Acts 15
BolesActs 15:1
DISPUTE ABOUT SETTLED
RAISED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA
1 And certain men came down from Judaea—Paul and Barnabas had just reported “all things” that God had done for the Gentiles through them, and that he had “opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 14:27.) Now certain ones came down “from Judaea,” or Jerusalem, claiming to have been sent by the apostles at Jerusalem. (Verse 24.) They attempted to close the door that opened to the Gentiles. These brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch with Jewish prejudice and exclusive narrowness. They claimed that the Gentile Christians could not be saved without circumcision. Thus they made the Jewish rite of circumcision a condition of Gentile salvation; they claimed that the church at Jerusalem authorized them to so teach. The church at Antioch was composed of Jew and Gentile converts. (Acts 11:19-20.) This was the place where such a question would be raised; the Jews and Gentiles had not been accustomed to meeting together for worship, except as the Gentiles became proselytes to the Jewish religion. But now in the early church Gentiles who were not proselytes and Jews were brought together in the church.
We do not know to what extent this question disturbed the church at Antioch, but from what follows it seems that it involved great issues. Now when these teachers came from Jerusalem and began to teach that the Gentile Christians must be “circumcised” according to “the custom of Moses” or they could not be saved, such teaching would arouse both the Jewish and Gentile portion of the church at Antioch. Hence, the teaching of those from Jerusalem would likely cause dissension.
Acts 15:2-5
PAUL AND SENT TO
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension—Paul and Barnabas “tarried no little time” with the church at Antioch; during this time these brethren came down from Jerusalem and insisted that the Gentile Christians be circumcised; Paul and Barnabas opposed them and “had no small dissension and questioning with them.” There seems to have been a very heated argument. “Dissension” comes from the Greek “staseos,” which literally means “strife,” a standing against it; it means an established order or opinion; a strife, one party holding to the established custom, and the other opposing them. “Questioning” comes from “zeteseos,” and means “a seeking” or “examining together, a muual questioning and discussion.” Finally the church appointed “Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them” to go to Jerusalem “unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Paul gives an account of this in Galatians 2:1-10. It seems that Paul suggested their going to Jerusalem. (Galatians 2:1.) It seems that these teachers from Jerusalem had reported that they were contending for circumcision of the Gentiles because the church at Jerusalem had so instructed them. Paul knew that it was best then to go to Jerusalem and to settle the matter, not for himself, but for those who did not know any better. We are told in Galatians 2:1 that Paul took Titus with him. It is usually reckoned that this journey of Paul’s to Jerusalem was his third visit to that city since his conversion, and that it occurred about A.D. 50.
3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church,—The church at Antioch not only, at Paul’s suggestion, requested these brethren to go to Jerusalem, but it assisted them in making the journey by helping to defray expenses and by their prayers and encouragement; they were thus “brought on their way by the church.” They passed through Phoenicia and Samaria by land. It was a journey of about three hundred miles southward along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, through Tyre and Sidon, cities of Phoenicia, and on through Samaria, probably where Philip had preached the gospel, and on to Jerusalem. As they went along the way, and as they had opportunity, they declared “the conversion of the Gentiles,” which “caused great joy unto all the brethren.” The great joy caused to the brethren of Phoenicia and Samaria by the recital of the conversion of the Gentiles shows the general sympathy with Paul and Barnabas.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem,—They left Antioch for Jerusalem to take the matter to “the apostles and the elders,” so when they came to Jerusalem “they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders.” The entire church was interested in the question. We know not how many of the apostles were present, neither do we know how many elders were in the church at Jerusalem. It should be noticed that though the apostles were there with all their apostolic authority, yet they recognized the “elders” of the church there, and took them into consultation with them. It seems that when they arrived they received a hearty welcome and that they lost no time in rehearsing “all things that God had done with them.” Paul and Barnabas implied in their rehearsal that what they had done, it was God doing it through them; therefore, God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision, and that the Jewish brethren ought to accept them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees—These Pharisees believed; they were Christians, but had been converted from the “sect of the Pharisees” to Christianity. The teachers at Antioch who had come down from Jerusalem are not described as Pharisees. Here for the first time we learn that some of the Pharisees had become Christians, and it is fair to imply that those who went out from Jerusalem to Antioch were from among these converted Pharisees. They were bold in their declaration and clear in the statement of the issue. They said: “It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.” This brings the issue to the fore; it is whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised.
