Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 15:36 - 15:41
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL, ACCOMPAINED BY SILAS AND TIMOTHEUS, TO ASIA MINOR, AND EUROPE.
Act_15:36 to Act_18:22
Act_15:37-38. Barnabas appears to have at once expressed a willingness to unite with Paul in visiting the congregations, but he advised ( ἐâïõëåýóáôï , consulere) that they should take John Mark along, as their companion; Paul refused his consent; he could not approve of the proposition that Mark should accompany them, as the conduct of the latter on the former journey seemed to him to have been a falling off from them both ( ἀðïóôÜíôá taken in a strict sense of the word). The term ἀîéïῦí designates a moral judgment: “he does not deserve that we should take him with us; he has made himself unworthy of it.” The peculiar mode of expression, moreover, very plainly shows that Paul’s indignation on account of that conduct, was avowed with warmth and energy; see Act_13:13, Exeg. note; ( ôὸí ἀðïóôÜíôá — ìὴ óõìð . ôïῦôïí ). [ Ôïῦôïí , at the close: “we may well believe that Paul’s own mouth gave originally the character to the sentence.” (Alf.)—Tr.]
Act_15:39-41. Barnabas did not agree with Paul in judging the conduct of Mark with such severity; the latter was, besides, his nephew, Col_4:10. [ Ἀíåøéüò , consobrinus, Vulg.; relative, de Wette; cousin, Robinson: Meyer.—Tr.]. A discussion, conducted with great warmth,—a sharp contention ( ðáñïîõóìüò )—ensued, and the result was that the two men parted, and took different roads. [“There is little doubt that severe words were spoken on the occasion. It is unwise to be over-anxious to dilute the words of Scripture, and to exempt even Apostles from blame.… We cannot, however, suppose that Paul and Barnabas parted, like enemies, in anger and hatred. It is very likely that they made a deliberate and amicable arrangement to divide the region of their first mission between them, Paul taking the continental, and Barnabas the insular, part of the proposed visitation. Of this at least we are certain, that the quarrel was overruled by Divine Providence to a good result. One stream of missionary labor had been divided, and the regions blessed by the waters of life were proportionally multiplied. St. Paul speaks of Barnabas afterwards (1Co_9:6,) as of an Apostle actively engaged in his Master’s service.” (Conyb. &H.; Life, etc. of St. Paul, I. 270–272).—“Luke does not mention the re-union which was subsequently effected (Col_4:10; Philem. Act_15:24; 2Ti_4:11), which would be very surprising, (as Mark was a disciple of Peter), if the opinion of those were correct, who allege that the Book of the Acts was written in order to harmonize Paulinism with Petrinism.” (Meyer, ad loc. n.).—Tr.]. Barnabas adhered to his purpose, and, retaining Mark, proceeded with him to the island of Cyprus, his original home (Act_4:36),while Paul chose Silas as his companion, who had, according to Act_15:33, returned to Jerusalem [on the omission of Act_15:34, see note 3, appended to Act_15:30-35, and the Exeg. note.—Tr.], but, as it would appear, afterwards came back to Antioch. The statement, Act_15:40, that Paul was dismissed in a solemn manner, and commended in the intercessory prayers of the congregation to the grace of the Lord, does not seem to include Barnabas. It is possible that he departed suddenly, or immediately after the dispute with Paul; at least his journey is more directly connected in Act_15:39 with that scene, than that of Paul. It is certain, however, that Barnabas, after sailing to Cyprus, performed precisely the labors which Paul had proposed, Act_15:36. Paul, on the other hand, in company with Silas, travelled by land, and, primarily, visited Syria and Cilicia, so that, like Barnabas, he sought his own early homeland, at first, confined his labors to the Christian congregations which had already been established, and which he strengthened in faith and in the Christian life. [“Here we finally lose sight of Barnabas in the sacred record.” (Alf).—Tr.]
