Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words. And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
we gave them no instructions - "Opening with a hearty 'greeting' from 'the apostles and elders and brethren' at Jerusalem, it explained that they had heard that certain of their own number had gone to Antioch troubling the Gentile believers there and 'subverting' their souls, and assured them that these men had received no command from them to go. The word 'suc' has been incorrectly supplied in Ver. 24. The meaning is not that the church at Jerusalem had not commissioned them to say what they did, but that they had not commissioned them to go at all: 'to whom we gave no commandment' ... As for Judas and Silas, they stand in direct contrast to the Judaizers who had preceded them. The Judaizers had not been sent but had come casting doubts upon the reality of the Gentiles' conversion to 'dismantle' and rob them. Judas and Silas, on the other hand, had been officially commissioned by the Church at Jerusalem and had come to encourage the Gentile believers and confirm them." (Stam)
Silas - "An abbreviated form of Silvanus. After performing his special mission in Antioch (vs 30-35), he accompanied St. Paul, in place of Barnabas, on his second missionary journey (v 40) through Syria, Cilicia, south Galatia, and the road to Macedonia. He remained in Berea with Timothy after St. Paul's departure to Athens (Acts 17:14), but seems to have followed his leader to Athens later (Acts 17:15), only, however, to be sent back to Macedonia, like Timothy, on some special errand (1 Thes 3:1-2). He rejoined St Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:5), and his name is associated with the apostle's in the two Epistles written to the Thessalonians from that city. Here we lose sight of him, so far as St. Paul's further labours are concerned. It is generally supposed, however, that he is identical with the Silvanus mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 12, as the bearer of St. Peter's first Epistle. Like Paul, he was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37)." (Walker)
you will do well - "act rightly" (Ryrie)
"As to the actual decision of the council, reduced to writing in this letter, several important details should be noted.
1. The Church at Jerusalem did not impose the law upon the Gentile believers.
2. They could not have done so anyway, because they had no jurisdiction over them, but the point is that had the kingdom program gone on the Gentiles would have been subject to Israel. Now the Church at Jerusalem makes it clear that this is not the case.
3. The 'necessary things' in which the Jerusalem Church did exhort them, were not works of the law which they sought to bind upon the Gentiles after all, but things which they felt the Gentile believers should 'abstain' from so as not to shock the prejudices of the Jews with whom they came into contact (Ver. 29).
4. Even these details were not put in the form of commands. It was simply suggested that they would 'do well' to abstain from these things for the time being (Ver. 29) even if this proved somewhat of a 'burden.' We do not believe, as some do, that Paul agreed to subject the Gentiles to certain legal requirements and then later repudiated the agreement (See Gal 2:5; 5:1,3,9).
Because of the transition from the kingdom program to that of the present economy the council's written decision was necessary both to establish Gentile liberty and to confirm Paul's apostolic authority among the Gentiles. It did not, however, supersede Paul's own God-given authority and commission. He needed no Jerusalem council to endorse his apostleship. Thus while he accepted its decision as a satisfactory settlement of the matter in question, he never once refers to this letter in his epistles, not even when discussing the principal matter with which it dealt (Gal 2). Anyway, Paul found higher reasons why the Gentiles—and even the Jews—should not be under the law (Rom 7:2; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14) and higher motives for abstaining from anything that might in any way injure others, whether lost or saved (Rom 14:13-15; 1 Cor 8:1,4,7,9; 10:28-33; Gal 5:13) ... There had indeed been much to be apprehensive about, yet the Holy Spirit had graciously and powerfully overruled, until both James and Peter, with John, publicly and officially recognized Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and the 'whole church ... assembled with one accord' wrote to the Gentiles as brethren in Christ, condemning the Judaizers, upholding Paul and declaring that they had agreed that the Gentiles were not to be under the law." (Stam)
v 29 - "Some manuscripts do not contain this verse." (Ryrie)
spent some time - "This verb occurs again in Acts 12:19; 14:3, 28; 16:12; 20:6; 25:6, 14. A considerable period seems to be intended. To this period must be referred the incidents of Peter's vacillating conduct and Barnabas' compromising actions related in Gal 2:11-18. Doubtless, it prepared the way for the breach which follows (vs 39-40)." (Walker)
"It is undoubtedly at this point in the history of Acts that we must place Peter's visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul (Gal 2:11-14), for this took place after the council at Jerusalem, but before the separation between Paul and Barnabas. This was the second time Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish Church. Antioch was that (on earth) of the Gentile Church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, 'they that were of the circumcision contended with him' (Acts 11:2). When, later, he came to Antioch, Paul 'withstood him to the fact' (Gal 2:11). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Acts 11:3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he had stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12). At Jerusalem he rightly defended his action (Acts 11:4). At Antioch he had no defense to offer (Gal 2:11-18). There was naturally a keen interest at Jerusalem in developments among the Gentiles. It was soon after the council at Jerusalem that Peter travelled to Antioch to visit the church there himself. It must have seemed like further fulfillment of the 'sheet' vision to sit down and eat with these Gentiles and enjoy their fellowship to the full. But then something happened. It was reported that 'certain from James' had arrived. No more was this announcement made than a separation began among those who had been thus enjoying each other's fellowship. First Peter 'withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision' (Gal 2:12). (What an influence James and his party must have exerted to be able to intimidate even the chief of the apostles in this way!) This of course, was not only cowardice, but hypocrisy, for if Peter's fellowship with the Gentiles had been right before, why was it wrong now? As a result of Peter's action 'the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation' (Gal 2:13)." (Stam)
we gave them no instructions - "Opening with a hearty 'greeting' from 'the apostles and elders and brethren' at Jerusalem, it explained that they had heard that certain of their own number had gone to Antioch troubling the Gentile believers there and 'subverting' their souls, and assured them that these men had received no command from them to go. The word 'suc' has been incorrectly supplied in Ver. 24. The meaning is not that the church at Jerusalem had not commissioned them to say what they did, but that they had not commissioned them to go at all: 'to whom we gave no commandment' ... As for Judas and Silas, they stand in direct contrast to the Judaizers who had preceded them. The Judaizers had not been sent but had come casting doubts upon the reality of the Gentiles' conversion to 'dismantle' and rob them. Judas and Silas, on the other hand, had been officially commissioned by the Church at Jerusalem and had come to encourage the Gentile believers and confirm them." (Stam)
Silas - "An abbreviated form of Silvanus. After performing his special mission in Antioch (vs 30-35), he accompanied St. Paul, in place of Barnabas, on his second missionary journey (v 40) through Syria, Cilicia, south Galatia, and the road to Macedonia. He remained in Berea with Timothy after St. Paul's departure to Athens (Acts 17:14), but seems to have followed his leader to Athens later (Acts 17:15), only, however, to be sent back to Macedonia, like Timothy, on some special errand (1 Thes 3:1-2). He rejoined St Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:5), and his name is associated with the apostle's in the two Epistles written to the Thessalonians from that city. Here we lose sight of him, so far as St. Paul's further labours are concerned. It is generally supposed, however, that he is identical with the Silvanus mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 12, as the bearer of St. Peter's first Epistle. Like Paul, he was a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37)." (Walker)
you will do well - "act rightly" (Ryrie)
"As to the actual decision of the council, reduced to writing in this letter, several important details should be noted.
