(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 (John 12:42), and showing itself in the moderate counsels of Gamaliel (Acts 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 Galatians 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 (Titus 1:10; Titus 1:14-15).
Verse 5.- 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 (Galatians 2:1, 3). The Epistle to the Galatians deals directly and forcibly with this question.
15:1-6 Some from Judea taught the Gentile converts at Antioch, that they could not be saved, unless they observed the whole ceremonial law as given by Moses; and thus they sought to destroy Christian liberty. There is a strange proneness in us to think that all do wrong who do not just as we do. Their doctrine was very discouraging. Wise and good men desire to avoid contests and disputes as far as they can; yet when false teachers oppose the main truths of the gospel, or bring in hurtful doctrines, we must not decline to oppose them.
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.
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.