The day following, Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
Parallel Translations
-
The day following, Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present.
-
And on the morowe Paul wet in with vs vnto Iames. And all the elders came to geder.
-
And the next day Paul went in with vs vnto Iames: and all the Elders were there assembled.
Cross-references (11)
Passages linked to Acts 21:18 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Galatians 1:19 But of the other apostles I saw no one except James, the Lord’s brother.
- Acts 11:30 which they also did, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
- Acts 15:13 After they were silent, James answered, “Brothers, listen to me.
- Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.
- Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these. The first, Simon, who is called Peter; Andrew, his brother; James the son of Zebedee; John, his brother;
- Acts 12:17 But he, beckoning to them with his hand to be silent, declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.
- Acts 15:2 Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them, to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question.
- Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.
- Acts 15:23 They wrote these things by their hand: “The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings.
- Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to himself the elders of the assembly.
- James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion: Greetings.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (16 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 18. All the elders were present. We may gather…
18. All the elders were present. We may gather that out of this place which we had already in the fifteenth chapter. So often as any weighty business was to be handled, the elders were wont to come together, to the end the consultation might be more quiet without the multitude. We shall see anon, that the people were likewise admitted in their order, yet after that the elders had had their secret consultation among themselves.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 18 And the day following Paul went in with…
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Ver. 18. Unto James] The son of Alpheus, called by St Mark, "James the less," and by some of the ancients, Bishop of Jerusalem.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain James, one of the apostles, though some think that…
James, one of the apostles, though some think that he was a kinsman of our Saviour’s, and at this time bishop of Jerusalem.
Elders; as in Act 15:6,23, not so called for their age, but dignity or place in the church.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And the day following,.... After they were come into…
And the day following,.... After they were come into Jerusalem:
Paul went in with us to James; not the son of Zebedee and brother of John, for he was killed by Herod some years ago; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, who presided over this church; it seems there were no other apostles now at Jerusalem, but they were all dispersed abroad that were living, preaching the Gospel in the several parts of the world: Paul took the first opportunity Of paying a visit to James, very likely at his own house, to give him an account of his success among the Gentiles, and to know the state of the church at Jerusalem, and confer with him about what might be most proper and serviceable to promote the interest of Christ; and he took with him those who had been companions with him in his travels, partly to show respect to James, and partly to be witnesses of what he should relate unto him:
Read full note →
and all the elders were present: by whom are meant, not the ancient private members of the church, but the ministers of the word in this church: who hearing of the coming of the apostle, and of his visit to James, assembled together to see him, and converse with him.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Paul went in with us - That it might…
Paul went in with us - That it might appear we are all of one mind, to James - Commonly called the Lord's brother; the only apostle then presiding over the Churches in Judea.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 18. Went in with us unto James] This…
Verse 18. Went in with us unto James] This was James the Less, son of Mary; and cousin to our Lord. He appears to have been bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, and perhaps the only apostle who continued in that city. We have already seen what a very important character he sustained in the council. See Ac 15:13.
All the elders were present.] It appears that they had been convened about matters of serious and important moment; and some think it was relative to Paul himself, of whose arrival they had heard, and well knew how many of those that believed were disaffected towards him.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Unto James - James the Less. See the notes…
Unto James - James the Less. See the notes on Act 15:13. He resided at Jerusalem. Compare Gal 1:19. It is not improbable that he was the only one of the apostles then at Jerusalem; and there is reason to believe that the church at Jerusalem was left under his particular care. It was natural, therefore, that Paul and his companions should take an early opportunity to see him. James was the cousin of our Lord, and in Gal 1:19 he is called the Lord’s brother. On all accounts, therefore, he was entitled to, and would receive, particular respect from the early disciples.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain To James, the bishop of Jerusalem, where all the…
To James, the bishop of Jerusalem, where all the seniors, that is, the bishops and priests, had assembled. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Paul went in with us unto James; and all…
Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present--to "report himself" formally to the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and his associates in office. See on Act 15:13. Had any other of the apostles been in Jerusalem on that occasion, it could hardly fail to have been noted.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain V. PAUL IN COUNCIL WITH JAMES—ARREST—SENT TO CESAREA, Act_21:18…
