Acts 15:5

15:5 These Pharisees were believers, yet they retained their strong adherence to the law of Moses. Paul argued against their message most strenuously (see Gal 1:6-9; 2:14–3:14).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 15:5. Ἐξανέοτησαν, rose up) before the rest, at Jerusalem.—Φαρισαίων, of the Pharisees) Even converted persons have from time to time accompanying them their former state of the understanding, of the will, and of the affections.—πεπιστευκότες, who had believed) who had passed from Judaism to Christianity.—[δεῖ, it is needful) They were not waiting for the decision of the apostles.—V. g.]—τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως, the law of Moses) Comp. Act 15:24. They are speaking of the whole law: ch. Act 13:39, note. [The division of the law into the moral and ceremonial was not as familiar to the Jews as it is to us; for both alike were then in force.] And yet in this passage a more express mention of the moral law is not to be thought requisite: for Paul, although he denied that righteousness (justification) is to be obtained by it, yet “established the law:” Rom 3:31. And therefore the Pharisees who believed, in saving that salvation could not be obtained without circumcision, had no occasion to say more expressly, that salvation could not be obtained without the moral law; although they were not far removed from this very sentiment, which therefore Peter refutes, Act 15:10-11.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 15:5 . For [281] see critical note. ἐξανέστησαν : compound verb in this sense here only in N.T. (only elsewhere in quotation, Mar 12:19 , Luk 20:28 ), but in classical Greek and in LXX, cf. Oba 1:1 , Sir 8:2 ; Sir 17:23 , 1Ma 9:40 . The double compound apparently gives at least some measure of emphasis, Simcox, Language of the N. T. , p. 43. τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρ . τῶν Φ .: probably in some smaller and more private assembly in answer to the ἀνήγγ . of Act 15:4 , which seems to mean that the delegates at first announced informally in Jerusalem what had happened, just as they had done in Phœnicia and Samaria, cf. παρείσακτοι ἀδελφοί , Gal 2:4 . The Pharisees took up their remarks, objected probably basing their teaching on the necessity of circumcision on such passages as Isa 56:6 ; cf. Isa 52:1 (Lumby); and then followed as a consequence the official assembly in Act 15:6 (see Zöckler’s note, Act 15:4 , and in loco , p. 246, second edition). Or if we consider that a representative meeting of the whole Church is implied in Act 15:4 , and that the Apostles spoke before it, then the private conference of Gal 2:2 may be regarded as taking place between the first public assembly, Act 15:4 , and the second in Act 15:6 (Hort, Ecclesia , p. 69, cf. Lightfoot, Galatians , p. 126). αἱρέσεως , see above p. 148. τῶν Φ .: the Pharisaic spirit had already shown itself in Act 11:2 , but this is the first definite mention in the book of the conversion of any of the Pharisees; not strange after the conversion of the priests, see note on Act 6:7 , or after the attitude of men like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathæa towards our Lord, and the moderate counsels of Gamaliel. πεπιστευκότες : believed, i.e. , that Jesus was the Messiah, and the fulfiller of the law but still only as the Head of a glorified Judaism, from which Gentiles were to be rigidly excluded unless they conformed to the enactments relating to circumcision. How difficult it was for a Pharisee Quietist probably of the earlier part of the first century to acknowledge that the law of circumcision and of Moses could possibly be regarded as unessential we may learn from Assumption of Moses , ix., 4 6, and viii., on circumcision, and see references on Act 15:1 . αὐτούς , i.e. , the Gentiles, speaking generally, not the τινας ἄλλους of Act 15:2 (Lekebusch), the uncircumcised companions of Paul and Barnabas, although in accordance with Gal 2:3-5 such persons would no doubt have been included. τηρεῖν : only used here by St. Luke of keeping the law, and only else where in Jas 2:10 in a similar phrase, cf. Mar 7:9 , Joh 9:16 , of keeping the law of the Sabbath; Mat 19:17 , of keeping the commandments; Tob 14:9 (, al. ), Jos., Ant. , xiii., 10, 6.

