Homily 33 — Acts 15, verses 13 to 34

“And after they had fallen silent, James answered, saying, Men and brothers, listen to me. Simeon has declared how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree.” [a]

This James was bishop, as they say, and that is why he speaks last. And here that saying is fulfilled, “At the mouth of two or three witnesses every word will be established” (Deuteronomy 17, verse 6; Matthew 18, verse 16). But notice his good judgment as well, in making his case from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no deeds of his own to report, as Peter had, and Paul. And indeed it is wisely arranged that this active part is given to them, since they were not meant to stay fixed in one place at Jerusalem, while James here, who plays the part of teacher, is in no way answerable for what has been done — though he is not divided from them in opinion.

“Men and brothers,” he says, “listen to me.” Great is the man’s modesty. His is also the fuller speech, as indeed it brings the matter under discussion to its conclusion. “Simeon,” he says, “has declared” — that is, in Luke (Luke 2, verse 25), where he prophesied, “which you have prepared before the face of all nations, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” “How God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.”

Then, since that witness, though clear enough because of when it was given, still lacked authority because it was not ancient, he brings in ancient prophecy as well, saying, “And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written: After this I will return, and will build again the tent of David, which has fallen down; and I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up” (verse 16). What? Was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown down? And what sort of raising up would he call the one that took place after the return from Babylon?

“That the rest of mankind,” he says, “may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called” (verse 17). Then comes what gives his word its authority: “says the Lord, who does all these things.” And to show that this is nothing new, but that all was planned from the beginning: “Known to God are all his works from eternity” (verse 18). And then, once again, his authority as bishop: “Therefore my judgment is that we do not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day” (verses 19 to 21). [e]

Since, then, they had heard the law, he has good reason to lay down these things from the law, so that he may not seem to make it of no authority. And yet notice how he does not let these things be told them as coming from the law, but as coming from himself — as though saying, “It is not that I heard these things from the law.” How, then? “We have judged.”

Then the decree is made in common. “Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men from their own company” — do you notice that they do not merely make a ruling and leave it at that? — “and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas, called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers. And they wrote a letter by them as follows” (verse 22). And notice: to give the decree more weight, they send men of their own, so that there may be no room for suspecting Paul and those with him. “The apostles and elders and brothers send greetings to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (verse 23).

And notice how they write their letter without any harsh abuse of those men. “Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law — to whom we gave no such command” (verse 24). This charge was enough against the rashness of those men, and it was worthy of the apostles’ modesty that they said nothing beyond it.

Then, to show that they are not acting high-handedly, that all are agreed on this, and that they write it after deliberation: “It seemed good to us, having assembled with one accord, to send men of ours whom we have chosen” (verse 25). Then, so that the sending of those men may not look like a slight on Paul and Barnabas, notice the praise given them: “together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” — it is not man’s doing, it says — “to lay on you no greater burden” — again it calls the law a burden; then, as though apologizing even for these commands — “than these necessary things” (verses 26 to 28): “that you abstain from food offered to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (verse 29).

For the new covenant did not command these things; nowhere do we find that Christ spoke about these matters. They take them from the law. “From what is strangled,” it says, “and from blood”: here it forbids murder (compare Genesis 9, verse 5).

“So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the whole company together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced over the encouragement” (verses 30 and 31). Then those men also encouraged them, and when they had strengthened them — for they were disposed to quarrel with Paul — they left them in peace. “And Judas and Silas, being prophets themselves, encouraged the brothers with many words and strengthened them. And after they had stayed there some time, they were sent off in peace from the brothers to the apostles” (verses 32 and 33). No more factions and fighting: from then on, Paul taught.

“Then all the multitude kept silent,” and so on (verse 12). There was no arrogance in the church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and no one silences him. James waits patiently; he does not jump up to speak next. How great was the good order of the proceedings! John says not a word here, nor do the other apostles; they held their peace, for James had been given the chief rule, and they do not think it a hardship. So clean was their soul from the love of glory. [g]

“And after they had fallen silent, James answered,” and so on (verse 13). Peter spoke more forcefully, but James here more mildly. That is how one in high authority ought to act: he leaves the unpleasant things for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

But what does it mean, “How God first visited” (verse 14)? It means “from the beginning.” He also puts it well when he says, “Simeon expounded” — or “interpreted” — implying that he too was speaking the mind of others. “And with this agree,” and so on: notice how he shows that this is a teaching from of old. “To take out of the Gentiles,” he says, “a people for his name” (verse 15). He does not simply say “chose,” but “for his name,” that is, for his glory. His name is not put to shame by his taking the Gentiles first; it is even a greater glory. Something great is hinted at here: that these are chosen before all.

