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.
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things
A letter goes out from Jerusalem to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It ends a long fight over circumcision and the law of Moses, and its wording is startling: a group of men say their decision is also the Holy Spirit's.
The sentence does not begin with the apostles. It names the Spirit first, and that order settles who was really deciding.
Verse 28 treats the matter as being of the greatest importance: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit first, and then "to us." No question at all can remain about the definite leading of the Spirit of God here. The apostles and elders went along with that leading.
The order was not their idea. Peter had watched the Spirit come on Cornelius and his household before any of this.
The Spirit coming on Cornelius and his company was, to Peter and those with him, undeniable proof that God accepts uncircumcised men. That is why they speak of the Spirit first and apart from themselves. The same seal had been put everywhere on the Gentile converts. How then could they do anything but obediently follow as the Spirit so plainly led? The prophets James had appealed to were also His witness; and the command given to Noah was no new law, but what Scripture had handed down.
The phrase is not a pious flourish. One writer traces the same guidance right through Acts.
The Holy Spirit is always present to guide the assembly. This fact is the foundation of how the church is put together on earth… In chapter 13 He guides the assembly at Antioch in the same way: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." They went out, sent by Him. When the assembly at Jerusalem had to settle a question of great importance, it again recognised the presence of the Holy Spirit — "for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."
after
The word burden points back to the law. What the Spirit lifts off, believers keep trying to pick back up.
The Galatian Christians were very eager to take up the burden of the law. Peter said this burden was one which "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." No, says the apostle, I will show you a better burden to bear than that. Bear one another's burdens… The burden of law, which most Christians today are loading onto themselves, is not for us; we are free from the law — free, so that we may take up one another's burdens.
The four requirements are not a short law code. The letter calls them necessary, and that word is carefully chosen.
It is a direction that teaches, not what is right or wrong in the abstract, but what suited the case in front of them. It was "necessary," not "righteous before God," to avoid certain things. The things might be really evil, but they are not looked at that way here. There were certain things the Gentiles were used to. It was proper for them to give these up, so that the assembly might walk as it should before God in peace.
The four look like an odd mix. Each one touches God's own rights.
It surprises many that keeping clear of idols and personal purity should be set alongside not eating blood or things strangled. The revealed will of God is absolute for the believer… These four carry the full weight of apostolic authority as "necessary things." God stated them for Gentiles who believe, in pointed contrast to the rules of Israel's law. What can cancel them? God's honour cannot be touched, and neither can His sanction of marriage, not of fornication. God insists that life belongs to Himself; so, while He gives flesh to eat, He reserves the blood.
Some read the verse as a pattern for church meetings today. One writer answers that the words belonged to that council alone.
This was the only council entitled to say, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." If others have imitated the language, it is mere profanity. Yet it was not a worldwide assembly at all. It was the assembly at Jerusalem, where the apostles and local elders met to consider the matter… It is of the greatest importance that the way, as well as the end, be of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the word of God.
The weight falls on the words "and to us."
When it says, "And to us," did this not refer to men having some direct authority? Could any gathering, convinced that a doctrine is presented in the word, send a decree to other gatherings? No! There was then an authority and a capacity which no longer exist.
- Spirit first. The verse names the Holy Spirit before the men, so the decision follows His leading, not their agreement.
- Spirit shown. They could speak that way because the Spirit had already come on uncircumcised believers. They were only following Him.
- Spirit lifts. He led them to lay on "no greater burden" — the law's load, which no one could carry, stayed off.
- Spirit keeps. The four things are necessary, not the whole of righteousness: God's honour, marriage, and His claim on life.
- Spirit alone. The words belonged to that one council. The test stands: the way as well as the outcome must be the Spirit's, and in line with Scripture.
to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication; keeping yourselves from which ye will do well. Farewell.
The letter from Jerusalem settles a fight. Did Gentile believers have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? The answer comes as a short list: no idol-meat, no blood, nothing strangled, no sexual immorality. The question every reader asks is why these four, and whether a Christian today is bound by them.
The decree matters for who issued it. Gentiles did not win this freedom by arguing for it. The people most likely to oppose it granted it.
God did not allow Paul and Barnabas to settle the question at Antioch. Such a decision would not have ended the dispute. It would have made two separate churches. But the moment the Jewish Christians and the church at Jerusalem granted freedom to the Gentiles, no one could oppose their release from the law... Judaism itself had granted the Gentiles freedom from the Jewish yoke.
