Acts 15:19

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(19) Wherefore my sentence is.—Literally, Wherefore I judge. The tone is that of one who speaks with authority, but what follows is not given as a decree, but as a resolution which was submitted to the judgment of the Apostles and elders. (Comp. Acts 16:4.)

That we trouble not them.—The verb is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, and expresses the idea of “worrying” or “harassing.”

Are turned to God.—More accurately, are turning, as acknowledging that the work was going on at that very moment.

Benson Commentary

Acts 15:19-21. Wherefore my sentence — My judgment in this matter; is, that we trouble not — With such observances as those now in question; them which from among the Gentiles — The ignorant and idolatrous Gentiles; are turned unto God — Are converted by divine grace to the knowledge and worship of the true God, and to obedience to his gospel. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from all things grossly scandalous, and particularly from pollutions of idols — From every species of idolatry: that they should have no manner of fellowship with idolaters in their idolatrous worship, or in the feasts they hold upon their sacrifices; see 1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Corinthians 6:14. And from fornication — Which even the philosophers among the heathen did not account any fault. It was particularly frequent in the worship of their idols, on which account these sins are here named together. And from things strangled — That is, from whatever has been killed without pouring out the blood; and from blood — When God first permitted man to eat flesh, he commanded Noah, and in him all his posterity, whenever they killed any creature for food, to abstain from the blood thereof. It was to be poured upon the ground as water; doubtless, 1st, To be a token to mankind, in all ages, that they would have had no right to take the life of any animal for food, if God had not given them that right, who, therefore, to remind them of it, and impress it on their minds in all generations, denied them the use of blood, and required it to be spilt upon the ground. 2d, In honour of the blood of atonement, Leviticus 17:11-12. The life of the sacrifice was accepted for the life of the sinner; and blood made atonement for the soul; and therefore must not be looked upon as a common thing, but must be poured out before the Lord, (2 Samuel 23:16,) and especially in honour of that blood which was in due time to be shed for the sins of the world. Now this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites in the law of Moses, and which was never revoked, is here confirmed and made of perpetual obligation. See the notes on Genesis 9:4. For Moses hath, &c. — The sense and connection here may be: To the Jews we need to write nothing on these heads, for they hear the law continually, and are there most solemnly and repeatedly enjoined to abstain from these things.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

15:7-21 We see from the words purifying their hearts by faith, and the address of St. Peter, that justification by faith, and sanctification by the Holy Ghost, cannot be separated; and that both are the gift of God. We have great cause to bless God that we have heard the gospel. May we have that faith which the great Searcher of hearts approves, and attests by the seal of the Holy Spirit. Then our hearts and consciences will be purified from the guilt of sin, and we shall be freed from the burdens some try to lay upon the disciples of Christ. Paul and Barnabas showed by plain matters of fact, that God owned the preaching of the pure gospel to the Gentiles without the law of Moses; therefore to press that law upon them, was to undo what God had done. The opinion of James was, that the Gentile converts ought not to be troubled about Jewish rites, but that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, so that they might show their hatred of idolatry. Also, that they should be cautioned against fornication, which was not abhorred by the Gentiles as it should be, and even formed a part of some of their rites. They were counselled to abstain from things strangled, and from eating blood; this was forbidden by the law of Moses, and also here, from reverence to the blood of the sacrifices, which being then still offered, it would needlessly grieve the Jewish converts, and further prejudice the unconverted Jews. But as the reason has long ceased, we are left free in this, as in the like matters. Let converts be warned to avoid all appearances of the evils which they formerly practised, or are likely to be tempted to; and caution them to use Christian liberty with moderation and prudence.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

My sentence - Greek: I judge κρίνω krinō that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion, or counsel.

That we trouble not them - That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress them by imposing on them unnecessary fires and ceremonies.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

19. Wherefore, my sentence—or "judgment."

is, that we trouble not—with Jewish obligations.

them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God—rather, "are turning." The work is regarded as in progress, and indeed was rapidly advancing.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

St. James here gives his opinion, confirming and approving what Peter had done in conversing with and baptizing of the Gentiles; whom he would not have afflicted or disturbed with such things as were not necessary, lest that it should hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and the church should lose the substance for a shadow.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Wherefore my sentence is,.... Opinion or judgment in this case, or what he reckoned most advisable to be done; for he did not impose his sense upon the whole body, but proposed it to them:

that we trouble not them; by obliging them to be circumcised, which would have been very afflicting and disturbing to them; not only because of the corporeal pain produced by circumcision, but because of the bondage their minds would be brought into, and they become subject to the whole law, and all its burdensome rites and ceremonies:

which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; the one true and living God, Father, Son, and Spirit, and from idols, and the worshipping of them.