V. PAUL IN COUNCIL WITH JAMES—ARREST—SENT TO CESAREA, Act_21:18 to Act_23:35.
1. Paul, James, and Elders, Act_21:18-25.
Read full note →
18. Went in with us—As principal with his followers. This is a formal and fully appointed assemblage on both sides.
James—Our readers may trace him through our notes on Mat_10:3; Joh_7:3; Act_1:14-15 entire. A fuller portraiture of his remarkable character we hope to furnish introductory to the Epistle of James. No contemporaneous proof whatever exists that he was ever ordained to an official order above the eldership. If, however, there was any man living at this primitive day who could claim to be a pope, a universal pontiff and bishop of the Christian Church, it was this brother of Christ, this spiritual potentate to whom the embassy and the tribute are paid, this prince of the house of David in David’s ancient capital.
Elders were present—As Paul is attended by his full suite, so the presbytery of James receive them in full session. The two bodies, therefore, meet, headed by the two illustrious personages whom, perhaps, the unanimous vote of each of the two great sections of the Church, the Judaic and Gentilic, would have recognised as the representative men. The great question of the Church of that age is before them as stated in notes on Act_10:1; Act_11:19 and Act_15:6.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 18. And the day following … James] This was…
18. And the day following … James] This was the Church’s reception of the returned missionaries. Notice of their arrival would soon be given, and the authorities who were at the time resident in Jerusalem were gathered together. There was not any Apostle there or St Luke would hardly have failed to mention the fact, as he was one of those present. Paul took with him to this interview all who had shared in his labours, that their work, as well as his own might receive the recognition of the mother church of Christ. The James here mentioned is the same who appears recognised as the head of the congregation in Jerusalem (Act_12:17, Act_15:13). He was most probably one of our Lord’s brethren. See note on Act_12:17.
and … present] These men, with James, formed the government of the Church, and were the persons to whom the Apostle would naturally desire to give an account of his labours. In the proceedings which follow, the narrative does not, as in the council at Jerusalem, represent James as taking the lead, or being spokesman; he is only mentioned as the person to whom the missionaries specially went. The advice given to St Paul is couched in the plural number, as if the elders had jointly tendered it.
Read full note →
And … saluted them] The verb is used both of the greetings at parting and arrival, and these in the East were of a much more formal character than is common in Western countries.
he declared particularly what things] More literally (with Rev. Ver.), “he rehearsed one by one the things which.” Such a narrative must have consumed a long time, though St Luke, having previously given a sketch of what the Apostle had done, omits any speech of St Paul here.
God … by his ministry] We cannot doubt, from what remains to us of St Paul’s writings, that this was the tone of all that he would say. God had been pleased to use him, and for His own glory had made St Paul’s weakness effective.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (18) The day following Paul went in with us…
(18) The day following Paul went in with us unto James . . .—Looking to Act_20:16, it seems natural to infer that this was on or near the Day of Pentecost. The city would be crowded with pilgrims. The Church would be holding its solemn festival, not without memories of the great gifts of the Spirit, and prayers for their renewal. The Bishop of Jerusalem—to give him the title which, though apparently not then borne by him, expressed his functions, and was afterwards attached to his name—was there with the elders of the Church. St. Luke is careful to add that they were all there. On their part there was no reluctance to receive the Apostle of the Gentiles into full fellowship.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Went in with us unto James. Nothing can mark…
Went in with us unto James. Nothing can mark more distinctly the position of James as Bishop of Jerusalem than this visit of Paul to him, and the finding him surrounded with all the elders of Jerusalem. It is a most distinct evidence of the apostolic origin of the episcopal office.
Vers. 18-26. Relations between disciples.
Read full note →
Our Lord has said, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another". (Joh_13:35) It was of the very last importance that, in the early days of Christianity, there should be inward harmony and outward concord among the disciples of Jesus. Division would have been grave disaster, if not irreparable defeat. But with the strongest reasons for desiring unanimity and a complete understanding, we have to face
I GREAT DELICACY OF POSITION AMONG CHRISTIAN BRETHREN, then as now. There is a great deal really contained in the simple statement, "Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present" (ver. 18). It was a meeting of two streams, differently composed. It was a meeting of those who believed in the Law with the addition of faith in Jesus Christ, and of those who believed in Jesus Christ with a high regard for the Law as a venerable but passing institution. Between these and those the Mosaic Law held a very different position, seriously affecting their views of doctrine, of religious activity, and of daily behavior. It required the utmost charity and forbearance on the part of both to maintain positively friendly relations. There must have been no little constraint, there was probably some discomfort in the opening interview. Thus is it now, and for a long time will be, between Christian disciples. Differences of social standing, of pecuniary position, of education and refinement, of ecclesiastical connection, of intellectual tendency (to liberalism on the one hand, or conservatism on the other), will interpose between Christian disciples and make their relations delicate, difficult, strained.
