Acts 15:37-39

And Barnabas determined to take with them John.

The contention between Paul and Barnabas

The contents of this chapter are famous for two things, that had most contrary events. The one, how a great variance was concluded with a happy concord. The other, how a small variance did proceed to an unhappy discord. The great variance was, whether such as were converted to believe in Christ must continue in the observation of the law of Moses. For some in the first verse of the chapter were so rigid that they held, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. This point was decided. And they that were Jewish were overborne by a moderate determination agreed upon by all the apostles and elders that met at Jerusalem. But when matter of doctrine and deep dispute could not divide the Church, Satan laid a smaller stumbling block in their way, and the two most holy servants of God, Paul and Barnabas, dashed their foot against it; and they that plucked a beam out of their brother’s eye were troubled with a mote in their own. It was not about a point of doctrine, but upon a circumstance of a person, no way considerable to the main benefit of the gospel, that begat a quarrel and a disjunction between them. Rather than Barnabas would suffer Mark to be discountenanced, he would forsake Paul. Rather than Paul would consent to Mark’s readmission, he would forsake Barnabas. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder the one from the other. Upon the handling of the text in several points--

1. We must enter in at a breach. Here was a contention.

2. This struggling was not between mean and ordinary persons, but between the champions of the holy cause, between Paul and Barnabas.

3. It was not carried with meekness and cool temper, but it swelled high, it was παροξυσμὸς, a sharp, a fretful contention.

4. They fell not out for anything that touched the life of truth, or the honour of Christ; the fortunes of Greece, as the proverb is, did not lie upon it; it was only about the accommodation of a person, whether Mark were fit for the present work: that was all the matter, and no more.

5. As small a matter as it was, it waxed to a separation, and to disjoin these two in body as well as in mind. They departed asunder the one from the other. Now I resume all this again.

I. And that which we meet first of all at the door of the text is contention. None of the least sins, none of the least punishments. For if Babel itself could not be built up among discord of tongues, how much more can Sion never be well built up with discord of hearts? If the nets be broken, the fishers of men may catch a draught, but they can keep nothing. Cut a seed of wheat in twain, and the pieces lose the nature of fructification. If words be not well put together they will make no sense; and if men’s senses do not well join together in one profession, they will make no Church. Contention is the devil’s wedge to rive asunder the Cross of Christ; it turns order into a heap, amity into jangling, unity into schism, and truth into heresy. The work of men is contention, the way of God is peace. We are sure He is in the still voice, and we are sure that He is not in the whirlwinds of controversies and uproars. Be it therefore propounded what we should do as well as pray, that we may be one, and that no contention fall among us. First bring a supple, a soft, a tractable mind, that hath a good affection to agreement, and I will undertake to furnish you with rules enough, that if you differ in no greater things than Paul and Barnabas did (yea, what if they were greater?) you may soon greet one another with the kiss of peace. “Only by pride cometh contention,” says Solomon (Proverbs 13:19). He that is wise in his own opinions will never want occasions to begin them, nor arguments to maintain them. And he that thinks the yielding party loseth in his honour, had rather lead and perish than follow after and be preserved. But humility is limper, and will easily bend; it is never given to contradiction; it stands not upon vain points of reputation, to carry the sway in every opposition. For let the wrangler get the better in obstinacy, the modest Christian shall overcome in charity. Mortify self-love, and peace will please you better than victory. The best that he can say for himself that continues in contention is, It is unreasonable that I should yield, for I am in the right. It were no hurt for a modest judgment to suspect itself in that confidence of persuasion. After this which I have required, that men be not rigid, but humble and flexible, the rules to be kept for composing smaller debates, and my text reacheth to no other, are these:

1. There is no exception to be made against the sentence of the law under which we live.

2. As the kingdom hath statute law, so the Church hath canons, which served our turn, to much benefit, in the best ages, before imperial laws came forth to help us.

3. When some cases fall out, for which neither laws nor canons have provided, custom hath much force to decide them. Long permission is a tolerable confirmation.

4. If it fall out that laws are silent, and customs are contrary one to another, then, by the privilege which we have above beasts, we must resort to reason.

5. I report me to the apostles, how they handled a discord in this chapter. Some would have all the ceremonies of Moses kept, which would have made the Gentiles become Jews, and not Christians. To prevent all schism, the apostles and elders fall upon that course, which we call media consilia, a middle temper. Some ceremonies the Gentile shall conform unto, that will appease the Jew. Some ceremonies the Jews shall forego, that will edify the Gentile.

