Acts Chapter 15: Disputes Amongst the Brethren

Jan 10th, 2012 | By | Category: Acts, Verse by Verse --Studies led by Br. Frank Shallieu (Click on Book name)

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

New converts would have been confused by the message from those longer consecrated that circumcision according to the Law was essential for salvation. To be unmoved by this improper doctrine, one had to be consecrated for a while and stabilized in the truth. If many Christian Jews who firmly believed in the gospel but did not understand the real kernel of the matter were overcome by this wrong doctrine, how hard it was for new converts! Paul was concerned about the problem, and fortunately, he was in the region.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Paul and Barnabas disputed earnestly and strongly with Jewish Christians who advocated circumcision, for silence would have given assent. Other brethren urged Paul and Barnabas to return to Jerusalem to discuss the matter with the rest of the apostles and the elders. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the early Church was discernment, the ability to mechanically express a right doctrine. Another gift was the ability to grasp the mature thinking or principle. Still another gift was being able to utter a prophecy or a suggestion—in this case for a little committee consisting of Paul, Barnabas, and certain others to go back to Jerusalem “about this question” and thus nip the wrong doctrine in the bud.

Comment: It is interesting that in this same chapter, two disputes are mentioned. First, Paul and Barnabas were on the same side of the issue, disputing with the Judaizing brethren. Later Paul and Barnabas had their own dispute, so this is a good chapter to teach principle. Where principle is involved, two brethren might have to oppose one another, even if they have been very close.

It was “no small dissension and disputation.” In other words, it was an animated discussion.

There would have been no bitterness, however, for Paul and Barnabas were both strong and good characters. Their dispute here for the right doctrine not only helped at the moment but also helped the Church subsequently. They demonstrated the principle that it would be very wrong to remain quiet on an important issue and reason as follows: “I will not get into argumentative disputation but will let love and peace prevail. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.”

The issue of circumcision was important because it went to the root of the doctrine of justification by faith and being saved by God’s grace. This doctrine was a matter of principle. If circumcision were made mandatory, other features of the Law would soon be added, putting the Christian more and more under bondage. The result would be justification by works, not by grace. Therefore, a little committee (Paul, Barnabas, and others) went back to Jerusalem to resolve this burden that was on their minds.

Acts 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

In traveling down to Jerusalem, Paul, Barnabas, and certain other brethren went first through Phoenicia (Lebanon), then through Samaria (northern Israel), and on to Judea. En route to Jerusalem, they told the brethren they met about their wondrous experiences with Gentile conversions on the missionary tour. All rejoiced to hear how the gospel had blossomed out into the Gentile field. Of course they would have wisely refrained from talking about the circumcision problem and waited for the Jerusalem conference for a resolution.

“Being brought on their way by the church” means that other brethren financed the journey back to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were dependent either upon freewill offerings or on Paul’s working as a tent maker, which would have taken time. Seeing the importance of their getting to Jerusalem quickly, the brethren helped Paul and Barnabas financially and provided lodging and other temporal needs.

Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

When they got to Jerusalem, they were received by the brethren, and they again told of the Gentile conversions. Meanwhile, arrangements were made for the conference.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Certain believing Pharisees reiterated the requirement for circumcision, wanting the brethren “to keep the law of Moses.” In other words, when certain Jews with a pharisaical background became Christians, they brought some of that strict thinking with them. Not only did they feel their thinking was superior, but superficially it seemed plausible. Advocates felt that the gospel was a furthering or an extension of the Law—that they were being brought up to a higher plateau. They did not realize that the higher plateau was separate from and not based on the Law. The thought that the Christian was to keep both the Law and the gospel sounded very good from the standpoint of human reasoning.

The real issue here was circumcision because Abraham was circumcised before the Law. Then the Law was given with the requirement for circumcision on the eighth day after birth. The situation back there was something like Christians in our day saying that a Christian must have water baptism in order to be saved. Moreover, these pharisaical Christian Jews were aggressive—they demanded circumcision.