The four items are not leftovers of Moses. Each one reaches back behind the law — to creation, and to what God said to Noah.
So this decree does not rule on the nature of the things forbidden. It rules on what was fitting at the time, since the Gentiles had in fact been in the habit of doing all these things. Note that the law was not the only thing that forbade them. They went against the order God set up as Creator, or against the prohibition God gave Noah when He told him to eat meat. A woman was to be joined to a man only in the sanctity of marriage, and this is a very great blessing. Life belonged to God. All fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the true God... So this is not a new law that Christianity imposes, and it is not a concession to Jewish prejudice.
Why name blood and strangled meat separately? Because they are two different ways of handling the same thing, and both are ruled out.
There should be no question about what "blood" means. It is blood drawn out of the animal for cooking. That is clearly different from "strangled", where the aim is to keep the blood from flowing. Both are forbidden; for God demands that man shall, by abstaining, own that life belongs to Him. If any are so self-willed as to plead that they do not see or understand, let them own their ignorance and obey. It is not a Jewish or Mosaic statute only, but for man since Noah and the flood (Gen. 9:4)... The apostles were content here to decide that none of these things is an open question for Gentile converts, and that, if they abstain from all these necessary things, they will do well.
Sexual sin looks out of place in a list about eating. One writer matches each item to the people it offends.
Why is sexual immorality put here with the other things? Because it offends the church of God, as blood would offend the Jews, or things offered to idols would offend the Gentiles. The church has the character of a chaste virgin for Christ... So when you keep away from things offered to idols, you do it for someone else's conscience, not your own (1 Cor. 10). But when you keep away from sexual immorality, even in its slightest degree, you do it for your own conscience in the fullest possible sense.
The list is not arbitrary. Reduced to its core, it protects three things at once.
In sum the principles established are these: purity by marriage according to God's original institution; that life belongs to God; and the unity of God as the one only true God — Godhead, life, and God's original ordinance for man.
One writer says this is not a scrap of the law of Moses but a rule for everyone, kept without Jewish scruples.
The apostles and elders gave this instruction to Gentile believers in Acts 15:20 and 29. They were not imposing on them something that was merely an item of the law of Moses. It was a prohibition that applies to all people. We do well to observe it, though we do not need to observe the extreme scruples of the Jews, as is shown by the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25.
Another writer holds the same commands as binding, and still leaves each person's conscience alone.
In Acts 15 three commands still bind a Christian now: keep away from blood, from things offered to idols, and from sexual immorality. They are not from law, but from Noah. Not that I should think, if I had eaten blood, that I was defiled by it, for it is not the things that go in that defile... To me these three principles are the expression of man as belonging to God, and not to his own lusts. As to blood, it is the life, and clearly belongs to God, but I leave every man's conscience to himself.
- Burden lifted. Jerusalem itself released the Gentiles from the law, and that kept one church instead of two.
- Necessary, not Mosaic. The apostles called these things necessary because they reach back to creation and to Noah, not because they kept a corner of Moses in reserve.
- Necessary for God's honour. Life belongs to God, so we refuse blood, whether drained out or kept in by strangling. Idols insult the one true God. Marriage is His own institution.
- Necessary for the conscience. You refuse idol-meat for someone else's conscience, and immorality for your own — the church is a chaste virgin for Christ.
- Result: you will do well. None of these is an open question, yet food does not defile you — so obey, and leave each other's consciences to God.
They therefore, being let go, came to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude delivered to [them] the epistle.
Acts 15 opened with a crisis: teachers from Judea were pressing Gentile believers to keep the law of Moses. Verse 30 is where the answer comes home. Four men walk back into Antioch, call the whole company together, and hand over the letter.
The opening phrase describes a parting, not the giving of a mission. One writer compares how two other translations render it:
Martin translates it "let them depart." The Lausanne version says "they let them go." This is only about that feeling of affection and harmony which, while letting someone go, follows him with holy desires. It may even walk with him a little way along his road, as a sign that the heart goes with him. There is not the least idea of a mission being given. The same expression is found in Acts 15:30 and 33. The brothers sent to Antioch take leave of those in Jerusalem. After spending some time at Antioch, they take leave of the brothers there in peace, to return to the apostles at Jerusalem.