6. What think you of arbitration? And the fewer arbiters the better. When many take the thing in hand, commonly it is so long a doing that it is never done. Make the appeal then to few.

II. Though there are so many remedies to stop contention, law, canons, custom, reason, middle temper, arbitration, yet my text tells you they do not always prevail, for the most considerable members of Christ’s body were at odds, Paul and Barnabas, which is the next point. Had they been enmities with infidels and pagans, with those that are without, they had been natural: for “what agreement hath light with darkness?” But this was a war at home, among themselves, a civil war. God help us if the right hand fight against the left, when both are made to defend the body. When the rams of the flock contend, the poor sheep that look on must stand amazed. But I stand to this doctrine, that Paul and Barnabas, and such good men as they are, may pursue a good meaning in a contrary way one to another, and be guiltless. For it is the ignorance of good men, and not their perverseness, which makes them seek the true end by multiplicity of means, and very opposite. Cloth of the same making hath not always the same dye. And they that are propense to glorify one God in the same Church, with the same charity, do not always build with the same materials. Paul loves the Church as well as Barnabas, but he would not offend it for want of justice. Barnabas loves the Church as well as Paul, but he would not offend it for want of clemency and compassion. Here is one wool and one cloth, but dipped in two colours. Then I let you see, that for their part that do equally consent to maintain the true gospel, the inequality of their judgments may be inoffensive. I would I could say for our own parts, that the dissensions of our Reformed Churches were unblamable, and that there were no transgression against charity in our discords. And no wonder if there be turbulent opinions in the congregation of malignants; for the best of God’s servants draw not the same yoke without a little jogging of the ark, there was a contention between Paul and Barnabas.

III. Nay, to our wonder, it rested not there, it exceeded the bounds of meekness, for in the third point my text says it was παροξυσηὸς, a sharp contention. “An unanimity of opinions is not necessary to friendship,” says Aristotle very well. Dear friends may retain the sweetness of love together, and yet vary in some conclusions of judgment. The dissensions of them that keep benevolent minds are not failings out, but wranglings. As Paul resisted Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11) boldly, but charitably. His confidence for the truth became him, and his inoffensiveness commended him. It was otherwise at this bout between him and Barnabas; passion and provocation transported them both so far, that it was a sharp contention. The Greek word παροξυσμὸς hath a cursed meaning in it. When a disease hath intermitted awhile, and begins its access and violence again, that is called a paroxysm of sickness; and when a babble is worse and worse louder and louder, that is a paroxysm of contention. These two, that had been fellow soldiers under Christ’s banner, in so many travails, in so many perils, in so many persecutions, they cannot bear with one another with patience; and they that were ready to die together cannot live together; they that were the strongest confederates in the world are the strongest opposites. Oh what a fickle and fallacious thing is the concord of men! Yet I must not say that the sharpness between two such sweet olive branches had any taste of the acid of reproach, or that they pierced one another with opprobrious speeches. I do not onerate them with any such accusation. Have they no regard of their common brotherhood in Christ, who are not satisfied to contend, but they must mix sharpness with it? And no small quantity. A sting is a little matter; they tear one another in pieces as with the paw of a lion. Their pen drops nothing but gall and venom, as if their quill were plucked from the wing of a cockatrice. And who is there of a candid and a clean soul that will not sooner be gained with the coolness of charity than with the heat of rage.

