Comments on Acts 15 v1-5 Jewish converts to the Church maintain that circumcision is still an essential doctrine and work, and they need to keep the Law of Moses. v3 is a parenthesis indicating they preached as they traveled, cp. D&C 61:3. v6-11 After much dispute Peter stands and tells them that the works of the Law are not unto salvation, but they believe they are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. But what is it in Peter's statement that silences the opposition? Peter recounts the event wherein the Spirit falls on the Gentiles, cf. 10:44-48. If the Spirit fell on the Gentiles, and they were obviously uncircumcised, then God has accepted them in an uncircumcised state and considers them worthy of His Spirit. As such, how could they, men, require circumcision when the Lord does not? The opposition realizes Peter is right and falls silent. v12 The disputing multitude falls silent at Peter's statement, indicating at least tacit approval. Paul and Barnabas then follow up Peter's statement with evidence of various miracles performed among the Gentiles, who obviously were uncircumcised, to support Peter's argument. v13-21 Barnabas, a prominent disciples, stands and wisely offers a compromise solution that forwards the spirit of the Law of Moses without the letter of the Law of Moses. The Gentiles ought to observe the general principles of the Law preached in every synagogue (such as avoiding idolatry, sexual immorality, eating blood), but they do not need to observe the letter of the Law in such practices such as circumcision. v20 "things strangled", in other words, things killed without pouring the blood out. The consumption of blood was prohibited with Noah and perpetuated with the Law of Moses, so even if the Law of Moses is done away the consumption of blood is still prohibited under the Noachide covenant. So long as men are permitted to eat the flesh of animals, they must pour out the blood, cf, Gen. 9:4. v16-18 Barnabas paraphrases Amos 9:11-12 to show that it was the Lord's intent all along to bring the Gentiles in among Israel. v22-29 The apostles and elders agree with Barnabas' suggestion and compose a letter and send it along with some of the apostles and disciples to Antioch. The letter itself is given in v. 23- 29. v30-35 The apostles travel to Antioch and deliver the message to the Church, which results in the end of the dispute and much consolation thereby. Some of the apostles and disciples remain there at Antioch for some time. v34 This verse is missing in many ancient manuscripts. v36-41 In returning to the traveling ministry Paul and Barnabas get into an argument over whether or not to take one John Mark with them. Paul's rejection of John Mark is based on his apparent abandonment of the ministry (John Mark joins them at 12:25 and then leaves them for Jerusalem at 13:13). Why John Mark left them we are not told. The result is Paul and Barnabas part company. Barnabas leaves with John Mark for Cyprus, which is Barnabas' home (cf. 4:36). We never hear of Barnabas again. It isn't clear, but the core issue for Barnabas may be one of loyalty to family. Mary, mother of John Mark, was sister or niece of Barnabas (cf. Acts 12:12, Col. 4:10), so John Mark was his nephew or cousin (cf. Col. 4:10, the KJV calls him "cousin"). And Acts 12:12 indicates Mary was a prominent early disciple as her home was a gathering place for the disciples. So, these are all prominent members of the early Church. Whatever the contention was between Paul and Barnabas, this did not permanently estrange Paul and John Mark as they are later together in prison in Rome per Col. 4:10 and Philem. 24. John Mark was also with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during the second imprisonment per 2 Tim. 4:11. And Peter calls John Mark "son" in 1 Peter 5:13 when they are later together in Babylon. So, John Mark was prominent in the Church and was not disaffected with the Church as a result of this "sharp contention". It is probable this John Mark is in fact the author of the Gospel of Mark, and was with Jesus during his mortal ministry. The unparalleled detail of Mark 14:51-52 is generally considered to be a self-disclosure, akin to those John employs in his gospel. There is also no other "Mark" made reference to elsewhere in the NT. Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.