[756] Mod. text, "But it is not of these things that he speaks. And what raising up, you will say, does he mean? That after Babylon." We point it, poian legei egersin ten meta Babulona; "Was it raised up? was it not rather razed to the ground (by the Romans)? True it was rebuilt after the return from Babylon, but what sort of raising up does he call that?" For the answer to these questions, not given here, see the Recapitulation (note 4, p. 207).
[757] Most modern texts omit panta at the end of v. 17 and then join directly to it gnosta ap' aionos only, dropping out the words of the T. R.: esti to theo panta ta erga autou. This reading yields the following translation: "the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world." (So Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, Gloag. R.V.). This reading encounters the difficulty that the words gnosta ap' ai& 242;nos are considered as a part of the quotation which, in reality, they are not. It is probable that this fact may have led to their expansion into an independent sentence.--G.B.S.
[758] All our mss. epeide ouk esan akekootes tou nomou, which contradicts v. 21. We restore epeide oun. In B. C. v. 21, with the words epeide ouk esan ak. tou nomou is repeated after, "We have judged."
[759] mss. and Edd. Kai hora pos phortikos ekeinous diaballontes epistellousin. The sense absolutely requires pos ou phort. It would be strange if Chrys. made to phortikon and to diaballein matter of commendation: moreover in his very next remark he says just the contrary, and below, p. 209.
[760] Paulos de loipon edidasken. Perhaps this may belong to the Recapitulation, v. 12.--In the mod. text the matter is a good deal transposed, without any necessity, and the Recapitulation is made to begin after the sentence ending, "love of glory."--This seems to be the proper place for the first of the sentences following the Recapitulation, p. 210, note 3, viz. "No more faction. On this occasion I suppose it was that they received the right hand, as he says himself, They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.' On this (same) occasion he says, They added nothing to me.' For they confirmed his view: they praised and admired it."
[761] epipeda N. Cat. (epepida sic A. B. C ) mod. text apopeda, "recoils" from hearing Paul.
[762] The scribes did not perceive that ex arches is the answer to the question, Ti estin, kathos proton k. t. l.therefore transposed this sentence and gave ex arches to the sentence (a) (Cat. omits them.) Mod. text, the question being thus left unanswered, substitutes "Symeon hath declared"--kathos pr. k. t. l. 'Ex arches sphodroteron men.
[763] hoti pro panton houtoi. Here also, and in te prolepsei ton ethnon, there seems to be a reference to proton, as if the meaning were, God "looked upon the Gentiles first to take from them," before the Jews, etc.--After the text, the questions left unanswered above (see note 2, p. 206) might be advantageously introduced. "How could that restoration (after Babylon) be called an egersis, especially as the city was eventually razed to the ground by the Romans? True: but the kingdom of David is in fact more gloriously raised up, in the reign of David's offspring throughout the world. As for the buildings and city, what loss is that? Nay, David himself is more glorious now than he was before, sung as he is in all parts of the world. If then this which the Prophet foretold is come to pass--this is put as St. James's arguments--namely that the city was raised from its ruins (and the subsequent overthrow, when the end of that restoration was attained, does not invalidate the fulfilment), then must the dia ti of this restoration also come to pass, namely, that the residue shall seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom that Name is called. The city, was raised up for the sake of Christ, to come of them, and to reign over all nations. Consequently, the Prophet shows that the aition (i.e. the dia ti, or final clause) of the building of the city is--the calling of the Gentiles, to ta ethne klethenai."
[764] hoi hupoleipomenoi tote, the Jews whom that (the Babylonian) judgment leaves.
[765] mss. and Edd. to de hemeteron. We must read to de hemeroteron, as above: in the preceding clause something is wanted for antithesis, probably kai hora, to men phortikoteron, hoper k. t. l.
[766] huper hou ouden gegraptai. This also requires emendation. The sense demands, "About which there is no dispute." The gegraptai may have come in from the text referred to: "to wit, Kathos gegraptai," etc.
[767] The report seems to be defective here; and in fact N. (Sav. marg.) inserts after the text, "showing both God's care towards them and mercy, and their ready mind and piety in obeying: and he says well," etc. But this addition is unknown to A. B. C. Cat., and N. frequently adds to or otherwise alters the original text, where the sense or connection is obscure.--Perhaps however these two sentences may be better transposed to follow the part (b), so that the connection would be, "And again, observe he has been speaking concerning the Gentile converts, not openly of the Jewish believers, and yet in fact what he says is no less for them."--Mod. text with partial transposition, "And he well says, To them, etc. declaring both the purpose of God from the beginning with respect to them, and their obedience and readiness for the calling. What means it? I judge? Instead of, With authority I say that this is so. But that we write to them,' he says, to abstain from' etc. For these, though bodily, etc. (as below.) And that none may object, why then do we not enjoin the same thing to the Jews? He adds, For Moses,' etc.: i.e. Moses discourses to them continually: for this is the meaning of, Being read every Sabbath day.' See what condescension!"