IV. Having acquainted you that Paul and Barnabas did disagree, and not simply so, but with some eagerness and provocation, might not a solid judgment suspect that some great offence had thrust itself in between them? You shall find it otherwise, that the contention was in no weighty cause; it touched not the life of truth, or the honour of Christ. The verse before my text will tell you all in the beginning of it, “Paul thought it not good to take Mark with him.” And our translation gives it more than is due to it, as I conceive. We say that “Paul thought it not good,” as if it were a matter of good or evil. Much better thus, as I apprehend, “Paul thought it not fit.” It was not what was good, for it was good either way, but what was more fit and meet that made the controversy. “This is fit,” says one; “‘Tis not so fit,” says his partner; a poor beginning for a sharp contention. It may be supposed, as I find it in part in a good author, that Barnabas pleaded on this wise for Mark. He had shrunk indeed from his calling, and left Paul at Pamphilia; but it was not strange in a novice to be a little daunted, when he was in jeopardy of his life. But give him his due, he had not renounced the faith, but retired home for fear of the world’s anger. Yet he defended not this fault, but repented, and bewailed it. Now he would fain begin afresh, for he felt himself by the grace of God more strong and resolute than ever. Should not indulgence be shown to his unfeigned repentance? Surely the son of so good a mother deserved some mildness and favour from the presidents of the Church. And what was more proper to Christ’s commissioners than to reconcile offenders that had gone astray? These reasons prevailing not with Paul, you may imagine with me, if you please, that his sentence was to this purpose. That they are worthy of great reproof that make excuses, and follow not Christ when He calls them. An easy pardon would flatter him in his fault; this repulse would make him know the magnitude of his sin. And why might not Paul have remitted a little of his rigour to have gratified Barnabas? And why not Barnabas have taken the denial friendly to content Paul? Sacrifice small and indifferent things to the fruition of peace. To hold fast to our conclusions in petty matters with all the strength of our will and wit is not constancy, but a worse thing.

V. This is the last point, and the saddest word of the text, this ἀποχωρησις, the departing asunder. To come even with the time I will fall presently upon the use.

1. This is utterly against our Saviour’s rule, “Go and be reconciled to thy brother” (Matthew 5:24). A wound will never be healed but by drawing the parts together that were dissolved. Affability and sweet conversation strikes fire out of a flint. But disjunction of persons is an eclipse of friendship, till the light of one doth shine with a propitious aspect upon the other. I know that in the case of these two apostles, though they were prevented with an error, yet shortly after their unkind farewell they returned to their Christian temper, and afterwards in sundry texts of Scripture Paul did put himself in the same scale with Barnabas, as with his sworn brother, as 1 Corinthians 9:6 : “I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?” And Galatians 2:9 : “James, Cephas, and John … gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” Here is another thing worthy our consideration. If Paul and Barnabas had both gone to Cilicia, Cyprus had wanted them; or if both had gone to Cyprus, Cilicia had wanted them. Now they were singled they propagated the faith of Christ both by sea and land. Barnabas sailed into Cyprus, and Paul journeyed into Cilicia. This was not like a bowstring snapped asunder; but they were two strings to one bow, and that which was division to themselves was multiplication to the gospel of Christ. Finally, they performed what they intended, to “visit their brethren in every city, where they had preached the Word of God” (verse 32). All governments, in all ages, have approved this to be the best way to conserve unity. It is impossible to avoid a multitude of corruptions in faith, and not to contract a prodigious licentiousness in discipline. Paul and Barnabas supervised the several cities where they had laid the foundation of evangelical faith; and, like careful rulers, interposed the power with which Christ had endued them, to keep their brethren dispersed far and wide in one. Though they were two upon a small disgust, yet they remembered there was but one Shepherd and one sheepfold, whose peace they studied to preserve by their pastoral vigilancy. (J. Hacket, D. D.)

The dissension between Paul and Barnabas

The two men were bound together by early associations, perhaps had been schoolmates at Tarsus. When Paul came to Jerusalem, Barnabas was the first to trust and welcome him. They were both devoted to the work among the Gentiles, and had shared the dangers and the glories of the first missionary tour. This companionship ended with the controversy about Mark. However unfortunate, it was not strange. Barnabas had reason for his confidence, Paul for his distrust. Both were right, both were wrong. They could agree only to disagree; and the second missionary tour was begun in unhappiness. Many familiar suggestions arise from this scene.

I. Very good men may have faults. These two had confessed at Lystra that they were men of like passions with us, but now each seems to have forgotten that; neither will make allowance for the other. We cannot expect always to have our own way, even when we are in the right. Were it certain that oar opponent is wholly in the wrong, we have no right to forget that, notwithstanding this error, he may be a good man. Trust his proved character. Do not lightly imperil a fellowship which has grown up in kindly helpfulness. A few hot words may undo the love of years, as a few blows of the axe cuts down the oak of a century’s growth. The Master had only faulty disciples, but He never lost one real friend. What would have become of them, of us, did He dwell upon real faults as much as upon possible virtues?

II. Personal characteristics and surroundings affect the judgment. Barnabas was Mark’s uncle; he knew him better than Paul could, and loved him better. The trusting spirit which had welcomed the newly-converted persecutor now received the repentant backslider; yet this charity of itself did not prove the young man was deserving of such a trust. Charitableness and affection become leniency, putting unfit men into responsible positions. Courage and self-denial stiffen into severity in judging weaker brethren.