II THE RECONCILING ASPECT. Very wisely indeed Paul passed immediately from the introductory salutation to a full narration of "all that God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry" (ver. 19). This was striking the true note, the note that brought peace and concord; when they heard it, they glorified the Lord" (ver. 20). It is certain that if Paul had spoken in an argumentative strain they would not have been thus unanimous; but they all rejoiced to know that through his instrumentality though he had worked with different weapons from those in their hands men and women had been turned from dumb idols to serve the livingGod. This is the reconciling aspect in which to present our cause. However our distinctive views may differ from those of the men whom we meet in conference, or before whom we lay our case, if we can relate a true and simple story of souls converted, of lives transformed, of families or tribes or islands altogether changed and renewed "in the spirit of their mind," we go a long way if not all the way to convince those who hear that we are "disciples of Christ indeed;" they will glorify God in us.
III CONFORMITY AND NONCONFORMITY. It remains in doubt whether the expedient of James and of his friends was wise or unwise (vers. 20-24). Certainly it failed in its object. It is also in doubt whether Paul, with his views, was right in yielding to the wish of the elders (Ver. 26); certainly by doing so he endangered his life and lost his liberty without securing his end. But there are some certainties here.
1. That it is right to look at the question before us from our opponent"s point of view.
2. That it is wise to conform as far as possible to our opponent"s wishes.
3. That we should always be ready to offer or accept an honorable compromise (ver. 25).
4. That the utmost scrupulousness cannot prevent ill-natured or bigoted misunderstanding (ver. 21).
5. That nonconformity may be as honorable and advantageous as conformity. C. (Rom_14:4-7)
Vers. 18-20. The advocate of the Gentiles.
With great determination Paul had made his way to Jerusalem. The public ways terminating in the city were frequented, and the city itself would soon be filled with visitors. Paul knew well in the spirit that stern conflicts and no imaginary dangers awaited him. But before he encountered these he had to count with some other dangers, and which were in some aspects justly more formidable. Paul does not shirk them. He had not come up to desert his colors at the last, nor to prove his faithfulness gone. That a disunited Church should meet the crowd of the world, and even of various ecclesiastical parties, was a thing not to be thought of, certainly not to be allowed. It is the very thing that, times without number, since Paul showed the illustrious example to the contrary now, has been the weakness of the Church and the strength of the great foe. It is evident from the passage now before us that Paul"s course was a course that meant practically that so far things should be "en regle," and that nothing should be wanting on his part in order to secure a firm and united front. How many throw the hindrances of sell-will and of crotchets into the way at moments the most critical, most inopportune! It is with some particularity that we are here shown how Paul did the opposite. Let us notice
I THE FORMAL VISIT OF PAUL TO THE CONSTITUTED CHURCH. It is a visit to the Church as represented by James (who was evidently at present acting as its chief pastor in Jerusalem) and by the elders. There might have been plausible excuse for it if Paul had not thus reported himself to the Church, but he does not put any to the need of searching for its warrant. He comes to the Church; recognizes its reality as a power; recognizes its unity; recognizes it as the source and the depository of much possible future knowledge and wisdom; and recognizes it as the one earthly bar of judgment (so far as there can he one at all) before which either Christian disciple or Christian apostle may stand without infringing the allegiance due either to individual conscience or to the great bar of judgment above, invisible, but ever open and effective.
II THE SALUTATION OF PAUL. What this salutation was we may gather sufficiently from a comparison of the instances, in all about seventy, in which reference is made to it in the New Testament. In the English Version the thing intended appears under the description of "saluting," "greeting," "embracing," and "taking leave." There can be little doubt that, in the case of persons present with one another, the outward act of recognition, whether of a more or less intimate kind, was accompanied by some expression of Christian wish, or prayer, or gratitude; while in the case of messages, so many of which are found conveyed in the Epistles, the essence of the salutation consisted generally in the ever-grateful significance that lay in the fact Of the remembrance of the absent. All the rest, Christian wish, prayer, or thanksgiving, would be readily taken as "understood." In the present instance the special mention of the salutation reminds us justly of the humane and inartificial characteristics of Christianity. In sketches of its history of the most solemn import, nothing forbids, conceals, or even obscures their entering in as constituent elements of the whole scene. Even prominence is given to them, and they are not infrequently the light and color of the history. The unmeasured steadfastness of Christian principle and truth, is a thing utterly different from unfeeling severity and the expression of the natural instincts of human hearts.
