Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 15

And certain men which came down from Judea.—We enter into 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 that 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 that he drew from it, and it is not difficult to imagine the train of thought that led them to take a different view.

To them, it may have seemed the exception that proved the rule. When signs and wonders were involved, they may have been content to accept an uncircumcised convert as a member of the Church, simply on the ground that God had dispensed with His own law in such cases. Or they may have urged that, although in such cases they did not require circumcision as a condition of admission, continuing in the uncircumcised state after baptism was a willful transgression that shut men out from the “salvation” that 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 these 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 authorized 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 that he had used in it: whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all (James 2:10).

Here, they might say, was a point admittedly in the Law, and even prior to it. They were not prepared to draw the distinctions that 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 medieval dogmatism did in the case of baptism—and excluded the uncircumcised from all hope of salvation. (Compare the account of Ananias and Izates given in the Note on Acts 9:10.)

When therefore Paul and Barnabas.—The two Apostles must obviously have agreed in feeling that the teaching of the Judaisers (it will be convenient to use that term from now on) involved a direct condemnation of all the work in which they saw the triumph of God’s grace. They had proclaimed salvation through faith in Christ. Their converts were now told that they had been teaching a soul-destroying falsehood.

No small dissension and disputation.—The first of the two words was that which had been used by classical writers, like Thucydides (iii. 82) and Aristotle (Polit. v. 2), to express the greatest evil of all political societies—the spirit of party and of faction. In Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, it is used of the “insurrection” in which Barabbas had been the ringleader. That element of evil was now beginning to show itself in the Christian Church.

They determined that Paul and Barnabas.—These were naturally chosen as the representatives of the cause of which they had been the chief advocates. The “certain others” are not named, but the prophets of Acts 13:1, and the men of Cyprus and Cyrene of Acts 11:20, were likely enough to have been chosen, and Titus was apparently taken up as an example of the fruits of St. Paul’s labours (Galatians 1:3). Looking to the Roman name which this disciple bore, it is not unlikely that he may have been among the first to whom the term Christian was applied (See Note on Acts 11:26).

The fullness with which the history of the Council is given suggests the possibility that St. Luke himself may have been present at it. If not, he must have based his report on materials supplied by St. Paul or one of the other delegates from Antioch, possibly Manaen (Acts 13:1).

Should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders.—The circumstances of the journey make it all but certain that we may identify it with that of which St. Paul speaks in Galatians 2:1. The only other visits that can dispute its claim are those of Acts 11:30; Acts 18:22; but though the latter view has been taken by some able writers (e.g., Lewin’s St. Paul, i., p. 302), there are, it is believed, decisive grounds for rejecting both.

Against the first there are the facts:

1. That it is not easy to place fourteen years between the visit of Acts 9:27 and that of Acts 11:30.
2. The visit of Acts 11:30 appears in the history as confined to the single object of carrying relief to the suffering poor of the Church at Jerusalem.
3. The question as to enforcing circumcision had not then been raised, after its apparent settlement in the case of Cornelius.
4. Had the agreement referred to in Galatians 2:9 preceded the Council, it would assuredly have been appealed to in the course of the debate at the Council.

Against the second there are the facts:

1. That the interval would, in that case, have been more than fourteen years.
2. That it was not likely that the question should have been raised again after the decision of the Council.

The only arguments of any weight on the other side are:

1. That the narrative of Acts 15:0 makes no mention of Titus.
2. That that of Galatians 2:0 makes no mention of the Council.

But these arguments from omission tell equally against both the other visits. These points will be dealt with as we proceed, and are, in any case, not sufficient to outweigh the evidence in the other scale.

The reference of the question to the “Apostles and elders” is in many ways important:

1. As against the dogmatic system of the Church of Rome. On her theory, in its latest forms, the reference should have been to Peter, and to Peter alone, as the unerring guide of the Church into all truth.
2. As a recognition of the authority of the mother-Church of Jerusalem by the daughter-Church of Antioch, and as a precedent for referring local disputes to the decision of a central authority.
3. As showing the confidence which Paul and Barnabas felt that the decision would be in their favour. They could not believe that St. Peter would be false to the lesson which the history of Cornelius had taught him, nor that St. James would recall the definition which he had so recently given of pure and undefiled religion (James 1:27).
4. We note that St. Paul ascribes the journey to a “revelation” (Galatians 2:1). The thought came into his mind as by an inspiration that this, and not prolonged wranglings at Antioch, was the right solution of the problem.

