Acts 15:21. See Düsterdieck in the Götting. Monatschr. 1849, p. 282 ff. Γάρ] gives the reason why it was indispensable to enjoin this fourfold ἀπέχεσθαι—namely, because the preaching of the Mosaic law, taking place from ancient generations in every city every Sabbath day by its being read in the synagogues, would only tend to keep alive the offence which the Jewish-Christians (who still adhered to the synagogue[36]) took to their uncircumcised brethren, in view of the complete freedom of the latter from the law, including even these four points.[37] These words thus assign a ground for the proposal on the score of necessity (corresponding to the ἐπάναγκες in the decree, Acts 15:28), and, indeed, of the necessity that there must be, at least so far, accommodation to the Mosaic law. Others: περιττὸν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ταῦτα ἐπιστέλλειν· ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ταῦτα μανθάνουσιν κ.τ.λ., scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Lyra, and many others, and recently Neander. Out of place, as there was no question at all about an instruction for the Jewish-Christians. Erasmus, Wetstein, Thiersch, and others still more arbitrarily import the idea: “Neque est metuendum, ut Moses propterea antiquetur;” or (so Grotius and Ewald, p. 472): it is not to be feared that the Mosaic law generally will be neglected and despised.[38] Still more freely Gieseler[39] reads between the lines what is supposed to be meant: “The Mosaic law already has been so long preached, and yet there are few who submit to embrace it. Now, when the service of the true God is preached without the yoke of the law, many are turning to Him, and it is indisputable that the ceremonial law is the only obstacle to the universal diffusion of true religion.” Lange, II. p. 183, likewise imports: “We have nothing further to do. To assert the statutes of Moses, is not our office; there are already preachers for that.” Similarly Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 41, who, however, discovers under the words of James the presupposition as self-evident, that Gentiles, if they pleased, might along with the faith embrace also the law of Moses; to those, who wished to become Mosaic, nothing need be said about the law, because they would always have an opportunity to become acquainted with it. As if one could read-in such a very important presupposition as self-evident! And as if Paul and Barnabas could have been silent at a proposition so entirely anti-Pauline! Further, we cannot see how what Brenske (Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 711 ff.) finds as the meaning, considering the proselytes of the gate as those to whom the κηρύσσειν took place, is contained in the words: the κηρύσσειν has the notion of publicity and solemnity, but not of novelty (Brenske), which even passages such as Galatians 5:11, Romans 2:21, should have prevented him from assuming. Lastly, Wieseler (on Galatians 2:11 ff., p. 148) finds in the words the designed inference: consequently these statutes have for long been not a thing unheard of and burdensome for these Gentiles, because there are among them many proselytes. But even thus the chief points are mentally supplied.

[36] Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 291 f.

[37] Lekebusch and Oertel adopt in the main this interpretation, to which Calvin already came very near. Nor is the explanation of Düsterdieck essentially different. Yet he understands ἔχει in the sense: he has in his power, holds in subjection, which, however, appears not to be admissible, as not the Jews generally, but the κηρύσσοντες, are the object of ἔχει. It is the simple: he has them, they do not fail him.

[38] Thus in substance also Schneckenburger, Zeller, Baumgarten, Hilgenfeld. Peculiarly ingenious, but importing what is not in the text, is the view of Bengel: “Prophetas citavi, non Mosen, cujus consensus est apertior,” holding that James had Deuteronomy 32:21 in view.

[39] In Stäudlin und Tzschirner’s Archiv. f. Kirchengesch. IV. p. 312. Baur, ed. 1, also adopted the explanation of Gieseler. But in the second edition, I. p. 137, he interprets it as if James wished to say: “a worship so ancient as the Mosaic is perfectly entitled to such a demand.” This, however, is in no way contained in the words, in which, on the contrary, the point is the ancient preaching and the constant reading.

