Acts 11:30

30. To the elders The first mention of elders in this history, as of Church in Acts 7:1, and of something not quite called deacons in Acts 6:1-8. The very incidental way in which they are introduced indicates, 1. That Luke did not consider the history of Church organization intrinsically important, and, 2. That the form of Church polity arose spontaneously, created and shaped by immediate convenience and expediency. The apostolic Church adopted not the temple for its model, and so has no priesthood. A Christian community or assemblage resembled a synagogue assembly, and so adopted similar forms. But the synagogue was not modeled to any divine pattern. It had risen humanly under Providence. And so at its own convenience, and by its own reason and will, under Providence, the Christian Church adopted the arrangements customarily before its eyes. There is nothing in the New Testament to show that any Church of any age possesses not the same liberty of adopting such form as shall enable it to produce the most efficient ministry, the most edifying sacraments, and the most widespread holiness of life.

Apostolic sanction was given to any form of Church government that worked well. It seems probable that before the apostle John died the episcopal form was generally prevalent, and probably with his sanction.

But it is not clear either that the episcopal form was ever divinely enjoined, or prescribed as indispensable to a legitimate Church; or that an absolutely unbroken successorship was required for all ages, except so far as such regular succession was, in the given case, most conducive to the Church’s well-being. The absoluteness of the succession is governed by the best Christian expediency, and not the best expediency by the absoluteness of the succession. Higher reasons than the succession itself may often require that the succession be not maintained: and then it may be wrong to maintain it.

Hands… Saul This token of love from the uncircumcised by the hands of the apostle to the circumcised must have touched the hearts of the circumcision of all parties in the Jerusalem Church. It may have been a help in need in more than one sense. For if it came after that Church had lost Peter, the apostle, some influence may have been needed to check the growth of ultra-Judaism.

That the donations of money were delivered to the elders indicates that the apostles were no more in Jerusalem. Their twelve years’ limitation to Jerusalem (see note on Acts 8:1) had expired, and this Herodian persecution had probably dismissed the last apostle from its precincts. For, doubtless, as the return of the two is mentioned, (Acts 12:25,) they arrived at Jerusalem during the events of chapter 12.

It is a question much discussed, Is this Paul’s visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1, as having occurred fourteen years after his conversion? For, it is said, Paul’s argument requires that there should be no visit between the two. And as fourteen years could not now have passed since Paul’s conversion, a contradiction is found between Paul and Luke. But with Paul in Galatians, the question is not how many times he had been in Jerusalem, but how much intercourse he had with the apostles. Had his opponent objected that he had visited the city within less than fourteen years, his reply would conclusively have been that the apostles at that time were notoriously absent from the city, their twelve years’ sojourn having been closed by the Herodian persecution. We may, therefore, safely identify the visit mentioned in Galatians with that in Acts 15:0.