TRACINGS FROM THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES
XII. THK COUNCIL AT
JERUSALEM.
ACTS xv. 1-35.
A TIME of rest from travel was permitted to these two
labourers, Paul and Barnabas. At Antioch, from whence they had started on their
missionary tour, they abode on their return no little time. On incidents in
connection with ministry there at this time Luke does not dwell, but gives us
to know, that though resting from the fatigue of frequent travel, the happy
service of quietly ministering to saints was disturbed by controversy in the
assembly. "Certain men came down from Judaea, and taught the brethren, saying,
Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts
xv. 1).
The Interruption. From Judaea they came, the stronghold
of Judaism. Doubtless that fact was pressed on the converts at Antioch, and
very likely it invested these new teachers with a prestige which otherwise they
would not have possessed. Christianity had begun at Jerusalem. There too were
still found some who had known the Lord in life, which Paul had not. To those
in Judaea, therefore, should not the men of Antioch look, to learn fully about
Christianity? Native-born Jews, just fresh from the cradle of the faitb, should
surely know better than Hellenists like Paul. We can well understand what
specious arguments, at the enemy's leading, might have been resorted to, in
order to gain a hearing and acceptance for these men. But who were they? Their
names are now unknown, though very likely they posed then as no mean
authorities for Christian teaching. Sic transit gloria mundi! *
Who sent
them? Not the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, for they disclaimed all
responsibility in the matter (xv. 24), however much some may have sympathised
with them in their doctrine. Yet very likely the names of leaders in Jerusalem
were used to give weight to the proposition now propounded (Gal. ii. 12), that
circumcision was an essential requisite for salvation. We can well believe what
a stir was made, for converts there were at Antioch of some years' standing.
And though they had prophets among them, by whom the mind of God had been made
known, no revelation of such a character as this had been uttered by any of
them. Were the converts then from Gentiles still unsaved? Much, of course, had
many there learnt from Paul and Barnabas. But had those devoted workers kept
back such important teaching? or were they in ignorance of it ? Undoubtedly
both of them had been circumcised; yet they had never pressed that rite on
converts from the Gentiles, though all the earliest converts to Christianity
bore on their person the mark of circumcision. Could it be then that these new
teachers were right, and the two Apostles wrong? Appearances might seem to
favour such a surmise, when it was remembered that the first Apostles of the
Lord had all been circumcised, and had also conformed to the requirements of
the law. Hence a conflict arose, which was, we may well believe, keenly carried
on; for Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and questioning with them."
The work of building up souls was thus to be arrested by the controversy now
raised, and carried on with persistency and vigour characteristic of sectarian
zeal. So doubtless had plotted the enemy.
* Thus passes away worldly
glory.
Circumcision. In what light Paul viewed this teaching,
save that he resolutely opposed it, the Acts affords us no further help. The
Epistles, however, make this plain, and show what a vital question was raised
by those self-appointed teachers. Between them and Paul it was not a. mere
matter of opinion, in which each disputant might without harm retain his own
conviction. In the eyes of the Apostle it was a deadly scheme which had been
propounded, for it subverted the truth of Christianity. Much, very much, was
imperilled by the claim for circumcision now put forward. Let us look a little
into this.
Circumcision was of the fathers, not of Moses, the Lord had
declared, though taught Israel by Moses (John vii. 22); and it was the sign of
a covenant made by God with Abraham and his seed after the flesh, relating both
to fruitfulness of offspring and to the possession of the land of Canaan as
their inheritance: and God would be their God (Gen. xvii. 11-14). Now all those
on whom circumcision was to be imperative were either Abraham's seed, those
born in their houses, or those bought with their money. And later on, the
stranger, called in Hebrew Ger, who would make his home in the midst of
Israel, if desirous to keep the Passover, had to be circumcised with all the
males in his house (Exod. xii. 48). At the first blush of the question, then,
the converts to Christianity from Gentiles were neither Abraham's seed after
the flesh, nor born in the house of a Jew, nor the latter's property by
purchase, nor strangers desiring to celebrate the Passover. Why then should
they be circumcised ? An answer to this question in favour of these new
teachers, which could satisfy reflecting minds, it would be impossible to give.
