Sunday, January 16, 2022
Acts 15:22-35
“Letter to Live By”
Service Overview: Conflict in church is inevitable (because they are made up of people who are sinful and fallible), but something amazing and beautiful happens when it settles its differences and comes together to move forward.
Memory Verse for the Week: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Galatians 5:6 (NIV)
Background Information:
- Most commentators, if not all, agree that in view here was the problem of eating meat that had been offered as sacrifices at pagan altars. The pagans had their altars to the various false gods, and in their ritual ceremonies they took food, particularly meat, and put it in front of the statue or idol. When the ceremony was done, the meat had to be dealt with. After all, the idols were unable to swallow this perfectly good food. So, being of some commercial orientation, the priests of these pagan cults took the meat into the marketplace and sold it for a profit. The practice was utterly scandalous to the Jews. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 236)
- Verse 34 is omitted in the recent versions for the reason that it is not found in the most reliable Greek manuscripts. It may have been inserted at a later time by some scribe who thought the addition would explain v.40. A more likely explanation, however, is that Silas was summoned by Paul to Antioch after a time in Jerusalem. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 174)
- Fornication was such a common sin among the Gentiles that it was an accepted practice. The problem of immorality even persisted among Christians all too often, as is witnessed by the New Testament injunctions against it (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12-18, where Paul was evidently answering arguments in favor of immorality). (John F. Walvoord, Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, 395)
- For the most part, the church was still identified with the Jewish synagogue, and it is likely that in some cities, entire synagogue congregations believed on Jesus Christ—Jews, Gentile proselytes, and Gentile “God-fearers” together. If the Gentile believers abused their freedom in Christ and ate meat containing blood, this would offend both the saved Jews and their unsaved friends whom they were trying to win to Christ. It was simply a matter of not being a stumbling block to the weak or to the lost (Rom. 14:13–21). (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
- The dietary restrictions were because the early church often shared common meals (similar to modern-day church potluck dinners). Sometimes called “love feasts” and held in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34), these meals would bring Jews and Gentiles together. In such settings, a Gentile might horrify the Jewish Christians by eating meat that was not kosher. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 263)
- Christians of all times and places have seen the need for sexual purity. So why was it necessary to list this concern here? Possibly the Council saw the need to emphasize an appropriate sex life in the face of Gentile immorality, often a common part of pagan life, not to mention a frequent component of pagan worship. (Phillip A. Bence, Acts, Kindle Location 3140)
The question to be answered is…
Why all the fuss over food and sex?
Answer…
The ultimate issue at hand wasn’t merely food and sex, but the essence of the gospel, and the preservation of a kind of fellowship the gospel entails.
The word of the day is… Belong
What’s important to see and grasp from this account?
- The vital role leadership and discernment had in the church.
(vv. 22, 25, 28 | Romans 12:2; Philippians 1:9-10; Hebrews 5:14; James 1:5; 1 John 4:1)
The words “it has been resolved by the Holy Spirit and ourselves,” with which the terms of the council’s decision are introduced, stress the church’s role as the vehicle of the Spirit. “There is no parallel,” says Wilfred Knox, “for such a phrase to pronounce a corporate decision by a deliberative body.” So conscious were the church leaders of being possessed and controlled by the Spirit that he was given prior mention as chief author of their decision. (F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, 316)
Governing a church through appointed leaders does not always guarantee a perfect system— because it involves people—but it’s a good system because if you have a number of individuals who are honestly trying to walk with God, listen to God, and do what God says, then the odds are good that the church will be led in a God-honoring fashion. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 266)
- The concessions needed for the sake of unity.
(vv. 29 | Psalm 133:1; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:2; Colossians 3:14; 1 Peter 3:8)
It was one thing to secure the gospel from corruption; it was another to preserve the church from fragmentation. Paul was resolutely unwilling to compromise the “truth of the gospel.” At the same time, he was extremely anxious to maintain Jewish-Gentile solidarity in the one body of Christ. Once the theological principle that salvation is by grace alone and that circumcision was not required but neutral was firmly established, he was prepared to adjust his practical policies. We may say, then, that the Jerusalem Council secured a double victory—a victory of love in preserving the fellowship by sensitive concessions to conscientious Jewish scruples. As Luther put it, Paul was strong in faith and soft in love. Or as John Newton once said, “Paul was a reed in non-essentials,—an iron pillar in essentials.” (John Stott, Seeing the Spirit at Work, Acts, 67)
It is beautiful to see that this letter expressed the loving unity of people who had once been debating with each other and defending opposing views. The legalistic Jews willingly gave up insisting that the Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, and the Gentiles willingly accepted a change in their eating habits. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions. (Samuel Johnson)
- The interdependent nature of the ekklesia.
