Then it seemed good to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men from among them with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called Barsabas and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
Jerusalem had just settled a dispute: Gentile believers would not have to keep the law of Moses. This verse shows how that decision travelled — not by letter alone, but by chosen men who went back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
Commentators are careful about how the church reached that agreement. Nobody counted hands.
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men would confirm by word of mouth the account of Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried with them from Jerusalem. The apostles and elders met together to examine the question, but all the brothers joined them in the letter sent to the Gentiles. So it was not the Gentiles who held on to their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was the assembly at Jerusalem itself that acknowledged the liberty of the Gentiles from the law. In this way unity was preserved.
Some had opposed it earlier, yet the record still says the whole church acted as one.
Notice, it can rightly be said "with one accord," even though some had opposed. Their opposition had been shown to be against God. The unity of the brothers held in the face of it, and the opposition was silenced.
The phrase used of Judas and Silas is not the name of an office.
Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, described as "leading men among the brothers." They were not apostles. They were not elders or senior brothers either. The council chose them for their fitness to visit Antioch. The same expression appears three times in Hebrews 13... They are not called elders. They seem to have been marked out by the ministry of the word, not by oversight or leading like the elders. Once we recognize this, it gives us clear insight into the far greater liberty, and the far wider variety of gift, at work in the church of the apostles compared with the narrowness of modern Christendom.
What gave such men their weight, then, was not a position but the word they carried.
There is moral authority in a gift. Official authority is another thing. If I have the word in power, I shall have authority in the consciences of those to whom it is addressed.
A letter on its own was not enough. These two men had sat through the debate themselves.
It was important to have men present who were themselves competent witnesses of what Jerusalem had debated and decided. This was far more than being the mere and cold bearers of a letter. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake. They also knew how the apostles and the whole church felt.
Troublemakers had unsettled the Gentile believers at Antioch. The letter and the witnesses answered them.
Judas and Silas should go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. That statement was this: those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had unsettled the Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas could and would surely declare that. The witnesses would then confirm it, backing up what the other two said.
Judas and Silas were more than couriers.
Judas and Silas are called "leading men among the brothers," and "prophets," who exhorted the brothers and strengthened them.
The place of the decision mattered as much as the decision. The trouble had started at Jerusalem.
This was the only council entitled to say, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." If others have copied the language, it is only profanity... The decision was most rightly taken there, where the evil had sprung up, and where the apostles were... Everything depends on the way, as well as the end, being of the Holy Spirit and in line with the word of God. So it was with this council.
- Agreed — nobody voted. Apostles, elders and the whole church consented together, and earlier opposition did not break that accord.
- Chosen — the council picked Judas and Silas for their fitness, not their rank. "Leading men" marks their standing, not an office they held.
- Sent — living witnesses went with the letter. They had heard the debate and knew what drove the opponents.
- Confirmed — both men were prophets. They exhorted the believers and strengthened them, so the decision came as ministry, not just a verdict.
- Settled — the way mattered as much as the outcome. Jerusalem itself acknowledged the Gentiles' liberty, and unity held.
having by their hand written [thus] The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren, to the brethren who are from among [the] nations at Antioch, and [in] Syria and Cilicia, greeting
The council at Jerusalem has finished its work, and now the decision has to travel. This verse opens the letter: it names the senders, names the readers, and sets the tone for all that follows.
The oldest copies of Acts open this line differently from the familiar text. The difference tells us how the Jerusalem elders came to hold their place.
The most ancient authorities open with a reading that almost all critics now accept. It gives a sense further from church tradition than the ordinary text. That ordinary text separates "the elders" sharply from "the brethren" that follow. "The elder brethren," however, is a phrase that exactly fits the state of things at Jerusalem. No doubt they were "the elders" there, as we find them called in Acts 11:30, and in Acts 15:2, 6. They were the local authorities. But it seems no apostle formally chose them, directly or indirectly, as certainly happened with the elders in the Gentile assemblies. They seem instead to have acted from their experience and moral weight, as was usual among the Jews. This fits remarkably with the unusual phrase used here, "the elder brethren," and it matches the tone of Peter's words in 1 Peter 5:1-4.
