Hechos 15:39 Comentario

Hitherto we have, with a great deal of pleasure, attended the apostles in their glorious travels for the propagating of the gospel in foreign parts, have seen the bounds of the church enlarged by the accession both of Jews and Gentiles to it; and thanks be to that God who always caused them to triumph. We left them, in the close of the foregoing chapter, reposing themselves at Antioch, and edifying the church there with the rehearsal of their experiences, and it is a pity they should ever be otherwise employed; but in this chapter we find other work (not so pleasant) cut out for them. The Christians and ministers are engaged in controversy, and those that should have been now busied in enlarging the dominions of the church have as much as they can do to compose the divisions of it; when they should have been making war upon the devil's kingdom they have much ado to keep the peace in Christ's kingdom. Yet this occurrence and the record of it are of great use to the church, both for warning to us to expect such unhappy discords among Christians, and direction to us what method to take for accommodating them. Here is, I. A controversy raised at Antioch by the judaizing teachers, who would have the believing Gentiles brought under the yoke of circumcision and the ceremonial law (Act 15:1, Act 15:2). II. A consultation held with the church at Jerusalem about this matter, and the sending of delegates thither for that purpose, which occasioned the starting of the same question there (Act 15:3-5). III. An account of what passed in the synod that was convened upon this occasion (Act 15:6). What Peter said (Act 15:7-11). What Paul and Barnabas discoursed of (Act 15:12). And, lastly, what James proposed for the settling of this matter (Act 15:13-21). IV. The result of this debate, and the circular letter that was written to the Gentile converts, directing them how to govern themselves with respect to Jews (Act 15:22-29). V. The delivering of this determination to the church at Antioch, and the satisfaction it gave them (Act 15:30-35). VI. A second expedition designed by Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles, in which they quarrelled about their assistant, and separated upon it, one steering one course and the other another (Act 15:36-41).

And certain men which came down from Judea,.... To Antioch; they were not sent by the apostles, they came down of "themselves"; who they were, is not certain; that they were "judaizing" Christians, and teachers among them, is plain from the following account: according to Epiphanius (g) they were Cerinthus, and some of his followers: these taught the brethren; the Gentile converts at Antioch, who are styled "brethren", though they were Gentiles, because they were regenerated by the grace of God, and were of the same faith with the believing Jews, and in the same church state with them at Antioch: and said, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses; or custom of Moses, which had been used from the time of Abraham, and was revived and reinforced by Moses; wherefore the Syriac version renders it, "the law of Moses"; See Gill on Joh 7:19. ye cannot be saved; these men were not only for retaining circumcision, which was now abolished, but they made it necessary to salvation; which was carrying the matter further than even the unbelieving Jews themselves did, at least some of them: for though indeed it is a notion with them, that no circumcised persons go to hell, but are all saved; and some of them say, that God rejects uncircumcised persons, and brings them down to hell (h); yet others of them speak of the godly among the nations of the world, and of the proselytes of the gate, who keep the seven precepts of Noah, as persons that shall be saved; so Ananias the Jew, preceptor to King Izates, when he signified his great desire to be circumcised, in order to put him off of it, told him, that if he was determined to follow the customs of the Jews, he might worship God without circumcision, which was more peculiar to the Jews than to be circumcised (i). (g) Contra Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 28. (h) Shemot Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 104. 4. (i) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2. sect. 5.

And Paul chose Silas,.... To be his companion and assistant; this being the design of the Holy Ghost in influencing his, mind to stay longer at Antioch, after he, with Judas, was dismissed by the church to go to Jerusalem, Act 15:33. and departed; that is, from Antioch: being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God; See Gill on Act 13:26. The apostle having such a recommendation by the brethren of the church at Antioch, when he departed from them, and nothing of this kind being said with respect to Barnabas, have induced some to think, that the church took the part of the apostle against Barnabas, in the dispute between them; since the one went away saluted by them, and the other not.

"And how is it not amiss, that upon so small a matter there should arise so great an evil?" In the first place then, no evil did come of it, if, sufficing each for whole nations, they were divided the one from the other, but a great good. And besides, they would not readily have chosen to leave each other. But admire, I pray you, the writer, how he does not conceal this either. "But at any rate," say you, "if they must needs part, let it be without exasperation." Nay, but if nothing more, observe this, that in this too is shown what was of man (in the preaching of the Gospel). For if the like behooved to be shown (even) in what Christ did, much more here.

