Commentari biblici

Verse 1. - Came down... and taught for which came down... taught, A.V.; saying for and said, A.V.; custom (ἔθος) for manner, A.V. Except ye be circumcised, etc. The question thus raised nearly effected the disruption of the Church, and was the most serious controversy that had yet arisen. If the views broached by these Judaean Christians had prevailed, the whole character of Christianity would have been changed, and its existence probably cut short. How great the danger was appears from even Peter and Barnabas having wavered in their opinion. (For St. Paul's treatment of the subject, see Romans 2:25, etc.; 4; Galatians 5:2-6; Galatians 6:12-15, etc.) The expression, Τινὲς κατέλθοντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, is so like that in Galatians 2:11, Πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου as to suggest very strongly the consideration whether Peter was not at Antioch at this time, and whether the scene related in Galatians 2:11, etc., did not precede, and in fact cause, the Council of Jerusalem. In this case the "dissension and disputation" spoken of in ver. 2 would include and directly point to the memorable rebuke given by Paul to Peter; and we should understand that Peter, accepting Paul's rebuke, preceded him and Barnabas, and prepared the way at Jerusalem for the solution arrived at. And, indeed, Peter's words at Jerusalem are almost an echo of Paul's words addressed to him at Antioch. If Barnabas had shown a leaning towards the Judaizing party, he would the more readily have been accepted by them as one of the embassy. The chief objection to this hypothesis is that in Galatians 2:11 Peter's visit to Antioch seems to be spoken of as something subsequent to the journey of St. Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. But it is not in the least necessary so to understand it. St, Paul's mention of his visit to Jerusalem might naturally recall the incident which had led to it, and which was another example of his own independence. Farrar places Peter's visit to Antioch between the Council of Jerusalem and the quarrel with Barnabas, in the time indicated in ver. 35 of this chapter (vol. 1. Acts 23.), and so do Conybeare and Howson (vol. 1. p. 238), Meyer, and Alford ('Proleg.,' p. 24; note on Acts 15:36, and Galatians 2:11). Renan ('St. Paul,' p. 290, etc.) and Lewin (vol. 1. Acts 13.) place it after St. Paul's return to Antioch, at the conclusion of his second missionary journey (Acts 18:22, 23). No absolute certainty can be arrived at, but see note to ver. 35. Custom (see Acts 16:21); τὰ ἔθη is the technical term for the Mosaic institutions, used by Josephus and Philo (see too Acts 6:14; Acts 21:21, note).

XV.

(1) And certain men which came down from Judæa.—We enter on the history of the first great controversy in the records of the Christian Church. It might have seemed as if the conversion of Cornelius had been accepted as deciding the question which we now find raised again (Acts 11:18). It would seem, however, that those who had raised objections to Peter’s conduct in that case were not content to accept the conclusion which he drew from it, and it is not difficult to represent to ourselves the train of thought which led them to take a different view. To them it may have seemed the exception that proved the rule. Where signs and wonders came in, they may have been content to accept an uncircumcised convert as a member of the Church, simply on the ground that God had dispensed in such cases with His own law; or they may have urged that though, in such cases, they did not require circumcision as a condition of admission, the continuance in the uncircumcised state after baptism was a wilful transgression, which shut men out from the “salvation” which they were seeking. Circumcision, they may have said, had been given as an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13), and had never been formally abrogated. Who were the new teachers, that they should change what God had thus established? It is clear that they came, claiming to speak in the name of James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, and though he distinctly repudiates having authorised them (Acts 15:24), yet if we suppose, as is probable, that his Epistle was written shortly before the Council, we can easily understand that they might rest their case on the words which he had used in it, that “whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Here, they might say, is a point confessedly in the Law, and even prior to it; and they were not prepared to draw the distinctions which we have learned to draw between the positive and the moral, the transient and the permanent, obligations of that Law. And it is to be noted that they did not merely make circumcision a condition of church communion; they carried their principles to their logical conclusion—as mediaeval dogmatism did in the case of baptism—and excluded the uncircumcised from all hope of salvation. (Comp. the account of Ananias and Izates given in the Note on Acts 9:10.)

1. which came down from Judea] The words of the new comers would derive authority from this. They would be received as the latest ordinance of the heads of the church at Jerusalem. Thus the mission of enquiry to Jerusalem was rendered necessary.

taught the brethren] These were a mixed body, composed of Jews, proselytes and Gentiles (see Acts 11:19-20 and the notes there). Thus it was precisely the place where such a question would arise. Gentile converts who had not passed into Christianity by the gate of Judaism would be sure to be regarded as wanting something, by the people in whose mouths “uncircumcised” had been from old times the bitterest term of reproach. (Cp. 1 Samuel 17:26 and Acts 11:3.) The tense of the verb used implies that these men were persistent in their teaching, they kept constantly to this theme.

after the manner (custom) of Moses] The word is found before (Acts 6:14) “the customs which Moses delivered” and signifies those rites and usages which had their foundation in the law (cp. Luke 1:9; Luke 2:42; Acts 21:21) and so were more than a “manner” or “fashion.” Cp. also John 7:22, for circumcision as the ordinance given to the people by Moses.

ye cannot be saved] A statement likely to cause dissension and questioning among those who had just learnt (Acts 14:27) that “God had opened the door of faith” (independent of the observance of the ceremonial law) “unto the Gentiles.”

