Acts 15

20 But James requested that the Gentile Christians observe three things: first, let them not eat meat offered to idols; second, let them abstain from any kind of sexual immorality (that is, any sexual conduct forbidden by Jewish Law); and third, let them not eat any meat from which the blood had not been properly drained (Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:29).

Why did James ask the Gentile Christians to observe these three things? The reason is this. It was extremely important that the Jewish and Gentile Christians remain in fellowship with each other. The things about the Gentiles which the Jews detested most were their tendency to sexual immorality and their eating of unclean meat. Therefore, so that the Jewish Christians might not be given unnecessary of fense, let the Gentile believers not engage in these three practices. Let the Gentile believers refrain from these three things not by compulsion but freely, not to gain salvation but to show love for their Jewish brothers and sisters in the Lord (see Romans 14:15,19-21; 1 Corinthians 8:9-13 and comments).

21 Finally, James reminded the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles had many opportunities to learn about the Jewish law, because every Sabbath (Saturday) the law was read out loud in the Jewish synagogues. The law would not be forgotten. The Gentile Christians could be taught to respect the law. But for obtaining salvation the law was not necessary—neither for the Jew nor for the Gentile.

22 The leaders of the church in Jerusalem chose Judas and Silas to take a letter to the Gentile Christians of Antioch. Silas⁶⁸ (who was also called Silvanus, his Roman name) later became Paul’s traveling companion (verse 40).

23-29 The Jerusalem apostles began their letter by clearly opposing the Jewish Christians that had initially gone down from Judea to Antioch. Because it was these Jewish Christians who had, by their false teaching, caused all the trouble in the first place. They had gone to Antioch without any authorization from the Jerusalem apostles.

Then, in their letter, the apostles repeated the things that James had said before the council (verse 20). Here in verse 29, they instruct the Gentile believers to abstain from blood, from the meat of strangled animals. That means that the Gentile Christians were not to eat the meat of any animal from which the blood had not been properly drained at the time it was killed. An animal that had been killed by strangling would not have had its blood drained, and thus should not be eaten.

Notice that in verse 28 the apostles write: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. The Holy Spirit was also present at that meeting. The Spirit had guided them. Let us remember that the Holy Spirit is present at all of our meetings. Whatever decision we come to, we need to be able to say: “This decision seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit.”

30-35 The Gentile Christians at Antioch received the apostles’ letter with gladness. The split that had threatened to come between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had been averted.

36 Paul proposed to Barnabas that they visit again the new churches which they had established in Cyprus and Galatia. It was essential that they do this. A pastor or preacher has a duty to follow up those who have heard and accepted God’s word as the result of their preaching; they must at least appoint a representative to do this if they cannot do it themselves. Confirming new believers is just as important as converting unbelievers.

37-39 Paul was unhappy with Mark, because Mark had deserted Paul and Barnabas (verse 38) during their first mission-aryjourney (Acts 13:13). The Bible does not give the reason why Mark deserted them.

However, Barnabas, who was Mark’s cousin, wanted to take Mark with them. Paul would not agree, and so Paul and Barnabas decided not to travel together; from that time on, they each went their own way.

In one way, we are sad to read about this disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. We see their weakness. They are men like ourselves. Disagreements can arise even between good and godly men, and cause them to separate.

But, in another way, we can see a good side to this event. Paul and Mark were evidently not compatible with each other. It would have been unwise to force Mark to travel with Paul. We can guess that Mark’s spiritual development might have been thwarted if he had remained under Paul’s authority. But Barnabas believed that, in time, Mark would become a mature and effective disciple. Barnabas, more than Paul, would be able to help Mark grow spiritually. Thus we can see it was to Mark’s benefit that he and Barnabas went of f in one direction, while Paul and Silas went of f in another.

We know that in the end Barnabas’ assessment of Mark proved to be correct. Later on, Mark became an important colleague of Peter. He wrote the New Testament Gospel of Mark. And even Paul’s opinion changed as time passed, because some years later Mark became one of Paul’s closest colleagues (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 23).

40-41 Another good thing resulted from the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas: instead of just one missionary team, there were now two. Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus, where Barnabas was born (Acts 4:36). And Paul and Silas went to Syria and Cilicia, where Paul was born (Acts 21:39). Thus began Paul’s second missionary journey.