The destination matters. Two things had happened at Antioch, and they pulled against each other:
Antioch was the assembly where the Holy Spirit had used His sovereign rights to uphold the glory of Christ by calling and setting apart His servants. It was there that Satan had tried to bring them under Jewish law, using legal influence that came from Jerusalem. Now the assembly in Jerusalem had rejected and thrown out that leaven of Pharisee teaching. So Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had won in the very circle the evil had spread from.
The messengers did not brief a few leaders in private. They gathered everyone. One writer lines this up with two other gatherings in Acts:
When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their tour of service in the gospel, they "gathered the church together" and "declared all that God had done with them" (Acts 14:27). Later Barnabas and Paul with Judas and Silas came back to the same place with a message from the assembly at Jerusalem. There too, "having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter" (Acts 15:30). In the same way, Paul calls the Ephesian elders together at Miletus (Acts 20:17).
The letter was not a Gentile win over Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself granted the freedom, and that is what kept everyone together:
The Gentiles did not hold on to their 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 about the law. And that is how unity held.
The letter did not arrive alone. Judas and Silas came with it, and they backed up in person what it said:
Coming to Antioch, these brothers gather the assembly together to hear the letter read out to them. It brings such comfort that it makes them rejoice. Judas and Silas were also a great encouragement to them, unlike others who had come from Judea before. They confirmed the message of grace sent in the letter, and they encouraged and strengthened the disciples by the ministry of the Word.
Church history is full of official rulings. One writer says this one stands apart:
It has been rare in church history for such fruit to come from "decrees." They are usually a dreary record of curses. Like Ezekiel's scroll, they carry lamentation and mourning and woe. Here the gracious power of the Spirit was at work, whatever the adversaries did, and the result was building up, not destruction. There was no selfish design, still less a purpose to scatter... Those who only wanted to hold fast to grace "rejoiced because of its encouragement," and it was all the sweeter because the material of it came from Jerusalem.
- Sent — the word means a warm goodbye, not the giving of a mission. The same word covers their later parting from Antioch in peace.
- Down — they carried the answer back to Antioch, the Gentile church that legal influence from Jerusalem had troubled.
- Gathered — they called the whole company together, as in Acts 14:27 and Acts 20:17. What concerned everyone was told to everyone.
- Delivered — the letter came with living voices. Judas and Silas confirmed its message of grace and strengthened the disciples by the Word.
- Rejoiced — Jerusalem itself acknowledged the freedom of the Gentiles. Unity held, and the letter brought comfort and building up instead of the curses that so often follow official decrees.
And having read it, they rejoiced at the consolation.
Some men came to Antioch and told Gentile believers they must keep circumcision and the law of Moses. The church sent the question to Jerusalem, and this verse records what happened when the believers heard the answer read out: not argument, but joy.
The push to put Gentile believers under the law had come to Antioch from Jerusalem. So where the letter came from mattered as much as what it said.
At Antioch was the assembly where the Holy Spirit had exercised His sovereign rights, making good the glory of Christ by calling and separating His servants. It was there that Satan had tried to tie the believers to the law of Moses, using legal influence that came from Jerusalem. And now the assembly in Jerusalem had rejected and thrown out that Pharisee leaven. So Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had won in the very circle the evil had spread from.
The joy was not vague relief. It had a definite content: a burden they had been threatened with was lifted off them.
So Jerusalem has decided that the law was not binding on the Gentiles. These, sincere in their desire of walking with Christ, rejoice greatly at their freedom from this yoke.
Paul and Barnabas could have carried the letter back alone. Jerusalem sent respected men of its own with them, and that changed how the letter landed.
It must have been an immense comfort to Paul too. The apostles and the assembly in Jerusalem wrote as they did, fully backing Paul and Barnabas in their ministry. They also sent men of note with them — "chief men among the brothers". No one could suspect such men of carrying a letter that supported their own views. People might have made that charge had Paul and Barnabas returned alone, simply carrying the ruling.
Official church rulings have often left wreckage behind them. This one did not. (Older translations read "rejoiced at the consolation" where the ESV has "rejoiced because of its encouragement".)
Sadly, in church history this has rarely been the fruit of "decrees". They are usually a dreary record of condemnations... Here the gracious power of the Spirit was at work, whatever the enemies did. The result was building up, not tearing down. There was no selfish design, still less a purpose to scatter... Those who simply desired to hold fast grace "rejoiced at the consolation", which was the sweeter because the material of it came from Jerusalem.