"And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." And already indeed Luke has described to us the character of the Apostles, that the one was more tender and indulgent, but this one more strict and austere. For the gifts are diverse-(the gifts, I say), for that this is a gift is manifest-but the one befitting one, the other another set of characters, and if they change places, harm results instead of good. In the Prophets too we find this: diverse minds, diverse characters: for instance, Elias austere, Moses meek. So here Paul is more vehement.

The point to be considered, is not that they differed in their opinions, but that they accommodated themselves the one to the other (seeing), that thus it was a greater good their being parted: and the matter took a pretext from this. What then? did they withdraw in enmity? God forbid! In fact you see after this Barnabas receiving many encomiums from Paul in the Epistles. There was "sharp contention," it says, not enmity nor quarrelling. The contention availed so far as to part them. And with reason: for what each supposed to be profitable, he did not forego thereafter, because of the fellowship with the other. Nay, it seems to me that the parting took place advisedly, and that they said one to another "As I wish not, and thou wishest, therefore that we may not fight, let us distribute the places." So that in fact they did this, altogether yielding each to the other: for Barnabas wished Paul's plan to stand, therefore withdrew; on the other hand, Paul wished the other's plan to stand, therefore he withdrew.

And there seems indeed to be exasperation, but in fact the whole matter is a plan of the Divine Providence, that each should receive his proper place: and it behooved that they should not be upon a par, but the one should lead, and the other be led. "And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." And this also is a work of Providence. For the Cyprians had exhibited nothing of the like sort as they at Antioch and the rest: and those needed the softer character, but these needed such a character as Paul's.

Would to God we too made such separations, as to go forth for preaching. A wonderful man this is; and exceedingly great! To Mark this contest was exceedingly beneficial. For the awe inspired by Paul converted him, while the kindness of Barnabas caused that he was not left behind: so that they contend indeed, but the gain comes to one and the same end. For indeed, seeing Paul choosing to leave him, he would be exceedingly awed, and would condemn himself, and seeing Barnabas so taking his part, he would love him exceedingly: and so the disciple was corrected by the contention of the teachers: so far was he from being offended thereby.

And besides, the contention cannot be said to be evil, when each disputes for such objects (as here) and with just reason. I grant you, if the exasperation were in seeking his own, and contending for his own honor, this might well be (reproved): but if wishing, both the one and the other, to instruct and teach, the one took this way and the other that, what is there to find fault with? For in many things they acted upon their human judgment; for they were not stocks or stones. And observe how Paul impeaches (Mark), and gives the reason. For of his exceeding humility he reverenced Barnabas, as having been partner with him in so great works, and being with him: but still he did not so reverence him, as to overlook (what was necessary).

This happens even in the case where God and men are the parties: the man requests, God is wroth. For instance, when He saith, "If her father had spit in her face": and again, "Let me alone, and in Mine anger I will blot out this people." And Samuel when he mourns for Saul. For by both, great good is done. Thus also here: the one is wroth, the other not so. The same happens also in matters where we are concerned. And the sharp contention with good reason, that Mark may receive a lesson, and the affair may not seem mere stage-playing. For it is not to be thought that he who bids, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath," would have been wroth because of such a matter as this: nor that he who on all occasions gave way would not have given way here, he who so greatly loved Paul that before this he sought him in Tarsus, and brought him to the Apostles, and undertook the alms in common with him, and in common the business relating to the decree.

"A sharp disagreement," he said, "arose," nor a love of conflict. Yet the sharp disagreement was such that it separated them from one another; and with the highest righteousness, which each considered to be beneficial, he later confirmed this by an act of sharing toward him. [CHRYSOSTOM]

