성경 주석서

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.

2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas] These Apostles would at once repeat their testimony of what “God had done with them” among the Gentiles, and thus become the opponents of the “men from Judæa.”

dissension and disputation] The authorities of best account give a simple instead of compound noun for the last word, and it would be well rendered “questioning,” (so R. V.) as the subject in dispute is called a “question” at the end of the verse. The first noun rendered “dissension” does not imply any angry disputation, but only a division. They took different sides in the debate.

they determined (appointed)] i.e. the brethren of the church of Antioch. The verb, as well as the whole context, shews that the mission was sent by the whole Christian community, to which the question was one of most vital importance, probably affecting a large part of their members.

apostles and elders] Peter, John, and James we find were now at Jerusalem, and these seem, from other notices in the N. T. (Galatians 1:18-19; Galatians 2:9), to have been the Apostles who continued to live in the holy city. These with the elders appear now as the governing body of the infant church. And Jerusalem was for the Jew, until its destruction, the place of chief authority (cp. Isaiah 2:3). The overthrow of the holy city did as much as anything to help on the knowledge of the universality of the Christian religion. Those who had been bred in Judaism, could not (as devout Jews to this day do not) cast away the thought that Jerusalem is “the place where men ought to worship.”

3. brought on their way] It was not an uncommon mark of affection or respect that a part of the church at any place should attend its chief teachers for a short way on their journeys. (Cp. infra Acts 20:38, Acts 21:16.) And for the antiquity of the custom among the Jews, see Genesis 18:16, where Abraham brings his heavenly visitors on their way.

Among the companions of Paul and Barnabas on this journey must have been Titus, for we read of him, and the question raised about his circumcision, in St Paul’s own notice of this visit (Galatians 2:3).

through Phenice (Phœnicia) and Samaria] The road would take them along the coast through Berytus, Tyre and Sidon, which at this time were places of great importance, and most likely to have bodies of Christians among their inhabitants.

declaring the conversion of the Gentiles] This would naturally be St Paul’s great theme. Among those who were going up to Jerusalem with him would be members of the Judaizing party, but their presence was no check on the Apostle’s zeal that all men should hear of the bringing in of Gentiles to the faith of Christ. The verb used implies that he gave his story with all details, and we may be sure that he dwelt on the way in which the Spirit of God had set a seal upon the work, though the converts of whom he spake were all uncircumcised.

unto all the brethren] We see therefore that it was only some of the Jews who demanded from the Gentiles complete conformity to the Law. At Jerusalem (Acts 15:5) the Judaizing party is described as ‘certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,’ and the Gospel history represents the Pharisees on all occasions as determined supporters of the ceremonial law. Probably their party was most numerous at Jerusalem, where all the ritual observances could be most completely carried out. In the more remote congregations the joy over the Gentile conversions would be unalloyed.

4. they were received of the church] “The church” is perhaps named first because there would on such a visit be an assembly of the whole Christian body to hear the story of the missionary labours of Paul and Barnabas before the question about which they had specially been sent from Antioch came to be discussed. The account of the spreading of the faith was for all, while the question of circumcision would be discussed only by the heads of the church, and those who could speak with authority. This preliminary meeting must have lasted for a considerable time, even if only a mere abstract of the labours, sufferings and success of Paul and Barnabas were given to those who met them. Such a recital was the best introduction that could be conceived for the question which was afterwards to be discussed and legislated on.

God had done with them] The preposition (μετὰ) implies that the Apostles deemed themselves fellow-workers with God (cp. Mark 16:20), but that they were only instruments whom God employed is also shewn below (Acts 15:12) where the same labours are spoken of as “what God had wrought among the Gentiles by (διὰ) them.”

5. But there rose up, &c.] The margin of the A.V. takes this sentence as part of the narration of Paul and Barnabas, “there rose up, said they, certain, &c.” But it is much more natural to consider them to be St Luke’s account of what happened at Jerusalem. The teachers at Antioch had not been described as Pharisees though they probably were so. But in no other passage of the N. T. are the Pharisees mentioned away from Jerusalem. As soon as the Apostolic narrative was heard by the church certain of their party stood forth from the church body and lodged their protest against what had been done. The Pharisaic teaching concerning the necessity of circumcision was based on such passages as Isaiah 56:6, where the covenant mentioned was held to be that of circumcision. And they supported their position by such passages as Isaiah 52:1, where the uncircumcised are excluded from the holy city.

saying, That it was needful] Better, “saying, It is needful, &c.” The words are a direct utterance, and suit better so rendered with St Luke’s narrative, in which he is describing what occurred before the church at Jerusalem.

The visit of St Paul to Jerusalem which St Luke here describes is now generally admitted to be the same of which St Paul speaks in Galatians 2:1-9. The chronology offers no obstacle to this conclusion, while the purpose of the visit, and the companionship of Barnabas and the persons who were at the head of the church in Jerusalem are all accordant in the two notices. In the Epistle, St Paul tells us that he took Titus with him, and nothing is more likely than that while he had the company of some members of the Judaizing party, he would also take a companion with him from among those converts on whose behalf he was making the journey. He says too that it was ‘by revelation’ that he went up, while the narrative of the Acts represents him as sent by the church of Antioch. But here need be no contradiction. An inward monition may have furnished the true reason why the Apostle consented to make an appeal to the central authorities in Jerusalem. St Luke would not necessarily be aware of this; it was important in St Paul’s argument to the Galatians that he should mention it. (For a fuller comparison of the two notices, see Bp Lightfoot’s Ep. to Galatians, note, pp. 122–127.)

6–12. The Council at Jerusalem; the debate and the speech of Peter. Narration of the work of Barnabas and Paul

6. And the apostles and elders came (were gathered) together] These words refer to a formal summoning to discuss the difficult question which had been brought forward. That there was a space between the first welcome of the Apostles by the church and the assembly of the synod suits St Paul’s words (Galatians 2:2) that he explained his position “privately to them which were of reputation.” This private conference was a necessary preparation for the more public discussion which alone is noticed by the history.

7. much disputing] [R. V. questioning] For the Pharisaic element would find its warmest supporters at Jerusalem. And it is to that party that the disputing must be ascribed, for it is plain, from the summing up of St James at the close of the discussion, that the other apostles were of the same mind with Paul and Barnabas, and as is said in the Epistle to the Galatians (Acts 2:9), “they gave unto them the right hands of fellowship.”

Peter rose up] It is worth notice that Barnabas and Paul leave arguments and reasons to those who had laboured most among Jewish converts, and merely content themselves with telling their experience of what God had wrought through them.

Men and brethren] See note on Acts 1:16.

a good while ago] Lit. “from early days.” Alluding to the conversion of Cornelius (chap. 10) which probably took place some ten years before the meeting of this synod. This was at an early period of the apostolic ministry, and the great and numerous events which had intervened made the time seem long ago.

by my mouth] That he may not seem to be claiming a distinction for himself as the one chosen of God for this work, St Peter is careful to call himself no more than the mouthpiece of God.

8. which knoweth the hearts] The word is only here and in Acts 1:24, and on both occasions it is St Peter who uses it. Such witness could admit of no appeal; and God had put the uncircumcised on the same level with the circumcised by giving to them the same gifts of the Spirit.