(vv. 22, 25, 28, 29, 35 | John 15:5; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:8-9; Ephesians 2:20-22)
a. Dependence on God.
b. Interdependence on one another.
Why is submission so hard? Why is it so important? It’s difficult because we’re not predisposed to accept authority. It grates on us to have to abide by others’ decisions. But it’s also important because God has designed the church to be guided by human leaders. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 266)
- The encouragement that resulted from all of it.
(vv. 31-33 | Romans 15:13; Ephesians 4:29; 1 Thessalonians 5:11; Hebrews 10:25)
Luke painted a picture of a teachable, eager church in Antioch. Whereas the false teaching of the legalists had been burdensome and a source of great confusion, the divine wisdom behind the ruling of James and the elders resulted in a joyful, encouraged congregation. The law obligates; the gospel liberates. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 264)
Conclusion…What lessons might we learn from this for our own faith and practice?
A. Hold tight to what’s important, hold loose to that which isn’t, and learn to discern the difference.
(Romans 16:17; Ephesians 4:14; 2 Timothy 3:16; Titus 1:9; Hebrews 13:9; 1 John 4:1)
We all need to keep on asking ourselves what means we have made into ends. What unnecessary (and harmful) walls do we build that separate us from other believers or potential believers? (Phillip A. Bence, Acts: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, Kindle Location 3159)
Resist the urge to judge others. Do not be dogmatic where the Bible is not. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 263)
I am quite sure that the best way to promote union is to promote truth. It will not do for us to be all united together by yielding to one another’s mistakes. (C. H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vol. 6)
False doctrine does not necessarily make a man a heretic, but an evil heart can make any doctrine heretical. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge)
B. Mind your weaker siblings.
(Romans 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; Colossians 2:20-23)
That is the kind of thing Paul had to deal with in the church at Corinth and in Rome and in other places where people had come to believe that partaking of meat offered to idols was sin. Paul made clear it was not a sin, but for those who believed it to be sinful, for them it was. As for those who had liberty to partake, Paul said that they should be sensitive to the weaker brother, not rubbing it in the face of people who had objections to it. At the same time, the Apostle would never allow the scruples of the weaker brother to become the law for the whole church, something people have tried to do repeatedly in church history. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 236)
Gospel Application…
The gospel is good news that by faith alone in Christ alone, we can be made right with God and adopted into his family.
Our righteousness with God is through faith and not the compulsive fulfillment of our own idea of what He requires. (Lloyd J. Ogilvie, The Communicator’s Commentary: Acts, 235)
Spiritual Challenge Questions…
Reflect on these questions in your time with the Lord this week, or discuss with a Christian family member or Life Group.
- What important steps were taken to make sure the decisions from the council were adequately communicated to the churches? How might this influence how we “do” church these days?
- Why do you think the Gentile believers were given a list of four behaviors from which to abstain, even though they did not have to be circumcised or obey the law of Moses to be saved (vv. 28-29)?
- What unnecessary (or potentially harmful) walls have separated believers from one another or even from potential believers before?
- Why is submission so hard, yet so important?
- What was accomplished by the decisions made by the leaders of the early church in today’s text?
- What cultural or religious customs have we added to the Gospel at times as requirements before giving people our approval or welcome?
- What nonbiblical standards of conduct have been used before to determine whether a person is, or is not, an acceptable Christian?
