Acts 15
OGCA TEST OVER THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER AND THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY
Answer the following questions. A sentence or two will suffice.
What was taught by certain men from Judaea that caused such a stir?
Why go to the apostles and elders about the trouble?
What encouragement did Paul and Barnabas have on their way to Jerusalem?
Who especially objected to uncircumcised Christians? What sect?
Who said that God had chosen him that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe?
What was the yoke which neither the fathers nor the Jews of Peter’s day could bear?
What was the point of argument in the speeches of Paul and Barnabas?
What did James add that had not been said before?
Why ask the Gentiles to abstain from: What is strangled, and from blood?
What did Paul tell Peter when he withstood him to the face?
What purpose did Paul have in making a second journey?
Why disagree over John Mark?
Why circumcise Timothy?
What were the decrees that were delivered to the churches?
Who was Phoebe? Why not stay in Ephesus? Whom did Paul see in Caesarea? What amount of time involved in the second journey? How many miles?
What did Paul do in Phrygia and Galatia?
Why would a man from Macedonia be any different than any other man?
What is a Roman colony?
What was the occupation and home town of Lydia?
How did the Lord open the heart of Lydia?
Why did Paul rebuke the spirit in the maid at Philippi?
What was an accusation of the slavemasters before the magistrates in Philippi?
Was the jailor listening to the singing and praying of Paul?
Why ask the magistrates to deliver them personally?
Why did the magistrates fear Paul and Silas?
For how many sabbaths did Paul reason from the scriptures in the synagogue at Thessalonica? What was his message?
Who did Paul stay with in Thessalonica? How did this man get into trouble?
Where was Luke left to labor? Timothy? Silas and Timothy?
Why did Paul leave Berea?
What provoked Paul’s spirit in Athens?
What is an Epicurean? A Stoic?
What is the Areopagus?
How did Paul develop his sermon on the unknown God?
When did some on Mars hill mock at Paul? At what point in his sermon?
Why live with Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth?
Who was Titus Justus? Who was Crispus?
Who was Gallio? Who was Sosthenes?
Where did Paul cut his hair? Why?
Why not stay at Ephesus?
Acts 15:1
**THE TROUBLES OVER CIRCUMCISION AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL
FALSE TEACHERS TROUBLE THE BELIEVERS. Acts 15:1
And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, sayings Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
**Acts 15:1 **It is very difficult for us to truly understand the vast importance of the law to the Jew. What would it mean to give up their allegiance to that divine injunction they had revered for so long? Only by thinking What it would mean to give up the most treasured of earthly law or government could we approximate the position of the Jew. In reading upon this subject I ran upon this very splendid statement by Cunningham Geikie:
The religions of antiquity were, in all cases, intensely ritualistic. A sacrifice or a private function must, alike, be carried out in exact accordance with prescribed rules if it were to have a claim on the gods, but when everything had been done as required, they were put under an obligation to answer favorably which they were bound to honor. Yet, in the sphere of ordinary life, nearly all races of men were free. They could eat and drink as they pleased, mix with their fellowmen, perform the common offices of daily existence, or of social intercourse, without interference from the priest. Among the Jews, however, as among their ancient fellow-countrymen in Mesopotamiathe Accadians, or as among the ancient Egyptians, with whom they had lived for centuries before the Exodus, not only every detail of religion, but every minute particular of ordinary life, was the subject of religious prescriptions, believed to be divine, and therefore to be obeyed, on peril of offending and even insulting the Higher Powers. The Jew must bear on his person the mark of a holy observance, must perform endless cleansings of a more or less formal nature, must repeat, at prescribed times, each day, so many prescribed prayers, must eat and drink only prescribed supports and refreshments, prepared in prescribed modes, must submit from his cradle to his grave to -customs-’ and -traditions-’ sacredly binding authority at every step of his daily life, this authority faced him. He must perform prescribed pilgrimages from any adopted country, however distant, to the national shrine at Jerusalem to satisfy what he conceived the demands of Jehovah.