But there was more to be urged against this doctrine than simply the lack of
authority to circumcise Gentiles. This Paul brought out.
In 1 Cor. vii.
19 we learn that circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but
the keeping of the commandments of God. That is, obedience to God is of real
importance, and not the having submitted to the external rite instituted in
Gen. xvii. or the contrary. If one was called having been previously
circumcised, let him not efface that mark from his body; if called
uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised. God was dealing with men now as men,
and not primarily with an elect nation, the seed of Abraham. Hence neither the
one condition nor the other was of importance in the Church of
God.
Turning next to Romans, we are there taught that what is now to be
sought after is reality of heart before God, and not a distinguishing mark on
one's body. And the former only are now true Jews in spirit, according to the
meaning of the word Jew - i.e., praise. "He is not a Jew, which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom.
ii. 28, 29). He who could boast of having been circumcised on the eighth day,
as the law enjoined, teaches that what is now to be valued is circumcision of
the heart, and not of the letter. And those who were now only characterised by
the outward rite he designates as the concision, claiming true circumcision
alone for those who worship * by the Spirit of God, rejoice in Christ Jesus,
and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil. iii. 2-5). Far behind then in
understanding the mind of God for their day were those self-constituted
teachers, whose very names have fittingly and significantly sunk into oblivion.
They had come to Antioch, and pressed their claim to be listened to on the
uncircumcised converts in that city, as coming from headquarters, even from
Judsea. In reality they needed to learn for themselves the rudiments of
Christian teaching.
* "Worship by the Spirit of God." This is what the
Apostle wrote. He was not speaking of the character of worship as being
spiritual in contrast to ceremonial, but of the One by whom alone we can
worship God now, even the Holy Ghost. But, worshipping by Him, we need scarcely
say that it will be spiritual worship.
But there was more at stake, and
this in the Epistle to the Galatians is plainly set forth. Unless ye be
circumcised ye cannot be saved, so averred those men. "If ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing," Paul could reply (Gal. v. 2). Would they
insist on the converts keeping the law? Paul would meet that with a solemn
assurance. "I testify unto every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor
to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you
are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. v. 3, 4). Would any
following such perverted teaching put themselves under law? They thereby put
themselves under bondage to keep the law (Gal. iv. 21-31). And all their hopes
of the future inheritance would, as far as they were concerned, become vain,
for they came under a curse if they failed in the observance of even one
command (Gal. iii. 10).
Further, all who had believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of their sins had received the gift of the Holy
Ghost (Eph. i. 13), and so were Christ's (Rom. viii. 9), which is the same as
being in Christ (Gal. iii 28, 29). They were also members of His body (1 Cor.
xii. 13). Full Christian blessing, therefore, was theirs already. Abraham's
seed they were also as in Christ. What then could circumcision do for them?
What could these teachers minister of Christian blessing which was not theirs
already? Nothing. But what harm could they do? Much indeed. For any who imbibed
such teaching, and kept to it, would fall from grace. No wonder then that Paul
earnestly withstood it. It was really, as we learn, subversive of Christianity.
In Christ all true believers really were. Now in Him "neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love" (Gal.
v. 6). And again he states (Gal. vi. 15) that "neither circumcision is
anything, nor uneircumcision, but a new creature [or, creation]." Differing as
light from darkness, or as day from night, was the true Christian teaching
upheld by Paul from that Judaising teaching sought to be introduced by these
unauthorised missionaries. Then too the effect of such doctrine was withering
to the spirit. Biting and devouring one another would be displayed, and the
observance of days, of months, of times, and of years would be introduced.
Writing as to this last, Paul tells the Galatians, who were adopting it, "I am
afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain " (iv.
11).
Firmly, determinedly did Paul and Barnabas oppose these men. They
were false brethren, as Paul terms them, who came in privily to spy out the
liberty of the saints in Christ. To such he would not give way for an hour,
that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the converts from heathenism
(Gal. ii. 4, 5). But how should this question be satisfactorily settled? Paul
and Barnabas taught one thing ; those teachers from Judaea taught another. Yet
it must be settled, else the peace of the assembly would be destroyed, parties
be formed, and divisions result. It was then determined that Paul and Barnabas,
with certain others, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders
about it (Acts xv. 2). They went, but Paul went up by revelation, he tells us
(Gal. ii. 2). The Holy Ghost was guiding, that real blessing should come out of
it, and the enemy be quite outwitted.