Acts 15:6-29
AND ELDERS IN COUNCIL
6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together—Luke does not mention the “church” as he did in verse 4, but “the apostles and the elders” are mentioned; we know that the church is included here as we learn from verses 12 and 22. The “whole church” was called together to consider this matter with “the apostles and the elders.” The apostles, with their authority, no doubt, took the lead, and thus the church with its elders was trained under the guidance of the apostles. The importance of the matter was recognized and was given due consideration.
7 And when there had been much questioning,—It seems that a very full and free discussion was had; both sides were heard without partiality; this is the only fair way to discuss any matter over which there is a diversity of sentiment. “Questioning” is from the Greek “zeteseos,” and is the same word as used in verse 47. Here it means “debating,” as that is what was had. Some contended for the affirmative, the Gentile Christians should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas with others took the negative of this proposition. After much discussion “Peter rose up” and expressed himself. He referred to the case of Cornelius; he was a Gentile and was converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel by Peter.
God had accepted the entire household of Cornelius as Christians; even the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11) had also accepted the Gentiles as Christians without requiring them to be circumcised. Peter reminds the church of this and refreshes their memory, for he says it had been “a good while ago.” According to the best chronology, it had been at least ten years since the conversion of Cornelius, and it had been about twenty years since Pentecost, so the church at this time was about twenty years old. It was fitting for Peter to speak at this time; he had waited until both sides had been heard and now it is his time as an apostle, and with the experience that he had had at the house of Cornelius and the church at Jerusalem, to speak as he did.
8-9 And God, who knoweth the heart,—God had given the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45); this shows that God, who knoweth all things, had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; Peter had related the incident to the church at Jerusalem and the church had accepted the Gentiles as Christians without circumcision (Acts 11:18.) God had made no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, and man should make no distinction. Peter seemed to be somewhat surprised that there should be no difference, but God had made none, and he had to accept that fact. Peter gives an additional thought that both Jews and Gentile were accepted by God on the basis of their faith in Christ; neither Jew nor Gentile was to be accepted as Christians by keeping the law of Moses. Their hearts were purified by faith; anyone who believed in idolatry had an impure heart, and those who believed in Christ, in the sense of accepting Christ, had a pure heart. Both Jew and Gentile had to hear the same gospel, believe the same gospel, repent of their sins, and be buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in a new life, in order to become Christians ; no distinction so far as the terms of remission of sins are concerned; no distinction so far as acceptance to God.
10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God,—Peter puts the matter in an interrogative form and asks, “Why make ye trial of God?” as though God had made a mistake when he gave the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius and accepted them without circumcision. They were refusing to accept that which God had accepted, or they were rejecting those whom God had accepted. They were laying down conditions that God had not imposed on the Gentiles, and placing a yoke upon the Gentiles that even the Jews were not able to bear. No Jew ever kept the law of Moses perfectly ; even those who were now insisting on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians had not kept faithfully the law, yet they wanted to place that yoke upon the Gentile Christians. Peter shows here that they not only opposed God, but they were inconsistent with themselves. The figure of “a yoke” is used here, and is the same that Paul used in Galatians 5:1.
Peter had been slow to see this point, as it took a miracle to convince him of the truth of it at Joppa and Caesarea. Peter has made four points that stand out distinctly: (1) he was directed by God to receive the Gentiles, as in the case of Cornelius; (2) God endorsed the reception of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit; (3) faith produced precisely the same effect in both Jew and Gentile; (4) the Jews have no right to put on the Gentiles a yoke which God had not put on them.
11 But we believe that we shall be saved—The salvation which both Jew and Gentile could enjoy came through the grace of God. “Grace” means the unmerited favor of God; the free grace of God was expressed by his sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. The conditions of remission are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commands. Salvation was not to come through the law of Moses, but through Christ. We have in this verse the last recorded words of Peter in the Acts.
12 And all the multitude kept silence;—The church had assembled with its elders and the apostles; now “the multitude kept silence”; the multitude became silent after Peter’s speech; he had profoundly impressed the multitude and had presented such clear and forcible arguments that there was nothing that could be said with profit. Again, the church had learned to respect the apostles when they spoke. Paul and Barnabas now spoke. Here again Barnabas is mentioned before Paul, because he was better known at Jerusalem than Paul. Paul and Barnabas rehearsed “what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.” Again, Paul and Barnabas give God the praise and honor for all that had been done among the Gentiles. Three times (Acts 14:27 Acts 15:4 Acts 15:12) Paul is described as telling the facts about the work that was done among the Gentiles; the rehearsal of the facts was more powerful than mere argument.