2. Paul practically demonstrated, in the case of Mark, all the keenness and severity of his moral judgment. He regarded the act of the latter in withdrawing from him and Barnabas, and from their common work at that time (Act_13:13), not as a matter of indifference in a moral point of view, but as one which, in his judgment, betrayed an inexcusable want of fidelity and Christian steadfastness Mark did not apostatize from Christ Himself, but from them,—the two messengers of Christ ( ἀð ʼ áὐôῶí , Act_15:38). Paul does not condemn him in exaggerated and passionate terms, as if he had become an infidel and an enemy of Christ. But he would not permit Mark to accompany them on the second journey, for he would otherwise have thus conferred on the latter a privilege, a dignity, a distinction ( ἠîßïõ ), of which he had rendered himself unworthy. Barnabas does not accord with Paul in pronouncing this stern sentence, but prefers to act in a mild, calm, and forgiving spirit. Each of the two men, doubtless, aided in conducting Mark to the salvation of his soul; the severity of Paul led him to repentance, humbled and warned him, while the gentleness of Barnabas preserved him from despondency. Paul did not, subsequently, remember the affair to his disadvantage, but must have forgiven him, for, otherwise, he would not have conveyed Mark’s friendly salutations to the Colossians, and recommended him to the congregation (Col_4:10). [See Exeg. note on Act_13:13.—Tr.]
3. The scene which Barnabas and Paul exhibited, Act_15:39, was marked by so much heat and passion, as far as we are enabled to judge, that it cannot have left either party, at the close, free from the stain of sin. [“Jerome says: “Paulus severior, Barnabas clementior; uterque in suo sensu abundat, et tamen dissensio habet aliquid humanæ fragilitatis.” Contra Pelag. II. 522. And Chrysostom says: “ ὁ Ðáῦëïò ἐæÞôåé ôï äßêáéïí , ὁ ÂáñíÜâáò ôὸ öἱëÜíèñùðïí ” (Conyb. and H. I. 271. n. 4.)—Tr.].—Here, again, the word of God, in place of covering the sins of the most worthy servants of God with the mantle of charity, testifies with the utmost sincerity respecting them, for the sake of the truth. The case affords another proof that where sin abounds, the grace of God in Christ does much more abound [Rom_5:20], so that, although so many temptations, and such great infirmity of the flesh may intervene, grace nevertheless preserves, sanctifies and sustains the children of God. Indeed, even this separation, which could not have occurred without sin, nevertheless produced good fruits, in the overruling providence of God, which does all things well, and conducts all to a glorious issue. Not only did Paul, no longer hindered by a companion of equal, or, originally, of superior rank, develop all his powers of action in an independent manner; but, further, the division of the work between himself and Barnabas, promoted the general interests of the cause. He had hitherto labored in common with Barnabas, in only one direction; but now, two missionary journeys were simultaneously undertaken, and, instead of a single pair of missionaries, two pairs now labor, at the same time, in different places.
Act_15:39. And the contention was so sharp, etc.—Even the most eminent saints are not without their faults, which should, however, be carefully distinguished from dominant sins, (Starke).—But why did this dissension occur, and why is it even recorded here? Will it not, during all succeeding ages, give offence? No! It is precisely in this respect that the scriptural narrative differs from human biographies. The former exhibits a good man to our view, and then proceeds to state his faults, showing, at the same time, the manner in which the overruling grace of God, nevertheless, conducts all to a happy issue. The latter usually dwell on favorable circumstances, and, nevertheless, often leave the reader in doubt respecting the true character of the individual. Mark, who is afterwards found walking in the right way (Col_4:10), may have, on the one hand, been deeply humbled by the rigor of Paul, and, on the other, comforted and encouraged by the indulgent love of Barnabas. The one was as necessary to him as the other. (Rieger).—Barnabas occupied the position of a kind and gentle mother, who is very willing to excuse and overlook the faults of her children. Paul acts like a thoughtful father, who applies the rod, and says: ‘The spoiled child must be taught to feel.’ (Gossner).—Paul appears to have entertained a correct view of the case, rather than Barnabas, and Gideon furnished him with a model belonging to the Old Testament, Jdg_7:3. Still, it was not necessary that he should contest the point with such warmth; he might have remembered the example which Abraham gave; Gen_13:8-9. It was well, however, that the two men separated. Those whose characters are so essentially different, can seldom accommodate themselves readily to one another. Even while they remain brethren in Christ, it is better that each should stand alone. (Williger).—Let us look away from the errors and infirmities of the saints, which, however, the Scriptures never conceal, and let us rather contemplate the unerring hand of the Lord, which guides all things to a happy end. The severity of Paul did not injure Mark, but rather induced him to be more faithful; and, at a subsequent period, Paul speaks of Barnabas as his faithful associate in the work of the Lord, 1Co_9:6. (Besser).
