This address of James (Acts xv. 13–21.) may justly be pronounced the most obscure passage of all that can be found in the New Testament, of equal length,——almost every verse in it containing some point, which has been made the subject of some dispute. Schoettgen (quoted by Bloomfield,) thus analyzes this discourse:——“It consists of three parts;——the Exordium, (verse 13,) in which the speaker uses a form of expression calculated to secure the good-will of his auditors;——the Statement, (verses 16–18,) containing also a confirmation of it from the prophets, and the reason;——the Proposition, (verses 19–20,) that the Gentiles are not to be compelled to Judaism, but are only to abstain from certain things particularly offensive to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions.”
Simeon. (verse 14.) This peculiar form of Peter’s first name, has led some to suppose that he could not be the person meant, since he is mentioned in all other narratives by the name of Simon. Wolf imagines that Simon Zelotes must have been the person thus distinguished, though all the difficulties are the same in his case as in Peter’s. But Simeon (Συμεων) and Simon are the same name, the latter being only an abridged form, better suited to the inflections of the Greek than the former.——This preference of the full Hebrew form was doubtless meant to be characteristic of James, who seems to have been in general very zealous for ancient Jewish usages in all things.
Has condescended to take. Common translation: “did visit them to take,” &c. This much clearer translation is justified by the meaning which Bretschneider has given to επισκεπτομαι, benigne voluit, &c., for which he quotes the Greek of the Alexandrian version.
Harmonize. (verse 15.) The original (συμφωνοῦσιν) refers in the same manner as this word does to the primary idea of accordance in sound, (symphony,) and thence by a metonymy is applied to agreement in general. The passage of prophecy is quoted by James from Amos ix. 11, 12, and accords, in the construction which he puts upon it, much better with the Alexandrian Greek version, than with the original Hebrew or the common translations. The prophet (as Kuinoel observes) is describing the felicity of the golden age, and declares that the Jews will subdue their enemies and all nations, and that all will worship Jehovah. Now this, James accomodates to the present purpose, and applies to the propagation of the gospel among the Gentiles, and their reception into the Christian community. (See Rosenmueller, Acts, xv. 17, for a very full exegesis of this passage.)
Well known to God are all his works. These words have been made the subject of a great deal of inquiry among commentators, who have found some difficulties in ascertaining their connection with the preceding part of the discourse. Various new and unauthorized renderings of the words have been proposed, but have been generally rejected. It seems to me that the force of the passage is considerably illustrated by throwing the whole emphasis of the sentence upon the word “all,”——“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of ages.” James is arguing on the equal and impartial grace of God, as extended not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles;——not to one nation merely, but to all his creatures. “Thus saith the Lord who makes (or does) all things.” The original Hebrew of the prophecy indeed, does not contain this, but that is itself a circumstance which shows that James had a particular object in this [♦]accommodation of the words to this form and purpose.
[♦] “accomodation” replaced with “accommodation”
So I think, &c. (verse 19.) Hammond and others have attempted to find in the original of this verb (κρινω) a peculiar force, implying that James announced his decision with a kind of judicial emphasis, in the character of “Bishop of Jerusalem.” The groundlessness of this translation is shown by Bloomfield’s numerous references to classical authority for the simple meaning of “think.” The difficulties in the twentieth verse are so numerous and weighty, and have been made the subject of such protracted and minute discussions by all the great commentators, that it would be vain to attempt any account of them here.
The great eminence of James among the apostles is very fully shown in several incidental allusions made to him in other passages of the apostolic writings. Thus when Peter, after his miraculous release from prison, came to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, he, at departing from the Christians there assembled, told them to tell James and the brethren; implying, of course, that James was altogether the most prominent person among them, and might justly be considered chief apostle in the absence of Peter; and that to him any message intended for all, might be appropriately first addressed. In the same way did the angel, at the resurrection of Jesus, distinguish Peter among all the apostles, mentioning him alone by name, as the individual person to whom the divine message was to be delivered.