Quotes to note…
There is one thing that the sexual revolution did not change—sexual immorality is an offense against the holy God. When I was teaching at that Baptist college, I said to my wife rather facetiously, “The kids on this campus are not allowed to dance, smoke, play cards, or go to movies, but behind every bush there’s a Baptist; in fact there are two of them.” These students were wracked with guilt from trying to be Christians in a neo-pagan culture. Young people take their mores from what everybody else is doing. That is what the Gentiles had been doing in the first-century church. They lived in an immoral culture, and the Council of Jerusalem wanted to keep that out of the church. Immoral behavior has to stop when you become a Christian. It must not even be named among us as is befitting saints (Eph. 5:3). So the letter was sent to the churches of Asia Minor as they awaited the return of the Apostles. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 240)
It is human to err, it is devilish to remain willfully in error. (Augustine)
Church problems are not solved by passing resolutions, but by practicing the revelations God gives us from His Word. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
The person who is always right, and who insists on having his or her own way, is difficult to live with happily. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
We live the Commandments, the great commandment to love God, ourselves, and others, and the Sermon on the Mount, not to be approved but because we already are approved. On the basis of that approval we can evaluate what behavior is best for the Lord’s glory and our growth. And we do it all in the amazed awareness that He loves us right now as much as He ever will! That will take a whole life-time and all of eternity to fathom. (Lloyd J. Ogilvie, The Communicator’s Commentary: Acts, 235)
It’s not easy to know the will of God. In fact, the most common questions I hear from Christians, especially young Christians, are “What does God want me to do?” and “Where does God want me to go?” The issue of God’s will always seems to revolve around what and where. But I’m convinced that the important thing to God is not “What should I do?” or “Where should I go?” Those questions are important to us, but not to God. The question He cares about is a how question: “How will I do God’s will? Will I rely on my own wisdom, strength, and resources—or on His?” That’s what God is truly interested in. All other questions are simple compared with that. (Ray C. Stedman, God’s Unfinished Book: Acts, 202)
Careful judgment and tactfulness were employed in the implementation. Two men were chosen with care to convey a written communication as well as a verbal message. Judas Barsabas was obviously a Hebrew, perhaps a brother of the Joseph Barsabas put forward for the apostolate in c. 1. Silas seems to have been a Hellenistic Jew and was a Roman citizen as we learn from 16:37. Thus this pair were somewhat representative of the issues . (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 172)
The effects of the decision were far-reaching. In the first place, it freed the gospel from any necessary entanglement with Judaism and Israelite institutions, though without renouncing the legitimacy of continued Christian activity within them. Thus both Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and the various Jewish Christian missions were enabled to progress side by side without conflict (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John and Acts, 450)
The same God who prohibited the use of images commanded the artistic shaping of the cherubim to guard the mercy seat in the temple. The artisans are the first people we find in the Old Testament who were filled with the Holy Spirit. God set them apart to create artwork for the tabernacle and the temple and for the manufacture of the garments of the priesthood. Therefore, in the Old Testament economy there is no divine opposition to art. If there were a divine objection to the use of art in the house of God, then it would have been as sinful in the Old Testament as some try to make it today. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 238)
The glory of God, the beauty of God, and the holiness of God are from everlasting to everlasting. He wants to be honored with beauty as well as with goodness and truth. We understand as Christians that God is the source and foundation and measuring rod of all that is good and true, but we, particularly Protestants, have forgotten that He is also the source and fountainhead of all that is beautiful. There is nothing particularly pious about plainness or ugliness, nor is there anything particularly virtuous about beautiful paintings. What beauty does and is supposed to do is to incline us to worship the Source and Foundation of all that is beautiful, not the objects of beauty. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 239)
Here in Acts 15 I think we have an example of decisions that were made temporarily, as a matter of prudence, which we know from the rest of the New Testament did not go on to perpetuity, other than the prohibition against immorality or fornication. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 239)
Sexual morality is not situational ethics or a question of prudence, but a question of insulting the holiness of God. (R.C. Sproul, Acts, 239)
It would be hard for anyone to dispute a decision unanimously proclaimed by a quartet of Council participants. Despite the Judaizers’ previous statements to the contrary, no one could authoritatively proclaim that Gentiles who believed were not saved. The church had spoken. God welcomed all who believed. Grace, God’s gift of salvation, precedes personal transformation. (Phillip A. Bence, Acts: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, Kindle Location 3140)