III THE ADDRESS OF PAUL. It consisted of a faithful we might almost call it also a dutiful report of his own mission to the Gentile world. We can see, but, perhaps, can scarcely enter into, the exceeding interest of the subject at Jerusalem. So much hinged on exactly what had taken place, and upon the exact statement by one competent and trustworthy of what had taken place. Hence we may observe the particularity with which even the history rehearses and repeats it.
1. Paul gives God, indeed, the glory of what had been done, but probably also means to make a very pronounced affirmation before the Church at Jerusalem, that the work was indeed the work of God, to stop the unbelieving mouth or mind.
2. Paul speaks of the work of his own ministry. It is no hearsay, no impression, no hopefulness with which he entertains the listeners. There was not a statement he made, nor an incident he described "particularly," for the full weight and force of which he was not prepared to become guarantor.
3. Paul"s subject of address was specially kept to the things that had been accomplished among the Gentiles. Yet we very well know how much of thrilling interest he had met with in his associations with his own people, in addition to the occasions when their fortunes were inevitably linked with the things that happened to the Gentiles. Throughout it is evident what the returned ambassador of Jesus Christ had in his eye and on his heart. In a sense, he staked all on accrediting the Gentiles as heirs of the grace of God, and to be acknowledged as fellow-heirs with himself and the Church he was addressing. His own singleness of eye and purity of mind and fidelity to his original call appear in bright and bold relief in all this.
IV THE RECEPTION ACCORDED TO PAUL"S REPORT. Paul"s character was no longer the thing it was when, some years ago, he had first visited the Church at Jerusalem as a convert. This is his fifth visit since his conversion. Now for him to testify, and to testify "particularly," was to secure a ready hearing and a trusted attention.
1. They believe him.
2. And they "glorify" God. Envy, and bigotry, and pride, and exclusiveness are falling away from that typical Church, "the mother of us all," Length and breadth are seen and are acknowledged in the gospel of Christ. The world"s day has dawned, and the light of it, refused by so many, is entering into the eyes of that meeting of the chief pastor at the time at Jerusalem, and the elders. And they did well to "glorify the Lord" because of it. B.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain 18–27. Paul went in with us unto James. For…
18–27. Paul went in with us unto James. For the identification and position of James see note on 15:13. This James was not one of the twelve, but was “the brother of the Lord,” a witness of the risen Savior (1 Cor. 15:7). “James the brother of John” had been slain (12:2); of James the son of Alphæus, little is known, but James “the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19) was now the leader of the church at Jerusalem. No mention is made of any one of the twelve, and it is probable that those still living in a.d. 58, were in other fields of labor. The “elders” are mentioned, but not the apostles, a proof that none of the latter were present.
When they heard it. Paul's report of the wonderful success of the gospel. They evidently approved of and sympathized with his work. Thou seest, brother, now many thousands … believe. The Greek reads: “How many tens thousands.” There were not only many thousands of Christians in the Jerusalem church, but many thousands of Jewish Christians who had come up to the feast of Pentecost. Twenty-seven years before there were five thousand men who believed in Jerusalem (4:4). They are all zealous for the law. “Zealots” for the law in the Greek. They believed upon Christ as the Messiah, but did not understand that the Old Covenant had passed away to give place to the New (Heb. 8:13). Hence, while they observed the Christian rites, they still kept up the forms of Judaism. It took a direct interposition of the Spirit to teach that Gentiles were entitled to baptism without circumcision. It required a council in Jerusalem to settle the question that Gentile Christians were not to keep the Jewish law. God taught the church, lesson by lesson, but up to this time that at Jerusalem had not yet learned that they were freed from the obligation to keep the law of Moses. Paul, in advance of the rest, had learned that the Jewish forms were not to be imposed upon Gentiles, were not an obligation upon Jewish Christians, but he still observed them, at least in part, himself, and so far from bidding Jewish brethren to forsake Moses, he circumcised Timothy, and said, “Let every man abide in the same calling (whether Jew or Gentile) in which he is called.” (Read the whole connection of 1 Cor. 7:18–20). He had not, therefore, taught
Read full note →
Jews to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Do therefore this. This counsel is given that the multitude of Jewish Christians may see that Paul still kept the Jewish customs. As he did keep them, not as a matter of obligation, but as a Jew, in order that he might reach his own race, it involved no sacrifice of principle. We have four men which have a vow. These were Jewish Christians. The vow was a Nazaritish vow (see Num. 6:14–18 for a description). This vow involved living an ascetic life for a certain period, sometimes thirty days, and was terminated by shaving the head, burning the hair as an offering, and offering a sacrifice. The advice to Paul is to associate himself in this vow,
and be at charges with them for the necessary expenses, and thus show that he kept the time-honored customs of the Jewish race.
