Acts 15:22–40

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 are called "leading men among the brothers," and "prophets," who exhorted the brothers and strengthened them.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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".

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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 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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.")

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.

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.

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.

The Word marks out the different gifts of ministry and the distinct lines of ministry. There was preaching and teaching, as there were evangelists, pastors, and teachers... At Antioch Paul and Barnabas continued teaching and preaching the word of the Lord. ...Evangelising increases the assembly, but some things are the subject of teaching and not of preaching. So if the work of God is to grow in a healthy way, both teaching and preaching are needed. Where people want simple evangelising and nothing more, believers will not be fully taught the truth. Where evangelising is undervalued or neglected, interest in the spread of God's work is in danger of fading.

Here again a plain scripture fully confirms how large and active the ministry of the word was in those early days. Someone may answer that such simplicity suited the days of testimony, before Christianity became an established institution here below. The reply is that this is exactly where the harm lies. Christianity should never be anything other than a pilgrimage of faith. It should never have become something settled in the earth, the way Judaism is.

Is it not incredible that men are in such darkness that they quote this scripture when they appoint one man to be the minister over a church? The Holy Spirit did not say, Set one of these teachers apart for this special work. He sends two, and we see this principle all through. And in the preachings it is Paul and Barnabas speaking boldly, though Paul was the chief speaker. (Acts 13:43-46; Acts 14:12; Acts 15:35.) "Preaching the word of the Lord with many others also."

This last clause suggests that the assembly there had now become large and important. It drew the care and attention of many servants of God. It also explains why Peter was in the city not long after the conference at Jerusalem. From that time on, Acts says nothing more about Peter.

The work went on briskly at Antioch, we may well believe. Paul and Barnabas were working, teaching and preaching, but not alone, for many others were now busy in the work too. This city had become a great centre. Workers were plentiful. What is more, Paul and Barnabas had won their case at Jerusalem on behalf of converts from the Gentiles... The urgent need for their presence and work there had passed. So the two missionary apostles could plan a fresh journey to revisit the places of their recent work.

Here is an incident of great but painful interest: the clash between Peter, the great apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the younger but still greater apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11 and following). There seems no real reason to doubt that it happened at Antioch at about this time, after the council of Jerusalem and before Barnabas left... The real moral is how unwilling men are to bow to the truth. That is all the more striking when we give due weight to the time when it happened.

The evangelist is responsible to preach the gospel in the regions beyond, as long as there are regions still to reach. In the same way, the pastor is responsible to "go again and visit his brothers," as long as there are brothers to visit. The evangelist forms the vital link. The pastor keeps that link and makes it stronger… The evangelist's business is to call out the brothers; the pastor's business is to look after them.

It does not matter how often you may have been there before. It may be once or twice or three times. That is not the question. "Let us go again" is the motto for the pastoral heart, because there is always a need for the pastoral gift.

"How they are" in public, in society, in private. "How they are" in doctrine, in their associations, in their walk. "How they are" spiritually, morally, in their relationships — "how they are" in every way. Remember this well. Seeing how our brothers are must never turn into a curious, prying, gossiping, busybody spirit. That spirit wounds and does not heal; it meddles and does not mend.

Faith can see a most beautiful link of divine sympathy between the heart of Christ in heaven and "every city" where "the Word of the Lord" has been preached and received. This is as true now as it was then… Christ has His eye on every city, every town, every village, every street, every house that has received His Word. It is an eye that shines with deep interest and glows with tender love.

The words of verse 36 breathe the spirit of a true pastor, who desires to see how the believers are getting on. The welfare of their souls is the great point before him. The sad thing was that this excellent plan led to a break between these two devoted servants of the Lord.

There should be no question that Barnabas was wrong and Paul was right in this painful difference. A principle was at stake. The Holy Spirit chose to record it as a lasting warning, even though it exposed the failure of a greatly blessed witness of Christ… On the one hand, what could have seemed more gracious than Barnabas wanting to give his cousin a fresh chance to wipe out the past disgrace?

The Spirit of God takes good care to record this. It needed to be noted. It should act as a warning. It should also prepare the minds of God's children for this: even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences.

Barnabas may have felt that his nephew would grow stronger if he came along this second time. Paul clearly did not think Mark was ready yet. Later Paul speaks of Mark as useful to him for the ministry (2 Tim. 4:11), but at this point he had a different opinion… It is sad that we read nothing more of Barnabas after this, though we do read of Mark.

The writer of the Gospel of Mark was that "John called Mark" (Acts 15:37). He failed in his service while he was with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Later he became a bone of contention between them. First he failed himself. Then he became the occasion of further failure in men greater than himself.

