Lesson 181 ended with Paul and Barnabas in disagreement over who should accompany them on the 2nd missionary journey. We won’t cover that again, but Acts 15:40 tells us Paul chose Silas to go with him and they departed with the blessing of the brethren there at Antioch.
Silas first appears earlier in Acts 15 at the council previously discussed, held in Jerusalem to settle the question of taking the gospel message to the Gentiles and was a recognized leader in the church in Jerusalem (verse 22). He’s called Silvanus in 2 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1 and the same by Peter in 1 Peter 5:12.
When you read the passage in Acts 15:22-34, Silas is one of the group chosen to go to Antioch (along with Paul, Barnabas and Judas) with the letters (verse 23) to report the results of the council. I should mention the fact that this major shift in doctrine was accepted among those who seem to be recognized in Luke’s account as the spiritual leaders of the early church without dissention. It’s obvious that dissention did exist (see Acts 15:1-2); but the leadership never legitimized it (15:24). That same controversy will resurface several times and we will see it later in some of Paul’s letters.
And you can see the spiritual wisdom they displayed in this situation by sending Judas and Silas to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. To insure to those in Antioch that the letters were genuine and not forgeries, they sent Judas and Silas to confirm them “by mouth” (verse 27). And when those in Antioch read the letter “they rejoiced at the consolation.” (Verse 31) I should mention here that “consolation” is from paraklesis, and means, an exhortation or encouragement for the purpose of strengthening (the believer).
Then there is one more thing I need to mention regarding Silas; he’s called a “prophet” in verse 32. I mention this because there is a general misunderstanding of this term in many circles today. This is from prophetes, a word formed from pro, meaning, before or forth, and phemi, to speak. The problem lies in the fact that pro does not refer to time (as can be assumed by “before”), but should be used in the context of space (“before” meaning, in front of).
So, when you understand the difference, a prophet is one who speaks “before” another, or, openly. Therefore, a prophet, in this context, is one who speaks the truth of the gospel message openly, in some cases, even boldly. The fact that this word came into usage to describe one who foretells the future is both secondary, and in many cases, inaccurate. Still, there are many today who automatically think, “predicting the future” when they see the word, regardless of context or whether it is being used correctly.
When we get to verse 33, it tells us that after some time “they were sent away in peace, to return to those who had sent them.” Use of the word “they” assumes this group was made up of more than the four already named. It’s clear that both Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch (verse 35). However, in the KJV, verse 34 tells us Silas stayed in Antioch. However, in the Amplified Bible, verse 34 is in italics, indicating it is not in the original manuscripts, but added for clarification. In the NIV, the text goes from verse 33 to verse 35 and 34 is omitted all together.
Nevertheless, it’s clear that Silas did remain in Antioch, since he accompanies Paul as they begin that second journey from Antioch just a short time later. Evidently Judas didn’t return to Jerusalem alone. And, it’s clear Paul and Silas must have formed a relationship during this time that would last well into Paul’s travels and ministry.
Now Paul and Silas leave Antioch and, traveling by land this time, go up through Syria, across Cilicia and arrive in Derbe and Lystra (15:41-16:1). Here, we’re introduced to yet another important character in the New Testament. Timothy was no doubt a convert from Paul’s first journey when he preached the gospel there (Acts 14:6-7); as years later in Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he calls him “my true son in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). And, we see from 16:1 Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer, but his father was a Greek.
This brings us to an interesting aspect of Paul’s ministry used by some to point out an inconsistency or even hypocrisy on his part. Personally, I don’t accept either. “Now he (that is, Timothy) had a good reputation among believers in both Lystra and Iconium. And Paul wanted to take him on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” (16:2-3)
Earlier in this lesson we saw the dissention caused in Acts 15:1 by those who insisted on imposing circumcision as a requirement for Gentile believers. And Paul and Barnabas had a heated disagreement and discussion with them about it (15:2). So, if Paul is so against this, what’s going on here? This had to be the result of both men agreeing the effectiveness of their ministry would be harmed if Timothy had not been circumcised. The fact of the matter was that both knew the dissention still existed and would remain a problem. They simply wanted to avoid it, knowing it could prevent some from being willing to listen to the gospel message.
The fact Timothy was willing to be circumcised, or that Paul circumcised him, had nothing to do with compromise or hypocrisy and everything to do with a valid concern for those they would be trying to reach with the gospel. If anything, it showed willingness on Timothy’s part to endure something obviously unpleasant in order to further the gospel, and true spiritual wisdom on Paul’s part in seeing a potential problem ahead that could be avoided.
Paul refused to circumcise Titus (also a Greek) under different circumstances. In Galatians 2:3-5 he talks about the time “false brethren” had come into the church causing this same dissention. Here they were evidently insisting Titus be circumcised, but Paul opposed them and refused. The difference between these two incidents is too obvious. In the first, Timothy was willing to be circumcised to give him the opportunity to take the gospel to unbelieving Jews. In the second, Paul was unwilling to give in to false believers just trying to stir up trouble.
Paul understood the fact that the Lord had called him to take the gospel to the Gentiles; but he always had a heart and passion for winning the Jews for Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20, Romans 9:1-3). Nowhere in the accounts of Paul’s activities or in his letters is there any evidence that he ever compromised the gospel in teaching new converts to keep any part of the Old Covenant Law. And, he makes that clear, as we will see when we get to his letter to the Galatians.