They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria.—The route lay from Seleucia, at the mouth of the Orontes, along the coast of Sidon, Tyre, and probably Caesarea, and then through Samaria. They might have gone to Joppa, and so have avoided the old Canaanite cities and the region of the hated Samaritans.

The very journey was, therefore, an assertion of the principles for which they were contending. We note, too, that the facts imply that they found “brethren,” that is, established Christian societies, in both regions. “Tyre and Sidon” had repented and believed, though Chorazin and Bethsaida had hardened themselves in unbelief (Luke 11:13).

The “woman of Canaan,” mentioned in Mark 7:26, may by this time have eaten not of the “crumbs,” but of the “Bread” of Life. Everything points to Philip as the probable evangelist of this region as well as of Samaria. Paul and Barnabas would accordingly, as they travelled, be endorsing his work, claiming fellowship with Canaanites and Samaritans; and wherever they went, they were received with joy.

Here, at least, they were certain of support. Furthermore, for strategic reasons alone, they were strengthening their cause by appearing at Jerusalem as the representatives of such important communities. They had the courage of their convictions and were determined, though they might make concessions in matters of indifference, not to sacrifice a single principle.

They caused great joy.—The tense implies continued action. Wherever they went, the news of the conversion of the Gentiles was received by the disciples generally with a gladness that presented the strongest possible contrast to the narrowness and bitterness of the Pharisee section of the Church of Jerusalem.

They were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders.—The words imply a general gathering of the Church, members of different synagogues coming together, with the elders who presided over them. The position of the Apostles, though in some degree analogous in their relation to the elders to the later office of bishops, was yet in many ways unique. They had no local diocese, but remained at Jerusalem, guiding the progress of the Church at large, as a kind of central council, calling in the “elders,” or “presbyters,” to consult with them, and submitting the result of their deliberations to the Church at large. The three bodies corresponded to each other as the Boulè, or council, the Gerusia, or senate, and the Ecclesia, or assembly, in a Greek republic.

They declared all things that God had done with them.—This obviously implied a narrative of considerable length: the history of acts and sufferings, of signs and wonders, of the fruits of the Spirit as seen in the purity, and truth, and love of the Gentile converts. This took place apparently at a preliminary meeting.

Certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed.—This is the first distinct mention of the conversion of any of the Pharisaic party, but there had been a drift in that direction going on for some time, beginning during our Lord’s ministry (John 12:42), and showing itself in the moderate counsels of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39).

The position they occupied was that of accepting Jesus as a teacher sent from God, proved by the Resurrection to be the Christ. As such, He was the Head of a kingdom that was to present to mankind a restored and glorified Judaism. This vision entailed the Law being kept in its completeness, the Temple ritual still being maintained, and Gentiles being admitted only on their confessing their inferiority and accepting the sign of incorporation with the superior race.

It appears, from Galatians 2:1, that here, as in so many later controversies, the general issue was debated on an individual case. Was Titus—a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, whom St. Paul had brought with him—to be circumcised, or not? Was he to be admitted to communion with the Church, or treated as a heathen?

Here, probably, there was no official rank as in the case of Cornelius, no previous transition stage in passing through the synagogue as a proselyte of the gate. He was a Gentile pure and simple, and as such his case was a crucial one. Circumcision, however, did not stand alone. It carried with it every jot and tittle of the Law, the Sabbaths and the feasts, and the distinction between clean and unclean meats. It may be noted that the position Titus occupied in this controversy gave him a special fitness for the work afterwards assigned to him, of contending against the party of the circumcision, with their Jewish fables and false standards of purity (Titus 1:10; Titus 1:14–15).