Geneva Study Bible

{8} Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

(8) In indifferent matters, we may be patient with the weakness of our brethren with the end in view that they may have time to be instructed.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Acts 15:19-20 (29). Ἐγώ] For my part I vote.

παρενοχλεῖν] to trouble them withal (at their conversion). Dem. 242. 16; Polyb. i. 8. 1, iii. 53. 6; Plut. Timol. 3; frequently also in the LXX., both with the dative and the accusative.

ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι] to despatch a writing to them (Hebrews 13:22; often with Greek writers, see Loesner, p. 207) that they should abstain (aim of the ἐπιστεῖλαι).

ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων] may be referred either to τῶν εἰδώλων only, or to all the following particulars. The latter, as ἀπό is not repeated with τῆς πορνείας, is the more natural: therefore: from the pollutions, which are contracted through idols and through fornication, etc. ἀλίσγημα, from the Alexandrian ἀλισγεῖν, polluere (LXX. Daniel 1:8; Malachi 1:7; Malachi 1:12; Sir 40:29; Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 145; Korai on Isocr. p. 299), is a word entirely foreign to the other Greek; therefore Hesychius explains it merely in reference to its present connection with τῶν εἰδώλων: ἀλισγημάτων· τῆς μεταλήψεως τῶν μιαρῶν θυσιῶν.

τῶν εἰδώλων] What James meant by the general expression, “pollutions of idols,” was known to his hearers, and is evident from Acts 15:29, where the formally composed decree required as unambiguous a designation as possible, and therefore εἰδωλοθύτων is chosen; hence: pollutions occasioned by partaking of the flesh of heathen sacrifices (Exodus 34:15). The Gentiles were accustomed to consume so much of the sacrificed animals as was not used for the sacrifice itself and did not belong to the priests, in feasts (in the temple or in their houses), or even to sell it in the shambles. See on 1 Corinthians 8:1; also Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xxviii. 22–24. Both modes of partaking of flesh offered in sacrifice, for which the Gentile Christians had opportunity enough either by invitations on the part of their heathen friends or by the usual practice of purchase, were to be avoided by them as fellowship with idolatry, and thus as polluting Christian sanctity.

καὶ τῆς πορνείας] As in the decree, Acts 15:29, the same expression is repeated without any more precise definition, and a regulative ordinance, particularly in such an important matter, proceeding from general collegiate deliberation, presupposes nothing but unambiguous and well-known designations of the chief points in question; no other explanation is admissible than that of fornication generally,[30] and accordingly all explanations are to be discarded, which assume either a metaphorical meaning or merely a single form of πορνεία; namely: (1) that it denotes figuratively idolatry, and that merely the indirect idolatry, which consists in the partaking of εἰδωλοθύτων, so that τῶν εἰδώλ. and τῆς πορν. form only one point (so, entirely opposed to the order in Acts 15:29, Beza, Selden, Schleusner); (2) that it is the fornication practised at the heathen festivals (so Morus, Dindorf, Stolz, Heinrichs); (3) that the πορνικὴ θυσία is meant, the gains of prostitution offered in sacrifice (Heinsius and Ittig); or (4) the “actus professionis meretriciae, in fornice stantis viri vel mulieris mercede pacta prostitutae et omnium libidini patentis” (Salmasius); or (5) the concubinage common among the Gentiles (Calvin); or (6) the nuptiae intra gradus prohibitos (Lightfoot, comp. Hammond), incest (Gieseler in Staeudlin and Tzschirner’s Archiv. IV. p. 312; Baur, I. p. 162, ed. 2; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 129; Zeller, p. 246; Sepp, and others; also Wieseler, who, however, on Gal. p. 149, takes it generally, and only treats incest as included); or (7) marriage with a heathen husband (Hering in the Bibl. nov. Brem. IV. p. 289 ff.; Teller); or (8) deuterogamy (Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. I. p. 127). Bentley has even recourse to conjectural emendation, namely, χοιρείας or πορκείας (swine’s flesh). Such expedients are only resorted to, because all the other particulars are not immoral in themselves, but ἀδιάφορα, which only become immoral through the existing circumstances. But the association of πορνεία with three adiaphora is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favour, nay, practised without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a thing really indifferent;[31] Grotius in loc., Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29, 13 ff. Compare the system of Hetaerae in Corinth, Rome, etc., and the many forms of the worship of Aphrodite in the Greek world. See also on 1 Corinthians 6:12. Baumgarten, Ewald, Bleek, Weiss have with reason retained the proper and in the N.T. prevailing literal sense of πορνεία.

καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ] i.e. the flesh of such beasts as are killed by strangling (strangulation by snares, and the like), and from which the blood is not let out.[32] This is based on Leviticus 17:13-14, Deuteronomy 12:16; Deuteronomy 12:23, according to which the blood was to be let out from every hunted animal strangled, and without this letting out of blood the flesh was not to be eaten. Comp. Schoettgen in loc. That the prohibition here refers to Roman epicurism (e.g. to the eating of fowls suffocated in Falerian wine), is very inappropriately assumed by Schneckenburger, especially considering the humble position of most of the Gentile-Christians. καὶ τοῦ αἵματος] denotes generally any partaking of blood, in whatever form it might be found. Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26; Leviticus 17:10; Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16; Deuteronomy 12:23 ff., Deuteronomy 15:23. The prohibition of eating blood, even yet strictly observed by the Jews (Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 262 f.), is not to be derived from the design of the lawgiver to keep the people at a distance from all idolatry (as is well known, the sacrificing Gentiles ate blood and drank it mingled with wine, Michaelis, Mos. R. IV. § 206), or from sanitary considerations, but from the conception expressly set forth in Genesis 9:6, Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 13:14, Deuteronomy 12:23-24, that the blood is that which contains “the soul of all flesh.” On this also depended the prohibition of things strangled, because the blood was still in them, which, as the vehicle of life, was not to be touched as food, but was to be poured out (Leviticus 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:15 ff.), and not to be profaned by eating. See Ewald, Alterth. pp. 51, 197; Delitzsch, bibl. Psych. p. 242 ff. The very juxtaposition of the two points proves that Cyprian, Tertullian, and others (see Wolf in loc.), erroneously explain αἷμα of homicidium. With the deep reverence of the Hebrews for the sanctity of blood was essentially connected the idea of blood-sacrifice; and therefore the prohibition of partaking of blood, in respect of its origin and importance (it was accompanied with severe penalties), was very different from the prohibition of unclean animals. Comp. also Bähr, Symbol. II. p. 240.

[30] But that the apostles had here in view a sanctification of marriage by the cognizance or approval of the rulers of the church, so that the germ of the ecclesiastical nuptial ceremony is to be found here, is very arbitrarily assumed by Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 185.

[31] That even among the heathen the sinfulness of sexual abuse was recognised (as Hofmann, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 131, objects), makes no difference as regards the whole of their moral attitude and tendency. Voices of earnest and thoughtful men in Greece and Rome were raised against all vices. Hofmann attaches to the notion of πορνεία a width which the word, as actually used, has not: “Unbridledness of natural sexual conduct, which neither knows nor desires to know moral restriction.” Thus the word, in his view, applies not only to sexual intercourse in relationship, but also to sexual conduct in marriage (?).

[32] The omission of καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ in D and Fathers, though approved by Bornemann (here and in ver. 29), can only be regarded as a copyist’s error occasioned by Homoioteleuton (καὶ τοῦ … καὶ τοῦ). So decisive are the witnesses in favour of these words.