But no where is his eminence among the apostles so strongly marked, as in Paul’s account of his own visits to Jerusalem, and the incidents connected with them. He there mentions “James, the brother of our Lord,” in such terms as to show that he must have been one of the apostles; thus adding a valuable confirmation to the testimony above adduced in favor of this very point, that James, the brother of Jesus, was an apostle. Paul’s words are, “Other of the apostles, (besides Peter,) saw I none, except James, the Lord’s brother;” an expression which all analogy requires to be construed into a clear assertion that this James was an apostle. In speaking of his second visit, fourteen years after, Paul also bears a noble testimony to the eminence of James, and, what is remarkable, gives him the very first place among those three whom he mentions by name. He says, “When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” This very peculiar arrangement of these three great names, has seemed so strange to the more stubborn Papists, that they can not believe that the Cephas here mentioned in the second place, is their great idol, Peter; and many of them have maintained, in long arguments, that he was not Peter,——a notion which might seem plausible at first glance, from the circumstance, that throughout his whole narrative, Paul has been speaking of Peter by the common Greek form of his surname, while in this particular passage, he uses the original Hebrew word, Cephas. But this verbal change is of no consequence whatever, except as showing that in this connection there was something which suggested a preference of the Hebrew name, while mentioning him along with the two other great apostolic chiefs, James and John. And even this very peculiar promotion of James to the first place, is easily explained by a consideration of the subject in connection with which these personages are mentioned. James was unquestionably the great leader of the sticklers for Mosaic forms; and he is therefore the most important person to be quoted in reference to Paul’s reception, while the dissensions about circumcision were raging. Peter, on the other hand, being himself the great champion of open Gentile communion, from his having been himself the first of all men to bring them under the gospel, was, of course, understood to be a favorer of Paul’s views, of the noble catholic extension of Christianity; and his name was therefore of really less importance in Paul’s statement, than the name of James, who was everywhere known as the head of the circumcision party, and being mentioned as having shown such respect to Paul, would make it evident that the two Hellenist apostles were taken into favor by all parties, and heartily commended to the great work of evangelizing the heathen.
The especially watchful zeal of James, for the preservation of Mosaic forms, is very distinctly implied in another passage of the same epistle. He had, in a nobly considerate spirit of compromise, agreed that it was best to receive all the Gentile converts as Christian brethren, though they conformed only very partially to the Mosaic institutions. It was perfectly a matter of common sense, to every reasonable man, that the progress of the gospel would be greatly hindered, and almost brought to a stand, among the heathen, if a minute adherence to all the corporeal observances of the Levitical code, were required for Christian communion; and James, though profoundly reverencing all the requirements of his national religion, was too wise to think of imposing all these rituals upon those whose whole habits would be at war with the observance of them, though in heart and in life they might be fully fitted to appreciate and enjoy the blessings of Christ’s spiritual covenant. He therefore distinctly expressed his accordance with Peter, in these general principles of Christian policy, yet, as subsequent events show, he was by no means disposed to go to all lengths with the more zealous chief of the apostles, in his readiness to renounce, in his own person, all the peculiarities of Jewish habits; and seems to have still maintained the opinion, that the original, pure Hebrew apostles, should live in the most scrupulous observance of their religious exclusiveness, towards those whom the Levitical law would pronounce unclean, and too much polluted with various defilements, to be the familiar associates of a truly religious Jew. This sentiment of James appears to have been well known to Peter, who, conscious of the peculiar rigidity of his great apostolic associate, on these points, wisely sought to avoid all occasions of needlessly exciting complaints and dissensions among the chief ministers of the word of truth. For this reason, as has already been narrated in his life, when he was at Antioch, though during the first part of his residence there, he had, without the slightest scruple, gone familiarly and frequently into the company of the unbelieving Gentiles, eating and drinking with them, without regard to any liability to corporeal pollutions, that were against the rules of Levitical purity,——yet when some persons came down from [♦]Jerusalem, from James, he entirely withdrew himself, all at once, within the strict bounds of Mosaic observances. Perhaps these visitors from James had been specially instructed by him to note the demeanor of Peter, and to see whether, in his zeal for removing all obstruction out of the way of the Gentile converts, he might not forget what was due to his own character as a descendant of Abraham, and a disciple of him who so faithfully fulfilled all the righteousness of the law. However this might be, Peter’s actions plainly expressed some dread of offending James, and those who came from him; else he certainly would not have refrained, in this remarkable manner, from a course of conduct, which he had before followed unhesitatingly, as though he had not the slightest doubt of its perfect moral propriety; and the conclusion is reasonable, that he now changed his demeanor, only from views of expediency, and a regard to the jealous sensitiveness of his great associate, on points of Levitical law.