[281] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees] This verse appears to be part of the declaration made by Paul and Barnabas to this council: for, having stated how God blessed their ministry among the Gentiles, they proceed to declare how all the good work was likely to be destroyed by certain Pharisees, who, having received the Christian faith, came down to Antioch, and began to teach the necessity of circumcision, &c., and thus filled the minds of the young converted Gentiles with doubtful disputations. See the margin.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Certain of the sect of the Pharisees. It is not without cause that Luke expresseth what kind of men they were which went about to trouble or hinder Paul, even at Jerusalem also. And it is to be thought that the evil flowed from that fountain; and that Luke doth now more plainly express, that there brake out now also fans [disturbers] out of that very same sect, from whence the authors of that wicked dissension came. For though they had given Christ their names, yet there remained relics of their former nature. We know how proud the Pharisees were, how haughty, how lofty their looks were; all which they would have forgotten if they had truly put on Christ. Like as there remained no Phariseeism in Paul, but a great part had gotten the habit of stubbornness by long custom, which they could not shake off so easily by and by. Forasmuch as there reigned most of all among them hypocrisy, they were too much addicted to external rites, which are coverings for vices. They were likewise puffed up with pride, so that they did tyrannously covet to make all other men subject to their decrees. It is well-known how sore sick the monks are of both diseases. Whereby it cometh to pass, that nothing is more cruel than they to oppress the Church, nothing is more wicked or forward than they to despise the Word of God. Moreover, we see many of them which came out of those dens which have cast from them their cowl, and yet can they never forget those conditions which they learned there.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) Certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed.—This is the first distinct mention of the conversion of any of the Pharisaic party, but there had been a drift in that direction going on for some time, beginning during our Lord’s ministry (Joh_12:42), and showing itself in the moderate counsels of Gamaliel (Act_5:38-39). The position which they occupied was that of accepting Jesus as a teacher sent from God, proved by the Resurrection to be the Christ, and as such the Head of a kingdom which was to present to mankind a restored and glorified Judaism, the Law kept in its completeness, the Temple ritual still maintained, Gentiles admitted only on their confessing their inferiority and accepting the sign of incorporation with the superior race. It appears, from Gal_2:1, that here, as in so many later controversies, the general issue was debated on an individual case. Was Titus—a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, whom St. Paul had brought up with him—to be circumcised, or not? Was he to be admitted to communion with the Church, or treated as a heathen? Here, probably, there was no official rank as in the case of Cornelius, no previous transition stage in passing through the synagogue as a proselyte of the gate. He was a Gentile pure and simple, and as such his case was a crucial one. Circumcision, however, did not stand alone. It carried with it every jot and tittle of the Law, the Sabbaths and the feasts, the distinction between clean and unclean meats. It may be noted that the position which Titus occupied in this controversy gave him a special fitness for the work afterwards assigned to him, of contending against the party of the circumcision, with their “Jewish fables” and false standards of purity (Tit_1:10; Tit_1:14-15).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. But there rose up, &c.] The margin of the A.V. takes this sentence as part of the narration of Paul and Barnabas, “there rose up, said they, certain, &c.” But it is much more natural to consider them to be St Luke’s account of what happened at Jerusalem. The teachers at Antioch had not been described as Pharisees though they probably were so. But in no other passage of the N. T. are the Pharisees mentioned away from Jerusalem. As soon as the Apostolic narrative was heard by the church certain of their party stood forth from the church body and lodged their protest against what had been done. The Pharisaic teaching concerning the necessity of circumcision was based on such passages as Isa_56:6, where the covenant mentioned was held to be that of circumcision. And they supported their position by such passages as Isa_52:1, where the uncircumcised are excluded from the holy city.

saying, That it was needful] Better, “saying, It is needful, &c.” The words are a direct utterance, and suit better so rendered with St Luke’s narrative, in which he is describing what occurred before the church at Jerusalem.