The following general observations are to be made on Acts 15:20 compared with Acts 15:29 :—1. The opinion of James and the resolution of the assembly is purely negative; the Gentile brethren were not to be subjected to παρενοχλεῖν, but they were expected merely ἀπέχεσθαι, and that from four matters, which according to the common Gentile opinion were regarded as indifferent, but were deeply offensive to the rigidly legal Jewish-Christians. The moral element of these points is here accordingly left entirely out of account; the design of the prohibition refers only to the legal strictness of the Jewish-Christians, between whom and the Gentile-Christians the existing dispute was to be settled, and the fellowship of brotherly intercourse was to be provisionally restored. The Gentile-Christian, for the avoidance of offence towards his Jewish brother, was to abstain as well from that which exhibited the fundamental character of heathenism (pollutions of idols and fornication; comp. on the latter, Romans 1:21 ff.), as from those things by which, in the intercourse of Christian fellowship, the most important points of the restrictions on food appointed by God for Israel might be prematurely overthrown, to the offence of the Jewish-Christians.—2. That precisely these four points are adduced, and neither more nor other, is simply to be explained from the fact, that historically, and according to the experience of that time, next to circumcision these were the stumbling-blocks in ordinary intercourse between the two sections of Christians; and not, as Olshausen and Ebrard, following many older commentators, suppose (comp. also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 129; Wieseler, p. 185; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 571 f.), from the fact that they were accustomed to be imposed on the proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts of Noah (see the same in Sanh. 56 a b; Maimonides, Tr. Melach. 9. 1), and that the meaning of the injunction is, that the Gentile-Christians had no need to become proselytes of righteousness by circumcision, but were only obliged to live as proselytes of the gate, or at least were to regard themselves as placed in a closer relation and fellowship to the Jewish people (Baumgarten). Were this the case, we cannot see why the decree should not have attached itself more precisely and fully to the Noachic precepts,[33] to which not a single one of the four points expressly belonged; and therefore the matter has nothing at all in common with the proselytism of the gate. Comp. also Oertel, p. 249; Hofmann, h. Schr. d. N.T. I. p. 128 ff.—3. That the proposal of James, and the decree drawn up in accordance with it, were to have no permanent force as a rule of conduct, is clear from the entire connection in which it arose. It was called forth by the circumstances of the times; it was to be a compromise as long as these circumstances lasted; but its value as such was extinguished of itself by the cessation of the circumstances—namely, as soon as the strengthening of the Christian spirit, and of the Christian moral freedom of both parties, rendered the provisional regulation superfluous. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 138 f. Therefore Augustine strikingly remarks (c. Manich. 32. 13): “Elegisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequaquam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentes propter angularem illum lapidem duos in se condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo illi duo parietes, unus de circumcisione, alter de praeputio venientes, quamvis in angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distinctius eminebant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita carnalis appareat: quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, si manu a cervice percussus nullo cruento vulnere occisus est? Et qui forte pauci tangere ista formidant, a caeteris irridentur, ita omnium animos in hac re tenuit sententia veritatis.” In contrast to this correct view stand the Canon, apost. 63 (εἰ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ φάγῃ κρέα ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, ἢ θηριάλωτον ἢ θνησιμαῖον, καθαιρείσθω· τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ νόμος ἀπεῖπεν. Εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς εἴη, ἀφοριζέσθω), and not less the Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, and many Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 113, as also the Concil. Trull. II. Can. 67, and exegetical writers cited in Wolf.[34] It is self-evident withal, that not only the prohibition of πορνεία, but also the general moral tenor and fundamental thought of the whole decree (the idea of Christian freedom, to the use of which merely relative limits given in the circumstances, and not an absolute ethical limitation, must be assigned), have permanent validity, such as Paul exhibited in his conduct and teaching.—4. The Tübingen criticism, finding in Galatians 2 the Archimedean point for its lever, has sought to relegate the whole narrative of the apostolic council and its decree to the unhistorical sphere (see besides, Baur, I. 119 ff. ed. 2, Schwegler, Zeller, Holsten, especially Hilgenfeld in Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal., and in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 317 ff., 1860, p. 118 ff., Kanon u. Krit. d. N.T. p. 188 ff.); because the comparison with Galatians 2 exhibits contradictions, which cause the narrative of the Acts to be recognised as an irenic fiction. It is alleged, namely, that by its incorrect representation the deeply seated difference between the Jewish-Christianity of the original apostles and Paulinism free from the law was to be as much as possible concealed, with a view to promote union. Holtzmann, Judenth. und Christenth. p. 568 ff., more cautiously weighs the matter, but still expresses doubt. For a defence of its historical character, see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 189 ff., and in his Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal.;[35] Ebrard, § 125; Baumgarten, p. 401 ff.; Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. K. p. 252 ff., ed. 2; Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 551 ff.; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 396 ff. (also in the Stud. d. Würtemb. Geistl. 1847, 2, p. 94 ff.); Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 103 ff.; Thiersch, p. 127 ff.; Lekebusch, p. 296 ff.; Ewald, p. 469 ff.; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 148 ff.; Hofmann, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 127 ff., who, however, calls to his aid many incorrect interpretations of passages in the Epistle to the Galatians; Trip, l.c. p. 92 ff.; Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch. p. 226 ff. The contradictions, which serve as premisses for the attack upon our narrative, are not really present in Galatians 2:1 ff. For—and these are the most essential points in the question—in Galatians 2. Paul narrates the matter not in a purely historical interest, but in personal defence of his apostolic authority, and therefore adduces incidents and aspects of what happened at Jerusalem, which do not make it at all necessary historically to exclude our narrative. Moreover, even in Galatians 2 the original apostles are not in principle at variance, but at one, with Paul (comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 253 f.); as follows from Acts 15:6, from the reproach of hypocrisy made against Peter, Acts 15:12-13 (which supposes an agreement in conviction between him and Paul), from the ἐθνικῶς ζῇς, Acts 15:14, and from the speech in common, Acts 15:16 ff. (see evasions, on account of ὙΠΌΚΡΙΣΙς, in Schwegler and Baur). Further, in Galatians 2. Paul is not contrasted with the original apostles in respect of doctrine (for the circumcision of Titus was not demanded by them), but as regards the field of their operations in reference to the same gospel, Acts 15:9. By κατʼ ἰδίαν, again, Galatians 2:2, is meant a private conference (comp. on Acts 15:6), which had nothing to do with the transactions of our narrative; nor is the care for the poor determined on, Galatians 2:10, a matter excluding the definitions of our decree, particularly as Paul only describes an agreement which had been made, not in any sort of public assembly, but merely between him and the three original apostles; the observance of the decree was an independent matter, and was understood of itself. In fine, the absence of any mention of the council and decree in the Pauline Epistles, particularly in the Epistle to the Galatians (and even in the discussion on meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 8:10; 1 Corinthians 8:13