III. One sin brings other sins and many sorrows. Mark’s weak shrinking shamed himself, dishonoured his Lord, and betrayed these true yoke-fellows into a pitiable strife.

IV. Christ uses imperfect labourers. He has no other. God must make the folly and wrath of man to praise Him, since folly and wrath appear even in true disciples.

V. True Christians will not remain at variance. How glad we are for that message from Paul to Timothy, “Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry”; and for the commendatory mention of Barnabas ten years later, in writing to the Corinthians. (Sermons by the Monday Club.)

The quarrel of Barnabas and Saul

The fact that such a scene is recorded proves the genuineness of the men. Had it been their object to impose upon mankind, such a scene as this would have been either not mentioned at all, or would have appeared in such a form as to conceal altogether what is morally offensive. As genuine men, they reveal themselves to us in the costume of real life, with all their imperfections about them. Note here--

I. That probability is no certain guide for us in judging the future. To all who were acquainted with these apostles, nothing could have appeared more improbable than that they should ever quarrel. They were both good men, they were old friends. They had been fellow labourers for a long time. They were apostles too, acting under the inspiration and direction of Christ. Under such circumstances, could anything appear more improbable than that such men should quarrel? Yet they did. We look to the future, and say, probably such an event will happen; yet how often the future falsifies our calculations and disappoints our hopes.

II. That little things are often more trying to the temper than great. These men for years had been in the most trying circumstances together. They had contended together with the bigoted Jew and the idolatrous Gentile. They had just returned from Jerusalem, where they had engaged in a most exciting debate, and seem to have gone through the whole of these things with unbroken equanimity. But now the mere question as to whether John should accompany them produces great irritation. Now this seems to us a small matter compared with other things that engaged their united attention; and yet it was this that broke the harmony of their friendship. It is often so. Call men together to discuss small questions, and they will quarrel; call them to work out a great object, and they will be cordial and unanimous. The best way to promote Church union is to engage in great works. Flies irritate the noble steed more than the roll of the chariot wheel.

III. That Christianity allows scope for discretionary action. These apostles took upon themselves to decide as to whether John should accompany them or not. No principle was involved in it--it was a mere question of expediency. We are allowed no discretionary action either as to moral principles or cardinal truths. But there is much in connection with the methods of extending Christianity that is left entirely with our judgment. Hence the discussion at Jerusalem was under the direction of the Holy Spirit. But here there was no special direction. Many such questions are left for such treatment--Church government, etc.

IV. That the best of men are not absolutely infallible. When the apostles spoke and acted under the inspiration of the Spirit, they were infallible. But they did not always thus speak and act, as the event we are discussing shows. There is but one perfect example, and thank God there is One; and He is to be followed through evil as well as good report.

V. That under the gracious rule of heaven evil is made subservient to the progress of good.

1. An increased area of usefulness. Instead of one district for both, which was contemplated, there was one for each. It led Paul into Europe.

2. An increased power of usefulness. Instead of two men there were four.

VI. That earnest work will inevitably rectify our tempers. They had not been parted long, I presume, before every particle of animosity went out. We find Paul referring kindly to Mark (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24), and also to Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9:6). (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The quarrel about John Mark

As a general rule there is nothing more miserable than to dwell upon others’ short comings. I call attention to the faults of three disciples to see that the old Adam is not utterly killed in the best of men.

I. The sharp quarrel between Paul and Barnabas. Mark, fired perhaps by the zeal of Paul, or impelled by the roving fancy of youth, had gone with the two to Antioch. They then took him on a missionary tour, but just when most needed he deserted. By and by, when another tour was in contemplation, Barnabas proposes to try him again. Paul refuses, and the contention was sharp. The only wise thing about the whole matter was the separation. It is far better for men who cannot work comfortably together to separate. If the contention had been patched up neither could have gone to the work with wholeheartedness. There were faults on both sides, but it would be difficult to say on whom the lesser blame rested. On the one hand there was the brave consistency which felt that a weak and irresolute man was not to be trusted with such a perilous mission; on the other there was the honest conviction that Mark was worth another trial.

1. The most godly men are still liable to sudden falls. A man never becomes so advanced in holiness as to get beyond the danger of old faults of temper. Let us seek the grace that makes a man the conqueror of his own spirit.