It seems reasonable that the separation arose from mutual understanding, and to say to one another that "Since I wish it and you do not, so that we do not quarrel, let us divide the regions." Therefore they entirely yielded to one another in this. For Barnabas wished that Paul should remain, and therefore he departed. Yet we also find this among the prophets: different dispositions and different temperaments, as Elijah is severe, Moses gentle, so likewise here Paul is the more intense of the two compared to Barnabas. This battle was very beneficial to Mark. For it turned back Paul's harshness, and made Barnabas kind so that he would no longer be abandoned. Therefore they fight, but in the end increase is accomplished. For seeing Paul lifted up to depart, he became very afraid and condemned himself, and seeing Barnabas therefore opposing him, he would very much love him. And the student was corrected through the struggle of the teachers, so that he kept far from being scandalized. For when he saw himself therefore cast out because of his idleness by Paul, he hurried with zeal on the second course to cover up his former annoyance, greatly benefited by Paul's correctness. What then? Did the enemies withdraw? By no means! That there was not hostility toward the apostles is shown everywhere afterward by Barnabas enjoying many praises from Paul in his letters. [CHRYSOSTOM]

There was, however, discord. Do not think this a sin. For it is not wrong to be troubled, but to be troubled irrationally, without any just cause.

And Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. For the brother he loved and who was related to him (for they are said to have been cousins), Barnabas, separated from Paul, returned to his native island, and nonetheless carried out the evangelical work commanded to him.

A certain misunderstanding arose between Paul and Barnabas: one stood on the ground of justice, while the other wished to set justice aside, but each had one goal—the service of faith. The cause of the misunderstanding was as follows. On the evangelical journey, a certain Mark accompanied them from Palestine to Perga of Pamphylia, who, being a weak person, fell behind the apostles and returned to Palestine, not denying Christ, however, but refusing to continue the journey as too difficult for him. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas returned with abundant fruits of faith and piety and proclaimed to the church in Jerusalem the conversion and repentance of the Gentiles. When Paul and Barnabas began to receive praise for their labors, Mark grew sorrowful and troubled in soul, because he thought: if he too had been with the apostles, he would have become a partaker in their glory. And therefore he again wished to accompany them. Barnabas accepted him as one who had repented, but Paul insisted that one should not take along on the Lord's work a man who had been unable to accompany them before. Thus, the disagreement had the character not of injustice but of righteousness, and it arose from a misunderstanding. Paul demanded justice; Barnabas demanded compassion. Differing in opinions, they were united in their feeling of piety and were divided not by faith and convictions but by human misunderstanding. This happened, however, by God's arrangement, because as soon as they parted, Barnabas took Mark with him and went his own separate way. But Paul's strict exactness also brought its benefit to Mark, since through his zeal he strove to make amends for his former negligence. Paul advised the churches not to receive Mark not in order to grieve him, but in order to make him more zealous, and when he saw that Mark had shown signs of zeal and justified himself by his subsequent actions, he begins to commend him and say: "Greetings to you from… Mark, the nephew of Barnabas (concerning whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, receive him)" (Col. 4:10). We observe a difference in opinions and temperaments among the prophets as well. Thus, Elijah is stern, Moses is meek. In the same way here too: Paul is more insistent than Mark. But look: he is at the same time also forbearing. He did not grow heated, but insisted firmly on not taking Mark. So then, what? Did Paul and Barnabas part as enemies? God forbid! In Paul's epistles you find that Barnabas received much praise from Paul after this. It even seems to me that they parted by mutual agreement, saying to each other: "Since you do not want what I want, and vice versa, let us, so as not to argue, choose different regions for preaching." And so they did, fully yielding to one another. And this was written for our instruction, to warn us against falling, because we, being human, cannot avoid disputes, but in disputes we should make mutual concessions. But for Mark this dispute was as beneficial as possible. Paul's strictness corrected him, and Barnabas's leniency encouraged him not to abandon his calling. Thus Paul and Barnabas argue; but from the argument comes one result — benefit. Looking at Paul, who resolved to part with Barnabas, Mark was greatly frightened and blamed himself; and looking at Barnabas, who so defended him, Mark grew to love him deeply. And the disciple is corrected by the dispute of his teachers — so far was this dispute from serving as a cause of scandal.