The dispute could have split the church in two: one Jewish, one Gentile. The joy at Antioch marks the point where that danger passed.
When the letter was read to the believers at Antioch, "they rejoiced because of its encouragement" (v. 31). Consulting together and acting together had prevented a division among the assemblies, and the result was joy and consolation.
The reading of the letter is immediately followed by the ministry of Judas and Silas. The order matters: the joy prepared them for what came next.
They delivered the letter and read it out, and joy filled their hearts. They rejoiced, we learn, because of the consolation. Now they were free in spirit, with hearts ready to receive. So they could profit from the ministry of the two newcomers, Judas and Silas. Being prophets, they could and did use their gift to encourage the brothers with many words, and to strengthen them.
The letter was not filed with the leaders and summarised later. The whole company was called together to hear it read.
I grant that the appointment of "the seven" was not an ordinary matter. The occasion that brought "all the multitude" together in Acts 15 was even more out of the ordinary. Still, I cite them as undeniable proof that "the assembly" in a city acted together, by whatever means. That held good even when many thousands were involved, and Scripture has sanctioned this practice from the beginning.
- Trouble. The pressure to keep the law had come from Jerusalem. Grace won there, which made the answer sweeter.
- Letter. The comfort was concrete: the law was not binding on the Gentiles. The yoke they feared came off.
- Witnesses. Chosen men from Jerusalem travelled with Paul and Barnabas. No one could claim the letter just echoed the messengers' own views.
- Joy. A formal decision built people up instead of tearing them down. The threatened split never came.
- Growth. Free hearts were ready to receive. Judas and Silas then encouraged and strengthened them.
And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse, and strengthened them.
Antioch had just heard the letter from Jerusalem, and the church rejoiced — but the two men who carried it did not hand it over and leave. Luke says they were prophets, and they stayed to speak; so what did a prophet do, and what does "strengthened" mean here?
The letter settled a bitter dispute over whether Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses. Sending two men who had sat through that debate gave the letter a living voice.
It mattered to have men present who could speak as reliable witnesses of what Jerusalem had debated and decided. This was far more than coldly carrying a letter and nothing else. They knew what drove the opponents. They knew the spiritual interests at stake. They also knew how the apostles felt, and how the whole church felt.
The trouble had targeted Antioch itself, so the news landed there with special force.
Antioch was where Satan had tried to press Jewish law on the believers, using influence that came from Jerusalem… Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had won in the very circle the evil came from. The crowd gathered, they handed over the letter, and when they read it, "they rejoiced because of its encouragement."
The word covers two things: telling what is coming, and a ministry that speaks straight to the conscience. That second kind meets three needs at once.
Prophecy has two senses: (1) foretelling events, or (2) the kind of ministry that reaches the conscience and brings the soul into the presence of God… "the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" (1 Cor. 14:3). That is a most blessed line of ministry. "Upbuilding" builds up. "Encouragement" stirs up. "Consolation" binds up.
Why did God give prophets then, and why not now? It turns on the state of the Scriptures.
At the very beginning, men of God appeared who were not apostles, and were not necessarily inspired writers of truth like Mark and Luke. They were prophets, like Judas and Silas. The Scriptures were not all written when the Church began, and the apostles could not be everywhere. So God raised up prophets, who in certain cases at least were the means of revelation. And why do we not have such channels now? Because revelation is complete: we have the word of God, and we need no more.
Older translations say "confirmed" here instead of "strengthened." That Greek word turns up only a few times, and every time it is in Acts.
Paul and Barnabas went to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and urging them to continue in the faith. Judas and Silas, messengers from Jerusalem to Antioch, were prophets; they encouraged the brothers with many words and confirmed them… These passages, with Acts 18:23, where the word is translated "strengthen," are all the places where the Greek word epistērizō occurs. (There is no idea of any ceremony here, like what is now called "Confirmation.")
after_note: DELETE
Apostles were present at Antioch, and still these two visitors did the speaking.
We cannot help seeing the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Claims of official position, and personal jealousies, had no place yet. So these full witnesses strengthened all the brothers, as you would expect, and their one desire for everyone was growth through the truth.
They could speak in a city not their own because of what they were. Scripture calls them prophets, never elders, and the two are not the same.
