The last circumstance of Peter’s life and actions, recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, is one so deeply involved also in the conduct
of others of the holy band, that the history of the whole affair can
be best given in connection with their lives; more especially as the
immediate occasion of it arose under the labors of these other persons.
All the statement which is here necessary to introduce the part which
Peter took in the sayings and doings on this occasion, is simply as
follows. Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch from their first
great mission from that city, throughout almost the whole circuit of
Asia Minor, were, soon after their arrival in that city, involved in
a vexatious dispute with a set of persons, who, having come down from
Jerusalem, had undertaken to give the Syrian Christians more careful
instructions in the minutiae of religious duty, than they had received
from those who had originally effected their conversion. These new
teachers being directly from that holy city, which, having been the
great scene of the instructions and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and
still being the seat of the apostolic college, was regarded by all,
as the true source of religious light, to Christians as well as Jews,
throughout the world, therefore made no small commotion in the church
of Antioch, when they began to inculcate, as essential to salvation, a
full conformity to all the minute ritual observances of the Mosaic law.
The church of Antioch, having been planted and taught by men of a more
catholic spirit, had gathered within itself a large number of heathen
from that Gentile city, who, led by their convictions of the truth and
spirituality of the Christian faith, had renounced entirely all the
idolatries in which they had been brought up, giving themselves, as
it would seem, with honest resolution, to a life of such moral purity,
as they considered alone essential to the maintenance of their new
religious character. Still, they had never supposed, that in renouncing
their idolatrous superstitions, they had bound themselves to throw off
also those customs of their country, which could have no connection
with moral purity of conduct, and had therefore still remained in
national peculiarities, Gentiles; though in creed, and religious
practice, Christians. In this course they had been encouraged by the
liberal and enlarged views of their religious instructors, who had
never once hinted at the necessity of imposing upon Gentile Christians
the burden of the Jewish law, which all the impressions of education
and previous habits of life would have made quite intolerable. The
wisdom of this enlightened spirit was seen in the great accessions of
Gentiles, who, being convinced of the necessity of a moral change, were
not met by any ceremonial impediments to the full adoption of a pure
religion. Paul and Barnabas were, therefore, not a little troubled
with this new difficulty, brought in by these Jewish teachers, who,
being fresh from the fountain of religious knowledge, claimed great
authority in reference to all delicate points of this nature. At last,
after long and violent disputes between these old-school and new-school
theologians, it was resolved to refer the whole matter to the
twelve apostles themselves, at Jerusalem, who might well be supposed
qualified to say what they considered to be the essential doctrines
and observances of Christianity. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, with
some of the rest engaged in the discussion, went up to Jerusalem as
a delegation, for this purpose, and presented the whole difficulty to
the consideration of the apostles. So little settled, after all, were
the views and feelings of these first preachers of Christianity about
the degree of freedom to be enjoyed by the numerous Gentile converts,
that all the Jewish prejudices of many of them burst out at once, and
high ground was taken against any dispensation in favor of Gentile
prejudices. After a long discussion, in full assembly of both apostles
and church-officers, Peter arose in the midst of the debate, taking the
superiority to which his peculiar commission and his long precedence
among them entitled him, and in a tone of dignified decision addressed
them. He reminded them, in the first place, of that unquestionable call
by which God had chosen him from among all the apostles, to proclaim
to the heathen the word of the gospel, and of that solemn sign by which
God had attested the completeness of their conversion, knowing, as
he did, the hearts of all his creatures. The signs of the Holy Spirit
having been imparted to the heathen converts with the same perfection
of regenerating influence that had been manifested in those of the
Jewish faith who had believed, it was manifestly challenging the
testimony of God himself, to try to put on them the irksome yoke of the
tedious Mosaic ritual, a yoke which not even the Jewish disciples, nor
their fathers before them, had been able to bear in all the appointed
strictness of its observances; and much less, then, could they expect
a burden so intolerable, to be supported by those to whom it had
none of the sanctions of national and educational prejudice, which
so much assisted its dominion over the feelings of the Jews. And all
the disciples, even those of Jewish race, must be perfectly satisfied
that their whole reliance for salvation should be, not on any legal
conformity, but on that common favor of their Lord, Jesus Christ, in
which the Gentile converts also trusted.
_Challenge the testimony of God._――This is the substance of
Kuinoel’s ideas of the force of this passage, (Acts xv. 10.)
πειραζετε τον θεον, (_peirazete ton Theon_.) His words
are, “Tentare Deum dicuntur, qui veritatem, omnipotentiam,
omniscientiam, etc. Dei in dubium vocare, vel nova divinae
potentiae ac voluntatis documenta desiderant, adeoque Deo
obnituntur.”――“Those are said to tempt God who call in question
God’s truth, omnipotence, omniscience, &c., or demand new
evidences of the divine power or will, and thus strive against
God.” He quotes Pott and Schleusner in support of this view of
the passage. Rosenmueller and Bloomfield take the same view,
as well as many others quoted by the latter and by Poole.
Bloomfield is very full on the whole of Peter’s speech, and on
all the discussion, with the occasions of it.
_Chose me._――This passage has been the subject of much
discussion, but I have given a free translation which disagrees
with no one of the views of its _literal_ force. The fairest
opinion of the matter is, that the expression εξελεξατο εν ημιν,
is a Hebraism. (See Vorstius and others quoted by Bloomfield.)
This logically clear statement of whole difficulty, supported by the
decisive authority of the chief of the apostles, most effectually
hushed all discussion at once; and the whole assembly kept silence,
while Paul and Barnabas recounted the extent and success of their
labors. After they had finished, James, as the leader of the Mosaic
faction, arose and expressed his own perfect acquiescence in the
decision of Simon Peter, and proposed an arrangement for a dispensation
in favor of the Gentile converts, perfectly satisfactory to all.
This conclusion, establishing the correctness of the tolerant and
accommodating views of the chief apostle, ended the business in a
prudent manner, the details of which will be given in the lives of
those more immediately concerned in the results; and though so abrupt
a conclusion may be undesirable here, it will be only robbing Peter to
pay Paul.
Illustration: ANTIOCH, IN SYRIA.
Acts xi. 26.