How could we approximate the position of the Jew in his giving up the law of Moses?
How was the religion of the Jews like all religions of antiquity and yet different?
ANTIOCH OF SYRIA
Situated 300 miles northwest of Jerusalem, on the Orontes sixteen miles from its mouth, Antioch was founded by Seleucus Nicator about 300 B.C. It was the capital of Syria under the Seleucidae and also of the Roman province of Syria. In population and importance it was the third city in the Roman Empire, ranking next to Rome and Alexandria. Its principal street was lined from end to end with Colonnades. The city was called Antioch the Beautiful and The Crown of the East. Its great trade drew to it many Jewish colonists, who enjoyed all the privileges of citizens. The city was notoriously immoral, and yet it is famous as the birthplace of Gentile Christianity. The people of Antioch are said to be noted for their low wit. (Historical Geography of Bible Lands. p. 82.)
Among the Western races, Paul had to discuss questions of doctrine, such as the resurrection and immortality, or the grounds of a soul’s justification before God, and had to denounce gross sins and novel and equivocal innovations, of which he had to say, -We have no such customs, neither the churches of God.-’ In Palestine and among the Jews everywhere, the burning question of the age, was the position of the uncircumcised converts to Christianity, toward circumcision. Could they be saved without becoming, at least to this length, Jews, or even without further observing the whole Jewish Ceremonial Law? Or would they be accepted by God though they lived without recognition of either? (Hours With The Bible, pp. 317-318).
There were those in the church in Jerusalem who were not only persuaded that no Christian could be saved without being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses but they felt it their divine responsibility to so teach others. Word had evidently come to these in Jerusalem of the results of the first missionary journey. Even as word of the conversion of the Gentiles in Antioch had come to them some years before. (cf. Acts 11:22).
This time the ones who left Jerusalem to visit Antioch were not sent out by the apostles but took it upon themselves to represent them none the less. Upon entering Antioch they immediately began to throw the minds of the Christians there into utter confusion: teaching that except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved. Note that the mere teaching of circumcision as a religious rite was not the point of difficulty, but rather that it was being layed upon them as a test of fellowship. Paul practiced circumcision as a matter of expediency (cf. Acts 16:1-2) but when it came to binding it as a matter of salvation he would not allow itno, not for one hour.
Into the peaceful and happy atmosphere of the congregation in Antioch there was brought by these that came from Jerusalem the stench of strife and dissension. It would be natural that Paul and Barnabas led in defending their position, but no definite conclusion could be reached. When there is not authority present that is recognized by both parties of a dispute then it becomes impossible to reach a satisfactory decision. This seemed to be the situation in Antioch.
Who were the Accadians? (Look it up in a Bible dictionary).
What was the difference in the questions and problems of those in the West and those in Palestine? What was the Burning Issue in Palestine?
What caused the Judaizers to leave Jerusalem and to come to Antioch to teach their doctrine?
If it were not the mere teaching of circumcision as a religious rite that constituted the difficulty what did?
Why could not Paul the apostle settle this difficulty in Antioch without going to Jerusalem?
Acts 15:2-3
PAUL AND BARNABAS SENT TO JERUSALEM. Acts 15:2-3.
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Acts 15:2-3 Paul’s mind was greatly troubled over this difficulty and well it might be for it was even as he said, a matter upon which rested the decision as whether he was running or had run in vain. Either he was right in accepting the Gentiles in the way he had or these of the circumcision were right; there was no middle ground. There was only one thing to do and that was to go to the source of the trouble. this thought was strengthened, or possibly formed, by a vision which Paul had respecting such a visit (Galatians 2:1-2).
It was decided that certain others should go along. Titus is the only one named. The Antioch church furnished the means whereby the journey could be made. The hearts of the travelers were made glad by the warm hospitality of the churches in Phoenicia and Samaria as well as the way in which they rejoiced over the conversion of the Gentiles.