2. Those who are engaged in the same work may have antagonistic views on matters of prudence. It is no use trying all to see with one eye. Meanwhile we must have the spirit of charity, and bear with schemes which seem stupid and court failure.

II. The different stages of Mark’s life which these verses reveal. The unpromising youth often surprises us by superior development. Soldiers who have quailed before the first fire have afterwards distinguished themselves as brave men. So with Mark. Barnabas’ encouragement, combined with the sharp tonic administered by Paul, made a man of him. Both are needed today.

III. The honourable confession of Paul that Mark had turned out better than he had expected. (E. H. Higgins.)

Paul and Barnabas, their contention and separation

I. The apostles were not going forth as the delegates of a supreme central legislative assembly.

1. There was union between the Churches, but that was purely spiritual.

2. The visit was perfectly natural.

3. Being a second visit, it was calculated to show that they were not ashamed of their principles, nor afraid of their opponents.

II. Stability of character was necessary to usefulness in such a mission.

1. Friendship is no reason in itself why a man should be promoted to office.

2. Fickle men are not to be trusted in the service of truth when there is difficulty in the way.

III. Differences of opinion should not lead to the abandonment of principle.

1. Some wreak their vengeance on the cause of truth.

2. When two men cannot agree to toil in the same corner of the vineyard, let them honestly divide, and betake them to other departments.

3. The holiest men may have ruffled tempers sometimes.

4. The apostle afterwards received Mark into fellowship. “To err is human--to forgive, Divine.” (J. Parker, D. D.)

The separation of Paul and Barnabas

We are now out in the open air again (verse 35). For some days we have been in a stifling atmosphere, listening to great men debating the vexed question of circumcision. We feel our need of rest, after the passionate excitement through which we have gone. We will now live amongst friends, and be quiet and trustful, and grow in our apprehension of Divine purposes. Yet this is not to be. We come out of one contention into another. This is life all through and through--namely, a series of conflicts. Observe--

I. Paul’s love of work--“Let us go again.” Paul was bitten again with mission hunger. He himself was earnest; therefore he could not tolerate insincerity. There was no breach in his all but infinite integrity, and therefore a flaw in other men was not an accident but a crime. In his criticism of Mark, Paul gave a criticism of himself. Paul meant his work to be solid and enduring. This was the very purpose he had in view--namely, to consolidate young believers and immature thinkers and students; and to take with him, on such a mission, a man who himself had turned back from the plough, was an irony which vexed his soul. His purpose was to “confirm the Churches,” to make them stronger and stronger; and to be working with an instrument which had already broken in his hands was a moral irony, from which his very spirit recoiled. Everything depends upon the kind of work you are going to do. There is a place in the Church for everyone, and that is the problem which the Papacy has solved. The Papacy can use all sorts of men; Protestantism can use only one or two kinds. We must learn to employ men in proper departments who do not come up to the Pauline standard of excellence. Do not throw away any man for the sake of one fault, or even two. There may be a great deal of soundness in the apple that has upon it one patch of rottenness.

II. Barnabas’ charity. He is willing to give a man another chance in life. By so much he was a great man. From the point of righteous discipline, there can be no doubt of the grandeur of Paul; but a man who would give a youth another chance seems to me to have in him the true spirit of the Cross. Take heed how you administer discipline. Thank God for the few men here and there who are willing to try us again! We owe them our lives: we ought to live for them. We have hitherto considered Barnabas only a well-disposed, loving man, who would sit down or stand up, go or come, just as some superior nature might suggest or require. Such are often amongst the sternest men. Barnabas said to Paul, “No!” and even Paul could not change that No into a Yes. Afterwards the judgment of Barnabas was vindicated. Barnabas was in this respect a further-sighted man than Paul. There is only one infallible Person in the Church, and he is its Lord. Paul was but a man at the best; he himself said so. “Who then is Paul and who is Apollos?” In this respect Barnabas was a greater man than Paul. He is the true intellectual reader who says about a young man, “He has the Spirit of God in him, and the indestructible seed of the kingdom.” And he who, twenty years after, simply gives in to facts is not a man of penetration at all. Young man, live in the warm sunshine of those who hope the best about you. You owe nothing to the men who affirm your excellence when they cannot deny it.

III. There are mitigating circumstances in this controversy.

1. Both men were honest. It is something to have to deal with honest men, even when they oppose you.

2. The contention was not about the Master. Paul and Barnabas did not take two different views of Christ. They are not going to found separate theological sects.