You would expect Barnabas to be ready. But he proposes to take Mark with them, and Mark had failed them on the earlier journey, at the very start of what was the real work. Here was love too, no doubt, but as to his sister's son, too purely human. Paul is unwilling. Feelings run very hot between them, and this separates two men who had been so close until then… Barnabas had failed also, just before this, as we learn from Galatians, following Peter's example on the Jewish question; and this would naturally add to the seriousness of the matter in Paul's eyes.

No one touched John Mark's right to fellowship, with any or all of its privileges. No one forbade him to preach where he pleased over "the field." No one wished to close his mouth in the assembly, whether in Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But after his failure it was quite another thing to put him forward again before there was proof that he had recovered. That service was prominent and weighty, as honourable as it was full of difficulty. How could a runaway who was not yet restored urge the disciples to continue in the faith?

Paul wants someone who had not drawn back from the work. He wants someone who had not given up the place of a stranger, taken for the work's sake, to go back to his own home… Paul takes Silas and departs. Silas had preferred the work to Jerusalem, instead of Jerusalem to the work.

Barnabas was loved. But it seems plain that at this moment he failed to carry the conscience of his brothers and sisters with him. Paul, on the other hand, again received that mark of united recommendation to the grace of the Lord, and Silas with him. He and Barnabas had enjoyed the same thing on their first mission to the Gentiles from Antioch.

Barnabas is a kindly man. His affections are now ruffled, though they are surely mixed with a gracious desire that the young man may recover himself. He shows most of all the impatience that hurries him off with his nephew to his native land; and we lose him from the history.

The Spirit of God takes good care to record this. It needed to be noted. It should act as a warning. It should also prepare the minds of the children of God for this: even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences. We must not be too cast down if we meet with anything of the kind. I do not say this to make light of such disagreements in any way; but sadly, we know that these things do happen.

Luke alone remained with Paul. Then Paul gives a direction that holds a very precious instance of restoring grace: "Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry." Mark, once unfaithful, was restored.

In Acts 13:5 John Mark was counted worthy to be associated with Paul in the ministry. In Acts 15:38 he was disapproved, but in 2 Timothy 4:11 he was again acknowledged as a profitable servant. Now, Mark was just as truly a child of God, a saved person, a believer in Christ, when Paul rejected him as a co-worker. He was the same man when Paul first accepted him, and the same when Paul at last restored him to confidence. In no case was the question of John Mark's personal salvation raised. It was altogether a matter of fitness for service.

No one interfered with John Mark's right to fellowship or to any of its privileges. No one wanted to shut his mouth in the assembly, whether in Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But it was quite another thing to put him forward again after his failure, before his recovery was proved. That service was public, weighty, honourable, and full of difficulty.

John Mark had grown weary of the labour, scorn, and opposition of the first apostolic journey from Antioch. Paul refused to work with him again until Mark proved his devotion of spirit beyond dispute... Here Barnabas, sadly, thought more of his relative than of the Master. He confused kindness with grace and brushed aside the wise and holy warning of Paul. From then on he drops out of notice, both he and his work, in the divine record that tells the story.

Paul only thought of God, Mark of the circumstances; but that is not how difficulties are overcome. It is possible that the flesh showed itself in Paul; but at any rate he could not boast of being in the right... At bottom Paul was right, and the hand of God was with him. Still, harshness was unnecessary. Even where the purpose of the heart is right, the flesh may very soon show itself.

The Spirit of God takes good care to record this. It needed to be noted. It should act as a warning. On the other hand it would also prepare the children of God to see that even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences. We must not be too downcast if we meet with anything of the kind. I do not say this in any way to make light of such disagreements, but sadly we know that these things do arise.

The sharp contention between the two fellow workers ended in their separating — never, as far as we know, to work together again... Luke notes that Paul chose Silas as his companion, and that the brothers commended Paul to the grace of the Lord. Nothing of the kind is said about Barnabas. So it seems that the church at Antioch fully endorsed Paul's judgment about Mark's conduct.

Paul had been deeply grieved by Mark's desertion in the early days. It even led to a break with Barnabas (Acts 15:37-40). But the healing goodness of God had long since wiped that out... Now he goes further. He puts Mark back into close personal service beside him — the very thing in which he had failed at the start. In nature a breakdown is beyond repair; not so where grace prevails.

It is beautiful and gracious that Mark should be the one chosen to set the unfailing, perfect Servant before us. He was the failed servant who shrank back from the work he had put his hand to (Acts 15:38). But afterwards he recovered, and through grace he was made useful (2 Tim. 4:11). What comfort for us in this!