Act_15:40. And Paul chose Silas, etc.—Silas, a Judæo-Christian, educated in Jerusalem, the companion of the apostle of the Gentiles! What vast and happy results the occurrence mentioned in Act_15:1, had accordingly produced! (Williger).—Recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.—This special attention which the congregation paid to Paul, indirectly shows that the brethren virtually approved of his course, rather than of that of the other. (Rieger).
Human weakness, even in the most experienced Christians: I. That it does exist; II. Consolatory truths of religion in reference to it. (Lisco).—The contention of the brethren: I. What was the subject? (a) Both supposed that they were contending for Christ; (b) each contended, unconsciously, for himself and his own will. II. Which one was in the right? (a) Both desired that which was right—the spiritual welfare of the erring man, and the promotion of the kingdom of God; (b) neither was in the right, as each adhered to his own opinion, without fully examining that of the other; (c) both did right when they voluntarily separated, in order that love might not be subjected to further interruptions, (id.).—Why do the Scriptures disclose the weaknesses of the servants of God? I. To mortify spiritual pride, so that none may boastingly say: ‘I shall never be overcome.’ II. To afford comfort in the midst of human infirmities, by suggesting the encouraging thought: ‘They, too, were flesh of our flesh.’ III. To render honor to the divine wisdom, which can educe a blessing even from the faults of men.—The Lord triumphs, even when his servants exhibit weaknesses: I. Without His grace, even their virtues become failings; the mildness of Barnabas would have otherwise been a weak indulgence; the rigor of Paul, inflexible harshness. II. By His grace, blessings flow even from their faults; the humiliation which Mark endured, aided in restoring his strength and firmness; the separation of the apostles divided the full stream of the Gospel message into two branches, and thus more widely diffused the latter.—The divisions of the children of God carry their own remedy with them: for, I. They stand on the same foundation of faith; II. They have the same exalted aim; III. They bow in submission to the same Lord and Master.
Footnotes:
Act_15:36. [̓H ìῶí after ἀäåëöïὺò from G. H., is omitted in A. B. C. D. E. Cod. Sin., Vulg. etc., and is cancelled by recent editors generally.—Tr.]
Act_15:37. ̓E âïõëåὐóáôï [of text. rec. and retained by Alf] is supported, it is true, by only two uncial MSS. [G. H; D. has ἐâïõëåýåôï ], while four of the latter [A. B. C. E., and also Cod. Sin.], and nearly all the versions [Vulg. volebat] exhibit ἐâïýëåôï [which Lach. and Tisch. adopt]. But ἐâïýëåôï could have far more readily been substituted, as an easier reading, than that it, if the original word, should have been converted by a later correction, into ἐâïõëåýóáôï . [The latter was usually interpreted in the sense of ἐâïýëåôï ; comp. Act_5:33. (Meyer).—Instead of ôὸí I ùÜí of text, rec., from G. H., recent editors read êáὶ ̓I ù ., with A. C. E. Vulg.—B. and Cod. Sin. have êáὶ ôὸí I ù .—Tr.]
Act_15:39. [For ïῦ ́ í before ðáñïî , of text. rec. from C. E. G. H., Lach. Tisch. and Alf. substitute äὲ from A. B. D. and Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Act_15:40. K õñßïõ [from A. B. D. and Cod. Sin., and adopted by recent editors] is preferable to èåïῦ [in C. E. G. H., Vulg.], which seems to be conformed to the parallel passage in Act_14:26.