3. The work was not abandoned, but was doubled. The destinations they selected were revelations of the spirit of the men. Barnabas goes into obscurity, Paul rises like a sun into a broader firmament.

4. The parties afterwards become reconciled. We have already said good-bye to Peter; so now we must say good-bye to Barnabas and Mark. At this point they both retire from the Acts of the Apostles. The withdrawment is in a kind of thunderstorm. Surely this cannot be all. Such lifelong friends cannot part in this way! We must know more about this. In 1 Corinthians 9:6 we hear again about Barnabas, and in 1 Peter 5:13; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11 we hear again about Mark. Well done, Mark! Well done, Paul! Few men have moral courage to correct themselves openly, to repair wrongs which, however unconsciously, they once inflicted. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Unity in disunion

I. St. Paul’s proposal (verse 36) to revisit the congregations was a proof of his sense of the precariousness of the Christian life. Throughout his Epistles we have the expression of the same spirit. He has scarcely left a place, when his anxiety about the well-being of his converts becomes too painful for him to bear. He sends back his only companion, and consents to be entirely solitary in a strange city, if he may but gain the desired tidings as to the stability of those whom he has left behind. It was so already at this early point in his ministry. It is a good thing to form new plans, originate new machineries, and carry the ministrations of the Church into homes and haunts which they have not yet penetrated. But in all this we must take heed lest we be chargeable with not well following up a work which has been well begun. When an impression is by God’s grace secured, still it may fade and flag and at last disappear if it be not vigorously and earnestly and constantly renewed. Oh, how precarious is the work of grace in the most promising of us all! What snares does Satan lay for the young, the newly confirmed, the just awakened, the recently reformed! So soon is the ground once cleared again overgrown; so soon is the impulse once communicated checked and impeded; so soon is the seed once sown snatched away, or scorched in its first budding, or choked finally in its growth; that there is need to say in the words here before us, “Let us go again,” etc.

II. The result of the proposal. Barnabas shared St. Paul’s feeling. But in settling the details of the enterprise a grave difference presented itself.

1. The subject of this dissension was a Christian subject. They were at variance as to the best way of prosecuting Christ’s work. It was not a quarrel arising out of this, that one of the two had gained, what both could not have, of the riches or honours or pleasures of the world. It was not that one had disparaged the ability or the probity or the spirituality of the other, and that this must awaken in the natural mind a resentment to be shown in retort or cherished in malice. Happy should we be, if our faults were only those of an excess of zeal and tenacity in reference to the work of Christ and the interests of souls!

2. That infirmity was redressed in the wisest and best of ways. It was with the dissension of two apostles, as with the dispute of Abram and Lot, Where no Divine law compels coexistence, separation is oftentimes the best cure for discord. “Live and let live.” If two of God’s servants cannot see things alike, let them agree to see them differently. If they cannot act together, they can at least believe together, and hope together, and together love. If each has Christ’s work and glory at heart, they will all be reconciled by the great reconciler: death, which is the gate of heaven, will make the crooked straight, and the rough places plain.

3. Separation was in this case followed--we know it--by concord.

III. The various aspects of the history.

1. The Holy Scriptures are no flattering tale. There is no screening, no palliating, of the infirmities of holy men. If men will make mischief of this they must. If men will say either, Because a saint did this, therefore it cannot be sin; or else, Because such a man did this, therefore he cannot be a saint: they are left to do so. The business of the Holy Scriptures, in these respects, is with facts, not with inferences. That Book which paints not men as either demons or heroes; that Book which tells me just what is true, and teaches me how to rise out of this which is truly the natural man into this which is as truly the Christian man; how to mourn over myself without despairing, and how to deal justly with others and yet not condemn; that I call a true Book: I see there man as he is, and God as He is: I see there a light to my steps, because it describes truly the wilderness which I traverse, and because it shows me how and by what guidance I can traverse it in safety. And if I see that the Book describes all else truly, because according to my daily experience of man and of man’s world, then I can believe it when I see that there is one Person, just one, and one only, whom it paints as indeed without sin; perfect Man, as much in the blamelessness of His life, as in the completeness of His nature.

2. This passage sets before us an all-working and all-ruling and all-restoring Providence of God. Out of evil comes forth good. Out of human infirmity there grows Divine strength. The unity of the work is broken, but out of the one divided there has sprung a two-fold completeness. (Dean Vaughan.)