the Jewish converts to look on their new Christian brethren with less suspicion and antipathy. This seems to be the reason why we find an acknowledged sin mentioned in the decree

1 Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii.

2

5

Above, p. 204. There is some difference of opinion as to the connection of this verse with the context. Some consider it to imply that while it was necessary to urge these conditions on the Gentiles, it was needless to say any thing to the Jews on the subject, since they had the Law of Moses, and knew its requirements Dean Milman infers that the regulations were made because the Christians in general met in the same places of religious worship with the Jews. "These provisions were necessary, because the Mosaic Law was universally read, and from immemorial usage in the synagogue The direct violation of its most vital principles by any of those who joined in the common worship would be incongruous, and of course highly offensive to the more zealous Mosaists." Hist. of Christianity, vol. i. p. 426, n.

↑ Acts xv. 21.

We learn from Athenæus that Tò TTVIKTOV was regarded as a delicacy among the Greeks. 6 1 Cor. x. 21.

See Tholuck in his "Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism," part iii.

along with ceremonial observances which were meant to be only temporary and perhaps local. We must look on the whole subject from the Jewish point of view, and consider how violations of morality and contradictions of the ceremonial law were associated together in the Gentile world. It is hardly necessary to remark that much additional emphasis is given to the moral part of the decree, when we remember that it was addressed to those who lived in close proximity to the profligate sanctuaries of Antioch and Paphos.3

4

We have said that the ceremonial part of the decree was intended for a temporary and perhaps only a local observance. It is not for a moment implied that any Jewish ceremony is necessary to salvation. On the contrary, the great principle was asserted, once for all, that man is justified, not by the law, but by faith: one immediate result was that Titus, the companion of Paul and Barnabas, "was not compelled to be circumcised." His case was not like that of Timothy at a later period, whose circumcision was a prudential accommodation to circumstances, without endangering the truth of the Gospel. To have circumcised Titus at the time of the meeting in Jerusalem, would have been to have asserted that he was "bound to keep the whole law." And when the alternative was between "the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free," and the reimposition of "the yoke of bondage," Paul's language always was, that if Gentile con verts were circumcised, Christ could "profit them nothing." By seeking

6

1 We cannot, however be surprised that one great branch of the Christian Church takes a different view. The doctrine of the Greek Church, both Ancient and Modern, may be seen in the IIndúλtov, or Greek Book of Canon Law (Athens, 1841). In the Apostolic Constitutions we find the following:Εἴτις Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ Πρεσβύτερος ἢ Διάκονος φάγῃ κρέα ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, ἢ θηριάλωτον ἢ θνησιμαῖον, καθαιρείσθω. τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ Νόμος ἀπεῖπεν. Εἰ δὲ Λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω. The modern comment, after adducing Gen. ix. and Levit. xvii., proceeds: ̓Αλλὰ γὰρ καὶ εἰς τὸν νέον Νόμον τοῦ Εὐαγ γελίου τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐμποδίζονται νὰ μὴν τρώγωνται. Συναχθέντες γὰρ οἱ ἴδιοι οὗτοι Απόστολοι ἔγραψαν, κ. τ. λ. (Acts xv. 18, 19.) Ἡ αἰτία δὲ διὰ τὴν ὁποίαν ἐμποδίζονται τὰ θηριάλωτα ἢ ὀρνεοπάτακτα ζῶα ἢ θνησιμαῖα, ἢ πνικτὰ, εἶναι, διὰ τι δὲν χύνεται ὅλον τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν ἀλλὰ γένει μέσα εἰς αὐτὰ, διασκορπιζόμενον εἰς τὰ φλεβίδια ὅλα τοῦ κρέα τος, ἀπὸ τὰ ὁποῖα νὰ εὐγῇ δὲν εἶναι τρόπος. (pp. 45, 46.) Again, in one of the Canona of the Trullian Council, we find : Ἡ Θεία ἡμῖν γραφὴ ἐνετείλατο, ἀπέχεσθαι, κ.τ.λ. Τοῖς οὖν διὰ τὴν λίχνον γαστέρα, αἷμα οιουδήποτε ζώου τέχνῃ τινὶ κατασκευάζουσιν ἐδώδιμον καὶ οὕτω τοῦτο ἐσθίουσι, προσφορῶς ἐπιτιμῶμεν. (p. 160.) And in the Council of Gaggra, in a decree alluding to 1 Tim. iv. 3, the same condition is introduced: Εἴ τις ἐσθιόντα κρέα (χωρὶς αἱματος καὶ εἰδωλοθύτον καὶ πνικτοῦ) μετ' εὐλαβείας καὶ πιστέως, κατακρίνοι . . . ἀνάθεμα έστω. (p. 230.) The practice of the modern Greeks is strictly in accordance with these decisions.

* At least the decree (Acts xv. 23) is addressed only to the churches of "Syria and Cilicia," and we do not see the subject alluded to again after xvi. 4.

See above, pp. 135 and 168, and Lucian's Treatise de Deâ Syriâ." • Gal. ii. 3.

5 Acts xvi. 3.

6 Gal. v. 3.

* Ιδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει Gal. v. 2.

PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF ST. PAUL'S MISSION TO THE HEATHEN. 219

to be justified in the law they fell from grace. In this firm refusal to comply with the demand of the Judaizers, the case of all future converts from heathenism was virtually involved. It was asserted once for ali that in the Christian Church there is "neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free: but that Christ is all and in all." And St. Paul obtained the victory for that principle which, we cannot doubt, will hereafter destroy the distinctions that are connected with the institution of slavery in America and of caste in India.

2

Certain other points decided in this meeting had a more direct personal reference to St. Paul himself. His own independent mission had been called in question. Some, perhaps, said that he was antagonistic to the Apostles at Jerusalem, others that he was entirely dependent on them.3 All the Judaizers agreed in blaming his course of procedure among the Gentiles. This course was now entirely approved by the other Apos tles. His independence was fully recognised. Those who were univer sally regarded as "pillars of the truth," James, Peter, and John, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and agreed that they should be to the heathen what themselves were to the Jews. St. Paul publicly acknowledged as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and openly placed in that position from which "he shall never more go out," as a pillar of the temple of the "New Jerusalem," inscribed with the "New Name" which proclaims the union of all mankind in one Saviour."

Thus was

One of those who gave the right hand of fellowship to St. Paul, was the "beloved disciple" of that Saviour. This is the only meeting of St. Paul and St. John recorded in Scripture. It is, moreover, the last notice which we find there of the life of St. John, until the time of the apocalyptic vision in the island of Patmos. For both these reasons the mind eagerly seizes on the incident, though it is only casually mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians. Like other incidental notices contained in Scripture, it is very suggestive of religious thoughts. St. John had been silent during the discussion in the public assembly; but at the close of it he ex

3 The charges brought against St. Paul by the Judaizers were very various at different times.

It should be carefully observed here that James is mentioned first of these Säulenaposteln (to quote a phrase from the German commentators), and that Peter is mentioned by the name of Cephas, as in 1 Cor. i. 12.

* See Rev. iii. 12. The same metaphor is found in 1 Tim. iii. 15, where Timothy is called (for this seems the natural interpretation), "a pillar and support of the truth." In these passages it is important to bear in mind the peculiarity of ancient architecture, which was characterised by vertical columns, supporting horizontal entablatures. Inscriptions were often engraved on these columns. Hence the words in the passage quoted from Revelations : γράψω ἐπ' αὐτὸν . . . τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ καινόν.

Gal. ii. 9.