Either way, the apostles do not sign alone.
Men who could have written on their own authority chose instead to put other names beside their own.
It is striking that the letter joins the "elder brethren" (now generally accepted as the true reading) with the apostles. This confirms the earlier point about the character of eldership in the Jewish assemblies. It also shows how little the genuine apostles guarded their own rights. In seven of Paul's fourteen letters we find others named with him in the same way. That style is truly apostolic. The men of those days still remembered the Lord's picture of greatness: a little child. They remembered too that He Himself had been among them as one who serves.
The letter carries weight because no majority forced it through.
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. The apostles and elders met together to examine the question, but all the brethren joined with them in the letter sent to the Gentiles. So it was not the Gentiles who defended their own rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was the assembly at Jerusalem that acknowledged the liberty of the Gentiles from the law. And so unity held.
Notice what the letter does not claim. Jerusalem had every human reason to speak as a headquarters, and did not.
There was, notice, no claim of the rights and primacy of a central bishop's seat whose occupant could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might, which had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from others not counted among the apostles, who issued a decree. It was brethren writing to brethren. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
The same writer shows why Jerusalem wrote at all:
The question raised was vital for doctrine, and vital for fellowship too. If the troublers had been right, the fellowship of Gentile converts with those at Jerusalem depended on the Gentiles submitting to all the ordinances of the law. So they might well want to know on what terms Christian fellowship could continue. It was for those at Jerusalem to make that plain. This they did. Hence their letter.
The letter ends with one word: greeting. The same word opens the letter of James, the man who gave the council's verdict.
He writes, as we saw, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and sends them greeting. It is not the salutation that the letters of Paul and the other apostles have made so familiar to us, but exactly the form of greeting used in the famous letter of Acts 15 from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, who wrote to the Gentile assemblies to guard them from giving in to legalism. And since he was the person who gave the verdict, it is worth seeing the link between what was written that day and what James writes here.
The address also reached further than one city. Of Cilicia, one reference work notes:
There were clearly Gentile believers there, for Cilicia is mentioned in the letter from Jerusalem about the exemption of the Gentiles from keeping the law.
- Brethren write. Apostles and elder brethren send the letter together. Their weight came from experience and moral standing, not from a formal appointment.
- Brethren agree. No one voted. Apostles, elders and the whole gathering consented together, and unity held.
- Brethren receive. The letter calls Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia brethren, with no law-keeping required first.
- Brethren, not rulers. Jerusalem, the home of apostles, claimed no bishop's seat. It was brethren writing to brethren, firm but gracious.
- Brethren greeted. The one word of greeting matches James's own letter. It links the man who gave the council's verdict to the message that freed the Gentiles.
Inasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from amongst us have troubled you by words, upsetting your souls, [saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law]; to whom we gave no commandment;
The letter from Jerusalem names the source of the trouble at Antioch. Men had gone out from the Jerusalem believers and upset the Gentile Christians with their teaching. The apostles and elders then add something striking: they never sent these men. So what makes teaching dangerous, and what makes it trustworthy?
These men had come from Jerusalem, so people assumed Jerusalem stood behind them. The letter takes that support away.
What we have here is that the apostle and the Jewish assembly, by which God had begun the work, set the Gentiles free from the law, and unity is kept... The letter declares that those who had disturbed the Gentiles and subverted their souls had no commission at all.
The verse says only that these men troubled the Gentiles with words. One writer spells out what those words demanded.
You will see how constantly, how widely, and how bitterly these Jewish teachers opposed Paul and his teaching of pure grace... They were teaching the Christians this: the Gentiles had left idol worship and pagan religion, and had been baptized, so joining themselves to the Christian assembly. Even so, they now had to be circumcised and keep the law, or else they could not be saved. See Acts 15:1 and 24.
Older translations read "subverting your souls" where the ESV has "unsettling your minds". The damage does not come from denying Christ. It comes from adding to Him, and that addition empties the gospel.
