John Calvin Commentary Acts 21:19

"And when he had saluted them, he rehearsed one by one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry." — Acts 21:19 (ASV)

And now Paul shows his modesty when he does not make himself the author of those things which he had done, but giving the praise to God, calls himself only the minister whose agency God had used. As we must grant that whatever is excellent and worthy of praise is not done by our own power, but because God works in us, and especially concerning the edifying of the Church.

Again, it appears how far the elders were from envy when they glorify God for the joyful success. But because mention is made of no other apostle besides James, we may conjecture that they had gone into various places to spread abroad and preach the gospel as their calling required. For the Lord had not appointed them to remain at Jerusalem; but after they had made a beginning there, He commanded them to go into Judea and other parts of the world.

Moreover, the error of those men who think that James was one of the disciples whom Paul numbers among the three pillars of the Church was refuted previously in the fifteenth chapter. And though the same commandment was given to him as was given to the rest of his colleagues, yet I do not doubt that they so divided themselves that James remained at Jerusalem, where many strangers were accustomed to resort daily. For that was the same as if he had preached the gospel far and wide in foreign places.

Thou seest, brother, how many thousands. This speech has two parts. First, the elders say that as many of the Jews as were converted, seeing they are earnest followers of the law, are ill-disposed towards Paul because they think that he endeavors, with all his might, to abolish the law. Secondly, they exhort him to make a solemn vow and so purge himself, so that he may no longer be held in suspicion.

They present to Paul the multitude of believers, so that he may more willingly yield to them. For if they had been a few stubborn fellows, he would not have been so moved. But now he may not neglect so many people and the whole body of the Church.

Undoubtedly, that zeal for the law which was in them was corrupt, and assuredly even the elders themselves sufficiently declare that they do not like it. For though they do not condemn it openly, nor sharply complain of it, yet because they separate themselves from this sentiment, they secretly confess that these people err.

If it had been a zeal according to knowledge, it ought to have begun with themselves; but they do not contend for the law itself, nor do they feign due reverence for it, nor do they agree with those who are earnest followers of it. Therefore, they both signify that they are of another mind and also that they do not approve the superstition of the people.

Nevertheless, it is objected that they say Paul was burdened with a false report or slander; again, when they require satisfaction from him, they seem to nourish that zeal. I answer that though that was a true report in some respect, with which the Jews were offended, yet it was mixed with a slander.

Paul taught the abrogation of the law in such a way that, by this means, its authority not only continued sound and perfect, but it was made more holy. For as we said in the seventh chapter, the ceremonies would be vain unless their effect had been shown in Christ.

Therefore, those who say that the ceremonies were abolished by the coming of Christ are so far from being blasphemous against the law that they rather confirm its truth. We must consider two things in ceremonies: first, the truth, to which their efficacy is joined; secondly, the external use.

Furthermore, the abrogation of the external use, which Christ brought, depends on this: that He is the substance, and that nothing was foreshadowed in the past that is not fulfilled in Him.

This teaching—showing the true end of the law, so that the figures may cease and its spiritual truth may always be in force—differs greatly from falling away from the law. Therefore, we see that they were malicious and unjust interpreters who charged Paul with apostasy, even though he called the faithful away from the external worship of the law.

And when they command Paul to make a vow, so that he might prove himself to be a keeper of the law, its only aim is that he might testify that he does not detest the law like a wicked apostate who himself shook off the Lord’s yoke and moved others to similar rebellion.

That they ought not to circumcise. This was so indeed, for Paul taught that both Jews and Gentiles were set at liberty. For these statements of his are general: Circumcision is nothing (1 Corinthians 7:19). Again, We are circumcised by baptism in Christ, not with circumcision made with hands; again, Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in the choice of feasts, which are shadows of things to come; but the body is in Christ (Colossians 2:11, 16). Again, Whatsoever comes into the shambles, and whatsoever is set before you, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake (1 Corinthians 10:25). Again, Be not inwrapped again in the yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). Seeing that he spoke thus everywhere without exception, he freed the Jews from the necessity of keeping the law.

And lest I dwell too long on this, one passage will be sufficient, where he compares the law to a tutor, under which the old Church was, as in its childhood; but now, knowing the grace of Christ, it has grown up, so that it may be free from ceremonies. In that passage he speaks undoubtedly of both Jews and Gentiles.

Also, when he says that the handwriting of the law, which consisted in decrees (Colossians 2:14), is blotted out and nailed to the cross by Christ, he sets free the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, from the ceremonies, which he calls decrees in that passage. But seeing that he did not precisely reject ceremonies, in teaching that the coming of Christ made an end of their observance, that was not apostasy, as the envious Jews thought it to be.

Neither were the elders ignorant of Paul’s liberty. Therefore, seeing they understand the matter very well, their aim is to make this one thing known to the ignorant and unlearned: that Paul had no intention of persuading the Jews to despise the law. Thus, they are not looking at the bare facts, but knowing what the common people thought of Paul because of the reports circulating about him, they seek to remedy this perception.

Though I do not know whether this demand which they required of Paul was more insistent than fair. And by this it appears how preposterous the credulity of men is in receiving false reports, and how firmly a false opinion, once rashly received, sticks.

It is certain that James and his colleagues endeavored to maintain and defend Paul’s good report and to dispel those lies that damaged his reputation; yet, let them do what they can, people will still speak evil of Paul. Unless, perhaps, the elders were too lenient in the beginning in order to please their countrymen, so that they were not free to act independently afterward.