Certain teachers from Judea insist on the necessity of the converted Gentiles being circumcised, Act 15:1. Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem to consult the apostles on this subject, Act 15:2. They come to Jerusalem, and inform the apostles of the conversion of the Gentiles; and of the trouble which certain Pharisees had occasioned concerning circumcision, Act 15:3-5. The apostles having assembled to consider the question, Peter delivers his opinion, Act 15:6-11. Barnabas and Paul relate their success among the Gentiles, Act 15:12. James delivers his judgment, Act 15:13-21. The apostles and elders agree to what he proposes, and send Judas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to the converted Gentiles, Act 15:22; and send an epistle containing their decree to the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, Act 15:23-29. Paul and his company return, and read the epistle to the brethren at Antioch, which produces great joy; and Judas and Silas preach to them, Act 15:30-32. Judas returns to Jerusalem, but Silas continues with Paul and Barnabas, teaching and preaching, Act 15:33-35. Paul proposes to Barnabas to visit the Churches where they had preached; and, on the latter determining to take John Mark with them, Paul refuses, Act 15:36-38. They disagree; and Barnabas, taking John Mark, sails to Cyprus, Act 15:39. And Paul, taking Silas, goes through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches, Act 15:40, Act 15:41.

The contention was so sharp between them - For all this sentence, there is only in the Greek text εγενετο ουν παροξυσμος; there was therefore a paroxysm, an incitement, a stirring up, from παροξυνω, compounded of παρα, intensive, and οξυνω, to whet, or sharpen: there was a sharp contention. But does this imply anger or ill-will on either side? Certainly not. Here, these two apostles differed, and were strenuous, each in support of the part he had adopted. "Paul," as an ancient Greek commentator has it, "being influenced only with the love of righteousness; Barnabas being actuated by love to his relative." John Mark had been tried in trying circumstances, and he failed; Paul, therefore, would not trust him again. The affection of Barnabas led him to hope the best, and was therefore desirous to give him another trial. Barnabas would not give up: Paul would not agree. They therefore agreed to depart from each other, and take different parts of the work: each had an attendant and companion at hand; so Barnabas took John Mark, and sailed to Cyprus: Paul took Silas, and went into Syria. John Mark proved faithful to his uncle Barnabas; and Silas proved faithful to his master Paul. To all human appearance it was best that they separated; as the Churches were more speedily visited, and the work of God more widely and more rapidly spread. And why is it that most men attach blame to this difference between Paul and Barnabas? And why is it that this is brought in as a proof of the sinful imperfection of these holy apostles? Because those who thus treat the subject can never differ with another without feeling wrong tempers; and then, as destitute of good breeding as they are of humility, they attribute to others the angry, proud, and wrathful dispositions which they feel in themselves; and, because they cannot be angry and sin not, they suppose that even apostles themselves cannot. Thus, in fact, we are always bringing our own moral or immoral qualifications to be a standard, by which we are to judge of the characters and moral feelings of men who were actuated by zeal for God's glory, brotherly kindness, and charity. Should any man say there was sin in this contention between Paul and Barnabas, I answer, there is no evidence of this in the text. Should he say, the word παροξυσμος, paroxysm, denotes this, I answer, it does not. And the verb παροξυνομαι is often used in a good sense. So Isocrates ad Demosth. cap. xx. μαλιϚα δ' αν παροξυνθειης ορεχθηναι των καλων εργων· "But thou wilt be the more stirred up to the love of good works." And such persons forget that this is the very form used by the apostle himself, Heb 10:24 : και κατανοωμεν αλληλους εις παροξυσμον αγαπης και καλων εργων· which, these objectors would be highly displeased with me, were I to translate, Let us consider one another to an angry contention of love and good works. From these examples, it appears that the word is used to signify incitement of any kind; and, if taken in a medical sense, to express the burning fit of an ague: it is also taken to express a strong excitement to the love of God and man, and to the fruits by which such love can be best proved; and, in the case before us, there was certainly nothing contrary to this pure principle in either of those heavenly men. See also Kypke on Heb 10:24.

COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM TO DECIDE ON THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUMCISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS. (Acts 15:1-35) certain men--See the description of them in Gal 2:4.