Acts 15:21. ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων: pointing back to the first days when the Diaspora had first spread to any considerable extent in heathen lands: see on Acts 15:7. The exact phrase (ἀπὸ) γενεῶν ἀρχ. occurs in Psalms of Solomon, Acts 18:14—from the generations of old the lights of heaven have not departed from their path. For the custom referred to here, see Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., p. 55, E.T. The words seem closely connected in sense with the preceding in this way, viz., that the Gentile proselytes could long ago in the synagogues have been acquainted week by week with the spirit and enactments of the Mosaic law, and they would thus be the more easily inclined to take upon themselves the few elementary precepts laid down in the decree of the Jerusalem Church, so as to avoid any serious cause of offence to their Jewish-Christian brethren. Others however take the meaning to be that, as the Jewish Christians in their continual association with the synagogue would still hear the law read every Sabbath, there would be no intercourse between them and the Gentile Christians, unless the latter observed the necessary restrictions enjoined by the decree for brotherly intercommunion. There is no occasion to interpret the meaning to be that it is superfluous to write the decree to the Jewish Christians, since they knew its contents already from the law (so St. Chrysostom, and Blass), for a decree for the Jewish Christians is not in question, see Acts 15:23. Others again interpret: there is no fear that the Mosaic law should be neglected or despised “for Moses, etc.”. See further, Wendt, Weiss, McGiftert, Knabenbauer.

21. For Moses of old time (lit. from generations of old) hath in every city, &c.] Here we have the reason why these injunctions are to be laid upon the Gentile converts. It is necessary however to take the whole verse into consideration before we can decide on the force of the reason. Laying stress chiefly on the expression “from generations of old,” some have thought that St James’ argument meant that the Mosaic ritual having been preached for so long a time and found to be a load too heavy to bear, must now be given up, except in these specified points. Again the verse has been taken to mean that there was no need for the Christian church to legislate about the observance of the Mosaic law other than in these few points, because there was public teaching on the subject everywhere in the Jewish synagogues. Jewish Christians were therefore supplied with guidance, and would be so supplied until by degrees Judaism had entirely given place to Christianity. No doubt the Apostle contemplates the retention by the Jewish Christians of much of their old ritual, and that they would make no breach with the services of the synagogue. But in these enactments, which were apparently only for a time (since St Paul nowhere alludes to them in his Epistles), and to promote peace between Gentiles and Jews, we must remember that the Jews were regarded as the weaker brethren. And the argument of the council may be supposed to run thus: We may make this concession to the Gentiles without fear of doing any injury to the Jew. It is not probable that his feelings and prejudices will be interfered with, or the Mosaic law in its other portions set aside; ‘For Moses, &c.’

being read in the synagogues] On the Jewish manner of reading the law, see additional note at the end of chap. 13.

Acts 15:21. Μωσῆς γὰρ, for Moses) The words not merely of the prophets, Acts 15:15, but of Moses also, correspond to the sentiment of Peter; but Moses is too well known to need his testimony being quoted. Often the γὰρ has the effect of an Ætiology (reason assigned) for what has been said, that the sense may be this, I have quoted the prophets, not Moses, whose agreement (with Peter’s sentiment) is more open. See Deuteronomy 32:21. James seems to have had in his mind this declaration of the Lord by Moses; but, to avoid giving offence (Euphemy, Append.), he did not wish to quote it in this passage: also Genesis 12:3, etc. Moses, in mentioning the recency of circumcision as compared with the promise, very much proves the fact (the point at issue).—ἀρχαίων, ancient) The same word as in Acts 15:7. Everything that is most ancient in ecclesiastical, and still more in divine institutions, ought to be had respect to.—κηρύσσοντας, who preach him) regularly and periodically.

Verse 21. - From generations of old for of old time, A.V.; sabbath for sabbath day, A.V. The meaning of this verse seems to be that, in requiring the above compliances, the council was not enjoining anything new or strange, because the Gentiles who attended the synagogues were familiar with these Mosaic doctrines. It has been often stated that these four prohibitions were in substance the same as the so-called seven precepts of Noah, which were binding upon proselytes of the gate. This is, however, scarcely borne out by the facts. The four prohibitions seem to have been a temporary arrangement adapted to the then condition of the Church, with a view to enabling Christian Jews and Gentiles to live in brotherly fellowship. The Jew was not to require more of his Gentile brother: the Gentile was not to concede less to his Jewish brother. St. Augustine ('Cont. Manich.,' 32, 13), quoted by Meyer, ridicules the idea of Christians in his time being bound by the law of things strangled (see Hooker and Bishop Sanderson, quoted by Wordsworth, in the same sense). Acts 15:21Acts 15:21 Interlinear
Acts 15:21 Parallel Texts


Acts 15:21 NIV
Acts 15:21 NLT
Acts 15:21 ESV
Acts 15:21 NASB
Acts 15:21 KJV

Acts 15:21 Bible Apps
Acts 15:21 Parallel
Acts 15:21 Biblia Paralela
Acts 15:21 Chinese Bible
Acts 15:21 French Bible
Acts 15:21 German Bible

Bible Hub