1. The Church at Jerusalem did not impose the law upon the Gentile believers.
2. They could not have done so anyway, because they had no jurisdiction over them, but the point is that had the kingdom program gone on the Gentiles would have been subject to Israel. Now the Church at Jerusalem makes it clear that this is not the case.
3. The 'necessary things' in which the Jerusalem Church did exhort them, were not works of the law which they sought to bind upon the Gentiles after all, but things which they felt the Gentile believers should 'abstain' from so as not to shock the prejudices of the Jews with whom they came into contact (Ver. 29).
4. Even these details were not put in the form of commands. It was simply suggested that they would 'do well' to abstain from these things for the time being (Ver. 29) even if this proved somewhat of a 'burden.' We do not believe, as some do, that Paul agreed to subject the Gentiles to certain legal requirements and then later repudiated the agreement (See Gal 2:5; 5:1,3,9).
Because of the transition from the kingdom program to that of the present economy the council's written decision was necessary both to establish Gentile liberty and to confirm Paul's apostolic authority among the Gentiles. It did not, however, supersede Paul's own God-given authority and commission. He needed no Jerusalem council to endorse his apostleship. Thus while he accepted its decision as a satisfactory settlement of the matter in question, he never once refers to this letter in his epistles, not even when discussing the principal matter with which it dealt (Gal 2). Anyway, Paul found higher reasons why the Gentiles—and even the Jews—should not be under the law (Rom 7:2; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14) and higher motives for abstaining from anything that might in any way injure others, whether lost or saved (Rom 14:13-15; 1 Cor 8:1,4,7,9; 10:28-33; Gal 5:13) ... There had indeed been much to be apprehensive about, yet the Holy Spirit had graciously and powerfully overruled, until both James and Peter, with John, publicly and officially recognized Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and the 'whole church ... assembled with one accord' wrote to the Gentiles as brethren in Christ, condemning the Judaizers, upholding Paul and declaring that they had agreed that the Gentiles were not to be under the law." (Stam)
v 29 - "Some manuscripts do not contain this verse." (Ryrie)
spent some time - "This verb occurs again in Acts 12:19; 14:3, 28; 16:12; 20:6; 25:6, 14. A considerable period seems to be intended. To this period must be referred the incidents of Peter's vacillating conduct and Barnabas' compromising actions related in Gal 2:11-18. Doubtless, it prepared the way for the breach which follows (vs 39-40)." (Walker)
"It is undoubtedly at this point in the history of Acts that we must place Peter's visit to Antioch and his stern rebuke by Paul (Gal 2:11-14), for this took place after the council at Jerusalem, but before the separation between Paul and Barnabas. This was the second time Peter got into trouble over the Gentile question and there is a significant connection between this incident at Antioch and the previous one at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish Church. Antioch was that (on earth) of the Gentile Church. When Peter returned to Jerusalem after ministering to Cornelius, 'they that were of the circumcision contended with him' (Acts 11:2). When, later, he came to Antioch, Paul 'withstood him to the fact' (Gal 2:11). At Jerusalem he was called to account for eating with the Gentiles (Acts 11:3). At Antioch he was rebuked because he had stopped eating with the Gentiles (Gal 2:12). At Jerusalem he rightly defended his action (Acts 11:4). At Antioch he had no defense to offer (Gal 2:11-18). There was naturally a keen interest at Jerusalem in developments among the Gentiles. It was soon after the council at Jerusalem that Peter travelled to Antioch to visit the church there himself. It must have seemed like further fulfillment of the 'sheet' vision to sit down and eat with these Gentiles and enjoy their fellowship to the full. But then something happened. It was reported that 'certain from James' had arrived. No more was this announcement made than a separation began among those who had been thus enjoying each other's fellowship. First Peter 'withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision' (Gal 2:12). (What an influence James and his party must have exerted to be able to intimidate even the chief of the apostles in this way!) This of course, was not only cowardice, but hypocrisy, for if Peter's fellowship with the Gentiles had been right before, why was it wrong now? As a result of Peter's action 'the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation' (Gal 2:13)." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment