(9)
Scripture Reading: Acts 15:35-41; 16:1-5
In this message we shall cover 15:35—16:5. Acts 15:35-39 records Paul’s contention with Barnabas. In Acts 15:40 we have the beginning of Paul’s second ministry journey. In verses Acts 15:40-41 Paul and Silas passed through Syria and Cilicia, and in Acts 16:1-5 they went to Derbe and to Lystra.
In 15:36 Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return now and visit the brothers throughout every city in which we announced the word of the Lord, and see how they are getting along.” Barnabas intended to take with them John who was called Mark, but Paul “did not consider it suitable to take with them this one who withdrew from them in Pamphylia and did not go with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; and Barnabas, taking along Mark, sailed away to Cyprus” (vv. 38-39). Barnabas and Paul were men who had given up their lives for the name of the Lord (v. 26), yet immediately after their victory in contending for the faith against the heresy concerning circumcision, there arose such a sharp contention between them concerning a relative of one of them that they separated from each other.
The responsibility for the problem should rest with Barnabas, because after this incident he no longer appears in the divine record in Acts of the Lord’s move in God’s New Testament economy. The reason for his failure may have been his natural relationship with Mark, his cousin (Col. 4:10), who had left Barnabas and Paul in their first ministry journey in a negative way (Acts 13:13). Mark was later recovered to Paul’s ministry (2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 1:24), but not Barnabas.
Regarding Mark, Paul was very strict. Mark may have left during the first ministry journey because he was not able to bear the hardships of that evangelical work. However, Barnabas, whose name means son of encouragement (4:36), wanted to take Mark with them on the second journey. Barnabas, who may have been a very kind and patient person, wanted to give Mark another opportunity. Furthermore, because Mark was Barnabas’ cousin, he and Barnabas had a relationship in the flesh. Because Paul was strict in not letting Mark go on the second journey, there arose a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas.
We need to learn from the case of Paul’s contention with Barnabas regarding Mark not to exercise our natural virtues in relation to the Lord’s work. You may be very kind and patient, but when you come into the Lord’s work, you need to forget your natural kindness and patience and take care of the strict, divine regulations and principles. You should not sacrifice the divine principles for the sake of your natural being. If you are naturally nice, kind, patient, and tolerant, this will cause problems in the Lord’s work. If you hold on to such natural virtues, you will sacrifice the divine principles for the sake of your virtues.
In 15:35-39 we see something even worse than exercising our natural virtues in the Lord’s work, and this is the serious matter of allowing a fleshly relationship to creep into this work. It is a terrible thing for this to take place. Barnabas was mistaken both in the matter of exercising his natural virtues in the Lord’s work and probably also in allowing the fleshly relationship with Mark to come into the work.
At the time of 15:35-39 Paul was not a young man. He certainly was one who had much experience in the Lord. Surely there must have been some basic principles involved with the question of taking Mark along with them on the second ministry journey, and Paul felt that he could not break these principles. Eventually, Barnabas went his way, taking Mark with him. After this, there is no further mention of Barnabas in the divine record of God’s move in His New Testament economy. This indicates that Barnabas was wrong.
Acts 15:40 and 41 say, “But Paul, having chosen Silas, went out, being commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers. And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, establishing the churches.” This was the start of Paul’s second ministry journey, which ended in 18:22. The fact that Paul was commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers indicates that he, and not Barnabas, had taken the right way.
In 16:1-5 we see that Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. “And behold, a certain disciple was there named Timothy, a son of a believing Jewish woman, but of a Greek father, who was well attested by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this one to go forth with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (vv. 1b-3). Paul’s circumcising Timothy because of the Jews indicates the strong influence of the Judaic background that still remained among the Jewish believers. This disturbed and frustrated the move of the Lord’s gospel.
In chapter fifteen of Acts the solution to the problem regarding circumcision was put in writing (15:20, 23-30), and Paul carried this letter with him. Acts 16:4 indicates this: “Now as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.” Why, then, did Paul circumcise Timothy? Considering Timothy good material for the work, Paul wanted him to go forth with him (16:3). We are told that Paul “took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places.” In circumcising Timothy Paul may have been exercising his wisdom to make the situation easier for him to preach the gospel. Otherwise there was no reason for Paul to have Timothy circumcised.