“After this I will return, and rebuild the tent of David, which has fallen down” (verse 16). But if one looks into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact stand now, since his Offspring reigns everywhere. For what good are the buildings and the city, when no one there obeys? And what harm comes from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give their very lives? Something more glorious than David has come: in every part of the world he is now sung. This has come to pass. If so, then this too must come to pass: “And I will build again its ruins, and I will set it up.” For what purpose? “That the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called” (verse 17). If, then, the city rose again for this purpose — because of him who was to come from them — it shows that the reason for building the city was the calling of the Gentiles.

Who are “the rest”? Those who were left then. “And all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called.” But notice how he keeps the proper order and brings them in second. “Says the Lord, who does these things.” Not only “says,” but “does.” So then, it was God’s work.

“But the question is something else — the one Peter spoke of more plainly: whether they must be circumcised. Why, then, do you hold forth about these matters?” For what the opponents claimed was not that the Gentiles must not be received when they believed, but that they must be received with the law. Peter argued well on this point. But since this very thing troubled the hearers more than anything else, James sets this right again. And notice: the thing that needed to be laid down as a rule — that it is not necessary to keep the law — Peter introduced. But the milder part, the truth received of old, James speaks, and he dwells on the point about which nothing is written, so that, having soothed their minds with what everyone acknowledged, he might bring in the other point too at the right moment.

“Therefore,” he says, “my judgment is that we do not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (verse 19) — that is, that we do not unsettle them. For if God called them, and these observances unsettle them, we are fighting against God. And again, “those from among the Gentiles,” he says, “who are turning.” And he says “my judgment is” well, with authority. “But that we write to them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols and from sexual immorality.” And yet they had often pressed these points when teaching them. But so that he may seem to honor the law as well, he mentions these too — speaking, however, not as from Moses but as from the apostles — and, to make the commands many, he has divided the one into two, saying, “and from what is strangled, and from blood” (verse 20). For these, though they concern the body, had to be observed, because they caused great evils. “For from ancient times Moses has had in every city,” and so on (verse 21). This, above all, set their minds at rest.

That is why I say it is good to write to them. Then why do we not write the same commands to the Jews as well? Moses teaches them. See how he stoops down to meet their weakness! Where it did no harm, he set Moses up as their teacher. He granted them a favor that hindered nothing, by letting Jews listen to Moses in these matters, even while he was leading the Gentiles away from him. See what wisdom! He seems to honor Moses and to set him up as the authority for his own people, and by that very thing he leads the Gentiles away from him!

“Since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Then why, for instance, do they not learn from him what there is to learn? Because of these men’s perversity. He shows that even the Jews need observe nothing more than these necessary things. If we do not write to them, it is not that they are bound to observe anything more, but only that they have someone to tell them. [k]

And he does not say, “not to cause them to stumble,” or “not to turn them back,” which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but “not to trouble them.” He shows that the thing, if they carried it, would be nothing but trouble. So he brought the whole matter to an end. And while he seems to preserve the law by taking these rules from it, he loosens its hold by taking only these.

There was a purpose of God’s providence in the dispute too: that after the dispute the teaching might stand firmer. “Then it seemed good to the apostles to send chosen men of their own company,” and so on — no ordinary people, but “leading men” — “having written by them as follows: To those in Antioch,” it says, “and Syria and Cilicia” (verses 22 and 23), where the disease had its birth.

Notice how they say nothing harsher against those men, but look to one thing only: to undo the harm that had been done. For this would make even those who had stirred up the faction there admit they were wrong. They do not say “the deceivers,” “the public pests,” or anything of the kind — though where there is need Paul does this, as when he says, “O full of all deceit” (Acts 13, verse 10). But here, since the point had been won, there was no need.

And notice, they do not put it, “Some from us ordered you to keep the law,” but “troubled you with words, unsettling your souls.” Nothing could be more exact than that word; none of the others spoke of what those men had done in that way. “Your souls,” he says: souls already firmly established, which these men are unsettling — as one says of a building, “taking it down again” — moving them off their foundation.