The visit of St Paul to Jerusalem which St Luke here describes is now generally admitted to be the same of which St Paul speaks in Gal_2:1-9. The chronology offers no obstacle to this conclusion, while the purpose of the visit, and the companionship of Barnabas and the persons who were at the head of the church in Jerusalem are all accordant in the two notices. In the Epistle, St Paul tells us that he took Titus with him, and nothing is more likely than that while he had the company of some members of the Judaizing party, he would also take a companion with him from among those converts on whose behalf he was making the journey. He says too that it was ‘by revelation’ that he went up, while the narrative of the Acts represents him as sent by the church of Antioch. But here need be no contradiction. An inward monition may have furnished the true reason why the Apostle consented to make an appeal to the central authorities in Jerusalem. St Luke would not necessarily be aware of this; it was important in St Paul’s argument to the Galatians that he should mention it. (For a fuller comparison of the two notices, see Bp Lightfoot’s Ep. to Galatians, note, pp. 122–127.)

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees,.... Which was the strictest sect of religion among the Jews:

which believed; that Jesus was the Messiah, and professed their faith in him, and were members of the church, though they still retained many of their pharisaical tenets, and are therefore said to be of that sect: these rose up in opposition to Paul and Barnabas, as they were relating their success among the Gentiles, and giving an account of the difference that had happened at Antioch, and their own sense of that matter:

saying, that it was needful to circumcise them: the Gentiles that believed:

and to command them to keep the law of Moses; both moral and ceremonial; the observance of which they reckoned was absolutely necessary to salvation. Some think these are not the words of Luke, relating what happened at Jerusalem, when Paul and Barnabas gave in their account of things to the apostles and elders; but that they are a continuation of their account, how that in the controversy raised at Antioch, certain Pharisees that came thither from Judea, rose up and asserted the necessity of the, Gentiles being circumcised, and of their keeping the law of Moses in order to their being saved; which is favoured by the Syriac version, especially by the Latin interpreter of it, who supplies the words thus, "but say they" (i.e. Paul and Barnabas) "there arose men", &c.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Ver. 5. But there rose up] These are not Luke’s words, but the apostles continuing their speech: they declared all things that God had done with them, and how they had been opposed by certain of the Pharisees’ sect, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But there rose up ... - It has been doubted whether these are the words of Paul and Barnabas, relating what occurred at Antioch, or whether they are the words of Luke recording what took place at Jerusalem. The correct exposition is probably what refers it to the latter. For:

(1) This seems to be the most obvious interpretation.

(2) The use of the words “rose up” implies that. Those who disturbed the church at Antioch are said to have come down from Judea Act 15:1, and if this place referred to that occurrence, the same words would have been retained.

(3) The particular specification here of “the sect of the Pharisees” looks as if this was an occurrence taking place at Jerusalem. No such specification exists respecting those who came down to Antioch; but it would seem here as if this party in Jerusalem resolved still to abide by the Law, and to impose those rites on the Christian converts. However, this interpretation is by no means certain.

Which believed - Who maintained or taught.

That it was needful ... - See the notes on Act 15:1.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

If these words be taken for St. Luke’s, the penman of this book, then they declare, that in the church of Jerusalem there were some that did abet the opinion of the necessity of circumcision; but if, (as most probably we may), we take them for the words of St. Paul, they then are part of his narrative to the church there, of what had happened at Antioch.

The sect of the Pharisees; these Pharisees were a sect amongst the Jews, (so called from פרש separavit, and may be Englished, separatists), separating from converse with others, by reason of an opinion they had of their own holiness, Luk 18:11.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. There arose—started up; not in the public council, but in the preparatory discussions. These certain were the counterpart and copartisians of the certain men in Act_15:1.

