CHAPTER 15
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1
We have previously noted that many priests had joined the Christian faith in Jerusalem (6:7). In this chapter we will see how some Pharisees had also joined (15:5). Most of these were likely steeped in the Law of Moses. This created a crisis between law and grace and it presented a problem for the church. Pfeiffer and Harrison state: “The success of the Gentile mission now brought to a head the most important problem in the early church – that of the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers and the terms of admission of Gentiles into the church.” 1 This problem was particularly apparent in the matters pertaining to foods, what foods could be eaten and what could not. The practical issue was the matter of table fellowship for those believers who kept kosher and those who did not.
Paul gives us a background of this struggle in Galatians 2:11-21. It seems that Peter had visited the Antioch church sometime before the Jerusalem Council. He ate freely with the many Gentiles there until a delegation from Jerusalem arrived. At that point, he withdrew from the Gentiles and dined only with the Jerusalem group. Others began to follow his example, even including Paul’s mission companion, Barnabas. Paul immediately realized that the truth of the gospel was at stake. He then publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocritical stand. It could have been this very group from Jerusalem that began to teach that circumcision of Gentiles was necessary for one to be saved. All this presented the large Antioch church with a serious crisis.
Perhaps we should note here that the early Christians, who were mostly Jewish, did not give up many of their Jewish practices when they became Christians.2 The same is true today with Messianic believers. They do not convert and become Gentile Christians but continue to be Jews in many respects, most often being circumcised as their fathers were and often continuing to eat only kosher foods. We must be understanding and respectful concerning this as Paul clearly teaches us later in Romans 14:1-8. However, it is one thing for Jewish people to keep their traditional customs and another thing entirely for them to require others to do so, or to trust in these outward things for their own salvation.
This very rigid and legalistic group from Jerusalem seems to have produced what we call the Judaizers. They generally felt that what Jesus had begun must be completed by Moses.3 It is clear that this group not only troubled the Gentile believers at Antioch but at almost the same time they were troubling the new churches Paul and Barnabas had just founded in Asia Minor. In Galatians 2:4, Paul simply calls them “false brethren” who had infiltrated the church. Had this group won the day, Christianity would have surely become just a sect of Judaism.
“This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question” (15:2). Paul and Barnabas could not tolerate such views. Since they were the recognized heads of the church at Antioch, it was decided by the church that these two should go up to Jerusalem in order to settle this dispute. We see here that some other believers went up with them. This group probably included Titus (Gal. 2:3). For centuries, Bible interpreters have tried to decide if this was Paul’s second or third visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal. 2:1). With the scanty information we have today there is simply no way to settle this question for certain.4 The meeting in Jerusalem would be one of the most important gatherings in the history of the church. The meeting became a turning point, a centerpiece or watershed of the book of Acts.5
JOURNEY UP TO JERUSALEM
The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. Acts 15:3
Paul was not a person to waste time. He made the most of every occasion, even the trip up to Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas and the group from Antioch visited newly founded churches in Phoenicia and Samaria on the way. They declared the good news that Gentiles were being converted. Some of these churches may have been founded by those who fled Jerusalem after Stephen was martyred (cf. 8:4-25; 11:19).6 Those in Samaria may have been founded by Philip, or Peter and John (cf. 8:1-25). The report that Gentile churches had been formed in Asia Minor was no doubt very good news to these churches that contained many Gentiles.
“When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them” (15:4). In verse 2 we notice how Christians spoke of Jerusalem as being “up.” It was true in the ancient world and is still true today that Jerusalem is considered “up” from any direction. Not only does it sit perched atop a mountain ridge but it is God’s holy city. Likewise, all directions are “down” from Jerusalem. Today those citizens who forsake Jerusalem and Israel for other countries are called “yoredim” in Hebrew, or those who go down.
When the Antioch group arrived in Jerusalem it appears that they were welcomed warmly by the church and by the apostles there. It is not clear just how many apostles were present at this time. Many were no doubt out on mission trips to other parts of the world. From the Galatians account it appears that only Peter and John, as well as James, the brother of Jesus were present (Gal. 2:9).
“Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses’” (15:5). Here the Pharisee believers are identified as among the Judaizing group. It appears that there was an immediate explosion of disagreement with this group. Marshall says, “We probably underestimate what a colossal step it was for dyed-in-the-wool Jewish legalists to adopt a new way of thinking. Moreover, it is possible that nationalist pressure was increasing in Judea, and that Christians were having to tread carefully to avoid being thought of as disloyal to their Jewish heritage.” 7 No doubt many Jewish people thought that, since the Jews were the chosen of God, the Gentiles would have to become a part of Israel in order to be saved.8 After all, had not the prophets said that all nations would flow to Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3)? Obviously, this matter would have to be settled quickly.