“To whom,” he says, “we gave no such command. It seemed good to us, therefore, having assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you, together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verses 25 and 26). If they are “beloved,” the people will not despise them; if they “have risked their lives,” they have a right of their own to be believed. “We have sent,” it says, “Judas and Silas, who will also tell you the same things by word of mouth” (verse 27). For it was necessary that the letter should not be there all by itself, in case they said that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed its real meaning and said one thing in place of another. The praise given to Paul stopped their mouths. That is why neither does Paul come alone, nor Barnabas with him, but others from the church as well — so that Paul may not be suspected, since it was he who had argued for that teaching — and not those from Jerusalem alone either. It shows that they have a right to be believed. [m]

“For it seemed good,” they say, “to the Holy Spirit and to us” (verse 28). They are not making themselves equal to him — they are not so mad. Then why do they put it this way? Why did they add “and to us,” when it would have been enough to say “to the Holy Spirit”? The one, “to the Holy Spirit,” so that people would not think it was of human origin; the other, “to us,” so that they may learn that the apostles themselves also accept the Gentiles, although they themselves are circumcised. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them; that is why this is added too. And it shows that they are not speaking by stooping to meet them, nor because they were sparing them, nor as though they thought them weak, but the opposite; for the teachers too were held in great reverence.

“To lay on you no greater burden” — they are always calling it a burden — and again, “than these necessary things,” for that other was a burden beyond what was needed. See here a short letter, with nothing more in it than was needed: no arts of persuasion, no reasonings, but simply a command. For it was the Spirit making law.

“So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch, and having gathered the whole company together, they delivered the letter to them” (verse 30). After the letter, Judas and Silas themselves also encourage them by word (verse 31), for this too was needed, so that Paul and Barnabas might be free of all suspicion. “Being prophets themselves,” it says, they encouraged the brothers “with many words.” Here it shows that Paul and Barnabas have a right to be believed. Paul could have done this as well, but it was fitting for it to be done by these men.

“And after they had stayed there some time, they were sent off in peace” (verse 33). No more faction. It was on this occasion, I suppose, that they received the right hand, as he says himself: “They gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship” (Galatians 2, verse 9). There he says, “They added nothing to me” (Galatians 2, verse 6). For they confirmed his view; they praised and admired it.

It shows that even by human reasoning — not to speak of the Holy Spirit alone — one can see that they had committed a sin not easily corrected. For such things do not need the Spirit. It shows that the rest are not necessary but superfluous, since these are the necessary things. “If you keep yourselves from these,” it says, “you will do well.” It shows that nothing is lacking to them, and that this is enough. It could have been done without letters too, but they send the letter so that there might be a law in writing. And again, so that the people would obey the law, the apostles told those men the same things as well; and they did so, “and strengthened them, and after staying some time were sent off in peace.”

So let us not stumble because of the heretics. For look how many stumbling blocks there were here, at the very beginning of the preaching. I do not mean those that came from those outside; those were nothing. I mean the stumbling blocks within: first Ananias, then the “murmuring,” then Simon the sorcerer; after that, those who accused Peter over Cornelius; next the famine; and last this very thing, the worst of the evils. For indeed it is impossible, when anything good has taken place, for some evil not to spring up alongside it. [o]

So let us not be disturbed if some stumble, but let us thank God even for this, because it makes us more proven. For not distress only, but temptations too, make us more distinguished. A man is not such a great lover of the truth merely because he holds to it when there is no one to lead him astray from it. To hold fast to the truth when many are dragging him away — that is what makes a proven man.

What then? Is this why stumbling blocks come? I am not speaking as though God were their author — far from it! I mean that even out of their wickedness he works good for us. It was never his wish that they should arise: “Grant them,” he says, “that they may be one” (John 17, verse 21). But since stumbling blocks do come, they do these people no harm; they even do them good. Just as persecutors, without meaning to, benefit the martyrs by dragging them to martyrdom — and yet they are not driven to this by God — so it is here.

Let us not look only at this, that people stumble. This very thing is itself a proof of the teaching’s excellence: that many imitate and counterfeit it. It would not be so if it were not good. I will show you this now and make it plain from every side. Among perfumes, it is the fragrant spices that people adulterate and counterfeit — the amomum leaf, for instance. Because these are rare and much needed, fake imitations appear as well. No one would bother to counterfeit a common article. The pure life gets many false pretenders; no one would bother to counterfeit the man who lives a wicked life — no, it is the monk’s life they counterfeit.