We need to consider Paul’s circumcising of Timothy in Acts 16 in the light of what Paul says concerning circumcision in the book of Galatians. Galatians 2:1-3 say, “Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me also. And I went up according to revelation, and I laid before them the gospel which I proclaim among the nations, but privately to those of reputation, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” These verses refer to what is recorded in Acts 15. In Acts 15 there is no mention of Titus, but in Galatians 2 Paul tells us that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Paul says that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Since Titus in Galatians 2 was not circumcised, why did Paul in Acts 16 circumcise Timothy when he was on his second ministry journey? Here we see that Paul acted in two ways. On the one hand, Titus was not circumcised; on the other hand, Paul had Timothy circumcised.
Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” How does this word apply to the circumcision of Timothy? Since Timothy was circumcised, did Christ profit him nothing?
In Galatians 5:4 Paul goes on to say, “You have been brought to naught from Christ, you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” This is a serious word. To be brought to naught from Christ is to be reduced to nothing from Christ, deprived of all profit from Christ and so separated from Him, making Him void of effect.
In Galatians 6:14 Paul says, “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.” In this verse the “world” is not the world in general but the Jewish, religious world. As the following verse indicates, here Paul is saying that the religious world has been crucified to him, and he to the religious world. In Galatians 6:15 he goes on to explain, “For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” As we have pointed out elsewhere, circumcision is an ordinance of the law, whereas the new creation is of the divine life with the divine nature.
Paul also speaks of circumcision in Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith operating through love.” Here the word “avails” indicates force or practical power. Circumcision is merely an outward ordinance and has no power or life.
How can we reconcile Paul’s having Timothy circumcised with what he says regarding circumcision in the book of Galatians? When he wrote Galatians, his attitude towards circumcision was altogether negative. In that Epistle he tells us that if we are circumcised Christ will profit us nothing, and that in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. Since this was Paul’s attitude toward circumcision, why did he have Timothy circumcised?
In chapter eighteen of Acts we see that he still had a Jewish vow (v. 18), a private vow that could be performed in any place by the Jews for thanksgiving, with the shearing of the hair. Paul knew that there were Jews in all the leading cities of Asia Minor. He realized that as he traveled through these cities to work among the people, he would first carry out a work among the Jews. He may have thought that it would be a great frustration to his gospel work to have with him an uncircumcised young co-worker. Therefore, it may have been for the sake of his gospel work that Paul had Timothy circumcised. He may have done this in order to be able to carry out his work where the Jewish atmosphere and environment were still prevailing. However, when Paul went to Jerusalem to fight for the truth and against the heresy of circumcision, he purposely brought Titus with him, one who had not been circumcised.
As we study Acts 16 and Galatians 2 we may be impressed with Paul’s flexibility. When he went to Jerusalem to fight against circumcision, he brought with him a co-worker who was not circumcised. Paul may have done this in order to show that he was strongly opposed to circumcision. As we have seen, Galatians 2:1-3 was included in the events of Acts 15. Then immediately after the conference in Acts 15, Paul, when he was about to go forth to preach the gospel on his second journey of ministry, took Timothy and had him circumcised. If we had been Silas, we might have said, “Paul, what are you doing? You are not stable. First you oppose circumcision, and now you are having Timothy circumcised.” On Paul’s behalf, however, we may say that he was being flexible, not unstable. His having Timothy circumcised may not have been wrong. The word he wrote in Galatians regarding neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availing anything may be interpreted as applying to the case of Timothy in Acts 16. We may understand this word to mean that Paul covered both the side of circumcision and the side of uncircumcision.
Once a tradition gets into people, it is very difficult to remove it. Furthermore, it is hard for people to escape the influence of a strong religious atmosphere. Paul was working in the Gentile world, mainly among the Greek community. But the Jews living in the different cities in Asia Minor still maintained the Judaic atmosphere, and it was difficult even for Paul to be free from this influence.
Should Paul in Acts 16 have had Timothy circumcised? It can be said fairly that eventually the Lord will take the way of not circumcising anyone. The best we can say regarding Paul’s having Timothy circumcised is that he was being flexible in a particular kind of environment.
The book of Acts is very dispensational. If we do not have the insight that comes from knowing God’s economy, God’s dispensation, it will be difficult for us to understand this book. We praise the Lord that the book of Acts is being opened to us so that we may see all the crucial dispensational points contained in it. Seeing these matters will help us in our study of the New Testament.
Acts 16:4 and 5 say, “Now as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and were increasing in number daily.” All these churches were local churches, that is, churches in various cities. A local church is a church established in a locality, within the jurisdiction of a city. Such a local church is indicated by the Lord’s word in Matthew 18:17. The record of the New Testament concerning the establishment of a church in its locality is consistent throughout (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 14:23; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 8:1; Gal. 1:2; Rev. 1:4, 11).
