Barnabas is stated by the author of the Acts to have been the result of a disagreement concerning John Mark, who had deserted the missionaries when they were in Pamphylia some years before. It is possible, however, that the real reason lay deeper than this; that their difference of principle touching the relations of Jews and Gentiles within the church, which the recent occurrences at Antioch had revealed, made farther association in the work among the heathen seem undesirable to both of them. That the disagreement was not such as to alienate them. permanently, is clear from Paul's reference to Barnabas in 1 Cor. ix. 6, which, if it does not show that the two men were again together, at least indicates that they were not enemies. Barnabas, therefore, was probably led finally to see the untenable nature of the position he took at Antioch and to range himself again upon Paul's side.2

After passing through Syria and Cilicia, Paul hastened westward into the province of Galatia to revisit in company with Silas the churches which had been founded some years before by himself and Barnabas, and to which he had recently written his epistle. The letter had apparently had the desired effect; for Paul was received in a friendly spirit, and one of his Galatian converts, Timothy, became his companion at this time and continued until the close of his life his dearest and most trusted friend.3

identity of the two men, suggesting that Luke displaced the Silvanus of Paul's epistles with the Silas of Jerusalem in order to emphasize Paul's connection with the Mother Church (1.c. S. 247; Eng. Trans., Vol. I. p. 292).

1 Acts xiii. 13, xv. 38.

2 It was impossible for either Barnabas or Peter to occupy permanently the ground they took at Antioch. Either they must go back to the position of James, or go on to the position of Paul, so far as it related to the observance of the law. If my theory in regard to the authorship of 1 Peter be correct, Barnabas must have reached ultimately the view of Paul upon the subject in dispute, and must have accepted also the fundamental principles of the Pauline Gospel upon which that view was based. See below, p. 485 sq. After separating from Paul, Barnabas went with John Mark to Cyprus, his native home. He is not again mentioned in the writings of the period except in 1 Cor. ix. 6. Mark appears again as Paul's companion in Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11, and Philemon 24, and as the companion of the author of the first epistle of Peter in 1 Peter v. 13. On his connection with the second Gospel, see below, p. 485 sq. That he was subsequently on such friendly terms with Paul shows that the separation at this time left no permanent unpleasantness.

3 Cf. especially Phil. ii. 20.

There is no hint that Paul ever had any more difficulty with these churches, which were so dear to him, but which had caused him such anxiety and distress. His victory over the Judaizers seems to have been complete, and they appear to have given him no farther trouble, at any rate in Galatia, and no serious trouble anywhere.1

The most striking incident connected with this Galatian visit is recorded in Acts xvi. 3, where it is stated that Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews that were in those parts; for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The truth of this report has been doubted by many scholars, on the ground that the action. is inconsistent with Paul's attitude at Jerusalem touching the proposition to circumcise Titus, and also with his principles so clearly and repeatedly avowed in his Epistle to the Galatians.2 It should be remarked, however, that the cases of Timothy and Titus were by no means parallel. Titus was a Greek. Timothy, though his father was a Greek, was the son of a Jewish mother. In the case of Titus also there was a principle at stake, and to have circumcised him under the circumstances would have been to sacrifice that liberty of the Gentiles which Paul had gone to Jerusalem on purpose to maintain. It should be noticed, moreover, that there are other passages in Paul's epistles of a different tenor from those referred to, which make it clear that such action as he is reported to have taken in Timothy's case would not have been regarded by him under ordinary circumstances as inconsistent and out of place, provided it could be made to contribute to the spread of the Gospel. We are not warranted, therefore, in asserting on general grounds that Paul cannot have circumcised the son of a Jewess under any circumstances. If he wished to have him accompany him upon his missionary journeys, where it might prove at times a real advantage for him to be able to mingle freely

1 Paul visited the Galatians again some years later (Acts xviii. 23) and they contributed with his other churches to the great fund which he collected for the poor saints of Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 1).

2 See especially Gal. v. 1 sq. and compare 1 Cor. vii. 18.
3 Cf. Rom. i. 16, iii. 1, xi. 14, and especially 1 Cor. ix. 20.

with Jews, it is conceivable that he might have taken the unusual step.