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. Acts 15:6
A number of scholars have remarked that this meeting should not be considered as a formal church council, as in the case of the Council of Nicea for instance. This was a meeting or council called in order to settle an urgent question plaguing the church. There was no sense in which bishops were called together from all the churches. The problem was simply referred to the mother church in Jerusalem and to the apostles of the Lord. There is no question that the whole of the Gentile mission was at stake. From Galatians 2:2, it seems that the meeting was private but Acts 15:22 indicates that it was public. It is possible that it was first a private meeting with the apostles and later a public one with others in the church.
“After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe’” (15:7). Apparently there was much questioning (Gk. zētēseōs). Robertson says of this, “Evidently the Judaizers were given full opportunity to air all their grievances and objections. They were allowed plenty of time and there was no effort to shut off debate or to rush anything through the meeting.” 9
Now Peter makes his final appearance in Acts. Afterward, the leading role will be played by Paul.10 Peter begins to relate again his experience with Cornelius, which may have happened as much as ten years earlier (Acts 10). His testimony is critical to the meeting. Stott remarks of Peter, that his earlier confrontation with Paul must have had the desired result: “For by the time Peter reached Jerusalem for the Council, he had regained his theological equilibrium and went on to bear faithful witness during the assembly to the gospel of grace…” 11
“God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us” (15:8). Peter continues with his witness to the assembly. Wiersbe comments on his remarks: “Only God can see the human heart; so, if these people had not been saved, God would never have given them the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). But they did not receive the Spirit by keeping the law, but by believing God’s word (Acts 10:43-46; see Gal. 3:2).” 12
“He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith” (15:9). Jamieson, Fausset and Brown remark: “How rich is this brief description of the inward revolution wrought upon the genuine disciples of the Lord Jesus!” 13 Clearly, both Jew and Gentile are purified by faith and not by works of the law. Stott adds: “…he purified their hearts by faith…demonstrating that it is the inward purity of the heart which makes fellowship possible, not the external purity of diet and ritual…Grace and faith level us; they make fraternal fellowship possible.” 14
“Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (15:10). Guthrie remarks: “The obligations of the Jewish religion are frequently referred to as a ‘yoke’ by the Rabbis…” 15 Jesus however, came with a different kind of yoke. It is described in Matthew 11:29-30 as being “easy.” It is easy because Christ works within us to help us bear his yoke (Phil. 2:13). In some mysterious way, Jesus writes the law upon the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:33-34) and fulfills that law within them.
Peter confesses plainly that he and the rest of the Jewish people (even including the Pharisees) could not live by the law. Actually, Israel had broken the law already within hours of Moses’ receiving it on the mountain (Exo. 32). The law was given to point out sin, not to solve the sin problem. Augustine once said, “Through the law there came not healing but the knowledge of sin…But now the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law.” 16
“No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (15:11). “The question raised by the Jerusalem council was immense: Are Christians made right with God by faith alone, or by a combination of faith and obedience of the Law of Moses?” 17 Here Peter really stands like a rock, declaring without apology that both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way, by grace and through faith. Thus Peter bows out of the Acts narrative with flying colors.
“The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12). It is rather amazing here that the previously argumentative crowd sat in stunned silence as they listened to the account of Barnabas and Paul. It was simply amazing that the gospel had now included many in the Gentile world and that there were signs, wonders and functioning churches to bear out this fact. It appears that even the Pharisees were stunned. “Barnabas and Paul confirmed Peter’s previous point. Essentially they said, God has accepted the Gentiles, should not we as well?” 18 The earlier conversion of Cornelius and a few Gentiles scattered in other places could no longer be discounted or dismissed by the legalists. Now the gospel was going out everywhere in the Gentile world and bringing forth much fruit.
Marshall adds, “His [Peter’s] speech was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who also reported how God had manifestly shown his approval of the Gentile mission by miraculous signs. Nevertheless, some kind of compromise was necessary in order not to offend the consciences of the strict Jewish Christians…” 19 There was one in the early church who was the actual half-brother of Jesus (Mk. 6:3); who was deeply respected by the legalists and the general public as well; who was a master at peaceful negotiation. His name was James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. He would now bring the Jerusalem Council to a successful conclusion.