THEIR RECEPTION IN JERUSALEM. Acts 15:4-5.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:4-5 Notice carefully the actions of the party upon their arrival in Jerusalem. First, the entire church assembled with the apostles and eldersthe matter was laid before them all; doubtless Paul and Barnabas rehearsed to the congregation what they had told the church in Antioch upon their return from the journeys. But it was not received in the same attitude. The fact that a good work had been done was admitted by all but the one cloud on the horizon that blotted out everything else to one group present was that all these Christians were admitted to the fellowship without circumcision. Those who were of the sect of the Pharisees arose and said as much. In the statement here the dissenters went to the full extent of their position and said not only to circumcise such but to command them to keep the Law of Moses. The case had been fully stated and both sides had been heard; the assembly was dismissed and the matter was then taken up by those who had the authority to decide.
Did Paul originate the idea of going to Jerusalem? If not, who did?
Why was this an extremely important visit? Who went with Paul? Who paid the transportation expenses?
What encouragement did they receive on the way?
Acts 15:6-29
**THE ELDERS AND APOSTLES MEET TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE. **Acts 15:6-29
a.
Peter’s speech. Acts 15:6-11.
And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us;
and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.
**Acts 15:6 **The apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. In this private meeting there was yet a further discussion of the matter and no little disputing between those present (possibly between the elders and Paul and Barnabas). It is best sometimes to allow for an expression of all present before any logical conclusion can be drawn. Until all the evidence is in there can be no real comprehensive decision. It would seem that such was the procedure here in Jerusalem. At whatever circumstance, following the words of disputes: Peter arose to state his position.
What was the first act of Paul and Barnabas upon arriving in Jerusalem?
What was admitted by all? What was lacking according to some?
Who alone had the power to decide on the issue?
Why do we say that the dispute in the private meeting was between the elders and Paul and Barnabas?
Acts 15:7-11 The apostle to the circumcision spoke here on this subject as he had spoken some years before on the same subject to the same listeners. He had not forgotten the lesson Jehovah had given him in Joppa and Caesarea. He further stated here that God Himself had selected him of all the apostles that by his mouth should the Gentiles receive the gospel. A simple statement of reiteration was all that was necessary to call to their mind the reception of the Holy Spirit by the household of Cornelius. Yea, and likewise to call to mind that his was the work and choice of God. Here, now is the point of Peter’s speechhe says in essence: If you now demand that the Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, you are acknowledging that either you did not believe God the first time or that you are unwilling to accept His decision. Peter calls such action and thought tempting God and further than this he says, Why try to bind on the Gentiles the yoke of the law? Do you like it? Do you obey it? Yea, did even our fathers keep it? Nay, it became a galling burden to be borne. Why then bring the Gentiles under such a yoke? As a final word of proof Peter reminds the Jews that in the light of their failure to keep the law of customs and commandments they would necessarily have to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus. If that is true, and surely any sincere Jew could see that it was, then why complain when God cleansed the hearts of the Gentiles through faith and saved them on the same basis of grace?
This silenced the assembly. There was not much that could be said in light of the irresistible logic of Peter’s words; and most especially since previous to this time they had glorified God at the conversion of the uncircumcised household of Cornelius. (cf. Acts 11:18).
b.
Paul and Barnabas tell of their work. Acts 15:12.
And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.
**Acts 15:12 **In the midst of the silence Paul and Barnabas again rehearsed in detail the miracles and wonders God granted to them in confirming His word among the heathen. The emphasis here put upon the miracles and wonders wrought by God was based upon the same promise as that of Peter, i.e. if God so worked with the apostles as they carried the gospel to the heathen, surely He was not displeased with the work of these men but was rather putting His stamp of approval upon it.
Why all these speeches?
Had Peter ever addressed this same group on this same subject before? When? Where?
What was the point of Peter’s speech?
Show the common sense of Peter’s closing remarks. (Acts 15:11).
Give the point of the speeches of Paul and Barnabas.
c.
The speech of James. Acts 15:13-21.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;
but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.
For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.
**Acts 15:13-18 **Now for the final word upon the subject. This was given by James the Lord’s brother. There is much traditional material written concerning the piety and standing of James among the Jews in Jerusalem. Be that as it may, it at least appears that he was a leader in the church at Jerusalem.
While all were silent in giving attention to the words about to be spoken, James said in essence: Here is my judgment. You have just heard from Peter how God visited the Gentiles and took out of them some who would be His. Yea, this is even as the prophet Amos said. do you recall the prophecy? Possibly you do but you missed its application. Hear again the prophet and see afresh the fulfillment of his words. -After these things-‘Yea, the very things that have come to pass in our history, i.e. the fall of the Jewish nation and the general dissolution of this proud people. After these things something is going to happen. What will it be? Jehovah will return to build again the tabernacle or house of David, which is fallen.
Who was this man James?
What did he add that had not already been said?
Tell me about the building again of the tabernacle of Davidwhat is it and how is it said to be built again in the time of James?
How is this to be understood? Surely not in the literal building again of the house of David, for such was far from being so when James spoke. and yet James states that this prophecy is having its fulfillment. The only possible explanation is a spiritual one, that the house of David to be built again was a spiritual house. Yea, the ruins to be set up were to be from those Jews who had suffered under the penalty of their own rebellion and had yet found favor with God through Jesus Christ. They together were being builded into a habitation of God in the Spirit. That the residue of men seek after the Lord (Ephesians 2:22; Acts 15:17.) This refers to the small remnant among the Jews who would find Christ and thus have part in this wonderful promise of the prophet. And then comes the word that bears directly upon the issue at hand. James says that in the building of David’s house through Christ not only would there be those few Jews who would find a part in this house but all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called. This settles the issue. From times of old God had determined that these things would be so.
**Acts 15:19-21 **What a splendid act and decision it was on the part of James to make such a statement. Well could he be called James the Just. The judgment of James was not only the expression of his own heart, but that of all who had honestly listened to the evidence: that, any from among the Gentiles who turned to God through Christ were not to be troubled with the Jewish law and traditions.
That this decision might be known to all and that no further trouble come up over it, it was decided to put it in written form. In this letter it would be well, James suggests, that some provision be made for the social intercourse of the Jews and Gentiles; and therefore certain restrictions about eating should be included so they might dine together; also to abstain from those obvious sins connected with idol worship and from fornication. The reason for the apparent compromise in these restrictions of eating is found not in the spirit of compromise but in that of wisdom; for Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath and to thus give no forbearance in light of this was not the part of wisdom. This seemed to settle the issue in the private meeting.
What word given by James relates directly to the issue at hand?
Why agree so readily with James?
Why the restrictions in the letter?
d.
The letter on circumcision. Acts 15:22-29.
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting:
Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment;
it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.
**Acts 15:22-29 **The whole church was called together by the apostles and elders and with the suggestion of their leaders they chose two of their chief men; Judas, called Barsabbas and Silas and sent them with Paul and Barnabas to bear the letter. Here is the letter, the first written document of the apostolic church, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. written with the purpose and theme of unity. Oh, how the same message is needed today! (Refer to Acts 15:23-29).
Acts 15:30-35
THE WORK IN ANTIOCH. Acts 15:30-35.
So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle.
And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation.
And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
And after they had spent some time there, they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth.
Acts 15:34
But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.
But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
**Acts 15:30-35 **The multitude of the Syrian disciples were no doubt eagerly awaiting the return of their leaders from this all important meeting. What was the decision? Could it indeed be settled? When the four did enter the city gates of Antioch there was an immediate gathering of the Christians and they all listened as the epistle was read. With one accord they accepted it and rejoiced greatly that they were indeed free from the law. A double benefit was to be found in their return, for Judas and Silas who brought the letter were gifted with the ability to prophesy. So, for the space of no few days a revival was conducted in this place. As we read so often in the words of the preachers of that day the brethren were exhorted by these men of God and thus were confirmed. The same results would follow today if we had something of the same type of preaching. It would seem that some arrangement had been made with the church at Antioch for this time of preaching for the text states that following this effort they were dismissed in peace from the brethren. We realize from what follows that Silas stayed in Antioch or returned to Antioch shortly after his trip to Jerusalem. Some ancient authorities insert the phrase. But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there.