What had been the foundational problem? Once again, some within the early church had taken God-given “means” and made them “ends.” (Phillip A. Bence, Acts: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, Kindle Location 3159)
The Jerusalem council summarized in a letter its decision regarding Gentile circumcision. This letter was carried to Antioch of Syria by Judas and Silas. Paul and Barnabas accompanied these specially chosen messengers. Essentially, the letter instructed the Gentile converts to strictly avoid idolatry, immorality, and eating the meat of strangled animals—activities, common among the Gentiles, that were especially offensive to Jewish sensibilities. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 261)
A representative from the Jewish believers and one from the Gentile believers were appointed as delegates to go with Paul and Barnabas to deliver the council’s decision to Antioch of Syria and the surrounding churches. Judas was a Jew; Silas was a Greek. They were two of the church leaders and are called “prophets” (see 15:32). Their presence together would give credence to the council’s ruling. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 262)
ow believers responded to this decision would demonstrate to the world the real character of the church. Defiance would likely cause a split and give malcontents the courage to push their agendas. Submission by everyone would result in a close-knit, harmonious body that had a sense of order and stability. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 263)
Several of the more reliable, ancient manuscripts do not contain [Verse 34]. It was most likely added by a later scribe attempting to solve the seeming discrepancy between Silas’s departure (15:33) and his presence in Antioch (15:40). But in the process of trying to solve one problem, the anonymous scribe created another. Verse 34 contradicts verse 33. It must be assumed that Luke did not tell us that Silas returned to Jerusalem and then, later, was summoned to Antioch—probably by Paul. (Grant R. Osborne, Life application Bible Commentary: Acts, 265)
The response to the Spirit’s message of wisdom given by James was unanimous. The apostles and elders together “with the whole church” thought it good to send men they chose from among themselves to go with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to present the decision and the letter. (Stanley M. Horton, Acts, Kindle Location Kindle Locations 6135-6137)
The letter stated clearly that the Jerusalem church had not sent out the men who “disturbed” the church at Antioch, “troubling” their minds. Nor had the church given a command that the Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the Law. Their decision to send chosen men with their “dear friends Barnabas and Paul” was unanimous. (Stanley M. Horton, Acts, Kindle Location Kindle Locations 6149-6152)
Only the necessary things that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” and to the Jerusalem believers would be asked of them. If they would keep themselves safe from these things, they would do well. “Farewell” is literally, “Make yourselves strong,” but had become a common phrase used at the end of a letter to mean farewell or goodbye. (Stanley M. Horton, Acts, Kindle Location Kindle Locations 6160-6163)
Judas and Silas then did more than confirm the facts of the letter. As prophets, they were speakers for God, used by the Holy Spirit in the gift of prophecy for the strengthening, encouragement, and comfort of the believers (cf. 1 Cor. 14: 3). Through their words they supported and established the church at Antioch. That is, they gave them solid encouragement to forget the arguments of the Judaizers and to maintain their faith in Christ and in the gospel they had received, the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone— apart from the works of the Law— as Paul emphasizes in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians. (Stanley M. Horton, Acts, Kindle Location Kindle Locations 6174-6177)
The expression translated “it pleased” (v. 22) carried (according to the grammarians) almost technical connotation of voting on or passing on a resolution by a group. Approval came from the apostles, the elders, and the whole church. It was a shared decision. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 172)
The key expression of this passage is “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (v. 28a). Although desire for the Spirit’s guidance and seeking after it are not mentioned as part of the proceedings of the conference, it is evident that those present had a deep sense of divine leadership. We do not read into this something dramatic or profoundly mystical. Men who are consciously living under the Spirit’s control are not usually unduly exercised to obtain a dramatic or special revelation. There had been thoughtful discussion, earnest debate, a meeting of minds, all with the prayerful desire to find God’s will. They had used their best judgment with clear motives. They had arrived at a united consensus and had a sense of divine approval. The Spirit had guided them. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 172)
Christian courtesy characterized the entire plan. The letter was from “brethren” to “brethren.” (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 173)
They took pains to ensure the utmost clarity in the message itself. The issue was stated in uncompromising language (v. 24). There was a flat denial that the Judaizers at Antioch had any authority or commission whatsoever from the Jerusalem church. They were unauthorized teachers. Their doctrine “subverted,” unsettled, tore down the good work at Antioch. This plain language must have completely silenced the false teachers. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 173)
