ACC ~ Acts 15 v36 - 41

OVERVIEW:

A major division of the book of Acts begins after this pivotal event of the council and ends at Acts 22:21. This section narrates what is known as the second missionary journey. Unlike the first missionary journey, however, the two principal missionaries are not together. The pastoral implications of this division coming right after a council and decree that looked radically to the unity of the church are not lost to modern commentators who interpret its placement as showing how there can be legitimate disputes and divisions within the greater unity of the body. Here, the mission of spreading the gospel is seen as hindered by an insistence on refusing to separate. For the Fathers, the pastoral implications are primary. The continuous efforts of Paul and Barnabas offer us an example of great dedication to the gospel. Although our calling to spread the Word may take a different form, every believer has this responsibility for which God will require an account (SEVERUS). We see here also that despite our common responsibility of bearing fruit for Christ, we have different talents that answer different needs in the church, and so we will bear fruit in different ways: some will serve the church in leadership while others will receive that service to the profit of themselves and their neighbors, and sometimes the best thing might be to work separately for the greater good (CHRYSOSTOM, BEDE).

15:36 | Returning to Visit the Believers

THE CHRISTIAN’S RESPONSIBILITY. SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH: If it seemed necessary to the apostles to travel around, and to return often to the same cities where they had preached the gospel, and to visit the believers and to examine closely how they were, what justification will we have before God if we do not fulfill through our writings what they fulfilled by traveling with great toil on their feet and going spontaneously to those who were in need and teaching what is useful for salvation? CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 15.36-38.

15:38 | Not Including One Who Had Withdrawn

DIVERSE GIFTS AND CHARACTERS. CHRYSOSTOM: Luke has already described the apostles’ character to us, showing that one was more tender and forgiving and the other more strict and austere. For the gifts bestowed on them were different. That this is indeed a gift is clear. One befits one set and the other another set of characters. And if they should make an exchange, harm would result. … Likewise in the prophets we find different opinions and different characters. Elias, for example, is austere, while Moses is meek. Thus here Paul is more vehement. But notice even so his gentleness. “He thought best,” it says, “not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia.” … Although there appears to be a sharp contention, in fact it was part of the divine plan that each man should receive his proper place. Besides, it was necessary that not everyone have the same honor but that one should lead and the other be led. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 34.

THE NEED FOR STRENGTH AND CONSISTENCY BEDE: When he [John Mark] placed himself in the very front line of the fray, he had been too lukewarm about taking a stand. Therefore Paul rightly rejected him, lest the strength of others might be corrupted by the contagious influence, so to speak, of this man. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 15.38.

15:39 | Sharp Contention

THEY YIELD TO ONE ANOTHER. CHRYSOSTOM: The point is not that they differed in their opinions but that they accommodated themselves to each other. Thus a greater good resulted from their parting, for which this provided an excuse. What then? Did they withdraw in enmity? God forbid! Recall how after this Barnabas received much praise from Paul in his epistles. “There arose,” it says, “a sharp contention,” not hatred or rivalry. The contention grew so great that it parted them. For what each supposed was advantageous, this he did not admit after this because of his association with the other. I think that the parting took place advisedly and that they said to each other, “Since I wish to, but you do not, let us distribute the places so that we should not fight.” Therefore it was because they yielded to each other that they parted. For Barnabas wanted Paul to prevail and so withdrew. Likewise Paul wanted Barnabas to prevail and he, too, withdrew. Would that we should part such partings to go forth for preaching. “Paul,” it says, “chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.” A wonderful man is he, and very great! HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 34.

A QUARREL OCCURRED. BEDE: Do not think this a moral fault, for it is not evil to be agitated. Rather it is evil to be agitated unreasonably, when no just reason demands it. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 15.39A.

15:40 | Paul Chose Silas

FOR MARK’S INSTRUCTION. CHRYSOSTOM: The sharp contention took place with good reason, to teach Mark a lesson and so that the matter should not look like stage playing. For would he, who had always yielded, not yield on this occasion? He who loved Paul so much that he sought him in Tarsus, brought him to the apostles, undertook the alms in common with him and received the business relating to the decree together with him? [Barnabas] would not have become angry for something like this. No, they parted from each other so that they might educate and bring to perfection those who needed their teaching. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 34.

15:41 | Syria and Cilicia

GREAT GOOD COMES OF THIS CONTENTION. CHRYSOSTOM: “And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.” This too is part of the divine plan. For the Cyprians had shown nothing of the kind as was shown by those in Antioch and elsewhere. Those needed the softer character, but these needed such a character as Paul’s. … For just as a general would not choose to always have a lowly baggage carrier, neither did the apostle. This both taught the others and instructed [Mark] himself. Did Barnabas act badly then? Not at all. It is out of place to even think such a thing. For how is it not out of place to say because of such a small thing that he acted badly? Look, in the first place, nothing bad happened if they, each sufficient for entire nations, separated from one another. Rather, a great good took place. Second, if this had not happened, they would not easily have chosen to leave each other. Please appreciate how the writer does not conceal this at all. But if they had to separate, could it not be done without sharp contention? But it is through this especially that he shows what was human [in the preaching of the gospel]. For if this had to happen in the case of Christ, then all the more so here. Besides, the sharp contention was not trivial, since each argued on behalf of such things and with just reason. Had one of them been looking after himself and seeking his own glory, well then! But on the contrary, each wishing to educate and to teach, one went one way and the other another. What is there to find fault with? In many things, indeed, they acted with human judgment; for they were not made of stone or wood. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 34.