It is always with a deep sense of joy that we constantly read throughout this book of Acts that Paul tarried to teach and preach the word of the Lord. This was his one task that he was continually performing. Not only Paul but Barnabas and many others also. What a challenging example for the churches today.
What double benefit was received in Antioch when the foursome arrived from Jerusalem?
What good element was found in the preaching at Antioch? What do you think of it?
What do you know of the activities of Silas at this time?
PETER’S VISIT TO ANTIOCH. Galatians 2:11-21.
**Galatians 2:11-21 **Although this visit is entirely omitted in Acts it has been concluded that according to the chronology of events it did occur at this time.
This is a most interesting incident. This is the first disagreement between two apostles. Notice that it was not a disagreement over a matter of faith (although Peter made it such) it was all the more unusual in light of the epistle that had just been sent from James and the apostles in Jerusalem. Why did Peter withdraw himself from the Gentiles? Because certain came from James. Of what was he afraid? The answer can be found in the phrase eat with them. He was fearful lest these from James find him in a Gentile house eating at their table. Why? Had not the decree made provisions for that very thing? Yes indeed it had, but a little closer look at the provisions of the decree will serve to show that no specifications were made for the purification of the meat, no word was given about clean and unclean meats, etc. These were the points of the law that troubled Peter. Troubled him not before God, but before men. He could not make such distinctions before God even as he himself had admitted, and as God revealed to him in Joppa and Caesarea. But he feared the censure of man more than he did God, hence his changeableness.
How do we know that Peter visited Antioch at this time?
What is one of the first important things to notice about this disagreement?
Did not these from James understand that such legal requirements were abolished? No, they only understood the letter of the decree given, and anything beyond that, whether done in the spirit of the epistle or not, was to be condemned. Peter knew this and withdrew himself, and forthwith set up a defense for his actions (even as many of us are wont to do today.) In this dissimulation he won quite a number to his viewpoint, including the good man Barnabas. In all this Peter stood self-condemned. He stood condemned before God. But in this the Lord knew that Peter was the kind of a man that would break down and admit his guilt once he was faced with it. Paul acted as God’s spokesman in this situation. It must have occurred in some public gathering that the rebuke was given for Paul says that he rebuked him before them all. From what is said in Galatians it would seem to us that the rebuke must have taken place in the midst of one of Peter’s public efforts to obtain adherents to his views. Right in the heat of Peter’s efforts Paul withstood him to the face. The merciless logic of Paul’s words cut Peter to the heart and cut out from under him the very foundation of his position. It would be well for us to note that Paul included himself in the statements about the Jews and bound upon Peter nothing that he himself was not also obligated to keep. The concluding remarks of Conybeare and Howson express well our feelings on the conclusion of this matter: Though the sternest indignation is expressed in this rebuke, we have no reason to suppose that any actual quarrel took place between the two apostles. It is not improbable that St. Peter was immediately convinced of his fault, and melted at once into repentance. His mind was easily susceptible to quick and sudden changes; his disposition was loving and generous; and we should expect his contrition, as well as his weakness, at Antioch, to be what it was in the high priest’s house at Jerusalem. Yet, when we read the narrative of this rebuke in St. Paul’s epistle, it is a relief to turn to that passage at the conclusion of one of St. Peter’s letters, where, in speaking of the long suffering of our Lord-’ and of the prospect of sinless happiness in the world to come, he alludes, in touching words, to the Epistles of -our beloved brother Paul.-’ We see how entirely all past differences are forgotten,how all earthly misunderstandings are absorbed and lost in the contemplation of Christ and eternal life. Not only did the Holy Spirit overrule all contrarieties so that the writings of both apostles teach the church the same doctrine, but the apostle who was rebuked is not ashamed to call the attention of the church to epistles in one page of which his own censure is recorded.