[768] kaitoi ge pollakis autois uper (not peri as Ben. renders, de his) dielechthesan mod. text dielechthe, referred perhaps to Moses or the Law, as in the trajection this sentence follows the last of (a). The clause seems to refer to "pollutions of idols and fornication." q. d. "Why mention these in the decree? The Apostles, especially Paul, often discoursed to them on behalf of these points of Christian duty, i.e. the abstaining from all approach to idolatry, as in the matter of eidolothuta, and from fornication." The answer is: "He mentions them, for the purpose of seeming to maintain the Law, (though at the same time he does not rest them on the authority of the Law, but on that of the Apostles: still the Jewish believers would be gratified by this apparent acknowledgment of the Law), and (with the same view) to make a greater number of entolai, for which reason also he divides the one legal prohibition of blood into the two, apo ton pnikton kai apo tou haimatos. The latter, he says, though somatikai, are necessary to be observed because the non-observance of this law on which the Jews laid so much stress led to great evils--especially made it impossible for Jewish and Gentile believers to eat at the same table. For in every city Moses is preached to Jews and proselytes. Therefore I say it is good that we charge them by letter to abstain from these things." Then, giving a different turn to the reason, "for Moses of old times," etc. he adds. "this is for them which from the Gentiles," etc., as for the Jewish believers, they have Moses to teach them. Thus again seeming to uphold Moses, while in fact he shows, what they might learn from Moses himself, that the Law is come to an end for the Jews also.
[769] The prohibitions imposed by the council upon the Gentiles were chiefly concessions to Jewish prejudice and opinion. Abstinence from meat which had been offered in idols' temples and from things strangled and from blood was forbidden in the Mosaic law (Ex. xxxiv. 15; Lev. xvii. 10-14). Failure to abstain from these would expose the Gentile converts needlessly to the suspicions of the Jewish Christians. The prohibition of fornication must rest upon another ground. It is a warning against the custom among Gentiles, which had become so prevalent as to provoke little rebuke or comment. The ground assigned for requiring these abstinences is that Moses is read every Sabbath in the synagogues of the Jews and therefore these very points are kept prominently before the people and therefore unless these indulgences were abandoned, the synagogue preaching would constantly stimulate in the Jews and Judeo-Christians a dislike of the Gentile believers. There is less ground for the view of Chrys. that v. 21. means that the Jewish Christians have no need of instruction on these points because they hear the law read every Sabbath, an explanation, however, which is adopted by such modern scholars as Wordsworth and Neander.--G.B.S.
[770] A. B. apeg. ta ethne ex autou. Dia ti oun me par autou manth.; C. apeg. ta ex autou panta, hoion ta ethne. Dia ti k. t. l. Cat. apeg. ta ex autou manth. Hence we read, apegage ta ethne. Dia ti oun me ta ex autou manthanousin, hoion (ta ethne?) * * *;
[771] katastrephein, mss. Perhaps, metastrepsai from Gal. i. 7.
[772] exeluse to pan, "untied the whole knot," or perhaps "took out of the Law all its strength," as below luei.
[773] Perhaps the sentence, touto malista autous anepausen, retained above as the end of (b), may belong here, in the sense, "This was conclusive; this made the Judaizers desist, if anything could."
[774] kathaper epi oikodomes ta hup' ekeinon gegenemena metatithentes. Mod. text from E. tithentes, "putting, as in respect of a building, the things done by those (Judaizers)." We have transposed ta hup' ek geg. to its proper place. He interprets anask. with reference to Gal. i. 6. metatithesthe.
[775] sunerpasan Ben. ipsos extorsisse: but the word is used in the Greek of Chrysostom's time, in the sense "conceal," for which Schneider s. v. refers to Valesius on Harpocrat. p. 145. Gronov. in which sense we have rendered it above. Or perhaps, "had wrested it" to make it speak in their favor. To zetoumenon sunarpazein is a logical phrase, used of one who commits a petitio principii. St. Chrys. however can hardly be correctly reported here: for the letter itself would show, if it were believed to be genuine, that Paul and Barnabas neither sunerpasan nor alla ant' allon eipan. He may rather be supposed to have said in substance as follows: "Had Paul and Barnabas returned alone as the bearers of an oral communication, it might be suspected that they gave their own account of the matter: had they come alone, bearing the Epistle, its genuineness might have been called in question: but by sending the Epistle by the hands of men of their own and of high consideration, they left no room for doubt as to the fact of their decision. On the other hand, to have sent these men alone, would have looked like putting a slight upon Barnabas and Paul: but by sending the messengers with them, they showed hoti axiopistoi eisin, and by the eulogy expressed in the Epistle itself they stopped the mouths of the gainsayers."
[776] The innovator completely mistakes the meaning of this clause: not having the text to guide him, he supposes it to refer to Silas and Judas, and alters thus: "It shows how worthy of credit they are: not making themselves equal, it says: they are not so mad. In fact, this is why it adds that expression, Which have hazarded their lives, etc. And why does it say, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," and yet it had sufficed." etc.--Below, he has "To lay upon you no greater burden.' This they say, because they have to speak," etc. But all this belongs to edoxen hemin q.d. "You need not fear us, neither is it of condescension that we speak, or to spare you as being weak--quite the contrary--it seems good to the Holy Ghost "and to us."
[777] polle gar kai ton didaskalon aidos en. It is not clear whether this means, Great was the reverence shown by the teachers also towards them--as in St. Peter's hosper kakeinoi--and therefore they did not treat them as "weak;" or, great was their reverence towards their teachers, so that had they laid upon them a greater burden, they would have borne it.
[778] mss. and Edd. have this clause, ano kato baros kalousi after Pneumatos gar en nomothesia, and give the kai palin to sunagagontes. After the clause "For that was a superfluous burden" seems to be the proper place for these sentences from below, see note 3, infra. "It shows that the rest are not necessary but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary. "From which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well." It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is sufficient."