THE WISDOM OF JAMES
When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.” Acts 15:13
Obviously, when James asked people to listen, they listened.20 He was also a brother of Jude (Jude 1), author of the Book of James (Jam. 1:1), and known as James the Just, a pillar of the church (Gal. 2:6). Church tradition says that James was so often at prayer that his knees were as hard as those of camels.21 When he spoke it carried much weight. James spoke with great wisdom and he understood that the wisdom from above had to be a peaceable thing as he said in his epistle: “But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” (Jas. 3:17).
“Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles” (15:14). We note here that James speaks of Peter in a Semitic manner as Simon or Symeon.22 This would no doubt give his testimony more acceptance by the staunch Hebrew listeners. It was probably the name James had used in his prior limited associations with Jesus’ disciples.
James makes plain that God has intervened to take a people to himself from among the Gentiles. This was the crux of the matter facing the council. This great truth may have just begun to dawn upon James himself. Marshall states, “…His present comments, therefore, may have represented something of a change of outlook on his part.” 23 Until this time James had been seen as a champion of the more conservative Hebrews.
“The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’— things known from long ago” (15:15-18). James, in his wisdom, immediately turns to the words of the prophets to support his view. David’s fallen tent will be rebuilt. This clearly has a reference to the restoration of Israel but it particularly applies to the spiritual blessings of David being made available to all people. After all, salvation for all people has come from Jesus, through the house and lineage of David (cf. Lk. 1:32-33, 69; 2:11; Acts 2:34-35).
James is citing Amos 9:11-12, possibly from the Septuagint, LXX. While James deals primarily with this one text, there were no doubt many more passages in his mind (e.g. Isa. 2:2-4;11:10; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 60:3, 5, 11; Zech. 2:11; Mal. 1:11).
This quotation does not precisely follow the Masoretic Text (MT) or the LXX, however, it is closer to the LXX. In the Qumran scrolls this quotation is paralleled. All this may suggest that James is here using a different ancient Hebrew text.24
Barker and Kohlenberger make some interesting remarks concerning the quotation from this Old Testament text: “James’s major contribution to the decision of the council was to shift the discussion of the conversion of Gentiles from a proselyte model to an eschatological one…But Isaiah also spoke of the Gentiles’ persistence as nations whose salvation did not destroy their national identities (cf. Isa. 2:4; 25:6-7).” 25 Marshall adds, “Probably the rebuilding of the tabernacle is to be understood as a reference to the raising up of the church as the new place of divine worship which replaced the temple…” 26
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19). A number of translations speak of not making it difficult for Gentiles, while others read “stop troubling the Gentiles.” Bruce says, “James’s “stop troubling” means in effect “stop demanding circumcision.” 27
Stott remarks: “Thus, James, whom the circumcision party had claimed as their champion, declared himself in full agreement with Peter, Paul and Barnabas…There was an ‘agreement’ between what God had done through his apostles and what he had said through his prophets. This correspondence between scripture and experience, between the witness of prophets and apostles, was for James conclusive.” 28 Here we see clearly how the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus as its chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).
“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (15:20). When we first read this verse we might think that James is now reversing his decision and is placing Gentiles back under the law in some respect. This is clearly not the case. Had it been, Paul might have gone into a screaming rage. Marshall states, “Once the basic issue had been settled…it seems wholly likely that Paul could assent to some measures for the sake of peace with Jewish Christians which involved no real sacrifice to principle.” 29
We need to take a close look at these proposed restrictions. Most of them are directly concerned with idolatry, which was prevalent among the Gentiles. Jewish people could have nothing to do with this and it would be a great stumbling block if Gentile believers were involved. James desired that Gentile Christians avoid idolatry in every way possible. We should remember that in most cities the Gentile believers lived in close proximity to Jewish believers, who often observed the Levitical food restrictions. For there to be free association with these two groups within the church some guidelines must be established, especially regarding table fellowship.30 I remember many years ago how a sweet Christian couple unthinkingly brought a baked ham to a Messianic Jewish meeting. There were immediately some red faces and the ham was quickly taken away and hidden somewhere in the kitchen.
Gentile Christians needed to avoid pagan temples and their sacrifices. This traditionally involved meat that was slaughtered improperly and that was polluted by being offered to pagan gods (cf. Rev. 2:20). Gentiles also were used to eating and drinking blood. The eating of strangled animals was considered a delicacy because the blood remained in the animal. All this was forbidden by Leviticus 17:8-16.31 The Bible tells us that blood contains the life and to be treated in a special manner. The blood was given by God to make atonement for sins. We see in this Leviticus passage that in biblical times the prohibitions extended to Gentiles living in the land of Israel. This must be something really important to God.