This problem with some Jewish Christians shows the difficulty of trying to get rid of past indoctrinations and backgrounds. Even those in some Protestant sects, such as the Mennonites and the Amish, find it hard to have a compassionate, flexible attitude toward others because of their background and training. A strong parental influence can also be an obstacle. It is hard to undo past training.

Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Apostles and elders came together to consider the matter of circumcision. Regular believers were not included because the desire was to have mature thinking on this subject. Of course the words of the apostles would be given greater priority.

Comment: The Expanded Biblical Comments say, “The truth has nothing to lose by fairness, openness, and a reasonable moderation and the turning on of all light obtainable.” That is a good attitude to have, especially as the light shines brighter and brighter. Reply: Such an attitude requires faith in Divine Providence to overrule the matter.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Peter did not take a leading role in the beginning by directing the questions, etc. Instead he exercised patience and let the others speak awhile before rising up. It was wise to allow some thrashing out first, back and forth, back and forth. When he finally stood up and called attention to the conversion of the Gentiles, many would be interested to hear his thinking.

Comment: Although Paul and Barnabas were there, Peter and James did the speaking.

Reply: That was the proper attitude on the part of Paul and Barnabas. Although not prohibited from speaking, they used decorum and did not go to Jerusalem with the attitude “We will straighten out this matter and the brethren.” There were twelve apostles, not just Paul, and not being heady, he trusted the Holy Spirit to correct the problem and bring unanimity.

Paul was selected by God to be the minister to the Gentiles, but Peter reminded those who were assembled that God had initially given him the keys of heaven to both Jews and Gentiles.

In other words, Peter opened the door to the Gentiles, but Paul was the leading apostle of the Gentiles. Peter’s words showed that Paul was not prejudiced to favor the Gentiles, for God had directed Peter earlier in regard to Cornelius. Peter said, “A good while ago God made choice among us, that … by my mouth [the Gentiles] should hear the [opening of the] word of the gospel [to Cornelius], and believe.”

Q: Why was the address “Men and brethren” frequently used?

A: Although the apostles and the elders made the decisions, other brethren would have been present. However, an open invitation was not issued to the brethren in general in Jerusalem, for a smorgasbord of believers and their variant views would have resulted in more confusion and indecision than when the conference started. The arrangement was for the apostles and the elders to meet, but others were not prohibited from attending.

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles was a practical, pragmatic evidence that God had accepted them, and He gave them not only the Holy Spirit but also a manifestation of tongues.

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Jesus’ yoke is easy (Matt. 11:30). In contrast, the yoke of the Law is heavy and burdensome because of the imperfection of the flesh. With the gospel, grace can enter in with a certain degree of penance, humility, and proper progressive steps.

Comment: Paul said, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1).

Reply: The “yoke of bondage” is the yoke of the Law. Conscientious people could be depressed even to the extent of suicide if they felt there was no way to get out from under that yoke.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Verse 11 shows Peter’s growth in his understanding of grace and faith. Now he was a stalwart in these fundamentals of the Christian life.

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

The “multitude” would have included not just the elders and the apostles but other brethren as well. Before the conference was over, there was quite a gathering. However, the discussions on circumcision were between the elders and the apostles, with the apostles’ having the major say.

Paul and Barnabas declared “what miracles and wonders [gifts of the Holy Spirit] God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

James Alphaeus had the last word. Evidently, he had real talent as a chairman. On the ecclesia level, a deacon, for instance, may have a special talent for conducting a business meeting. Feeling the matter of circumcision should be brought to a resolution, James began, “Men and brethren, hearken unto me.”

Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Acts 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

James quoted from the Old Testament: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess … all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this” (Amos 9:11,12). The key words used by James are “after this”; that is, after the calling of a sufficient number of Gentiles, after the Church is complete, would come the repairing of the covenant relationship with Israel along natural lines. These verses would be only a summary of what James said on that occasion.