Expositor's Greek Testament

Acts 15:19. διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω: “wherefore my judgment is”. St. James apparently speaks as the president of the meeting, Chrysostom, Hom., xxxiii., and his words with the emphatic ἐγώ (Weiss) may express more than the opinion of a private member—he sums up the debate and proposes “the draught of a practical resolution” (see however Hort, Ecclesia, 79; Hackett, in loco; and on the other hand Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 147). If a position of authority is thus given to St. James at the conference, it is very significant that this should be so in Jerusalem itself, where the Twelve would naturally carry special weight. But this presidency and Apostolic authority of St. James in Jerusalem is exactly in accordance with the remarkable order of the three names referred to by St. Paul in Galatians 2:9 (cf. Acts 12:17; Acts 21:18). At the same time Acts 15:22 shows us that neither the authority of St. James nor that of the other Apostles is conceived of as overriding the general consent of the whole Church.—μὴ παρενοχλεῖν: only here in N.T.; “not to trouble,” A. and R.V.; it may be possible to press the παρά, “not to trouble further,” i.e., by anything more than he is about to mention, or in their conversion to God. The verb is found with dative and accusative in LXX; for the former cf. Jdg 14:17, 1Ma 10:63 SR, Acts 12:14; and for the latter Jeremiah 26(46):27, 1Ma 10:35. Bengel takes παρά as = præter, but whilst it is very doubtful how far the preposition can be so rendered here, he adds fides quieta non obturbanda.—τοῖς ἐπισ. cf. Acts 11:21, “who are turning to God”; present participle, as in acknowledgment of a work actually in progress.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

19. Wherefore my sentence is] Lit. I decide. The pronoun is emphatically expressed, and indicates that the speaker is deciding with authority.

that we trouble not them] The verb is only found here in N. T., and signifies to trouble by putting obstacles in the way of another. Thus the idea of the speaker is “We will not by needless impediments deter the new converts from joining us.”

which from among the Gentiles are turned to God] The same phrase is used elsewhere in the Acts (cp. Acts 9:35, Acts 14:15, Acts 26:20), but of the converts at Antioch (Acts 11:21) the whole expression is “a great number believed and turned unto the Lord,” thus shewing what constituted the true turning unto God.

Bengel's Gnomen

Acts 15:19. Παρενοχλεῖν) παρά, besides, over and above what is necessary, unnecessarily. Quiet faith ought not to be disturbed.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 19. - Judgment for sentence, A.V. (ἐγὼ κρίνω); turn for are turned, A.V. (ἐπιστρέφουσιν Judgment. Sentence is the best word, as expressing the decisive judgment of St. James, which, being delivered with the authority of his office at the close of the debate, carried with it the suffrages of the whole council. The things decreed by them were called Τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκρίμενα ὑπὸ σῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Turn. It applies to those that should hereafter turn as well as to those who were already turned. Acts 15:19

Vincent's Word Studies

Trouble (παρενοχλεῖν)

Only here in New Testament. See on vexed, Luke 6:18.