Christians today think little about the significance of blood. It is interesting however that Christians in early centuries continued to have a deep respect for blood. Around the year AD 200 the Christian writer Mark Minucius Felix said, “We do not use blood, even of edible animals in our food.” 32 In the Apostolic Constitutions of around 390 we read of this restriction: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon (or indeed anyone of the priestly category) eats flesh with the blood of its life, or that which is torn by beasts, or which died of itself – let him be deprived. For the law itself has forbidden this. But if he is one of the laity, let him be suspended.” 33
Gentiles were also to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. Fornication, adultery and homosexuality were very much a part of pagan worship. For instance, at Corinth there were one thousand “sacred” prostitutes that serviced the pagan temple there. The Greek word for sexual immorality is porneiais, and it includes not only adultery but all illicit sex, including incest, or any form of licentiousness.34 It seems that modern and postmodern Christians have paid little attention to this particular prohibition of the Jerusalem Council.
Of course, Jewish believers living in close fellowship with Gentile believers would become quite offended by the rather loose marriage relationships found among the Gentiles, things such as marriages between close family relations (Lev. 18) and other abuses.35
“For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (15:21). There were Jewish synagogues throughout the Roman world. At this time many Jewish believers still attended the synagogues as well as their own assemblies. No doubt, many Gentile believers frequented the synagogues at times. It was imperative that no offense be given to the Jewish people by the church. While Christians do not live by the law, they certainly do not live without it. That law is now written on their hearts and is contained in the law of love through Jesus Christ.
THE COUNCIL’S LETTER
Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. Acts 15:22
Once the decision was made the Jerusalem church acted swiftly and with great consideration and courtesy. We realize here that not just the apostles but the whole church had a part in this decision. They did not merely send a letter but they chose two esteemed members of the assembly to accompany the letter so that there could be no misunderstanding. Judas Barsabbas and Silas were chosen for this task. Judas is unknown to us, unless perhaps he was a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (1:23). Silas, who had the Latin name of Silvanus (1 Thess. 1:1), was a Roman citizen like Paul. He was a Hellenist believer.36
This decision from the Jerusalem church must be considered as “one of the boldest and most magnanimous in the annals of church history.” 37 The letter sent out to the churches was not a legal document that would mandate compliance. Rather it was a letter sent to promote unity among the believers.38 There is a general agreement among scholars that both the conference and its letter are dated at AD 49.
We can only imagine the collective sigh of relief that must have gone up as church after church read this letter. At last, the troubling matters of circumcision for Gentiles and the eating of special foods had been laid to rest. The new church could now get on with the primary work of winning the lost world.
“With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings” (15:23). This letter begins with a sense of brotherhood among all believers. It would have been well if the decisions of all church councils through the ages had maintained such a spirit. While the letter is directed only to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, it seems apparent that it was a circular letter to be copied and distributed to many others.39 The letter makes plain that there were churches already established in Cilicia. It is very possible and even likely that some of these churches were due to Paul’s efforts during the years he lived at Tarsus (Acts 9:30).40 Some have wondered why the letter was not addressed to the new churches in Galatia. These churches were no doubt included with Antioch, since that church had established them.41
“We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing” (15:24-27). “The letter has justly been described as ‘a masterpiece of tact and delicacy.’” 42 One of the most important points of the letter is that Jerusalem immediately disassociated itself with the circumcision party.43
Good and faithful men were chosen from the Jerusalem church to accompany this letter. In addition, it was borne by Barnabas and Paul. It is interesting that the council lauds these last two as people who have risked their lives for the gospel. As Chrysostom once said, as they have risked their lives, “they have a right to be believed.” 44 With the council’s statement, all troubling questions about Paul’s authority and his relationship to Jerusalem were swept aside.
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:” (15:28). Meyer sees here convincing proof that the Holy Spirit is a person.45 Obviously, he is directing the church. Later we will see the Holy Spirit guiding Paul and Silas on their upcoming mission trip. He will tell them where they cannot go and where they can go. We should remind ourselves again that these requirements or essentials regard fellowship between believing Jews and Gentiles. They have nothing to do with individual salvation and its requirements.46
“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell” (15:29). When we consider the complexity of the problem dealt with at Jerusalem, it is almost amazing when we note the brevity of this response. It is covered in only a single verse. Again, most of these recommendations deal with the Christian’s relationship with idolatry and its practices. The Christian cannot dine at the pagan temples or participate in the vileness practiced there. Christians must be very careful with blood since it is a symbol of redemption. In other words, Christians should have no blood pudding. All sexual immorality must be forsaken. These modest rules would make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Christians to happily fellowship together.