What makes this disagreement rather unusual?
Why didn-’t Peter refer to the decree or letter as his source of authority for eating with the Gentiles?
How did the natural character of Peter help the situation?
Of what was Peter afraid? Why was he self-condemned? What influence did he have?
Where was Peter when Paul rebuked him? What did he say in essence?
It is an eminent triumph of Christian humility and love. We shall not again have occasion to mention St. Peter and St. Paul together, until we come to the last scene of all, but though they might seldom meet whilst laboring in their Master’s cause, their lives were united -and in their deaths they were not divided-’. (Life And Epistles Of St. Paul. pp. 201-202).
Why Isaiah 2 Peter 3:15-16 of great encouragement in this connection?
Acts 15:36-40
THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY
52-54 A.D.
**1.
IN ANTIOCH.** Acts 15:36-40.
And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare.
And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark.
But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus;
but Paul chose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
Acts 15:36 When Jesus spoke to the prostrate Pharisee as he lay in the dust of the Damascus road he commissioned him to carry the glad tidings far off among the Gentiles. To the heavenly vision the apostle was never disobedient. And so it came to pass after a few weeks spent in the town of Antioch, that, although his labors were fruitful, and the work pressed on in a happy harmonious fashion, he once again heard the call of the man from across the sea. The faces of those whom he had brought into the kingdom of God’s dear Son haunted him and he longed once again to be with them that he might be assured that the tempter had not tempted them and thus he would have labored in vain.
**Acts 15:37-40 **These thoughts prompted his suggestion to his co-laborer 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. This plan, however, of a combined visitation of the churches was marred by an outbreak of human infirmity. The two apostolic friends were separated from each other by a quarrel, which proved that they were indeed, as they had lately told those of Lystra, men of like passions with you. When two individuals agree perfectly and manage in a harmonious fashion between themselves it at the same time becomes difficult to agree over the company of a third person. This was the situation with Paul and Barnabas. Although they could work in perfect accord with each other, each respecting the other’s viewpoint, when a third person entered the union, his feelings and opinions had to be considered and in this, the two good friends disagreed violently. Paul felt that John Mark was very definitely unqualified to enter the work that they were contemplating. Indeed, had he not already turned back upon the same route?
As we said in the previous notes it appears that the decision of John Mark to return to Jerusalem had something to do with the work in which the apostles were engaged. Maybe Barnabas knew John Mark a little more intimately than did Paul. At any rate, we know they were related (cf. Colossians 4:10.) John Mark indeed did prove himself to be a profitable servant of Christ Jesus. Paul the apostle acknowledged this (Cf. Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:11). The overruling hand of God’s providence is seen in all the circumstances, for not only was the original plan of the apostles fulfilled, i.e. of revisiting all the churches established in the first missionary journey; the churches in Asia Minor by Paul, and those on the isle of Cyprus by Barnabas, but along with it much more was done.
It appears that Barnabas and Mark left first and then Paul and Silas went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
What purpose prompted the second missionary journey?
Why did Paul and Barnabas agree for so long and now suddenly disagree?
What objection did Paul have to John Mark?
Why was Barnabas attracted to Mark?
Did Mark ever redeem himself in the eyes of Paul? (reference).
Show the over-ruling hand of God in the whole matter.
Acts 15:41
2
THROUGH THE PROVINCES OF SYRIA AND CILICIA. Acts 15:41.
And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
Acts 15:41 Here is another of those brief descriptions of Luke concerning the work and travels of the apostle. What churches were to be found in the parts of Syria and Cilicia? The answer can be found in the early labors of Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the early disciples (cf. Acts 14:19-21). Doubtless through the preaching of Paul churches were established in Cilicia during his stay in his home town (cf. Acts 9:26-30).