So in Acts 15:2, 32 we hear of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and of Judas and Silas as leading men among the brothers. But Scripture also describes these two as "prophets," and so they spoke freely at Antioch. It never views them as "elders." "Gift" belongs to the unity of the body of Christ, so a man could use it as freely in one place as in another. An elder held a local charge, exercised in the one assembly he was appointed to.
The result went further than a dispute closed on paper.
For the need all this implied, the testimony of Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, would be all-important. And so we do hear that they comforted the brothers and established them. Peace and unity were fully preserved, and so far the enemy had gained no advantage.
- Witnesses. Judas and Silas were more than couriers. They had been at the debate and could speak to what was at stake.
- Gift. They spoke as prophets. That ministry reaches the conscience, and it builds up, stirs up and binds up.
- Strengthening. "Confirmed" here means steadied in the faith. The word carries no hint of a ceremony.
- Liberty. Their gift, not a local office, gave them freedom to speak — and they used it with apostles sitting there.
- Fruit. Many words did what a letter alone could not. Joy settled into peace, and the enemy gained nothing.
And having passed some time [there], they were let go in peace from the brethren to those who sent them.
Paul and Barnabas had brought Antioch a letter from Jerusalem freeing Gentile believers from the law of Moses, and Judas and Silas came with them to confirm it. This verse sends those two men home, and the way they go shows how the early church settled a quarrel that could have split it.
The trouble had started when teachers from Judea unsettled the Gentile believers at Antioch. The ending is remarkably quiet. One writer notes that the two visitors were prophets themselves, and that they left nothing broken behind them:
All this created such a need, and the testimony of Judas and Silas, prophets themselves, would be all-important. So we do in fact hear how they comforted and strengthened the believers. Peace and unity were perfectly preserved, and so far the adversary had gained no advantage. It is noted that, after they had stayed a while, they are "let go in peace" to those who sent them. Meanwhile the word of the Lord keeps making progress in Antioch, and more and more people labour in it.
Paul and Barnabas could have carried the letter alone. Judas and Silas went so that Antioch would hear Jerusalem's verdict from Jerusalem's own men:
Judas and Silas were to go from Jerusalem as witnesses to the statement in the letter they carried. It said that those in authority in Judea rejected the teaching of the men who had disturbed the Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas could and certainly would say that. But confirmation of it should also come from witnesses who would back up what the other two might state.
They went home in peace, and that peace is the seal on the errand.
Some older English versions say the two men went back "to the apostles." One writer follows the earliest manuscripts instead. He also notes how freely these visitors ministered, even with apostles present:
We cannot help seeing the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Clerical rights and personal jealousies had no place yet… After some time Judas and Silas were dismissed in peace "to those that had sent them." The later copies and some early versions say only "to the apostles."
The difference matters. They answered to the whole company that sent them, not to the apostles alone.
The letter settled a question of doctrine. The visit did something warmer:
Judas and Silas remain for a time with the disciples at Antioch, encouraging them. They rejoice in this new fellowship — the love of the assembly at Jerusalem for the believers among the Gentiles. Then Judas leaves them, but Silas, drawn towards these new brothers, stays at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas also stay there, teaching the believers. Many others take an interest in them too, for the power of the Holy Spirit was working among them. Life was fresh in those days.
The manuscripts differ here, and so do the commentators. Some editions add a verse saying Silas chose to stay in Antioch. Others leave it out. Either way, Silas is back in Antioch a few verses later, travelling with Paul.
The historian seems to suggest that he went back with Judas. We read that after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them — and that is the reading we should follow (Acts 15:33). So Silas must have returned to Antioch later. We find him there, ready to go with Paul on his second great missionary journey.
Another writer agrees that Silas came back, and suggests why:
That verse may have been added by copyists who thought this was the way to account for Silas being at Antioch in verse 40. But is it not quite possible that after returning to Jerusalem he decided to come back to Antioch? This would make good sense if his contact with Gentile believers had awakened a real concern in him for the blessing of Gentiles.
- Sent. Judas and Silas went to Antioch as living witnesses that Jerusalem stood behind its own letter.
- Stayed. As prophets, they spent the time encouraging and strengthening the believers. They ministered freely, even with apostles present.
- Settled. Peace and unity held, and the adversary gained nothing from the dispute.
- Sent back. They returned in peace to those who had sent them — to the whole company that commissioned them, not to the apostles alone.
- Sequel. The work at Antioch kept growing, and Silas was drawn to these Gentile believers. Commentators differ on whether he ever left them.