God had done wonderful things among the Gentiles, and had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision. The Jewish Christians put themselves in opposition to God when they insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas merely testified to the facts and left the Jewish Christians to make application of them and to draw their own conclusions; there was only one conclusion to draw, and it was in favor of Paul and Barnabas.
13-14 And after they had held their peace,—There had been a general discussion in which all who wished took part; then Peter made a speech and presented invincible arguments; then Paul and Barnabas briefly rehearsed what God had done for the Gentiles through them, with the clear conclusion that God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; now James makes the final speech. This James has been called “James the Just,” and he was considered a representative of the Jewish Christians. The Judaizing teachers possibly counted on him as a champion of their views, for they later made the wrong use of his name against Peter at An-tioch. (Galatians 2:12.) This is the James who was the author of the epistle of James; he was not one of the twelve apostles, but after the death of James (Acts 12:2), the brother of John, he became a leader in the church at Jerusalem. James reviewed the argument made by Peter as to how “God visited the Gentiles” to preach the gospel to them, and “take out of them a people for his name.” James here has reference to Cornelius and his household; they had been called out from among the heathen to be God’s chosen just as Israel was. James clearly sees the hand of God in Peter’s course at Caesarea, and in what Paul and Barnabas had done among the Gentiles.
15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets;—It was startling to the Jewish Christians that God would extend the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles; however, they should have known that the Messiah was to be a universal Savior. The prophets of Israel had foretold of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The prophet Amos is quoted here (Amos 9:11-12) by James, but the quotation is not a literal quotation from the Old Testament; some of the words are changed, but James, by the Holy Spirit, is giving the meaning of the prophecies. While James quotes only one prophet, Amos, yet he uses “prophets” in the plural. Other prophets had foretold the acceptance of the Gentiles. (Isaiah 2:2-4 Isaiah 49:6; Micah 4:1-4.) The interpretation of the quotation given by James is that “the tabernacle of David” had been wrecked, but that it would be rebuilt and that the Gentiles would be admitted into it. The prophecy from Amos speaks first of the fall of the Jewish race, next the promise that God would build a new church on the ruins of the old and gather the Gentiles into it, and finally those who were saved would enjoy salvation only through the Messiah.
The picture here is the wrecked tent or tabernacle which was erected was boughs of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, and which was rebuilt annually. “Tabernacle of David” is from the Greek “skenen Daueid,” and is a poetical figure of the throne of David. (2 Samuel 7:12.) In the rebuilding of the spiritual house of David, believers are to come from all nations of the earth. By the figure of a place falling to ruins, the devastated state of the kingdom is represented; the prosperity to be bestowed was to come in the days of the Messiah, and would consist of spiritual blessings, and a kingdom of righteousness would be established by the Messiah and the Gentiles would seek the Lord and become his people.
19-20 Wherefore my judgment is,—James now, speaking by the Holy Spirit, gives his judgment in the matter. It seems that James was acting as chairman of the meeting, and that it was left to him to sum up and conclude the whole matter. He is now ready to do this. The conclusion that James expresses is “that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God.” This decision coincided with the decision that Paul and Barnabas had already reached and had preached. It was against the Judaizing teachers. James’ decision, as expressed, was somewhat in the form of a motion; the question had been discussed and now James moved that the entire church coincide with Paul and Barnabas, and that they write.
James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. A further admonition of James is that “we write unto them” and give them such help and encouragement as they may need. In this letter James suggests that they “abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.” Four things are here mentioned: (1) pollution of idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; (4) abstain from blood. The words which James uses here denote formal decision sent by special messengers to the Gentile Christians. “Pollutions of idols” means the worship of idols, and especially eating the meats offered unto idols; one who in any form worships an idol is said to be unclean; hence, they should refrain from the pollution of idols. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were common sins among the heathen; these Gentile Christians had left all of these things when they became Christians, and are now exhorted not to return to them. The law of Moses enjoined certain restrictions about the eating of blood and respecting the life of animals; the Gentile Christians are not to be controlled by the law of Moses; they are to observe the general principles of righteousness and holiness.