But it is not to be denied that there are certain peculiar difficulties in this particular case which cannot be met by the mere general considerations that have been urged. The visit to Derbe and Lystra, recorded in Acts xvi. 1 sq., took place not long after the conference at Jerusalem and the controversy at Antioch, when Paul must have been peculiarly sensitive upon the subject of circumcision and the observance of the Jewish law, and when he must have been unusually careful to avoid everything that might be interpreted by his enemies as a stultification of the principles for which he had so recently done battle. There is no time in his life when we should suppose him less likely to circumcise one of his converts. Moreover, Timothy was a Galatian, a member of one of the churches addressed in that very epistle in which Paul deprecates circumcision in the strongest terms. If he had circumcised Timothy before he wrote his epistle, why is there no hint of the fact in such a passage as Gal. v. 1 sq.? Why is there no reference there to the exceptional character of Timothy's case which must have been in the thoughts of many of his readers? Could he have spoken in such positive and sweeping terms with the memory of that case fresh in his mind? Could he have done it even if Timothy had not been a Galatian?

On the other hand, if the epistle was written, as maintained above, before the journey recorded in Acts xv. 40 sq., it is scarcely less difficult to understand the occurrence in question. It might be said indeed that having conquered. his adversaries and won the renewed confidence and allegiance of the Galatians, he could venture now without fear of misinterpretation to perform an act which at any other time would have been misunderstood. And yet what elaborate explanations and apologies he would have been obliged to make in order that his act might not plunge the weak brethren again into difficulties and open the door for a new influx of Judaizing zeal! And what was the great end that should justify such a risk? That he did not

consider it necessary for all his companions and helpers to be circumcised, is clear from the case of Titus, who was one of his most efficient and valued assistants, and did excellent service in connection with the Corinthian church.1 Evidently Timothy might have accomplished much, even though uncircumcised, and his companionship would have brought no more reproach upon Paul than the companionship of Titus. While if Paul felt the need of a Jewish helper, he already had one in the person of Silas. In the light of all that has been said it must be recognized that grave difficulties beset the account in Acts xvi. 3, and its immediate juxtaposition to the statement that Paul and Silas delivered the decree, which had been adopted at Jerusalem, to the churches which they visited 2 does not enhance its trustworthiness. And yet the report cannot be regarded as an invention. It is altogether probable that Timothy, though the son of a Greek father, was actually circumcised, and that too under circumstances which excited remark and caused the fact to be remembered. May it be that he was one of Paul's Galatian converts who had received circumcision at the instance of the Judaizers? And may it be that when Paul arrived in Galatia, he found him so regretful for what had taken place, and so earnest and zealous in his support of the true Gospel, that he chose him as a companion, with the declaration "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; but a new creature"? It would have been easy in that case for the tradition to grow up that the Gentile Timothy, Paul's convert and dearest fellow-worker, had received circumcision at Paul's own hands, and the fact that his mother was a Jewess might naturally seem to supply the explanation.

6. THE EVANGELIZATION OF MACEDONIA

After leaving Lystra, the home of Timothy, Paul and his companions travelled westward through the province of Galatia, visiting doubtless both Iconium and Antioch and possibly other places not known to us. It is to this

1 Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, 13 sq., viii. 6, 16, etc.

2 Acts xvi. 4.

journey through the southern part of the Galatian province, or Phrygia-Galatica, that Luke refers in vs. 6, and not to a trip through North Galatia. Ramsay has shown. that the phrase which Luke employs 1 correctly describes that part of the Galatian province in which Antioch and Iconium were situated, and there is no ground whatever for inserting at this point a visit to North Galatia, which would have taken the travellers entirely out of their way, and a satisfactory motive for which it is impossible to discover. Paul had apparently intended to hasten on westward in the direction of Ephesus, after a brief stay in Galatia, but for some reason he was "forbidden of the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia,"2 and consequently turned northward toward Bithynia until he came opposite Mysia, when, finding himself again stopped, he made his way westward through Mysia, without preaching anywhere until he arrived at Troas on the Egean Sea. had thus come all the way from Pisidian Antioch to Troas, apparently without stopping to do any evangelistic work. He seems to have been looking all the time for an open field. He felt the whole heathen world calling him, but he did not know where to begin. Twice his designs had been frustrated, and he had finally found himself, when at the frontier of Bithynia, forced either to turn back or to go on westward. He had chosen the latter course, and was now on the shore of the Mediterranean, still without a field. All Europe lay before him, but Asia lay behind still unevangelized. Should he go forward, or should he turn

He