*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
James answered, saying. Some old writers of the Church think that this James was one of the disciples, whose surname was Justus and Oblia, whose cruel death is recorded by Josephus in the Twentieth Book of his Antiquities. But would to God the old writers had travailed rather to know the man, than to set forth, with reigned praises, the holiness of a man whom they knew not. It is a childish toy and surmise, in that they say that it was lawful for him alone to enter into the most holy place. For if in that entering in there had been any religion, he had done it contrary to the law of God, forasmuch as he was not the highest priest. Secondly, it was a superstitious thing thus to foster the shadowish worship of the Temple. I omit other trifles. And they are greatly deceived in that they deny that he was one of the twelve apostles. For they are enforced to confess that it is he whom Paul commandeth so honorably, that he maketh him the chief among the three pillars of the Church, (Galatians 2:9.) Assuredly, a man inferior in order and degree could never have excelled the apostles so far; for Paul giveth him the title of an apostle. Neither is that worth the hearing which Jerome bringeth, [viz.] that the word is general there, seeing that the dignity of the order is there handled; forasmuch as Christ did prefer the apostles before other teachers of the Church. Moreover, we may gather out of this place, that they made no small account of James, (Acts 21:18;) forasmuch as he doth with his voice and consent so confirm the words of Peter, that they are all of his mind. And we shall see afterwards how great his authority was at Jerusalem. The old writers think that this was because he was bishop of the place; but it is not to be thought that the faithful did at their pleasure change the order which Christ had appointed. Wherefore, I do not doubt but that he was son to Alpheus, and Christ's cousin, in which sense he is also called his brother. Whether he were bishop of Jerusalem or no, I leave it indifferent; neither doth it greatly make for the matter, save only because the impudency of the Pope is hereby refuted, because the decree of the Council is set down rather at the appointment, and according to the authority of James than of Peter. And assuredly Eusebius, in the beginning of his Second Book, is not afraid to call James, whosoever he were, the Bishop of the Apostles. Let the men of Rome go now and boast that their Pope is head of the Universal Church, because he is Peter's successor, who suffered another to rule him, [1] if we believe Eusebius. Men and brethren, hear me. James' oration consisteth upon [of] two principal members; for, first, he confirmeth and proveth the calling of the Gentiles by the testimony of the prophet Amos; secondly, he showeth what is best to be done to nourish peace and concord among the faithful; yet so that the liberty of the Gentiles may continue safe and sound, and that the grace of Christ may not be darkened. Whereas Peter is in this place called Simeon, it may be that this name was diversely pronounced then. Whereas he saith that God did visit to take a people of the Gentiles, it is referred unto the mercy of God, whereby he vouchsafed to receive strangers into his family. It is, indeed, a harsh phrase, yet such as containeth a profitable doctrine; because he maketh God the author of the calling of the Gentiles, and pronounceth that it is through his goodness that they began to be reckoned among his people, when he saith that they were taken by him; but he proceedeth further, when he saith that he did visit that he might take. For this is his meaning, That at such time as the Gentiles were turned away from God he did mercifully look upon them; because we can do nothing but depart farther and farther from him, until such time as his fatherly look prevent us of his own accord. In his name. The old interpreter hath, To his name, which is almost all one, though the preposition, it may be otherwise translated, to wit, For his name, or Upon his name. [2] Neither shall the sense disagree, that the salvation of the Gentiles is grounded in the power or name of God, and that God did respect no other thing in calling them but his own glory; yet did I retain that which is more usual; to wit, that, in numbering them among his people, he would have them counted in his name, like as it shall be said shortly after, that his name is called upon by all those whom he gathereth together into his Church. The adverb of time, proton, may be expounded two ways; if you read it, first, as the old interpreter and Erasmus have it, the sense shall be, that Cornelius and others were, as it were, the first fruits at whom God began the calling of the Gentiles; but it may be taken also comparatively, because there was already some token of the adoption of the Gentiles showed in Cornelius and his cousins, before that Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles. And I do better like this latter sense.
1 - "Sibi praesse," to take precedence of him.
2 - "Propter," on account of.
James answered - James the Less, son of Alpheus. See the notes on Acts 12:1.