Titus. Who formed the
company we shall never know on this side of death. Of one only we learn who
accompanied the Apostles - viz., Titus, already converted, and that by Paul
(Titus i. 4), but when and where are points alike concealed from us. In
Galatians (ii. 1) we read of him as now with Paul, so he joined that Apostle's
company earlier than Timothy. And as a protest against that Judaising teaching
and a vindication of the truth, Titus, who by birth was a pure Gentile, Paul
took up with him, but uncireumcised. So at Jerusalem the brethren, welcoming
Paul and his company, welcomed an uncircumcised Christian in their midst. And
wherever they stopped on their route, and they evidently did at places, whilst
great joy was caused by their announcement of the conversion of Gentiles, the
ground taken up by Paul and Barnabas at Antioch was firmly and openly
maintained throughout, as Titus was seen in their company, a joint partaker of
grace, a member of Christ, and a fellow-heir with all true believers of the
inheritance in the future.
Reception at Jerusalem. Great joy was
manifested by the disciples in Phoenicia and Samaria, as they heard of the
conversion of Gentiles. We have no mention, however, of any such expression on
the part of the assembly at Jerusalem. Possibly the strong Judaising element
there made Paul and Barnabas to be regarded with some degree of suspicion, and
this surmise receives support from the Apostle Paul's own account of his visit
to Jerusalem at this time. "I went up" he writes "by revelation; and I laid
before them [better than, communicated unto them] that Gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but privately before them which were of reputation, lest by
any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal. ii. 2). It would seem as if
reports had reached those at Jerusalem about him and Barnabas, not tending to
enhance their reputation as faithful labourers and conservators of the truth.
The result he tells us was, that to his Gospel the chiefs at Jerusalem could
add (or, impart) nothing. "But contrariwise," he writes, "when they saw that
the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the
circumcision was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me to ward the
Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands
of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the
circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which
I also was forward to do" (Gal. ii. 7-10). All distrust and distance seemed
effectually removed. The special sphere of labour to which Paul and Barnabas
had been called at Antioch they fully recognised, as much as that committed
especially to the twelve. But we must not anticipate. Reaching Jerusalem, they
rehearsed to the assembly, and to the Apostles, and to the Elders, all things
that God had done with them. A hearing having been thus at once accorded them
to relate the success of their mission among the heathen, the opposition raised
its voice, and formulated its dogma - viz., "That it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (Acts xv. 5). The
promulgators of this dictum were certain of the sect of the Pharisees, to which
sect Paul had once belonged. How low he must have fallen, they would think. How
far had he been diverted from what was right, they evidently would affirm. Now
the controversy which had been carried on at Antioch was transferred to
Jerusalem. All felt the matter an important one, so the Apostles and the
Elders, but not the assembly, met together to consider it.
The
Conference. The discussion was free. Neither Peter nor James spoke at the
outset of it, nor did Paul or Barnabas take part till many probably had had
their say. For not till there had been much disputing (or, questioning) did
Peter rise to speak. All therefore, we may be certain, that the advocates of
the Judaising element could advance had been put forward. Then Peter arose, and
could claim a hearing, not only as an Apostle, but as the one chosen of God by
whom Gentiles had first heard the word of the Gospel and believed. Now to that
company, as he reminds his hearers, God gave the Holy Ghost, "even as He did,"
said Peter, "unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith."
Were Cornelius and his friends circumcised in
order to be saved? Had they been circumcised since that day? All knew they
received salvation as they sat on their seats listening to Peter. Was that an
assumption on Peter's part? He adduced proof of it, which none could gainsay.
God, who knew their hearts, gave them then and there the Holy Ghost, which
ensured full Christian blessing. The history of Cornelius and his friends
negatived the contention of these pharisaic brethren. Circumcision could not be
a necessary prelude to salvation; for those, to whom Peter had preached at
Csesarea, had received the latter without first submitting to the former. Would
the objectors argue that purification by legal ceremonies was imperative? Such
could really only avail to the sanctifying of the flesh. But God looks at the
heart. Now He had purified the hearts of those Gentiles by faith. Let them read
the history of that visit to Caesarea in its right light. They would see the
mistake of their contention. Thus the ground was being cut away from under
their feet, and that by the Apostle of the circumcision.
