College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Acts 15:30-35
THE WORK IN ANTIOCH. Acts 15:30-35.
So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle.
And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.
And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
And after they had spent some time there, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth.
But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.
But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
Acts 15:30-35 The multitude of the Syrian disciples were no doubt eagerly awaiting the return of their leaders from this all important meeting. What was the decision? Could it indeed be settled? When the four did enter the city gates of Antioch there was an immediate gathering of the Christians and they all listened as the epistle was read. With one accord they accepted it and rejoiced greatly that they were indeed free from the law. A double benefit was to be found in their return, for Judas and Silas who brought the letter were gifted with the ability to prophesy. So, for the space of no few days a revival was conducted in this place. As we read so often in the words of the preachers of that day the brethren were exhorted by these men of God and thus were confirmed. The same results would follow today if we had something of the same type of preaching. It would seem that some arrangement had been made with the church at Antioch for this time of preaching for the text states that following this effort they were dismissed in peace from the brethren. We realize from what follows that Silas stayed in Antioch or returned to Antioch shortly after his trip to Jerusalem. Some ancient authorities insert the phrase. But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.
It is always with a deep sense of joy that we constantly read throughout this book of Acts that Paul tarried to teach and preach the word of the Lord. This was his one task that he was continually performing. Not only Paul but Barnabas and many others also. What a challenging example for the churches today.
523.
What double benefit was received in Antioch when the foursome arrived from Jerusalem?
524.
What good element was found in the preaching at Antioch? What do you think of it?
525.
What do you know of the activities of Silas at this time?
6.
PETER'S VISIT TO ANTIOCH. Galatians 2:11-21.
Galatians 2:11-21 Although this visit is entirely omitted in Acts it has been concluded that according to the chronology of events it did occur at this time.
This is a most interesting incident. This is the first disagreement between two apostles. Notice that it was not a disagreement over a matter of faith (although Peter made it such) it was all the more unusual in light of the epistle that had just been sent from James and the apostles in Jerusalem. Why did Peter withdraw himself from the Gentiles? Because certain came from James. Of what was he afraid? The answer can be found in the phrase eat with them. He was fearful lest these from James find him in a Gentile house eating at their table. Why? Had not the decree made provisions for that very thing? Yes indeed it had, but a little closer look at the provisions of the decree will serve to show that no specifications were made for the purification of the meat, no word was given about clean and unclean meats, etc. These were the points of the law that troubled Peter. Troubled him not before God, but before men. He could not make such distinctions before God even as he himself had admitted, and as God revealed to him in Joppa and Caesarea. But he feared the censure of man more than he did God, hence his changeableness.
526.
How do we know that Peter visited Antioch at this time?
527.
What is one of the first important things to notice about this disagreement?
Did not these from James understand that such legal requirements were abolished? No, they only understood the letter of the decree given, and anything beyond that, whether done in the spirit of the epistle or not, was to be condemned. Peter knew this and withdrew himself, and forthwith set up a defense for his actions (even as many of us are wont to do today.) In this dissimulation he won quite a number to his viewpoint, including the good man Barnabas. In all this Peter stood self-condemned. He stood condemned before God. But in this the Lord knew that Peter was the kind of a man that would break down and admit his guilt once he was faced with it.
Paul acted as God's spokesman in this situation. It must have occurred in some public gathering that the rebuke was given for Paul says that he rebuked him before them all. From what is said in Galatians it would seem to us that the rebuke must have taken place in the midst of one of Peter's public efforts to obtain adherents to his views. Right in the heat of Peter's efforts Paul withstood him to the face. The merciless logic of Paul's words cut Peter to the heart and cut out from under him the very foundation of his position.
It would be well for us to note that Paul included himself in the statements about the Jews and bound upon Peter nothing that he himself was not also obligated to keep.
The concluding remarks of Conybeare and Howson express well our feelings on the conclusion of this matter: Though the sternest indignation is expressed in this rebuke, we have no reason to suppose that any actual quarrel took place between the two apostles. It is not improbable that St. Peter was immediately convinced of his fault, and melted at once into repentance. His mind was easily susceptible to quick and sudden changes; his disposition was loving and generous; and we should expect his contrition, as well as his weakness, at Antioch, to be what it was in the high priest's house at Jerusalem. Yet, when we read the narrative of this rebuke in St. Paul's epistle, it is a relief to turn to that passage at the conclusion of one of St. Peter's letters, where, in speaking of the long suffering of our Lord-' and of the prospect of sinless happiness in the world to come, he alludes, in touching words, to the Epistles of -our beloved brother Paul.-' We see how entirely all past differences are forgotten,how all earthly misunderstandings are absorbed and lost in the contemplation of Christ and eternal life. Not only did the Holy Spirit overrule all contrarieties so that the writings of both apostles teach the church the same doctrine, but the apostle who was rebuked is not ashamed to call the attention of the church to epistles in one page of which his own censure is recorded.
528.
What makes this disagreement rather unusual?
529.
Why didn-'t Peter refer to the decree or letter as his source of authority for eating with the Gentiles?
530.
How did the natural character of Peter help the situation?
531.
Of what was Peter afraid? Why was he self-condemned? What influence did he have?
532.
Where was Peter when Paul rebuked him? What did he say in essence?
It is an eminent triumph of Christian humility and love. We shall not again have occasion to mention St. Peter and St. Paul together, until we come to the last scene of all, but though they might seldom meet whilst laboring in their Master's cause, their lives were united -and in their deaths they were not divided-'. (Life And Epistles Of St. Paul. pp. 201-202).
533.
Why is 2 Peter 3:15-16 of great encouragement in this connection?