As touching the Gentiles. The duties of the Gentiles had been settled in the council described in @chap. 15. The advice of James was no doubt given from the best of motives. His position was a difficult one. The fanaticism of the Jewish nation, which broke out in war a few years later, was growing intense. The national feeling in the church had to be handled with great care. It would not do for the church to believe that Paul had become a renegade from their race. Paul, aware of all these difficulties, generously complied for the sake of peace and unity. We cannot be certain that the advice was just right, or that Paul did just right to comply, but these grand men acted according to their knowledge, and the record of Acts portrays both the shortcomings and the perfection of its great worthies.
Entered into the temple. Purifying himself, he entered the temple, gave notice that the sacrifices would be offered at a definite time, and the period of the vows be closed.
When the seven days were almost ended. Seven days was an ordinary period of purification (Exod. 29:37; Lev. 12:2; 13:6; Num. 12:14, etc.).
Concerning this advice of James and compliance of Paul, Pres. Milligan says: “Three different views have been taken: (1) That Paul in this case acted ignorantly, not being aware of the fact that the law of Moses was no longer binding; (2) that, like Peter (Gal. 2:11), he acted from fear of the Jewish brethren; (3) that he acted in conformity with the law of Christian benevolence which requires us to respect even the weaknesses and prejudices of our brethren, so far as this can be done without in any way neglecting the requirements of the Gospel.” The third hypothesis is the best, but some explanations are needful. The Jewish Christians were slowly emancipated from Judaism, and they did not reach the clear conviction, until after the temple was destroyed, that its sacrifices were obsolete. Gentiles were forbidden to sacrifice to idols, but there was no such prohibition with regard to the altar of Jehovah. Even Paul evidently at this time thought of the sacrifices as, like circumcision, a matter of indifference. It was left for the next generation to learn that the inspired writings of Paul himself lead to the conclusion that all the sacrifices of the temple altar pointed to the Lamb of God, and that, from the time he was offered, they became obsolete.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain 18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly…
18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. (18) " And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related particularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) When they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law. (21) Now they heard concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means come together; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, therefore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the expenses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are nothing; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, having decided that they observe no such things, only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them. "
This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching?
Read full note →
First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were "all zealous for the law." They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught "apostasy from Moses." The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of "the customs." By "the customs" are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings, and, as seen in Paul's epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years.
Second. Our iniquity into Paul's teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law. As for the law, he taught that it had been "a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster;" that, "now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held;" that we are "become dead to the law by the body of Christ." In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe "the customs." In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had " blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." "Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ." While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: "Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats." In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference.
Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered.
Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then?
The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that "we are no longer under the law," was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter's in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles "into the truth," did so by a gradual development running through a series of years.
When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ; but this brought to an end its illegal continuance.
Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment's attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that "the customs" were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, "apostasy from Moses." But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper.
The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he "purified himself with them," is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. But for this meaning of the term, agnizo, there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul's own statement to Felix, that "they found me purified in the temple," in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself "with them," which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of Numbers , where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the "days of purification," and the mention, in the next verse below, of " the seven days," as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul's part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose.
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 21:18-19 It was important for James and all the…
21:18-19 It was important for James and all the elders of the Jerusalem church to hear of Paul’s successful mission among the Gentiles and for the mother church to continue to endorse this effort (21:20; see 15:7-21). Paul’s report communicated that God had accomplished his purposes among the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.