But Peter had
more to say, and none but one who had been a Jew could so well press the next
point, as none but those who had been Jews could so well appreciate it. Were
the objectors enamoured of the law? Had they found freedom under it? Had they
not, on the contrary, felt its claims burdensome indeed, a yoke which neither
they nor their fathers had been able to bear? Would they burden others with a
yoke which they had found so heavy? As little weight was to be attached to this
contention of the Gentiles keeping the law as to any other which had been
advanced. "For we believe," continued Peter, "that we shall be saved through
the grace of the Lord Jesus, even as they." Salvation therefore for each and
all was not by keeping the law. It is by faith (Eph. ii. 8).
The Apostle
had finished. Silence reigned where discussion had been rife. Peter, the
Apostle to the circumcision, boldly resisted the dogma which had been
propounded. His speech, it would seem, was felt to be unanswerable. No one rose
to support what we might call the opposition ; for the whole multitude kept
silence, to let Barnabas and Paul give proofs of the real work of God among the
Gentiles. Both these Apostles spoke- - Barnabas first, Paul next. They could
tell much of deep interest, and doubtless details of many conversions. But the
tenor of their addresses was to make known what miracles and wonders God had
wrought among the Gentiles by them. Important was this, because it conclusively
established that the work among the Gentiles was signally owned by God. He was
working, and had worked, specially by those who refused to sanction the
introduction among the converts in heather lands of Jewish rites, or their
being put under law. Could any then doubt that Paul and Barnabas were in the
right, and those Judaising teachers were in the wrong ?
James now rose.
His words were directed, not to refute the propositions advanced, which Peter
had sufficiently done, but to bring Scripture to bear on the matter. What light
would it cast on the subject? He quoted from the prophet Amos a passage which
foretold blessing to Gentiles (Amos ix. 11, 12).* That such should confess the
Lord and be called by His name was then no afterthought of the Divine mind. Yet
nowhere did the prophetic word hint at the necessity for them to be
circumcised. Hence the silence of Scripture on the matter afforded light on the
controversy. God knew from the beginning what He would do If then He had not
spoken of circumcising such, who should enjoin it?. Where Scripture was silent,
let them be silent. How wise! Would that in later days this simple principle,
which commends itself at once, had been more carried out!
* James quotes
from the Greek version of Amos, but not even from that with exactness, save
that for the point in hand - viz., Gentiles to be called by God's name - he
quotes the Greek with verbal correctness. And he winds up with the reminder,
that God makes things known from the beginning of the world. Joel (Acts ii.),
Habakkuk (Acts xiii.), Amos, are each brought forward as needed. Portions of
the Word, perhaps much seldomer read than Isaiah or the other great propbets,
are found helpful, and can throw light at times on the matter in
hand.