Pharisees—Paul describes these very zealots in Gal_2:4-6.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who for which, A.V.; it is for that it was, A.V.; charge for command, A.V. There rose up, etc. As soon as Paul and Barnabas had finished their recital of the conversion of the heathen to whom they had preached the gospel, certain Christian Pharisees who were at the meeting disturbed the joy of the brethren and the unanimity of the assembly by getting up and saying that all the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the Law. This, of course, would have included Titus, who was present with St. Paul. (Gal_2:1, Gal_2:3) The Epistle to the Galatians deals directly and forcibly with this question.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But certain Pharisees - For even believers are apt to retain their former turn of mind, and prejudices derived therefrom. The law of Moses - The whole law, both moral and ritual.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The demand of the former Pharisees and Peter’s answer:

v. 5. but there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.

v. 6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

v. 7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

v. 8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

v. 9. and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

v. 10. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

v. 11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

v. 12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

Matters seemed to be adjusting themselves very nicely, when opposition developed. Some men that had formerly been members of the sect of the Pharisees had been overcome by the evidence of the Gospel and had accepted Jesus in true faith. But some of their former ideas concerning the necessity of keeping the Law persisted. These now arose in the meeting and stated with great emphasis their opinion, namely, that it was absolutely necessary for all the converts among the Gentiles to he circumcised and to observe the Law of Moses, that is, the ceremonial law, as it concerned the people of God in the Old Testament. It is the same false and dangerous doctrine which has cropped up in the Church at all times, namely, that the keeping of the Law is essential for meriting salvation. This was a very serious objection, a discordant note in the harmony of the meeting, so serious, in fact, that the assembly adjourned to meet once more at another time. When the convention, the apostles and elders, together with the entire congregation, verses 12:22-25, assembled again, it was with the express purpose to look closely into this matter, to reach a definite conclusion with regard to the threatening dissension. The meeting did not open very auspiciously. There was a heated debate with many pointed questions, the Pharisaic party insisting upon having its opinions accepted. But after this discussion had been going on for some time, Peter arose and took the floor. In a perfectly cool and objective way he presented his views. Addressing the assembly as "men and brethren," he reminded them that they had found out, and were therefore fully aware of the fact, that from the earliest days, almost from the founding of the Church, in fact, God had chosen that by his, Peter’s, mouth the heathen should hear the Word of the Gospel and come to faith. He referred to the demonstration given by the Lord in the case of Cornelius. At that time God, who knows the hearts and minds of all men, chap. 1:24, had borne testimony in favor of the Gentiles, by giving them the Holy Ghost, just as He had given Him to the apostles and the other Jewish disciples. God had made no distinction, no discrimination between Jews and Gentiles, hut had given to the latter the full purity of heart by faith. Though they were uncircumcised, the Spirit had been granted them, just as well as to those of the circumcision. The outward purification which attended the Jewish rite is here contrasted with the full and complete purification of the heart which follows belief in Jesus the Savior. "Therefore this faith of which the apostle speaks is not a simple knowledge of the story, but it is a strong, powerful work of the Holy Ghost which changes the hearts. " Since these things were true, Peter argues, why should they tempt God, why should they put Him to the proof, why should they try out His patience and forbearance, by an intimation as though He had admitted unworthy members into His Church? Why should they want to lap upon the necks of these people, whom God had admitted without the Jewish rite, a yoke, the yoke of the ceremonial law, which neither their fathers nor they themselves had been able to bear? The detailed injunctions governing even the minutest acts of everyday life had ever proved a heavy burden to all the Jews, and it would be wrong to transmit this burden to the Gentiles. And this argument bore all the more force since they all, both Jews and Gentiles, hoped to be saved through grace, through the unmerited grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Every rule and order that emphasized merits and works on the part of man would naturally detract from the glory of the free grace of the Lord, and would make salvation itself a matter of doubt. The arguments of Peter were unanswerable and caused the opponents to become and remain silent. Moreover, the general debate was not again resumed, for now Barnabas and Paul took the floor, and the entire multitude listened to them as they narrated how many and how great signs and miracles God had performed among the heathen through them. Note that Luke here again places the name of Barnabas first. It was Paul that had spoken to the sorcerer Elymas; it was Paul that had healed the lame man, at Lystra; and it naturally fell to Barnabas to recount these facts. By confirming the Word of the Gospel among the Gentiles in this way, when Paul and Barnabas were inviting the heathen and organizing them into congregations without laying upon them the demands of Mosaic legislation, the Lord gave proof of His approbation of the work and emphasized the Gospel of free grace in Christ Jesus.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, some Jews of the sect of the Pharisees, converted to Christianity, thought and taught, that circumcision, and keeping of the law of Moses, was necessary to salvation, both to Jew and Gentile Christians.