If we put devotedness in service, or the best of good works, as supplementary to the work of Christ, it is no gospel at all... These teachers said, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." The gospel does not depend on such "ifs" and "excepts." Bring them in, and they overturn the gospel of the grace of God. James, in this chapter of Acts, teaches the same truth that Paul teaches in his own letter. To add anything to the finished work of Christ, as the ground of acceptance with God, is to "trouble the brothers" and to "subvert their souls."
One writer names the spirit of the letter and the harm the law would have done.
This letter from Jewish believers to Gentile believers breathes a spirit of love, fellowship and unity throughout. To put the Gentiles under the law would have had the effect of "subverting" their souls.
This was not a small point. If these men had been right, Gentile believers could share fellowship only by keeping the law.
The question raised, a vital one as to doctrine, was also vital as to fellowship. For if these troublers had been correct, Gentile converts could only have fellowship with those at Jerusalem by submitting to all the rules of the law... Notice that no one claimed the rights and leading place of a chief city church, whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might... It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
The letter says the decision was of one accord, even though some had argued against it.
Notice that they could still say "with one accord," even though some had opposed. Their opposition had been shown to be against God, so it fell silent, and the brothers kept their unity in the face of it.
Teaching that unsettles the soul rarely looks dangerous.
Many dangers surround the path of the young or simple Christian. The worst of them all is false or anti-Christian teaching... Such teaching nearly always looks harmless. It is only a matter of taking in certain ideas. There is nothing about it disgusting or immoral. Yet its effect is to subvert the soul and, in practice, put it under the rule of Satan, the god of this world.
- Unsent — The men came from Jerusalem but carried no commission from it. The apostles say they never gave them any such instruction.
- Unbiblical addition — Their message was Christ plus circumcision and law-keeping. Add anything to His finished work as the ground of acceptance, and it is no gospel at all.
- Unsettled souls — That addition is what "troubles" and "subverts". Putting Gentile believers under the law would have unsettled their souls.
- Unified answer — The reply came as brothers writing to brothers, gracious in tone and firm in content. They could call it "of one accord" because the opposition had been shown to be against God.
- Unchanging guard — False teaching still arrives looking harmless. Weigh what is taught, not the standing of the place the teacher came from.
it seemed good to us, having arrived at a common judgment, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Acts 15 settles a crisis. Some teachers had told Gentile believers they must be circumcised and keep the law. The apostles, elders and the whole assembly at Jerusalem met and answered them by letter. Verse 25 comes from that letter. How did a divided company reach one mind, and why send men and not just a letter?
One writer explains how this decision was made and who shared in it:
The assembly did not vote. All consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been expressed. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men would confirm by word of mouth the account of Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried from Jerusalem. The apostles and elders assembled together to examine the question, but all the brothers joined with them in the letter they sent to the Gentiles. So the Gentiles did not hold their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, it was that assembly which acknowledged the freedom of the Gentiles from the law. This is what preserved unity.
Some had opposed this earlier in the chapter. Another writer explains why "one accord" still fits:
Notice that "with one accord" is rightly said, even though some had opposed. Their opposition had proved to be against God, and it fell silent. The unity of the believers held firm through it.
One writer sets out what they had before them, and how the outcome changed the standing of two men:
Three things were before them. First, Peter's testimony about what God had done with Cornelius. Second, the account Barnabas and Paul gave of God's actions during their missionary journey. Third, the voice of Scripture, as quoted by James. What God had said agreed with what God had done. They had come together to seek His mind. By His word and His actions they saw it clearly, and all were of one accord. So they settled a difficult question that might have divided the whole church, and it ended by drawing them together. When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, it was as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
Cornelius was a Roman officer, and not a Jew.