And the contention was so sharp between them--such was the "irritation," or "exacerbation." that they departed asunder one from the other--Said they not truly to the Lystrians that they were "men of like passions with them"; (Act 14:15). But who was to blame? (1) That John Mark had either tired of the work or shrunk from the dangers and fatigues that yet lay before them, was undeniable; and Paul concluded that what he had done he might, and probably would, do again. Was he wrong in this? (See Pro 25:19). But (2) To this Barnabas might reply that no rule was without exception; that one failure, in a young Christian, was not enough to condemn him for life; that if near relationship might be thought to warp his judgment, it also gave him opportunities of knowing the man better than others; and that as he was himself anxious to be allowed another trial (and the result makes this next to certain), in order that he might wipe out the effect of his former failure and show what "hardness he could now endure as a good soldier of Jesus Christ," his petition ought not to be rejected. Now, since John Mark did retrieve his character in these respects, and a reconciliation took place between Paul and him, so cordial that the apostle expresses more than once the confidence he had in him and the value he set upon his services (Col 4:10-11; Ti2 4:11), it may seem that events showed Barnabas to be in the right, and Paul too harsh and hasty in his judgment. But, in behalf of Paul, it may well be answered, that not being able to see into the future he had only the unfavorable past to judge by; that the gentleness of Barnabas (Act 4:36; Act 11:24) had already laid him open to imposition (see on Gal 2:13), to which near relationship would in this case make him more liable; and that in refusing to take John Mark on this missionary journey he was not judging his Christian character nor pronouncing on his fitness for future service, but merely providing in the meantime against being again put to serious inconvenience and having their hands weakened by a possible second desertion. On the whole, then, it seems clear that each of these great servants of--Christ had something to say for himself, in defense of the position which they respectively took up; that while Barnabas was quite able to appreciate the grounds on which Paul proceeded, Paul was not so competent to judge of the considerations which Barnabas probably urged; that while Paul had but one object in view, to see that the companion of their arduous work was one of thoroughly congenial spirit and sufficient nerve, Barnabas, over and above the same desire, might not unreasonably be afraid for the soul of his nephew, lest the refusal to allow him to accompany them on their journey might injure his Christian character and deprive the Church of a true servant of Jesus Christ; and that while both sought only the glory of their common Master, each looked at the question at issue, to some extent, through the medium of his own temperament, which grace sanctifies and refines, but does not destroy--Paul, through the medium of absolute devotion to the cause and kingdom of Christ, which, warm and womanly as his affections were, gave a tinge of lofty sternness to his resolves where that seemed to be affected; Barnabas, through the medium of the same singleness of heart in Christ's service, though probably not in equal strength (Gal 2:13), but also of a certain natural gentleness which, where a Christian relative was concerned, led him to attach more weight to what seemed for his spiritual good than Paul could be supposed to do. In these circumstances, it seems quite possible that they might have amicably "agreed to differ," each taking his own companion, as they actually did. But the "paroxysm" (as the word is), the "exacerbation" which is expressly given as the cause of their parting, shows but too plainly, that human infirmity amidst the great labors of the Church at Antioch at length sundered those who had sweetly and lovingly borne together the heat and burden of the day during a protracted tour in the service of Christ. "Therefore let no man glory in men" (Co1 3:21). As for John Mark, although through his uncle's warm advocacy of his cause he was put in a condition to dissipate the cloud that hung over him, how bitter to him must have ever afterwards been the reflection that it was his culpable conduct which gave occasion to whatever was sinful in the strife between Paul and Barnabas, and to a separation in action, though no doubt with a mutual Christian regard, between those who had till then wrought nobly together! How watchful does all this teach Christians, and especially Christian ministers and missionaries, to be against giving way to rash judgment and hot temper towards each other, especially where on both sides the glory of Christ is the ground of difference! How possible is it that in such cases both parties may, on the question at issue, be more or less in the right! How difficult is it even for the most faithful and devoted servants of Christ, differing as they do in their natural temperament even under the commanding influence of grace, to see even important questions precisely in the same light! And if, with every disposition to yield what is unimportant, they still feel it a duty each to stand to his own point, how careful should they be to do it lovingly, each pursuing his own course without disparagement of his Christian brother! And how affectingly does the Lord overrule such difference of judgment and such manifestations of human infirmity, by making them "turn out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel"; as in this case is eminently seen in the two missionary parties instead of one, not travelling over the same ground and carrying their dispute over all the regions of their former loving labors, but dividing the field between them! and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas--(See on Act 15:34) --going two and two, as the Twelve and the Seventy (Mar 6:7; Luk 10:1).