Where observe, 2. That the spirit of infallibility with which the apostles were at that time certainly endued, did not prevent the rise of controversies and disputes in the first ages of the church; nor yet silence and put an end to such disputes when risen; much less can a pretended infallible head of the church, and an unerring judge of controversies, now do it.

Observe, 3. That errors and false opinions, creeping into a church, are not a sufficient warrant to forsake the communion of that church.

We find here, that in the most primitive and purest churches, even whilst the apostles themselves were upon the spot, dangerous errors crept into the church, and proved of such fatal and pernicious consequence, that the apostle wishes they were even cut off that thus troubled them. Gal 4:12

Separation from a church, is not warrantable upon any other grounds, than that which makes a separation between God and that church, which is either the apostasy of that church into gross idolatry, or in point of doctrine into damnable heresy.

In Rev 2:1-7 we read of Christ’s walking among the seven golden candlesticks: and although some of them were sufficiently besmeared, yet were they favoured with Christ’s gracious presence.

Observe lastly, The regular and prudential means used by the apostles for the suppressing of this error which endangered the church’s purity, and for quenching of this spark of dissension, which threatened the church’s peace: They gathered together at Jerusalem to consider of the matter; that is, to consult about it, and debate upon it.

Where note, 1. That though the apostles were inspired by the Holy Ghost, yet they made use of their own reason and judgment for the decision of this controversy. God’s inspiration did not make the apostles’ consultation needless, either for satisfying themselves or silencing gainsayers.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. The Judaizers did not hesitate to declare fully their own position. (5) " But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. " This party is here identified as converts from the old sect of the Pharisees. We have had no account hitherto of any large accessions to the Church from this party; but this incidental remark shows that some of these obstinate opposers of the truth had yielded, and were now occupying positions of influence in the congregation. Paul now once more meets some of his companions in the persecution of the disciples, not to harmonize with them, nor to dispute with them in the synagogues concerning the claims of Christ; but to contend, within the Church itself, against that same disposition to perpetuate the law which had made them formerly fight against the gospel. He had a bad opinion of some of them, which must have been well-founded, or he would not have given the public utterance to it which he did at a subsequent period. He styles them, in the Epistle to the Galatians, "False brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Having witnessed a rapid increase of the congregations under the pressure of the persecutions and disputations to which they had formerly resorted, these wily enemies of the truth determined at length to corrupt and destroy, under the guise of friendship, a cause whose progress they could not impede by open enmity. They well knew, what some of the brethren had failed to discover, that the doctrine of Christ would be rendered powerless if it could only be hampered by bondage to the law. Even to this day the mass of religious teachers have failed to learn this lesson, though the experience of ages has demonstrated its truth. The essential issue between Paul and the Pharisees had reference to the perpetuation of the law of Moses in the Church of Christ, and the same issue has been in debate, under various aspects, from that day to this. Paul defeated the attempt of these Judaizers to fasten circumcision on the Church; but subsequent Judaizers imposed infant immersion, and finally, infant sprinkling as a substitute. What the early Pharisees failed to accomplish in the face of apostolic opposition, the later Pharisees did accomplish under a thin disguise. The unsuccessful attempt of those Pharisees to "spy out the liberty which the disciples had in Christ Jesus, and bring them into bondage" under the law, has been successfully accomplished by these, in teaching men that the Church of Christ originated in Abraham's family, and that the Jewish tribes and the Christian congregations constitute but one identical Church. The Roman apostasy perpetuates the pompous ritual and daily sacrifice of the old temple; religious zealots slaughter Canaanites in the form of modern heretics; professed Christians go to war under the old battle-cry of "The sword of the Lord and of Gideon;" the Latter-day Saints emulate the Turks in the multiplication of wives; and for all these corruptions authority is found in the laws and customs of ancient Israel. The intelligent reader of the New Testament knows scarcely which of these errors is most repugnant to the truth; but must, like Paul, struggle with untiring energy and ceaseless vigilance to uproot them all from the minds of men.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. There rose up certain of the Pharisees. Men of that sect who, like Paul, had become Christians, but unlike him had retained their Jewish bigotry. Perhaps some of them were Paul's old friends. They seem to have sprung the controversy when the missionaries gave account of their work (verse 4).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul and Barnabas are now in Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders there.