What, then, shall we say to the pagans? A pagan comes and says, “I want to become a Christian, but I do not know whom to join. There is a great deal of fighting and faction among you, a great deal of confusion. Which teaching am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you,” he says, “claims, ‘I am speaking the truth.’” No doubt — and this is in our favor. If we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be at a loss. But if we tell you to believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. Whoever agrees with the Scriptures is the Christian; whoever fights against them is far from this rule. “But which am I to believe, when I know nothing at all about the Scriptures? The others say the same thing for themselves. What if the other side comes and says the Scripture has this, and you say it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures differently, each dragging their sense his own way?” And you, then, I ask — have you no understanding, no judgment? “And how could I decide,” he says, “when I do not even know how to judge your teachings? I want to become a learner, and you are making me a teacher straightaway.”

If he says this, what, you ask, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this is not mere pretense and evasion. Let us ask whether he has condemned the pagans as wrong. He will certainly say he has; for of course, if he had not, he would not have come to inquire into our affairs. Let us ask on what grounds he has decided, for surely he has not settled the matter offhand. Clearly he will say, “Because their gods are created things, and not the uncreated God.” Good. If, then, he finds this in the other parties, but the opposite among us, what argument do we need? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fights against this truth and who does not. We, when we say that he is God, say things of him worthy of God: that he has power, that he is not a slave, that he is free, that he acts of himself. The other side says the reverse.

Again I ask: if you wanted to learn to be a physician . . . ? And yet among physicians there are many different teachings. If you accept, without more ado, just what you are told, you are not acting as a human being should; but if you have judgment and sense, you will certainly recognize what is good. We say that the Son is God, and we make good in truth what we say; they say it, but in fact they do not confess it. To mention something even plainer: those others have certain men they are named after, openly displaying the name of the founder of the heresy himself, and so it is with each heresy. With us, no man has given us our name, but the faith itself.

But all this talk of yours is mere pretense and evasion. For answer me this: if you want to buy a cloak, though you know nothing of the art of weaving, how is it that you do not say things like, “I do not know how to buy; they cheat me,” but do everything you can to learn — and the same with anything else you want to buy — and yet here you say these things? At this rate you will accept nothing at all. Suppose there is someone who holds no teaching whatever. He might say what you say about the Christians: “There is such a crowd of people, and they have different teachings — this one a pagan, that one a Jew, the other a Christian. There is no need to accept any teaching at all, for they are at odds with one another. I am a learner, and I do not want to be a judge.” But if you have gone so far as to condemn one teaching, this excuse no longer holds for you. Just as you were able to reject the counterfeit, so here too, once you have come, you will be able to test and approve what is profitable. The man who has condemned no teaching at all may easily say this; but the man who has condemned one, even though he has chosen none, will be able, by going on in the same way, to see what he ought to do.

So let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. To show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not do what you ought? Do that, and seek from God with right reason, and he will certainly reveal it to you.

“God,” it says, “shows no partiality; but in every nation whoever fears him and does what is right is accepted by him” (Acts 10, verses 34 and 35). It cannot be that someone who listens without prejudice will not be persuaded. Just as, if there were a rule by which everything had to be set straight, it would not take much thought, and it would be easy to catch the one who measures falsely — so it is here. “Then how is it that they do not see it at a glance?” Many things cause this: preconceived opinion, and human motives. The others, you say, say the same thing about us. How so? Are we separated from the church? Do we have founders of heresies? Are we named after men, as one of them has Marcion, another Mani, a third Arius, for its author and leader? Even if we too are given a name from some man, we do not take it from those who started some heresy, but from men who presided over us and governed the church. We have no “teachers on earth” — far from it! — we have “one Teacher, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23, verses 9 and 10). “And those others,” he says, “say the same.” But there stands the name set over them, accusing them and stopping their mouths. [t]

How is it that there have been many pagans, and none of them asked these questions? Among the philosophers too there were these differences, and yet none of those who held to the right school was hindered by them. Why did those who believed not say, when others raised these questions, “Both these and those are Jews: which of them are we to believe?” But they believed, as they ought.

So let us also obey the laws of God and do everything according to his good pleasure, so that, having lived this present life virtuously, we may be able to attain the good things promised to those who love him, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit together, be glory, dominion, and honor, now and always, and forever and ever. Amen.