21 For Moses from generations of old—The law of Moses was read in every synagogue on the Sabbath; there was usually a teacher that interpreted or gave the meaning of the law. Hence, to “preach” Moses was to preach and interpret the law of Moses; so to “preach” Christ is to preach the gospel, or to preach the law of Christ. Wherever there was a synagogue Moses was preached on the Sabbath. There have been different views as to why James made this statement. Some think that James here answers an ob-jection that the Jewish Christians might advance; that is, if such freedom were granted to the Gentiles, the law of Moses would decline in authority; others think that it was not necessary to write these things to Jewish Christians, for they had the law of Moses; a third view regards these words as spoken in the interest of peace and harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It seems that James had reference in a general way to the general practice of the Jews, and it was not necessary to place the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. The Jews had for a long time been taught to respect the law of Moses; they did not have to lose any respect for Moses or for the law, but they were to see that salvation came through Christ, and not through the keeping of the law.
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders,—A unanimous decision was reached, since “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church,” decided to select some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and there give the decision reached by the church at Jerusalem. We are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and the elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion. This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas and for the truth. However, James was practical, and did not stop with just the speeches and the decision; it must be conveyed to the church at Antioch. While they trusted Paul and Barnabas, yet they followed the wise course in selecting some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and bear the decision as a message to the church at Antioch.
So they selected “Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.” Some have thought “Judas called Barsabbas” was a brother of Barnabas, but there is no evidence to this effect. Silas is probably the abbreviated form of Silvanus, who later became one of Paul’s companions in traveling. (1 Peter 5:12.) Judas and Silas were “chief men among the brethren.” Such men would carry weight with the church at Antioch.
23 and they wrote thus by them,—The letter written was brief, yet it was clear and emphatic. The form of the letter shows that “the apostles and the elders” and brethren include “the whole church”; hence, it is a letter from the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The importance of this letter is enhanced in value by the fact that the Jerusalem church was the center of Christianity among the Jews, and the church at Antioch was the center among the Gentiles; this will help to bring together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians in “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” The decision reached affected all Gentile Christians in every country, but only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned. This geographical notice of the Gentile Christians gives some idea as to the effect of the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; the harvest had been great. This also shows the activity of the church at Antioch in preaching the gospel to the regions round about.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us—Recognition is given here of those Judaizing teachers who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch, claiming to have been sent out by the church at Jerusalem; condemnation or denial is made of their being sent by the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they had no apostolic authority for insisting that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised; neither did the church at Jerusalem endorse them. The church at Jerusalem felt in some measure to be responsible for the trouble these teachers had caused the church at Antioch, but now they are repudiated and a correction of their teachings is made. Hence, these teachers went of their own accord and on their own responsibility, and did not represent the church at Jerusalem. Their teaching had subverted the souls of the Gentile Christians. “Subverting” comes from the Greek “anaskeuzo,” and means “to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage”; this is a vivid picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch.
25-26 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord,—So there was a unanimous decision reached. The apostles, elders, and the “whole church” had come to “one accord” about this matter. “Having come to one accord” is from the Greek “geno- menois homothumadon,” and clearly means that the final unity was the result of the private and public talks or discussion which was had on the subject. We are not told whether the Christians from “the sect of the Pharisees” (verse 5), who at first contended that “it is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keepear that all were convinced. Here again we have the order: “Barnabas and Paul,” instead of “Paul and Barnabas.” This is the order that was used before Paul’s first missionary journey, when he became the more prominent of the two. (Acts 11:30 Acts 13:2.) Barnabas in this official letter stands before Paul, because Paul had spent but little time in Jersalem, while Barnabas among the Christians there had for some time been a well-known character and honored leader. The church at Jerusalem recognized the great danger that Paul and Barnabas had suffered, as they are described in this letter as “men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They recognized the courage and heroism of Paul and Barnabas; this fact also proved the sincerity of Paul and Barnabas.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,—Judas and Silas would confirm by word of mouth that which was written in the letter. Here we see another reason for sending Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said in the entire account of Luke of the presence of Titus who went along with Paul and Barnabas. (Galatians 2:1-3.) Judas and Silas could not only confirm what was written, but they could represent the church at Jerusalem. They would testify to the genuineness of the letter and would strengthen the decision that had been reached; their presence and testimony would have a good effect also on the Gentile Christians.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,—Here the authority of the Holy Spirit accompanies the decision written in the letter. This showed that the decision reached was the will of God, and that those who so expressed themselves were expressing the will of God. The decision was not merely man’s decision or opinion, but was the inspired will of God. No burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians other than what the Holy Spirit placed upon them. Only such “necessary things” were required by the Holy Spirit. The restrictions named did constitute some burden, but it was necessary for their salvation. Some think that these “necessary things” were only “necessary” for the times in which they lived, but are not necessary for Christians today; however, it seems that these things are as necessary today as they were at that time.