Elsewhere in the chapter the names run the other way round. One writer shows that the order carries meaning:
Notice that in the letter of the council the order is "Barnabas and Paul" (v. 25), as in verse 12. Earlier in the chapter, in verse 2, and later in verse 35 and after that, it is "Paul and Barnabas". The believers in Jerusalem felt it the first way, as believers elsewhere did in the early days of the great apostle's testimony… The reader of the Old Testament may find a similar principle in Exodus 6:13, 20, 26 and 27. In the order of nature it is "Aaron and Moses"; in sovereign grace it becomes "Moses and Aaron".
Barnabas and Paul could have carried the letter alone. Judas and Silas went with them, and that choice was wise for two reasons. First, no one could say these two were pleading their own case:
Their way of acting truly shows the spirit of grace and wisdom. They give their full backing to Paul and Barnabas, and they send with them men of note from the assembly at Jerusalem. No one could suspect these men of bringing an answer that supported their own claims, as people might have supposed in the case of Paul and Barnabas.
Second, they had been there while the matter was debated:
It was important to have the presence of men who were themselves competent witnesses of what had been debated and decided at Jerusalem. This was far more than being the mere and cold bearers of a letter. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake, and they knew the feeling of the apostles and of the church at large.
This council also sets a pattern for later gatherings. One writer quotes the verse from an older translation and marks the limit of what any assembly may decide:
The assembly is the place where the inspired Word of God rules and directs. In Acts 15:13-29 we read, "Simon has related… with this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written… therefore I judge… it seemed good to us, having arrived at a common judgment." In the assembly, God's will as expressed in His Word is the only thing that counts. So it is never permissible to enforce a discipline that is more rigorous than Scripture directs.
- Accord, not arithmetic — nobody voted. Apostles, elders and the whole company agreed under the Spirit, and the earlier opposition proved to be against God and fell silent.
- Accord grounded — Peter's account, the missionary report and Scripture all agreed. What God had said matched what God had done.
- Accord expressed — two men once under suspicion left Jerusalem as "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
- Accord carried — Judas and Silas travelled with the letter as witnesses with no case of their own to plead, so it came as more than cold paper.
- Accord bounded — in the assembly God's Word alone rules, so no one may enforce a discipline stricter than Scripture directs.
men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile believers carries more than a decision. It also describes the two men who had argued the case, calling Barnabas and Paul beloved because they had already risked their lives for the Name they preached.
The trip to Jerusalem changed how these two men were seen.
When Barnabas and Paul went up to Jerusalem, they went as men whose service was open to challenge and suspicion. When they left, they carried a letter that called them "our beloved Barnabas and Paul."
That warmth was not one man's opinion. It was the agreed voice of the whole gathering.
Notice that the account rightly says "with one accord," even though some had opposed. It had become clear that their opposition was against God, so the unity of the believers held firm in the face of it, and the opposition fell silent. It is good to see how they valued Barnabas and Paul. They speak of them as men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The ESV says these men "risked" their lives. Older translations read "hazarded" or "delivered up," and the difference matters.
They were also spoken of as "men who have hazarded [or delivered up] their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." To hazard your life is to risk it, the way a gambler risks his money on a throw of the dice. To deliver up your life is to accept death as a certainty, not just a risk. Anyone who gives up his life in this way should be counted beloved in the church of God.
The same writer presses the stronger reading elsewhere.
If you turn to another translation you will find an even stronger wording: "Men who have yielded up their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus." There was no gamble about it at all. They did not have an even chance. The outcome was settled in advance. They were men who would step into the gap and lay down their lives.
Conditions in those days decided what kind of worker was needed.
The ministry of Christ in those early days called for courage. Armchair soldiers were no use then! "Men who risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" were needed, and thank God, such men came forward. That was the credential for the field in days when the fire burned, the sword struck, and the lion roared!
The men who carried the letter shaped how it was received.
We can well understand why such a letter cheered the hearts of the believers. It was sent by such apostles and brothers, and carried by them — men who had risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (verse 26). Leading men among the believers stood behind it too (verse 22). So we read that the crowd gathered together "rejoiced because of its encouragement" (verse 31).
Few believers today face what these two faced. The same devotion is still open to everyone.
