(Recapitulation.) “Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
(a) But what means it, “How God first (πρὥτον) did visit?” (It means) from the beginning (ἐ ξ ἀρχἥς). (c) Moreover he well says, “Symeon expounded” (ἐ ξηγήσατο) (or, interpreted), implying that he too spoke the mind of others. “And to this agree,” etc. Observe how he shows that this is a doctrine of old time. “To take out of the Gentiles,” he says, “a people for His Name.” Not simply, Chose, but, “for His Name,” that is for His glory.
His Name is not shamed by the taking (προλήψει) the Gentiles first, but it is even a greater glory.— Here some even great thing is hinted at: that these are chosen before all. “After this I will return, and rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen down.” But if one would look into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact now stand, his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what is the good of the buildings and the city, with none obeying there? And what is the harm arising from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give their very souls?
There is that come which is more illustrious than David: in all parts of the world is he now sung. This has come to pass: if so, then must this also come to pass, “And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:” to what end? “that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called.” If then it was to this end that the city rose again (namely) because of Him (that was to come) of them, it shows that of the building of the city the cause is, the calling of the Gentiles.
Who are “the residue?” those who are then left. “And all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called:” but observe, how he keeps the due order, and brings them in second. “Says the Lord, which does these things.” Not “says” (only), but “does.” Why then, it was God's work.— “But the question is other than this (namely), what Peter spoke more plainly, whether they must be circumcised. Then why do you harangue about these matters?” For what the objectors asserted, was not that they must not be received upon believing, but that it must be with the Law.
And upon this Peter well pleaded: but then, as this very thing above all others troubled the hearers, therefore he sets this to rights again (θεραπεύει). And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James says, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise.
“Wherefore,” says he, “my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles do turn unto God”, that is, not to subvert: for, if God called them, and these observances subvert, we fight against God. And again, “them which from the Gentiles,” he says, “do turn.” And he says well, with authority, the “my sentence is. But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication”— (b) and yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them — but, that he may seem also to honor the Law (he mentions), these also, speaking (however) not as from Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has divided the one into two (saying), “and from things strangled, and from blood.” For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be observed, because (these things) caused great evils, “For Moses has of old times in every city,” etc. This above all quieted them.
(ἀ νέπαυσεν) (a) For this cause I affirm that it is good (so “to write to them.”) Then why do we not write the same injunctions to Jews also? Moses discourses unto them. See what condescension (to their weakness)! Where it did no harm, he set him up as teacher, and indulged them with a gratification which hindered nothing, by permitting Jews to hear him in regard of these matters, even while leading away from him them of the Gentiles. See what wisdom!
He seems to honor him, and to set him up as the authority for his own people, and by this very thing he leads away the Gentiles from him! “Being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” Then why do they not learn (what is to be learned) out of him, for instance * *? Through the perversity of these men. He shows that even these (the Jews) need observe no more (than these necessary things). And if we do not write to them, it is not that they are bound to observe anything more, but only that they have one to tell them.
And he does not say, Not to offend, nor to turn them back, which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but, “not to trouble them:” he shows that the point (κατόρθωμα) if carried is nothing but a mere troubling. Thus he made an end of the whole matter; and while he seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds it by taking only these. (c) There was a design of Providence in the disputation also, that after the disputation the doctrine might be more firm.
“Then pleased it the Apostles to send chosen men of their own company,” etc., no ordinary persons, but the “leading men; having written” (letters) “by them after this manner. To those in Antioch,” it says, “and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 22, 23) where the disease had its birth. Observe how they say nothing harsher (φορτικώτερον) against those men, but look to one thing only, namely, to undo (the mischief) which has been done. For this would make even the movers of the faction there to confess (that they were wrong).
They do not say, The seducers, the pestilent fellows, or suchlike: though where need is, Paul does this, as when he says, “O full of all guile”: but here, the point being carried, there was no need. And observe, they do not put it, That certain from us ordered you to keep the Law, but, “Troubled you with words, subverting your souls,”— nothing could be more proper (κυριώτερον) than that word: none (of the other speakers) has so spoken of the things done by those men. “The souls,” he says, already strongly established, these persons are ἀ νασχευάζοντες as in speaking of a building, “taking them down again:” displacing them (μετατιθέντες) from the foundation). “To whom,” he says, “we gave no such commandment.
It seemed good therefore to us being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (<!--<span class="stiki"></span>-->v. 25, 26.) If “beloved,” they will not despise them, if they “have hazarded their lives,” they have themselves a right to be believed. “We have sent,” it says, “Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth.” For it was necessary that there should be not merely the Epistle there by itself, lest they should say that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed (the real purport), that they said one thing instead of another.
The encomium passed upon Paul stopped their mouths. For this is the reason why neither Paul comes alone nor Barnabas (with him), but others also from the Church; that he may not be suspected, seeing it was he that advocated that doctrine: nor yet those from Jerusalem alone. It shows that they have a right to be believed. “For it seemed good,” say they, “to the Holy Ghost and to us”: not making themselves equal (to Him)— they are not so mad. But why does it put this (so)? Why did they add, “And to us,” and yet it had sufficed to say, “To the Holy Ghost?”
The one, “To the Holy Ghost,” that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, “To us,” that they may be taught that they also themselves admit (the Gentiles), although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also. “To lay upon you no greater burden”— they are ever calling it a burden— and again, “save these necessary things:” for that was a superfluous burden.
See here a brief Epistle, with nothing more in it (than was needed), neither arts of persuasion (κατασκευὰς) nor reasonings, but simply a command: for it was the Spirit's legislating. “So when they were dismissed they came to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered to them the epistle.” After the epistle, then (Judas and Silas) also themselves exhort them by word: for this also was needful, that (Paul and Barnabas) might be quit of all suspicion. “Being prophets also themselves,” it says, exhorted the brethren “with many words.” It shows here the right that Paul and Barnabas have to be believed. For Paul also might have done this, but it behooved to be done by these. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace.
Source: Homilies on Acts (New Advent)