They made plain that they acted in unity, “with one accord” (v. 25) . (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 173)
The reference to Barnabas and Paul was a deliberate expression of confidence and love. Paul records that the Jerusalem leaders gave to him and Barnabas “the right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). The Antioch leaders were acknowledged affectionately as men who had “hazarded” (better still, devoted, or given up) their lives for the sake of Christ. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 173)
There is a disarming forthrightness about the request to the Gentiles (vv. 28-29). The letter plainly suggests that the requested guidance is being held to the bare minimum of need. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 173)
Peace and good fellowship within the Church were the immediate results (vv. 31-33). The Gentile believers were “consoled,” strengthened, encouraged. (Arnold E. Airhart, Beacon Bible Expositions: Acts, 174)
With James’s judgment “the apostles and elders, with the whole church,” agreed, deciding to send their decision back to Antioch of Syria not only by Paul and Barnabas but also by two leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, Judas Barsabbas and Silas, whose presence would assure reception of the decision and who could interpret the feelings of the council from a Jerusalem perspective. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John and Acts, 449)
When one considers the situation of the Jerusalem church in A.D. 49, the decision reached by the Jerusalem Christians must be considered one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history. While still attempting to minister exclusively to the nation, the council refused to impede the progress of that other branch of the Christian mission whose every success meant further difficulty for them from within their own nation. Undoubtedly there was some uncertainty among the council’s leaders about details of the decision. Certainly they reached it only after much agonizing. Likewise, there probably remained in the Jerusalem church a recalcitrant group that continued to predict ominous consequences. But the decision was made and the malcontents silenced-at least for a time. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John and Acts, 450)
On the fundamental matter of the theological necessity of circumcision and a Jewish lifestyle for Gentile Christians, the letter rebukes the Judaizers for going beyond their authority and assures the churches that there are no such requirements for salvation. On the practical issues of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in the churches and of preventing needless offense to Jews throughout the empire, the letter asks Gentile Christians to abstain from “idolatry” (eidolothyton), “blood” (haimatos), “things strangled” (pnikton), and “sexual immorality” (porneias)-which four prohibitions are given in a slightly different order and more abbreviated fashion than in v.20, but with the same sense. (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, John and Acts, 451)
24–27 Since trouble had been caused by the unauthorized activity of previous Jerusalem visitors to Antioch (v. 1), it was necessary to emphasize that the present delegates, whose business it was to undo the damage caused by those earlier visitors, were fully accredited by the Jerusalem church. (F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, 316)
28 The words “it has been resolved by the Holy Spirit and ourselves,” with which the terms of the council’s decision are introduced, stress the church’s role as the vehicle of the Spirit. “There is no parallel,” says Wilfred Knox, “for such a phrase to pronounce a corporate decision by a deliberative body.” So conscious were the church leaders of being possessed and controlled by the Spirit that he was given prior mention as chief author of their decision. (F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, 316)
Food of various kinds might be offered to idols, but the flesh of animal sacrifices is in view here: “an animal would constitute the only offering of sufficient size that a saleable portion would be left over following the sacrifice.” Such flesh (which would be of prime quality) was freely exposed for sale on the butchers’ stalls of pagan cities, since the temples received more than they could use; the question of eating it (whether its origin was known or unknown) was a matter of conscience for some Gentile Christians, as Paul’s Corinthian correspondence shows. The Jerusalem decree forbids it outright. It also forbids eating the meat of strangled animals, or the eating of blood in any form. (F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, 317)
The news from Jerusalem brought great relief to the Gentile Christians of Antioch. Probably the restrictions laid down in the letter did not seem too burdensome; in any case, they were a small price to pay for the prevention of any recurrence of the embarrassing situation occasioned by previous visitors from James. (F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, 318)
The leaders and the whole church (Acts 15:22), directed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), made a twofold decision: a doctrinal decision about salvation, and a practical decision about how to live the Christian life. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 370)
The doctrinal decision we have already examined. The church concluded that Jews and Gentiles are all sinners before God and can be saved only by faith in Jesus Christ. There is one need, and there is but one gospel to meet that need (Gal. 1:6–12). (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 370)