Hearken unto me - This whole transaction shows that Peter had no such authority in the church as the papists pretend, for otherwise his opinion would have been followed without debate. James had an authority not less than that of Peter. It is possible that he might have been next in age (compare 1-Corinthians 15:7); and it seems morally certain that he remained for a considerable part of his life in Jerusalem, Acts 12:17; Acts 21:18; Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9, Galatians 2:12.
James answered - He was evidently president of the council, and is generally called bishop of Jerusalem. The rest either argued on the subject, or gave their opinion; James alone pronounced the definitive sentence. Had Peter been prince and head of the apostles, and of the Church, he would have appeared here in the character of judge, not of mere counsellor or disputant. Thy popish writers say that "James presided because the council was held in his own church." These men forget that there was not then what they term a Church on the face of the earth. The Church, or assembly of believers, then met in private houses; for there was no building for the exclusive purpose of Christian worship then, nor till long after. These writers also forget that the pope pretends to be the head of the catholic or universal Church; and, consequently, no man can preside where he is present, but himself. Peter did not preside here; and this was the first ecclesiastical council, and now, if ever, he should have assumed his character of prince and chief; but he did not; nor did any of the other apostles invite him to it, which they would have done had they thought that Jesus Christ constituted him head of the Church. From this very circumstance there is the most demonstrative evidence that Peter was no pope, and that the right of his pretended successor is a nonentity.
And after they had held their peace, (g) James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
(g) The son of Alphaeus, who is also called the Lord's brother.
And after they had held their peace,.... Meaning not the multitude, but Paul and Barnabas; when they had finished their account, and had done speaking:
James answered; or rose up, as the Syriac version reads, he stood up and began to speak. This was James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles, sometimes called the brother of the Lord; for the other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was dead, being killed by Herod, Acts 12:2 but this was the brother of Jude, and the same that wrote the epistle that bears his name: whether he was now bishop or pastor of the church at Jerusalem, is not certain; nor whether he was president in this council; the speeches made in it do not appear to be directed to him: he began his oration thus,
saying, men and brethren, hearken to me; the titles he uses, and the manner of desiring audience, were what were common with the Jews; see Acts 2:14.
James answered, saying, &c.--Whoever this James was (see on Galatians 1:19), he was the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and here, as president of the assembly, speaks last, winding up the debate. His decision, though given as his own judgment only, could not be of great weight with the opposing party, from his conservative reverence for all Jewish usages within the circle of Israelitish Christianity.
James answered, saying. For other references to James see 1-Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19 and Galatians 2:9, and the Epistle of James. He is also mentioned several times in the Gospels, and seems, before the death of Jesus, to have been an unbeliever. It is probable that the speech of Peter, followed by the account given by Paul and Barnabas, convinced him, and led to the views he now expresses.
Simeon. Simon Peter.
To this agree the . . . prophets. The quotation he gives is from Amos 9:11-12.
Build again the tabernacle of David. Restore the splendors of his family in the reign of the Messiah, "the Son of David."
That the residue of men. The Gentile world. This grand prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles makes no mention of circumcision.
Known unto God are all his works. The meaning is, that this calling of the Gentiles is a part of the Divine plan known to God from the beginning.
Wherefore. Since it is evidently God's will, "My sentence is, that we do not trouble them."
Sentence. Decision.
That they abstain from the pollutions of idols. Four items are mentioned, which are all embraced in the apostolic letter as things forbidden. They were four common customs of the Gentile world, and matters on which there should be a clear understanding. The first does not mean only to refrain from worshiping idols, or eating meat offered in idol sacrifice, but from all the pollutions of the system of idolatry. Licentiousness and drunkenness received a sanction from religion. See Lecky's European Morals, chap. V., and Conybeare and Howson's Paul, chap. IV.
Fornication. Chastity was the exception instead of the rule among Gentiles at this period.
From things strangled. Because in strangling the blood was retained in the flesh. The use of blood was prohibited by the Mosaic law, and for wise reasons this prohibition was extended to Gentiles. The Roman epicures were wont to drown fowls in wine and then use the flesh. It was a common thing to drink wine mingled with blood. The only way to strike at these savage practices was to prohibit its use.
For Moses . . . hath. There are synagogues in every city. The use of blood would shock the Jews who have membership in these.
*More commentary available at chapter level.