General Information:

Here the word "them" refers to non-Jewish believers who were not circumcised and did not keep the Old Testament laws of God.

But certain men

Here Luke contrasts those who believe that salvation is only in Jesus to others who believe salvation is by Jesus yet also believe that circumcision is required for salvation.

to keep the law of Moses

"to obey the law of Moses"

to consider this matter

The church leaders decided to discuss whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses in order for God to save them from their sins.

translationWords

believe

Pharisee

law

apostle

elder

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. ἐξανέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν … Φαρισαίων, but there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees. The margin of the A.V. takes this sentence as part of the narration of Paul and Barnabas, ‘there rose up, said they, certain, &c.’ But it is much more natural to consider it to be St Luke’s account of what happened at Jerusalem. The teachers at Antioch had not been described as Pharisees, though they probably were so. Yet in no other passage of the N.T. are the Pharisees mentioned away from Jerusalem. As soon as the Apostolic narrative was heard by the Church, certain of that party stood forth from the Church body and lodged their protest against what had been done. The Pharisaic teaching concerning the necessity of circumcision was based on such passages as Isa 56:6, where the covenant mentioned was held to be that of circumcision. They also supported their position by such passages as Isa 52:1, where the uncircumcised are excluded from the Holy City.

πεπιστευκότες, which believed, i.e. had accepted Christ as the promised Messiah. But we can see from the position of these men that there was no thought at first by so doing of making a complete break with Judaism.

λέγοντες ὅτι Δεῖ, saying, It is needful, &c. The words are a direct utterance, and St Luke sets before us the very words spoken before the Church assembly.

The visit of St Paul to Jerusalem which St Luke here describes is now generally admitted to be the same of which St Paul speaks in Gal 2:1-9. The chronology offers no obstacle to this conclusion, while the purpose of the visit and the companionship of Barnabas and the persons who were at the head of the Church in Jerusalem are all accordant in the two notices. In the Epistle St Paul tells us that he took Titus with him, and nothing is more likely than that while he had the company of some members of the Judaizing party, he would also take a companion with him from among those converts on whose behalf he was making the journey. He says too that it was ‘by revelation’ that he went up, while the narrative of the Acts represents him as sent by the Church of Antioch. But here need be no contradiction. An inward monition may have furnished the true reason why the Apostle consented to make an appeal to the central authorities in Jerusalem. St Luke would not necessarily be aware of this; it was important in St Paul’s argument to the Galatians that he should mention it. (For a fuller comparison of the two notices, see Bp Lightfoot’s Ep. to Galatians, note, pp. 122–127.)

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Arose. In the assembly.

Sect. See on heresies, 2Pe 2:1.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.