Silas the Sidekick (Acts 15:40)

Who was Paul’s companion on his second missionary journey? Silas (Acts 15:40)

Endorsed by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:2), Paul (then known as Saul) and Barnabas embark on Christianity’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28). Later, after defending their position regarding the Gentile mission to outsiders at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2), another dispute arises from within (Acts 15:36-40).

The team disbands when Barnabas wants to give John Mark, who had abruptly deserted them on their first missionary journey a second chance on their second (Acts 13:13, 15:37-38). Unable to agree, Barnabas takes John Mark and sets out on the mission field without Paul (Acts 15:39).

Undeterred, Paul, who seldom traveled alone, also selects a new partner: Silas (Acts 15:40).

But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. (Acts 15:40 NASB)

The choice is Paul’s and he makes it quickly. Though no mention is made of what is likely a substantial pool of candidates, Paul presumably has his pick of potential traveling companions. The decision appears to be a no-brainer as Paul does not hesitate to choose Silas nor does Silas delay in accepting.

Though Silas is a relative unknown at the time of his selection, he had been introduced earlier in the same chapter (Acts 15:22, 27, 32, 34). Silas begins his career as an apostolic delegate (Acts 15:22, 27). He and an otherwise unknown Christian named Judas called Barsabbas are selected as letter bearers of the edict declaring the Council of Jerusalem’s verdict (Acts 15:22, 27). Their task was to personally convey and expound upon the council’s impersonal letter. Though unknown to the letter’s recipients as it contains no letter of commendation (Acts 15:23-29), the duo could verify the council’s decisions impartially as Barsabbas and Silas have independent authority. Letter bearers were not uncommon as documents could be forged and consequently oral tradition was held in higher esteem (I Maccabees 12:23; Ephesians 6:21-22; Colossians 4:7-8) .

Silas is presented as the logical choice to be Paul’s new partner and he has several qualifications working in his favor:

• He and Judas Barsabbas are described as “leading men among the brethren” (Acts 15:22). Silas is a prominent member of the Jerusalem church, likely an elder in function if not in name. Silas’ endorsement is politically advantageous. If anyone questioned Paul’s credibility, as happened in Galatia, Silas could corroborate his representation of Jerusalem’s position. David G. Peterson (b. 1944) notes, “Paul’s choice of Silas as his partner is particularly significant in context. He represents ‘the unity of purpose between Jerusalem and the mission launched form Antioch, a unity achieved through the Jerusalem agreement’ (Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 448).”
• He is designated a prophet and seen as an orator (Acts 15:32). Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) deduces, “Silas was a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:22) and a prophet who ‘said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers’ in Antioch (Acts 15:32). This must mean he was an enthusiastic backer of Paul’s program of Gentile evangelism (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 431).”
• He and Paul have worked together previously. Silas obviously impressed the missionary. As Fernando suggests, at the Council of Jerusalem, everyone’s cards were on the table giving Paul the opportunity to see who is sympathetic with his cause (Acts 15:22-35). It can be surmised that Silas is a proponent of the Gentile mission, otherwise Paul would not have taken him.
• Like Paul, he is a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37), a fact that will take on significance that neither likely could have imagined at the time of their pairing. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates, “It is perhaps probable, in view of Acts 16:37-38, that Luke intends us to see him as a person of significant social status (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 467).”
• He is evidently literate. The name Silas does not appear outside of Acts but many believe he is referenced in the New Testament epistles. Though later church tradition distinguishes between Silas bishop of Corinth and Silvanus bishop of Thessalonica, scholars almost unanimously equate the two names as Silvanus is the Latin equivalent of Silas (II Corinthians 1:19; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1; I Peter 5:12). Robert L. Cate (b. 1932) reminds, “he could apparently write, an unusual skill in those times (I Peter 5:12). He, along with Timothy, later assisted Paul in writing the apostle’s first letter to the church at Thessalonica (I Thessalonians 1:1) (Cate, One Untimely Born: The Life And Ministry of the Apostle Paul, 77).”
• Perhaps most significantly, he is available. Judas Barsabbas and Silas are granted an honorable discharge (Acts 15:33) but in a narrative aside we are told that Silas opts to stay (Acts 15:34). (This narrative aside is confusing, appears to contradict the previous verse [Acts 15:33], is only in the Western text and absent from many reliable manuscripts, is typically interpreted as a later scribal addition and as such is omitted from some translations such as the NRSV.) No explanation is given as to why Silas remains. But in doing so, he is able to immediately respond to Paul’s call.