The calling of the Gentiles agreed with Scripture. After the Gentiles have been called out as a people for God’s name, the Jewish nation will be built again under the New Covenant. James was saying in effect, “You should not be so surprised about the Gentiles because God’s plan is to reconcile the world, the ‘residue of men.’ The Gentiles are in God’s plan in both the Gospel Age and the Millennial Age.”

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

In other words, with His omniscient powers, God foresaw this development with the Gentiles.

In fact, He made arrangements for and approved of the Gentiles’ coming in long, long in advance. Because of the Old Testament Scriptures and prophecies, Jewish Christians should not have been surprised but should have accepted this development. Here is a good example of how we have to grow in our understanding of the deep things of God lest we react like zombies and our minds fail to grasp important details. This principle is especially true with regard to prophetic truths, which are dispensationally understood when the due time comes.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

James listed four categories that Christians were to abstain from: (1) pollutions of idols, (2) fornication, (3) things strangled, and (4) blood. Notice that verse 21 gives the proper slant or basis to verse 20. James was saying that these issues were very important because to ignore them would offend or cause a stumbling block for Orthodox Jews, who read from the Old Testament every week and gave explanations and thus were familiar with the Law. To disobey the prohibition in any of these four categories would raise unnecessary trouble. Abstaining from the four categories would help to minimize contention, but of course it would not eliminate contention altogether. Let us consider the four categories one by one.

Category 1: “Pollutions of idols” referred primarily to the practice of offering meat to idols and then selling it to the people at reduced rates. After the temple services, the leftover meat was brought out into the open market adjoining the temple for public sale; that is, the cheapest meat was sold at heathen temples, which had a butcher shop convenient for the worshippers, and the revenue from the sale of the meat went into the temple coffers. Just as the Jews brought animals to the Temple in Jerusalem to offer to the Lord and could eat part of those animals depending on the nature of the sacrifice and even take some of the meat home, so heathen religions had similar practices except that they were grotesque and were accompanied by defiling practices.

What was the temptation to Christians? After the meat was offered to idols, it was sold at the common market. Under the Law, the Jews gave meat to their priesthood, but the Law was typical and constructive and had wholesome lessons, whereas the heathen religions were mixed up. The meat brought to heathen temples was so abundant that the excess was sold at bargain prices in the common market to enrich the temple treasuries. For believers to knowingly buy such meat was wrong, for others would observe the practice and get the wrong lesson. Another example is that a Christian should not go into a bar, even if he is not drinking, for others might see him and draw the wrong conclusion. Christians are to avoid even the appearance of evil. Paul said that offering meat to an idol did not change the meat one iota, but eating such meat could affect the consciences of the brotherhood.

Because of the other Jews, Christians were not to knowingly buy meat that had been offered to idols. When Paul went into Gentile territories on his missionary journeys, he first looked for Jews. When the preaching there caused problems, he turned his message to the Gentiles. Since eating meat offered to idols would have hindered his witnessing, it was prudent to abstain from such meat. However, if a Christian was the only believer in an area and had Paul’s understanding, he could buy the cheaper meat, for in that case, there would be no danger of stumbling brethren.

Applying this principle today, we should be sensitive to the consciences of other Christians and forgo something rather than to stumble them. Paul was not saying that Christians should be vegetarians for the rest of their lives but that they should abstain from the eating of meat in that circumstance. James gave practical advice for conditions back there in the early Church.

Today we do not have the same conditions.

Comment: Paul reasoned that in cases where it was not clear whether meat had been offered to idols, one did not have to ask questions and dig into the matter (1 Cor. 10:25). That way the conscience was not defiled.

Reply: Yes, the meat could be obtained secondhand, and in that case, there was no need to ask questions. The point is that we should be careful not to defile the conscience of other Christians.

For example, if one had a Catholic statue before he consecrated, he should get rid of it, even though he is not using the statue now, lest he hurt the conscience of another Christian. Based on that principle, the newly converted Christians in Ephesus burned their mystical (occult) books (Acts 19:18,19).