Acts 15:1-5. At Antioch some maintain that Gentile converts must be circumcised. A Mission to Jerusalem about the question. Reception of those who were sent

The history now approaches that subject of controversy which was certain to arise as soon as Christianity spread beyond the limits of Palestine. The first converts to the new faith were made among the Jews, but few of them were likely to cast aside those prejudices of religion in which they had long been educated. As soon as Gentiles who had not first become proselytes to Judaism joined the Christian Church, Jewish exclusiveness received a violent shock, and there was no small danger lest the new community should be rent asunder almost at its beginning. “The covenant,” by which expression the devout Jew specially meant “circumcision,” was constituted a cry by Judaizing agitators, and the opposition, first brought into prominence at Antioch, proved a continuous source of trial through the whole ministry of St Paul, and has left its traces on most of the writings both of the N. T. and of early Christian literature.

Taught

Rather the imperfect, were teaching. They had not merely broached the error, but were inculcating it.

Manner (ἔθει)

Better, custom, as Rev.

And certain men came down from Judea (κα τινες κατελθοντες απο της Ιουδαιας). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (Acts 13:13) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (Acts 11:1-18) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts 15:24). In Galatians 2:4 Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians 2:1-10 is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts Acts 15:5-29 in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in Acts 11:29. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in Acts 11:29, but only "the elders." In Acts 15:15 Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In Galatians 2:2 by the use of "them" (αυτοις) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses Acts 15:5-6. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (Acts 10:1-11), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. So one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. Taught the brethren (εδιδασκον τους αδελφους). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (Acts 11:20-26), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved (εαν με περιτμηθητε τω εθε Μωυσεωσ, ου δυνασθε σωθηνα). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, εαν plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of περιτεμνω). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (τω εθε) is customary. "Saved" (σωθηνα) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

return to '

Acts 15:1. τινες κατελ. ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰ.: on the vagueness of the expression see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 158; I59.—κατελ., i.e., to Antioch; see critical notes for [278] reading, and additional note at end of chapter on the identification of Galatians 2:1-10 with Acts 15 : in the early Church in favour of the identification, cf. Iren., Hær., iii., 13, 3; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., v., 2.—ἐδίδασκον: imperfect, representing perhaps their continuous efforts to force their teaching on the brethren.—περιτέμνησθε, see critical note.—τῷ ἔθει Μ.: R.V. as in Acts 6:15, “custom of Moses”; in A.V. “manner,” which might be used of a temporary fashion or habit; ἔθος marks a national custom, but see also Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 79. On its national significance, see art[279] “Circumcision,” B.D.2, and Hastings’ B.D., “Beschneidung”; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums, i., 2, 174; Weber, Jüdische Theol., p. 266 (1897); Renan, Saint Paul, p. 66; and cf. Book of Jubilees, xv, cf. i.; Assumption of Moses, viii.; Jos., Ant., xx., 2, 4; c. Apion., ii., 14; Vita, xxiii.—σωθῆναι, i.e., in the Messianic salvation, cf. Acts 2:40, Acts 4:12, Acts 11:14. On the tradition that Cerinthus was amongst these Judaisers, as he and his had already rebuked Peter, Acts 11:2, see “Cerinthus,” Dict. of Christ. Biog., i., 447. It is very probable that the successful mission of Paul and Barnabas was really the immediate cause of this protest on the part of the narrow Judaic party. This party, as the Church in Jerusalem grew, may well have grown also; the case of Cornelius had been acquiesced in, but it was exceptional, and it was a very different thing to be asked to embrace all Gentiles in the new covenant, and to place them on a level with the Jewish Christians, whether they did homage or not to the Mosaic law, Hort, Ecclesia, p. 67; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 192.

[278] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

[279] grammatical article.

Acts 15:1-2. The Jewish-Christian opinion, that the Gentiles could only in the way of circumcision and observance of the law—that is, in the way of Jewish Christianity—obtain the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, was by no means set aside by the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles, which had so successfully taken place since the conversion of Cornelius. On the contrary, it was too closely bound up with the whole training and habit of mind of the Jews, especially of those who were adherents of the Pharisees (comp. Ewald, p. 464 f.), not to have presented, as the conversions of the Gentiles increased, an open resistance to the freedom of the Gentile brethren from the law,—a freedom which exhibited itself in their whole demeanour to the scandal of the strict legalists,—and to have made the question on which it hinged the most burning question of the time. This opposition—the most fundamental and most dangerous in the apostolic church, for the overcoming of which the whole further labour of a Paul was requisite—emerged in the very central seat of Gentile Christianity itself at Antioch; whither some[23] from Judaea (τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων, as Syr. p. has on the margin, and codd. 8. 137 in the text, as a certainly correct gloss, see Acts 15:5) came down with this doctrine: If ye shall not have been circumcised (περιτμηθ., see the critical remarks) according to the custom, ordered by Moses (and so have taken upon you the obligation of obedience to the whole law, comp. Galatians 5:3), ye cannot obtain the salvation in Christ!

στάσεως (Acts 23:7; Acts 23:10; Soph. O. R. 634) κ. ζητήσεως (Acts 25:20; John 3:25); division and disputation.

ἔταξαν] namely, the ἀδελφοί, Acts 15:1, the Christians of Antioch, comp. Acts 15:3.

Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Christianity; here the apostles had their abode, who, along with the presbyters of the church, occupied for the Christian theocracy a position similar to that of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Grotius. The recognition of this on the part of Paul is implied in Galatians 2:1-2.

καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν] among whom, according to Galatians 2:1, was Titus, not named at all in the Acts, unless Paul voluntarily took him as companion, which is more suitable to the expression in Galatians 2:1.

We may add that the commission of the church, under which Paul made the journey, is by no means excluded by the statement: κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, Galatians 2:2; see on Gal. l.c. Subtleties directed against our narrative may be seen in Zeller, p. 224 f.

ζήτημα, quaestio, i.e. question in dispute, in the N.T. only in the Book of Acts; often in Greek writers.

[23] According to Epiphan. Haer. 26, Cerinthus is supposed to have been among them.