29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,—James had mentioned these things in his speech. (Verse 20.) They now write them in the letter which is to be sent. In his speech James stated that they should “abstain from the pollutions of idols,” but now it is written that they should “abstain from things sacrificed to idols.” Some discussion has been had as to the meaning of abstaining “from blood.” Some think that it means to abstain from murder; others, to abstain from the eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. It seems clear here that “the blood” is the blood of animals and that it should not be eaten. (Leviticus 17:10-15.) The heathen caught the blood of the animal in a vessel when the animal was slain and ate it as food; this was not allowed to the Jew for the reasons assigned in Leviticus 17:13-14 and Deuteronomy 12:16 Deuteronomy 12:23. God had forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood. (Genesis 9:4.) Then it was incorporated in the law of Moses, and seems to be forbidden of Christians today. “Things strangled” means that they were to refrain from eating the flesh of animals that had been strangled. “Strangled” comes from the Greek “pniktou,” and means “life taken without shedding the blood”; hence, animals strangled had the blood left in the body, and in eating the flesh one would eat the blood. They were to keep themselves from fornication, or live chaste lives. The letter concludes that if the Gentile Christians would observe these things it would be well with them, and then concludes with “fare ye well.” This comes from the Greek “valete,” and means “be ye strong.” This was a common way of closing a letter.
Acts 15:30-35
AT ANTIOCH
30 So they, when they were dismissed,—It seems that there was some formal dismissal or sending of Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, away from Jerusalem. We are not told how they journeyed from Jerusalem to Antioch, but they probably went through Phoenicia and Samaria and comforted the disciples on the way by telling them of the decision at Jerusalem. This would encourage other Christians to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and it would encourage the Gentiles to accept the gospel. When they arrived at Antioch, they “gathered the multitude together,” or the church was assembled, and “they delivered the epistle.” It should be noted that the message is not called “a judgment,” “a sentence,” “an order,” or “a decree”; it is simply called “the epistle.” This was the first or beginning of the New Testament scripture, the first of the epistles; it was addressed to Christians in Antioch, in Syria, and Cilicia; later other epistles were written. Since this one has been incorporated in the book of Acts, emphasis has not been given to it that probably would have been given had it been separate and independent from the history in Acts.
31 And when they had read it,—There was a formal sending away from the church at Jerusalem and a formal reception of these brethren at Antioch. It seems that there was no delay in gathering the church together at Antioch and reading the epistle. It gave great consolation to the church at Antioch. “Consolation” comes from the Greek “paraklesei,” which means “encouragement” ; consolation and exhortation are very close akin. There was great rejoicing at Antioch, and especially among the Gentile Christians there.
32 And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets,—The first mention of Judas and Silas (verse 22) classes them as “chief men among the brethren”; now they are spoken of as “prophets.” “Prophetai” is the same word used for Paul and Barnabas and Agabus (Acts 11:27-30) ; it means “for speakers for Christ.” These brethren were useful while at Antioch, for they exhorted the brethren and confirmed them in the faith. It was a happy time with the church at Antioch to have this question settled, for it had given much trouble.
33 And after they had spent some time there,—We do not know how long Judas and Silas remained at Antioch, but long enough to encourage the church there. It seems that they were dismissed in a formal way as they were received in a formal way. “Dismissed in peace” was a formal dismissal. (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50 Luke 8:48; Acts 16:36.) Probably Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem to give an account to the church there, but Silas soon returned to Antioch and he and Paul became fellow workers.
34 But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.—This verse has been omitted by the revisers because it is not found in the older manuscripts and in many of the chief versions. It was evidently a marginal insertion to explain how Silas was conveniently at hand (verse 40) for Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.