Barnabas, sadly, in this matter thought more of his relative than of the Master. He confused graciousness with grace and brushed aside Paul's wise and holy warning... It was pointless for Barnabas to talk about his "right", or about "love" or "largeness of heart". Such pleas are often urged as an excuse with no real ground at all. Nobody touched John Mark's title to fellowship with all its privileges. Nobody forbade John Mark to preach where he pleased over "the field". Nobody wanted to close his mouth in the assembly, whether in Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But it was quite another thing to put him forward again after his failure, before he had proved his recovery. That service was public, weighty, honourable and full of difficulty. How could he take a consistent part in a testimony of hardship and danger? Everyone knew he had withdrawn so quickly, even before persecution grew hot.

From this point Mark's name is found no more in the history of the Acts. Luke notes that Paul chose Silas as his companion, and that the brothers commended him to the grace of the Lord. Nothing of that kind is said about Barnabas. So it seems that the church at Antioch fully endorsed Paul's judgment about Mark's conduct.

Paul was thinking only of God, and Mark of the circumstances. But that is not how difficulties are overcome. It is possible that the flesh showed itself in Paul; but in any case he could not boast of being in the right... Separation was necessary, and God had worked that out in him. Still, the bitterness was unnecessary. At bottom Paul was right, and the hand of God was with him. Even where the purpose of the heart is right, the flesh can very soon show itself.

Do you long for a reawakening of spiritual life and a revival of the Lord's work? Then notice this: in Acts 15 there is no reference at all to prayer, except at the very end of it. In every chapter of this book of gospel triumphs, apart from the fifth, prayer has its place until we reach this chapter. But here, instead of prayer, there is "no small dissension and debate" (v. 2) and "much debate" (v. 7). Saddest of all, the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they separated from each other (v. 39). Prayer comes back into its own place in chapter 16, and there trophies are won for Christ, and the gospel goes on its triumphant way.

Here we part with Barnabas, that beloved saint and precious servant of Christ! His name is not mentioned again in the Acts... we leave it with two happy reflections. First, that it was overruled for blessing to the nations: the waters of life now flow in two streams instead of one. This, however, is God's goodness, and gives no approval to the divisions of Christians. Second, Paul later speaks of Barnabas with complete affection. He asks for Mark to come to him, having found him useful for the ministry (1 Cor. 9:6; 2 Tim. 4:11).

We know how greatly Paul had grieved over Mark's desertion in the early days. It even led to a breach with Barnabas (Acts 15:37-40). But the healing goodness of God had long since blotted this out... Now he goes further. He puts Mark back in close personal service to himself — the very thing in which he had first failed. In nature a breakdown cannot be repaired. Where grace prevails it is different, for "we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" (Rom. 8:37).

Barnabas then goes his way; that was his will. Paul chooses Silas, and the brothers commend him to the grace of God — a second ordination, if ordination were the question, but it is quite another thing.

I have no objection to laying hands on someone in this way. It claims to give neither gift nor authority, but is a simple commendation to the grace of God — and it seems this could be done again (Acts 15:40).

Paul, on the other hand, received once more — and Silas with him — that mark of united recommendation to the grace of the Lord. He and Barnabas had the same mark when they were first sent out from Antioch to the Gentiles.

The record says nothing of the kind about Barnabas now; an ominous silence prevails.

Another point worth noticing is this. Ministry rests on the faith of the individual. Yet that does not stop a man of greater discernment from choosing someone else as his companion in the work. The Lord Himself sent His servants out two by two ahead of Him — both the twelve apostles and the seventy. Such a choice is scriptural. An assembly electing a minister of the word is something Scripture knows nothing about.

Barnabas may have been as wrong in taking Mark as Paul was right in choosing Silas. But the principle is clear. Choosing a fellow worker calls for spiritual judgment. Being forced to work with someone we do not think able or suitable is not according to the Lord's mind.

Sadly, in this matter Barnabas thought more of his relative than of his Master. He mistook mere kindness for grace. He brushed aside Paul's wise and holy warning. From then on, he and his work drop out of sight in the divine record that tells the story.

It is possible that the flesh showed itself in Paul as well. In any case he could not boast of being in the right… The separation was necessary, and God had worked that out in him. Still, the sharpness was not needed. At bottom Paul was right, and the hand of God was with him. Even when the purpose of the heart is right, the flesh can show itself very quickly.

It is a comfort to think that in the end grace blessed Paul's faithfulness, not the weak compromise of Barnabas. Years later the Spirit led Paul to write warmly in Mark's favour (Col. 4:10-11, Philemon 24, 2 Tim. 4:11): a joy at the end greater than the sorrow of the earlier days.