Three steps had been taken in this controversy. First, the ground
of the objectors was completely cut away. Next, that God was working among
Gentiles was undeniably established. Third, Scripture, though foreseeing that,
nowhere taught that they should be circumcised. To Scripture teaching all must
bow. As God had not enjoined circumcision on Gentiles, neither could the
Apostles and Elders. Nor under the law could they put them. Yet there were
certain things from which these once Gentiles in common with these once Jews
must abstain as creatures of God. These James intimates - viz., pollution of
idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood, assigning as a reason that
"Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the
synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts xv. 21). All might learn from the
Pentateuch God's mind for men. So all must conform to that as worshippers of
the one true God, and sharers in Divine grace. It was patent that idolatry must
be renounced by the converts. The Thessalonian saints subsequently bore
testimony to this, for they turned to God from idols, to serve the living and
true God (1 Thess. i. 9). And a danger there was, unless it was given up, of
pandering to it, as illustrated by the Corinthians (1 Cor. viii., x.), and by
those at Pergamos (Rev. ii. 14). Next, God's institution of marriage, a
provision against fornication (1 Cor. vii. 2), was for the benefit of the whole
human race. So that sin, but little frowned on among the Gentiles, must be
renounced by disciples of the Lord Jesus. And lastly, the prohibition against
eating blood must be enforced. This dated from the days of Noah, and was
imposed on Noah and on his sons (Gen. ix. 4) just after the flood. It clearly
concerned thp whole human family. Here it might be asked, Did not the law
prohibit eating blood? Unquestionably. Was not James then really putting the
converts from heathenism under the law by this? Not at all. The law did
prohibit it, but under a penalty (Lev. xvii. 10-12). Gen. ix. 4 prohibited it,
but mentioned no penalty. In perfect keeping was this with dispensational
teaching. To those placed under law a penalty attached to the infraction of the
command. To those never under law, as Noah and his sons, no penalty was
prescribed for disobedience in this respect. Now that command, then given, has
never been cancelled, so is binding, of course, on all Noah's descendants. On
it then James insisted, but not as a penal enactment. There are things
forbidden in the Word to men as men. There are also things forbidden to those
under law. So whilst upholding the perfect freedom of converts from the
Gentiles from the yoke sought to be imposed on them, whatever God's Word had
said to men as men, and had not cancelled, remained in force, and must be
attended to. Well indeed were they guided at this conference, steering clear of
any insistence on the converts in question being put under law, but steering
clear equally of any relaxation of the Divine injunctions for the whole human
race. The manner too of handling the controversy is worthy of notice. One may
refute a proposition by showing the untenableness of it. This Peter did. One
may also seek for light on it from the written Word of God. This James did.
Thus the matter, to use a modern expression, was thoroughly thrashed out.
Unanimity now prevailed, where diversity of judgment had been freely
declared.
The Resolution. James proposed writing to the
Christians at Antioch. This resolved upon by the whole Church, in common with
the Apostles and Elders, they proceeded to choose their messengers who should
accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return. The selection was made. Judas
named Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, were fixed upon to
carry the proposed letter from the Apostles and Elders to express their
judgment on the question that had been raised, and to confirm by word of mouth
what had been resolved upon at the conference. Some from Jerusalem had troubled
the assembly at Antioch with their Judaising dogmas. Judas and Silas should go
from Jerusalem as witnesses of the statement in the letter which they carried,
that those in authority in Judaea repudiated the teaching of the disturbers of
converts amongst the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas could and would surely declare
that. Confirmation then of it should be forthcoming by the witnesses, who would
substantiate what the other two might aver.
The Letter.
Dismissed, they went down to Antioch, bearing the first, and the only formal
communication with which we are acquainted, from those in authority at
Jerusalem to the brethren from the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
"The Apostles and the elder brethren," so it ran (we give the Revised Version),
"unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia,
greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have
troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment;
it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send
them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and
Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For
it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden
than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,
and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if
ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well."
The
question raised, a vital one as to doctrine, was also vital as to fellowship.
For if the troublers had been correct, fellowship of Gentile converts with
those at Jerusalem depended on the former submitting themselves to all the
ordinances of the law. Hence they might naturally desire to know on what terms
Christian fellowship could be maintained, and interchange of communion could
take place. It was then for those at Jerusalem to make that plain. This they
did. Hence their letter. There was, be it observed, no assertion of the rights
and primacy of a metropolitan see, the occupant of which could lay down the law
for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might, which had
been, and still was, the home of Apostles. The Apostles and Elders wrote to
their brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or
Peter, or all of them apart from others not reckoned in the Apostolate, who
fulminated a decree. It was brethren writing to brethren. And the letter,
though firm in character, was gracious in tone. So, whilst it did not exact
implicit obedience on pain of excommunication, yet the godly at Antioch and
elsewhere would have hesitated to refuse for one moment to subscribe to its
teaching, seeing that it only affirmed and insisted upon that which for ages
and ages had been the will of God for His creatures of the human race.
A
great danger was thus avoided. Persecution had failed to arrest the movement.
Corruption within, in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, had been stamped out.