35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch,—Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch. As they tarried in Antioch they taught and preached “the word of the Lord.” During the sojourn of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch the dispute took place between Paul and Peter as related in Galatians 2:11-16. Luke omits this episode, but relates the dispute between Paul and Barnabas. (Verse 39.) “Teaching” means to instruct; hence, they instructed the church. While “preaching” means the proclamation of the gospel, it is sometimes applied to evangelists who proclaim the gospel to aliens. “Teaching” is expounding the word of the Lord, while “preaching” is evangelizing or proclaiming the gospel. There were many other teachers and preachers in Antioch.
Acts 15:36-41
PAUL’S SECOND JOURNEY
PAUL SELECTS SILAS
36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas,—Paul takes the initiative as the leader; he had publicly rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) and is anxious to go back to the fields where he has planted churches. He desired to return and “visit the brethren in every city” where he and Barnabas had preached “the word of the Lord.” He was anxious to see how the young churches were getting along, and to give them any further instructions that they might need. We must know that the “some days” and the “some time” that expired while the church was busy in the development of leaders and teachers kept up the zeal of the church. A commonly accepted chronology of Acts makes the interval between the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and the beginning of Paul’s second missionary journey somewhat more than a year.
37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John—Barnabas wished and willed to take along with them John Mark, his cousin. Mark had started with them on the first tour, but had turned around at Perga (Acts 13:13) and returned to Jerusalem. It was to the house of Mary the mother of Mark that Peter went after his release from prison (Acts 12:12).
38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him—Barnabas had resolved to take Mark with him, and may have spoken to him and arranged with him to go, but Paul thought it was not best to take Mark since he “withdrew from them from Pamphylia,” and did not continue with them on their first journey. Here was a difference in judgment; we are not to understand that the Holy Spirit guided either one of these good men, as it was a mere difference in human judgment as to what was expedient in the matter. Since Mark had turned back on the first journey, Paul was not willing to risk taking with them as a helper one who had left them in the midst of the work on their first journey.
39 And there arose a sharp contention,—“Contention” here comes from the Greek “paroxusmos,” and is our word for “paroxysm” in English; it means to sharpen as of a blade, and of the spirit. It seems that the “Son of consolation,” Barnabas, lost his temper in a dispute over his cousin, and Paul uses sharp words toward his benefactor and friend. It is frequently the case that little irritations of life give occasion for violent explosions. Some think that the incident between Paul and Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) was known to Mark, and that Mark took sides with Peter; hence, Paul was not so kindly disposed to take Mark with them; he would have been a hindrance to the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles had he gone with them and held to the view that the Gentiles should be circumcised. However, we do not know any more than is recorded here. The result of the contention determined Paul and Barnabas to separate and each follow his own independent course.
We know that Paul held no malice toward Barnabas and Mark. Barnabas is not mentioned again in Acts, but both Barnabas and Mark are mentioned by Paul in a way that showed confidence had been restored, for Paul speaks of them in warm commendation in his letters to Corinth, Colosse, and Timothy. (1 Corinthians 9:6; Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11.) “Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus.” Cyprus was the home of Barnabas; this was the first place visited by Paul and Barnabas on their first tour. Paul’s mention of Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows that Barnabas was busy in the work of the ministry, and the later mentions of Mark show that Paul had confidence in him and commended him very highly.
40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,—Silas had returned to Jerusalem with Judas after his visit to Antioch, but now we find him back in Antioch. Paul was commended by the brethren to the grace of God which shows that his selection of Silas was approved by the church at Antioch. It seems that the sympathy of the church at Antioch was with Paul rather than with Barnabas in the contention between Paul and Barnabas. Silas was a suitable companion for Paul; he had influence in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22) and was apparently a Roman citizen also. (Acts 16:37.) Silas, or Silvanus, is mentioned in the epistles by Paul and Peter. (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Peter 5:12.) It is remarkable that Peter mentions both Mark and Silas as with him at the same time. (1 Peter 5:12-13.)
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia,—Paul and Silas went forth on Paul’s second missionary tour to confirm the churches and to establish other churches. They are to further the cause of Christ especially among the Gentiles. It is interesting to know that Barnabas went to his native Cyprus, and Paul went to his native Cilicia, each to regions familiar from childhood. Paul and Silas would have to go through a part of Syria in order to reach Cilicia if they traveled by land. The letter from the church at Jerusalem to the Gentile Christians would be of special interest to the churches in Syria and Cilicia, as it was addressed to the Christians in these provinces. (Acts 15:23.) The reading of this letter would confirm the churches in these sections, but the presence of Paul and Silas would have great influence on the churches.