John Calvin Commentary Acts 15:13

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:" — Acts 15:13 (ASV)

James answered, saying. Some early writers of the Church think that this James was one of the disciples, whose surname was Justus and Oblia, whose cruel death is recorded by Josephus in the Twentieth Book of his Antiquities. But would to God the early writers had worked rather to know the man, than to set forth, with feigned praises, the holiness of a man whom they did not know.

It is a childish notion and surmise when they say that it was lawful for him alone to enter into the most holy place. For if that entrance had any religious validity, he would have done it contrary to the law of God, since he was not the high priest. Secondly, it was a superstitious thing thus to foster the shadowy worship of the Temple. I omit other trifles.

And they are greatly deceived in denying that he was one of the twelve apostles. For they are forced to confess that it is he whom Paul commends so honorably, that he makes him the chief among the three pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9). Assuredly, a man inferior in order and degree could never have excelled the apostles so far, for Paul gives him the title of an apostle. Neither is what Jerome brings forward, namely, that the word is general there, worth hearing, seeing that the dignity of the order is being discussed there, since Christ preferred the apostles before other teachers of the Church.

Moreover, from this passage, we may gather that they held James in high regard (Acts 21:18), since he with his voice and consent so confirms the words of Peter that they are all of his mind. And we will see later how great his authority was at Jerusalem.

The early writers think that this was because he was bishop of that place; but it should not be thought that the faithful would change at their pleasure the order which Christ had appointed. Therefore, I do not doubt that he was the son of Alpheus, and Christ’s cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother.

Whether he was bishop of Jerusalem or not, I leave as a matter of indifference; nor does it greatly affect the matter, except that the impudence of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down more by the direction and according to the authority of James than of Peter.

And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whoever he was, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter’s successor, who allowed another to have authority over him, if we believe Eusebius.

Men and brethren, hear me. James’ speech consists of two principal parts: first, he confirms and proves the calling of the Gentiles by the testimony of the prophet Amos; secondly, he shows what is best to be done to foster peace and harmony among the faithful, yet in such a way that the liberty of the Gentiles may remain safe and sound, and that the grace of Christ may not be obscured.

That Peter is in this passage called Simeon, it may be that this name was pronounced differently then. When he says that God visited to take a people from the Gentiles, it is attributed to the mercy of God, by which he condescended to receive strangers into his family.

It is, indeed, a harsh phrase, yet one that contains a profitable doctrine, because he makes God the author of the calling of the Gentiles and declares that it is through his goodness that they began to be counted among his people, when he says that they were taken by him. But he proceeds further, when he says that he visited in order to take. For this is his meaning: that when the Gentiles were turned away from God, he mercifully looked upon them, because we can do nothing but depart further and further from him, until his fatherly gaze anticipates us of his own accord.

In his name. The old interpreter has, 'To his name,' which is almost the same thing, though the preposition may be translated otherwise, namely, 'For his name,' or 'Upon his name.' Nor will the sense disagree that the salvation of the Gentiles is grounded in the power or name of God, and that God regarded nothing else in calling them but his own glory. Yet I retained that which is more usual: namely, that, in numbering them among his people, he would have them counted in his name, just as it will be said shortly after, that his name is called upon by all those whom he gathers together into his Church.

The adverb of time, πρῶτον, may be explained in two ways: if you read it as 'first,' as the old interpreter and Erasmus have it, the sense will be that Cornelius and others were, as it were, the firstfruits with whom God began the calling of the Gentiles. But it may also be taken comparatively, because there was already some sign of the adoption of the Gentiles shown in Cornelius and his relatives, before Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles. And I prefer this latter sense.