Now the danger of division, and the setting up of rival schools of doctrine and
practice, had been imminent. But God in His grace had sent up Paul by
revelation to confer with those at Jerusalem; and the Holy Ghost, as they owned
in the letter, had guided their deliberations. God again defeated the enemy,
and the Church emerged safely out of this crisis. Nowhere but at Jerusalem
could this question have been definitely settled. There, however, it was
decided, and to that decision the leaders adhered, as James and all the Elders
affirmed years after (Acts xxi. 25).
We have spoken of James. Who was
he? The Apostle Paul in the Galatians tells us that he was the Lord's brother,
and an Apostle likewise. "Other of the Apostles," he writes, "saw I none, save
James the Lord's brother" (Gal. i. 19). Of the Apostles present at the
conference that same Epistle mentions James, Cephas, and John (Gal. ii. 9); for
we conclude that Paul is writing of the memorable occasion when with Barnabas
he went up to Jerusalem, and was present at the council, as told us by Luke.
Are there three Jameses of New Testament fame, or only two? Two only has Luke,
we believe, distinguished - James the brother of John and James the son of
Alphaeus. The former killed by Herod, the historian subsequently tells us that
Peter spoke of James (xii. 17) without further designation, as if there was but
one then alive. In this passage (xv.), and also in xxi. 18, Luke mentions the
same James. The question of only two or of three Jameses in the Apostolic
company has been a matter of discussion for centuries. No one now can
authoritatively settle it. We leave the matter, then, with this one remark,
that if Luke was aware of three Jameses, and that James of Acts xii. 17, xv.,
xxi. 8 was not the son of Alphaeus, but another of wholly different parentage,
it is. surprising he did not mention it.*
* This remark is strengthened by
the remembrance that in i. 13 Luke has mentioned by name only two Jameses. If
subsequently he introduced a third, why did he not more definitely describe
him!
At Antioch. Again at Antioch, the multitude was called
together to hear the result of the visit to, and conference at, Jerusalem. The
letter delivered was duly read, and joy filled their hearts. They rejoiced, we
learn, for the consolation. And now, free doubtless in spirit, and with hearts
prepared to receive, they could profit by the ministry of the two newcomers,
Judas and Silas, who, being prophets, could and did exercise their gift in
exhorting the brethren with many words, and in confirming them. Their mission
ended, Judas returned to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas continuing for a season
at Antioch, preaching the word of the Lord with many others. We have mentioned
Judas. What about Silas? The historian seems to intimate that he went back with
Judas, for we read, "After they had tarried there a space, they were let go
[or, dismissed] in peace from the brethren to those who sent them," as we
should certainly read (Acts xv. 33). Silas must therefore have subsequently
returned again to Antioch, for we find him there ready to accompany Paul when
he commenced his second great missionary journey. We say "must have returned,"
for the words in ver. 34, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there
still," are generally rejected as not authentic. A few remarks in conclusion.
1st, that for which Paul and Barnabas had contended was right, and
those at Jerusalem endorsed it. To the Gospel, too, which Paul preached, they
in conference could add nothing. It was in accord with that to which Peter,
James, and John subscribed. Paul, who had learnt it directly from God, they
owned had been taught correctly, because, as we can say, divinely taught. So
the danger of two schools of doctrine amongst Christians, the one claiming the
support of those at Jerusalem, the other pointing to Paul and Barnabas as their
authority, was at this time averted. Apostles at Jerusalem there were. Apostles
also at Antioch there were. But there was, there is, but one Holy Ghost. So
what He had taught Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, He maintained and all accepted
at Jerusalem.
2nd. Further, we see the place the Church had in all
this. It was gathered together at Jerusalem to hear from Paul and Barnabas an
account of the work among the heathen. It was consulted and had a voice in the
selection of the messengers for Antioch. But at the conference only the
Apostles and Elders are mentioned as present. And the letter went from these
last, not from the assembly. The functions and the province of the assembly are
thus seen. It had not to decide questions of doctrine. It is taught, but never
in Scripture; yet had a voice in selecting the two who should bear the letter
to Antioch.
3rd. Then we are reminded of the personal presence and
acting of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Person dwelling on earth. What Peter had
declared (Acts v. 32) of His presence, the letter affirmed, as it stated, " It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." His personal presence on earth was
thus owned, and His active participation in the work distinctly declared. We
shall learn more of this as we proceed.
Go To Chapter
Thirteen