James advised the church to write to the Gentile believers and share the decisions of the conference. This letter asked for obedience to two commands and a willingness to agree to two personal concessions. The two commands were that the believers avoid idolatry and immorality, sins that were especially prevalent among the Gentiles (see 1 Cor. 8—10). The two concessions were that they willingly abstain from eating blood and meat from animals that had died by strangulation. The two commands do not create any special problems, for idolatry and immorality have always been wrong in God’s sight, both for Jews and Gentiles. But what about the two concessions concerning food? Keep in mind that the early church did a great deal of eating together and practicing of hospitality. Most churches met in homes, and some assemblies held a “love feast” in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34). It was probably not much different from our own potluck dinners. If the Gentile believers ate food that the Jewish believers considered “unclean,” this would cause division in the church. Paul dealt clearly with this whole problem in Romans 14—15. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
The prohibition against eating blood was actually given by God before the time of the law (Gen. 9:4), and it was repeated by Moses (Lev. 17:11–14; Deut. 12:23). If an animal is killed by strangulation, some of the blood will remain in the body and make the meat unfit for Jews to eat. Hence, the admonition against strangulation. “Kosher” meat is meat that comes from clean animals that have been killed properly so that the blood has been totally drained from the body. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions. (Samuel Johnson, as quoted by James Boswell in “The Life of Samuel Johnson, 229)
What did this decision accomplish in a practical way? At least three things. First, it strengthened the unity of the church and kept it from splitting into two extreme “law” and “grace” groups. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
We today can learn a great deal from this difficult experience of the early church. To begin with, problems and differences are opportunities for growth just as much as temptations for dissension and division. Churches need to work together and take time to listen, love, and learn. How many hurtful fights and splits could have been avoided if only some of God’s people had given the Spirit time to speak and to work. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
Christians need to learn the art of loving compromise. They need to have their priorities in order so they know when to fight for what is really important in the church. It is sinful to follow some impressive member of the church who is fighting to get his or her way on some minor issue that is not worth fighting about. Every congregation needs a regular dose of the love described in 1 Corinthians 13 to prevent division and dissension. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 371)
Unity is not uniformity, for unity is based on love and not law. There is a great need in the church for diversity in unity (Eph. 4:1–17), for that is the only way the body can mature and do its work in the world. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 372)
Had Paul and Barnabas come back alone their enemies might have doubted that they brought back a correct message; Judas and Silas were official emissaries and guarantors of the reality of the decision. The Church was wise in sending a person as well as a letter. One of the earliest Christian writers declared that he had learned more from the living and abiding voice than from any amount of reading. A letter could have sounded coldly official; but the words of Judas and Silas added a friendly warmth that the bare reception of a letter could never have achieved. Any amount of trouble might be avoided many a time if only a personal visit is paid instead of someone being content with sending a letter. (William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles, 117)
In the late 1800’s, a minister named Milton Wright stood in the pulpit of his church and announced, “You have heard that men are trying to build machines that will enable them to fly like birds. You have also heard that every such attempt has ended in failure. Why? Because men were not meant to fly like birds. These foolish men are trying to do what is contrary to the will of God!” Bishop Wright couldn’t have been more wrong about the will of God. In fact, he was proven wrong in 1903 by his two inventive sons, Wilbur and Orville. (Ray C. Stedman, God’s Unfinished Book: Acts, 202)
You’ll remember that, at the end of the council, James summed up the consensus of the discussion and underlined two points: First, he took note of the activity of God. He said that God had already answered the question for them by saving the Gentiles without requiring any rituals. Second, James took note of the Word of God. The conclusion of the council agreed with Scripture, as expressed by the prophet Amos. By combining the actions of God with the Word of God, the council came to the unanimous conclusion that expressed the mind of the Spirit. (Ray C. Stedman, God’s Unfinished Book: Acts, 203)
People learn best by having truth presented in a twofold way. Some people learn better through reading, other through hearing—but everyone learns better when both means are used. So these two men, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, were sent to Antioch to explain the written letter and make certain that its meaning was clear. (Ray C. Stedman, God’s Unfinished Book: Acts, 203)
The Gentile Christians must have been greatly relieved to receiving the letter from the apostles, assuring them that they did not have to submit to the Jewish rituals. Luke tells us that when Judas and Silas arrived with Paul and Barnabas, they “said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers.” (Ray C. Stedman, God’s Unfinished Book: Acts, 204)