Category 2: “Fornication” was listed separately to clarify the situation. Because fornication was mixed in with heathen worship, it had to be emphasized as an evil. Christians had to put this sin behind them! Many groups saw nothing wrong with prostitution right in the temple, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Men paid money to the vestal virgins, the prostitutes, etc., and the money was put in the temple coffers. The flesh liked this practice and justified it as holy. One foot was in heaven, and the other foot was on earth.

The clarification was needed that Jehovah was a holy God and that the individual had to be separate from the flesh, separate from these former practices. Fornication, which is more inclusive than adultery, is illicit and abnormal relationships including homosexuality. Back in the apostles’ day, fornication was not seen as something so terrible. Docetists in the early Church immersed themselves in fornication to the highest degree, deluding themselves into thinking that this practice manifested their hatred and disgust for it. Whom were they fooling? Some had the nerve to preach Docetism, and they were getting away with it because such thinking was compatible with the former life of a number of brethren. Stated another way, practices from the past were carried into the Christian religion. Therefore, it was the responsibility of Paul and the other apostles to show that Christians should keep themselves separate from the evil. Just as the Jews were steeped in the Law for centuries, so the Gentiles were steeped in immorality for centuries, and that tie had to be broken.

Incidentally, what is peculiar today in regard to homosexuality is that it is becoming acceptable to society through the general increase of knowledge. Back in heathen countries in Paul’s day, ignorance prevailed, most of the people worked like serfs, and there was no Bible, so the practice was more excusable. But today almost everyone has a Bible, so there is more responsibility. Moreover, there are historical records of what happened to past generations and how societies collapsed when immorality took over, but who pays attention to history today?

We can see how the United States is going into decay and ruin. Conditions are getting worse and worse.

Comment: Paul spoke strongly to the Corinthians: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Category 3: “Things strangled.” Strangling or breaking the neck, the common method of killing an animal for food, kept the blood in the animal. Meat is tastier with the blood in it, and strangling was less messy than draining the blood Orthodox style. If the next verse, verse 21, had not been included, we would still have to get kosher meat without the blood today, but the situation changed. Up until AD 70, the four categories of prohibition applied as set forth in the conference. (Of course it goes without saying that fornication is always prohibited.)

Not only did the Gentiles feel that killing animals by strangling enhanced the value of the meat, but they saw nothing wrong with the practice. To the Jew, however, strangling was a sin because the Law taught that the blood of the animal had to be drained.

Vegetarians use verse 20 but ignore verse 21. However, Paul straightened out the matter: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Christians were not to buy polluted meat offered publicly at the temple store, for others watching would know the meat had been offered to idols and their conscience would be affected. Paul said that Christians who are insensitive to the consciences of others will not make the Kingdom, so we must be careful. Along another line, it is not wrong for a Christian to have a gun. What the gun is used for is the determining factor.

Category 4: “Blood” was the practice of drinking blood, especially in orgies and cults. Blood was also used with rituals, as in Bacchus worship. With kosher meat, the practice was to hang the animal by the feet and let the blood drain out. However, strictly speaking, it was impossible to get all of the blood out, so some blood was eaten anyway. The point is that the Lord intended the prohibition against eating blood to be a type, for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins (Heb. 9:22). Therefore, He instituted the literal letting of blood of the animal for the benefit of what it pictured. Those who are sticklers should realize that with some of the things they are straining at, they are “swallow[ing] a camel” (Matt. 23:23,24). Many of the commandments in the Law are acts of obedience to show reverence for God. About 95 percent of the commandments have either a health or a practical value.

In Europe during the Middle Ages, the people in several countries commonly drank blood, thinking it made them ferocious. And the strange thing is that the blood actually did affect them, making them rough and tough and degrading them. If a dog bites a chicken and happens to get the taste of blood, that dog is changed forever. No longer just a playful pet, it becomes ferocious. Not only is the taste of blood unique, but it breeds cannibalism and violence and feeds the lower man at the sacrifice of the nobler qualities.

Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

As a result of the conference, the Jerusalem church sent at least two witnesses (Judas Barsabas and Silas) to accompany Paul and Barnabas and report that the letter being carried was authentic (Acts 15:27).

Acts 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

The letter began by stating that it came from the apostles, elders, and brethren of the Jerusalem church. It was addressed to believers (both Jews and Gentiles) in Gentile lands, of which Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia were specifically named. Cilicia was the province Paul had come from.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Acts 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

The pronoun “you” in verse 27 refers to brethren among the Gentiles, that is, those to whom the letter was addressed.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The immoral conditions so permeated the customs in the various Gentile lands that without guidelines, it was almost impossible to avoid an entanglement of some kind. Thus the distinct enumeration of four categories assisted the brethren in what particularly to avoid in their conduct. The letter curbed the Gentile brethren more than the Jews, for the Jews were accustomed to abstaining from these things. However, because of their background, the Gentiles actually had a better grasp than the Jews of the liberty they had as Christians.

Nevertheless, the letter enjoined the Gentiles to be very careful not to use any liberty that might cause irreparable harm to the brotherhood. For example, whether or not meat was offered to an idol really did not affect the meat, but in his epistles, Paul counseled the brethren to be considerate of the feelings of other brethren. In hearing this letter, the Jewish Christians realized that they had to submit and welcome Gentiles into the Church of Christ on a level with themselves as long as the Gentile Christians abstained from these four categories.

Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

“They” refers to Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

The letter was read to the Antioch brethren first, and “they rejoiced for the exhortation” (see King James margin). Antioch was a convenient meeting place for those who lived in Cilicia and Syria, so when the brethren from these areas came to Antioch, they were shown the letter.

When Paul left Antioch to visit other Gentile regions, he took the letter with him and read it in the various places (Acts 16:4).

Acts 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

All four were notable for preaching: Paul, Barnabas, Judas, and Silas. Through their gift of the Holy Spirit, Judas and Silas were prophets. One reason they were specially “chosen” by the Jerusalem brethren may have been that very gift of the Spirit (Acts 15:22,25). The Jerusalem brethren would have felt this gift enabled Judas and Silas to exhort and thus supplement the letter. The reason given in the letter was that these men had “hazarded [risked] their [very] ives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26). In other words, they did not just profess to be believers, but their actions confirmed their professions.

Acts 15:33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.

Acts 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Judas and the other brethren (except Silas) returned to the apostles in Jerusalem. In other words, brethren other than Judas and Silas had accompanied Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, but these two were the chief witnesses.

Acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Acts 15:36 And some days after Paul said unto 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.

Acts 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Acts 15:38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

Acts 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

Acts 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Paul and Barnabas had no ill will toward each other with the “sharp” contention and subsequent separation. They simply were at loggerheads, and neither would yield. And no doubt each considered the matter a principle. With Barnabas, there was a family tug because John Mark was a nephew.

At one time, Barnabas was regarded as more important than Paul. It took a little time for Paul to emerge as head and shoulders over the others in understanding. In the beginning of the letter, Barnabas was mentioned first, showing deference and appreciation of him by the brethren on a longer-term basis (Acts 15:25). Not only did he have a comforting, peacemaking disposition, but he was called Jupiter on a previous occasion because he had a better physical appearance and looked more like a patriarch (Acts 14:12). Evidently, he had a serene and mature demeanor. Paul’s lesser appearance and weaker voice helped to keep him humble, and this quality was important, especially since he will be the chief apostle in the Kingdom.

Paul had said (paraphrased), “Let us go and visit every city where we preached the Word and see how the brethren are doing.” Therefore, after the dissension, Paul and Silas went to Syria and Cilicia, and Barnabas and John Mark went to Cyprus. That location was an additional tug with Barnabas because he was originally from Cyprus. Although the Scriptures do not mention Paul and Barnabas as being together again subsequently, there was no enmity between them. They just were not close associates thereafter. Paul’s second missionary journey was starting now.

 

 

(1991–1992 Study)

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave Comment