The letter ends with a simple “Farewell.” Keener points out how in the Greco-Roman world most letters ended this way.47
DISTRIBUTING THE LETTER
So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. Acts 15:30
What a happy occasion this was for the church at Antioch! Not only did Jerusalem send a letter clarifying the circumcision matter once and for all, but they sent dear brothers to verify the contents and intention of the letter. The table fellowship at Antioch could now be resumed.48
“The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers” (15:31-32). We see here that both Judas and Silas were prophets and they greatly encouraged the church with their messages. Keener says, “…no group boasted prophetic activity to the extent that Christians did; most Jews felt that there were no genuine prophets in their own time.” 49
Marshall comments on this letter saying: “The principle was of basic significance for the future of the early church, and it remains basic for all time; no national, racial or social requirements can ever be made conditions for salvation and membership of the church alongside the single and sole requirement of faith in Jesus Christ…” 50
“After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them” (15:33). The clear meaning of this verse is that both Judas and Silas (they) returned to Jerusalem. However, over the centuries some scribe felt the need to clarify why Silas was later found in Antioch. This he did in verse 34, which is not found here in the NIV or in several other modern translations (NJB, RSV). Other translations such as NKJ read, “However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.”
The Greek scholar Robertson says of it: “This verse is not in the Revised Version or in the text of Westcott and Hort, being absent from Aleph, A, B, Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an addition to help explain the fact that Silas is back in Antioch in Acts 15:40. But the ‘some days’ of Acts 15:36 afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.” 51
PAUL AND BARNABAS SEPARATE
But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord. Acts 15:35
As we have said, Paul and Barnabas were the leaders at the Antioch church. Like they had done before, they continued to teach and preach there. No doubt, they could now teach and preach with new fervency since the Gentile circumcision problem at last had been resolved. Yet, as time passed a problem developed between them as we shall see.
“Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing’” (15:36). We have noted how Paul did not just establish churches but he nurtured them with visits, letters, and with the sending of his associates. As Bengel says, “Paul felt that he was not called to spend a peaceful, though laborious life at Antioch, but that his true work was far off among the Gentiles.” 52 Wiersbe likens the church at Antioch not as a parking lot but as a launching pad for the Lord’s work.53
It is likely that Paul and Barnabas worked at Antioch over the winter months, but with the coming of spring and the resumption of travel by sea and land routes, their spirits were stirred to resume their mission work.54
“Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work” (15:37-38). We noted earlier in Acts that Barnabas was an encourager. He no doubt felt strongly about restoring his wilted cousin and getting him back into mission work. Paul was a strong person with strong opinions and he did not feel that taking young Mark along was a good idea. All this in itself does not seem to be grounds enough for the great missionary team to part ways. Perhaps there were other hidden reasons.
Some have suggested that the real reason was the vacillation of Barnabas over the question of eating with Gentiles (Gal. 2;11-14). We remember that Barnabas had caved in and deserted the Gentiles in order to eat kosher with the Jerusalem group.55 That fact may have irritated Paul like a burr under his collar. Of course, Paul was a loving and forgiving soul. He would later speak in cordial terms about both Barnabas (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6) and Mark (cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phm. 24).56
“They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord” (15:39-40). This whole episode reveals the Bible’s honesty in reporting the good as well as the bad. We also have to agree that this split was providential in that it effectively doubled the mission force working out of Antioch.57
Paul may have realized that Silas would make a good missionary companion for him. Likely he sent to Jerusalem for him to return to Antioch. Silas was a Roman citizen like Paul (16:37-38) and that would come in handy. He was also a leader in the Jerusalem congregation (15:22) and he was the one who actually delivered the letter from the Jerusalem church. His presence would surely assist Paul in his coming struggles with the Judaizers. In addition to being a prophet (15:32), he apparently was fluent in Greek and would later serve as an amanuensis or scribe for the apostles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12).58
“He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches” (15:41). As we have mentioned, Paul was not content just to make a trip somewhere. He worked all along the way teaching and preaching in the new churches. No doubt he delivered the letter from Jerusalem at each stop.