Even in our own day some have "risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:26). But it is open to each one of us, moved by the love of Christ, to give our whole life to His interests. We can be sure that blessing will be the result.
- The Name first. Barnabas and Paul risked their lives for one thing: "the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." That is why the letter honours them.
- Risk, then surrender. One reading of the word pictures a gambler's throw. The stronger reading, "delivered up," treats death as settled, not just possible.
- Suspicion answered. Men whose work was questioned at Jerusalem left it called "beloved." The whole gathering agreed, even though some had opposed.
- Credential, not decoration. Courage for Christ was the qualification for the work, not an extra for gifted speakers.
- Result: joy. Such men carried the letter, so Antioch welcomed it and rejoiced. That same whole-life devotion is open to any believer today, and blessing follows.
We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves also will tell you by word [of mouth] the same things.
The assembly at Jerusalem had just settled a fierce dispute: must Gentile believers keep the Jewish law? Its letter went to Antioch, and two men travelled with it to say the same thing out loud.
The trouble at Antioch had come from men out of Jerusalem. So Jerusalem sent men of its own, to put its decision beyond dispute.
Judas and Silas were sent as the clearest possible witnesses of the decision at Jerusalem. This gave Barnabas and Paul support that no one could question. The power of divine grace had worked in truth and righteousness for the name of Jesus, and there was a great calm.
Paul and Barnabas would say it themselves. But two more witnesses, sent from the city the trouble had come from, left no room for argument.
Some from Jerusalem had troubled the assembly at Antioch by pressing the Jewish law on them. Judas and Silas were to go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. That statement was this: those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had disturbed the converts among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas could and would certainly say so. Confirmation of it would then be available from the witnesses, who would back up what the other two said.
The decision at Jerusalem came without a vote. Everyone agreed, and the messengers carried it in two forms — spoken and written.
The assembly did not vote. Everyone consented, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to what had been said. All agreed — apostles, elders, and the whole assembly — to send men chosen from among them. These men were to confirm by word of mouth the account given by Barnabas and Paul, and the written decision they carried from Jerusalem. So the Gentiles were not defending their rights against the assembly at Jerusalem. By the wisdom and grace of God, the assembly at Jerusalem itself acknowledged that the Gentiles were free from the law. And so unity held.
Judas and Silas are called leading men among the brothers. Their standing is worth noticing, because they fit none of the usual offices.
Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, described as "leading men among the brothers." They were not apostles. They were not elders or elder brothers either. The council chose them for their fitness to visit Antioch… They seem to have been connected with the ministry of the word rather than with oversight or presiding, as the elders were. This fact, once recognised, gives us clear insight. The early church had far greater freedom and variety of gift than the narrowness of modern Christendom.
The letter they delivered could have come as a ruling from a higher centre. It did not.
Notice that no one claimed the rights and first place of a chief city whose leader could lay down the law for others. Surely, if any city could claim that, Jerusalem might have — it had been, and still was, the home of apostles. The apostles and elders wrote to their brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It was not James, or John, or Peter, or all of them apart from the others who were not apostles, issuing a decree. It was brothers writing to brothers. And the letter, though firm in character, was gracious in tone.
Their visit was not only about settling a dispute. It also met a need in the believers themselves.
For the need that all this trouble created, the testimony of Judas and Silas would be all-important. They were prophets themselves. And so in fact we hear how they comforted and strengthened the brothers. Peace and unity were kept perfectly, and so far the enemy had gained no advantage.
- Trouble — Men from Jerusalem had unsettled Gentile believers at Antioch. The answer had to come from Jerusalem too.
- Letter — Jerusalem sent no decree from a ruling centre. It sent brothers writing to brothers: firm in substance, gracious in tone.
- Voices — Judas and Silas travelled with the letter. They said the same thing out loud, and nobody could question them.
- Gift — They were neither apostles nor elders. They were leading men linked with the ministry of the word, a mark of the breadth of gift in the early church.
- Peace — Spoken and written word together comforted and strengthened the believers. Unity held, and the enemy gained nothing.