Silas has experience, a lot of upside and is a suitable companion for the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Another advantage Silas has may be a Jewish heritage. It is possible that Silas is the Aramaic parallel of Saul, Paul’s original Hebrew name (meaning “little wolf”). C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930) conjectures:

Why Silas? Why would Silas be a better partner for Paul at this stage of his career than Barnabas? One obvious reason was that Silas did not have a cousin Mark whom he insisted on bringing along. But other than that...another more fundamental difference existed between Silas and Barnabas...The difference did not lie in their personal characters or statuses as mature Christian leaders...It is not totally clear whether Silas was a Hebrew Jew or a Hellenistic Jew like Barnabas. My guess would be that because the Hellenistic believers had been driven out of Jerusalem after the murder of Stephen (Acts 8:1) leaving only the Hebrew church there, it would be unlikely that one of the elders of the Jerusalem church at that time would have been a Hellenist. If such were the case, it might have been to Paul’s advantage to take a Hebrew leader from the Jerusalem church with him when he went back to visit the churches he had planted in Galatia. The Judaizers who had gone and messed things up in the Galatian churches had also come from Jerusalem, and Paul already had anticipated that he would have to engage in some potentially difficult damage control when he arrived. Silas would be an asset. (Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary, 347-48)

E. A. Judge (b. 1928) sees further benefit in Silas’ Roman citizenship:

Paul always refers to him by his Roman name, Silvanus, and it is not impossible that their common Roman status opened the way for Paul’s new stance at Philippi. If Barnabas was not a Roman, this might equally explain the puzzling lack of initiative shown by Paul in Lycaonia. If this is to hold water, however, we should also have to suppose that Timothy was a Roman, since he now joined the party (being made a Jew for the purpose [Acts 16:3)], and was linked with Silas as a lieutenant. (Judge and Harrison, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community”, The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays, 547)

Regardless of the rationale, the tandem is commended by the church in Antioch to take to the mission field (Acts 15:40). Bruce Chilton (b. 1949) sees advantages for the church in this decision:

The meeting with James, Peter, and John gave Paul new authority; working with Silas assured that he would not exceed that authorization. Antioch no longer had to take responsibility for its most contentious apostle. He departed that city with Silas (Acts 15:40). Paul was now Jerusalem’s man, and Silas’s problem. (Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography, 147)

Above all, Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) sees God at work:

We have seen how the Spirit had Silas in the wings. He was able to drop everything and respond to the call to go with Paul. Note how free these early Christians were. They could be open to changes of plans because their purpose was clear. Daily guidance is given to those who are set in the ultimate will of God. (Ogilvie, Acts (Mastering the New Testament), 240)

Silas succeeds Barnabas and the succession is a success.

Do you think Silas had hoped for an opportunity to serve as a missionary? Is there a position that you are praying will open? If you could pick any partner in any realm of your life, who would it be? When has a replacement been as good as her predecessor? What is the best recasting you have seen in a television or movie series? Why is it Paul’s custom to take a partner? Which team is better, Paul and Barnabas or Paul and Silas? Why? Who were the other candidates? (Evidently like the other Barsabbas [Acts 1:23-26], Judas is overlooked.) Is Silas selected through logic alone? If so, would this in any way discount God’s involvement in the decision?

The new arrangement proves successful for everyone involved. The church now has two mission teams, Barnabas is essentially promoted to leader of his own team (Acts 15:39), John Mark’s missionary career is revived, and Paul and Silas embark on the now famous “second missionary journey” (Acts 15:36-18:22).

In spite of the bump in the road, for Paul, the beat goes on. Paul and Silas perform admirably. Silas is with Paul when he is arrested in Philippi (Acts 16:19) and in prison with him when an earthquake hits the region (Acts 16:25, 29). Throughout the remainder of book of Acts, Silas is paired either with Paul (Acts 16:19, 25, 29, 17:4, 10, 14) or Timothy in Paul’s absence (Acts 17:14, 15, 18:5).

Silas’ presence, valuable though it may be, is all that is referenced. In spite of all of his credentials, Silas never again performs an action in the book of Acts. Silas spends the remainder of the book as Paul’s sidekick. There is no question as to which partner is more influential. Silas is Robin to Paul’s Batman, Watson to Paul’s Holmes, Garfunkel to Paul’s Simon. Paul likely would have been successful with a broomstick as his companion and Silas, like most of his partners, ends up playing second fiddle.

Silas is always listed second when paired with Paul (Acts 16:19, 25, 29, 17:4, 10, 14) but first when mentioned alongside Timothy (Acts 17:14, 15, 18:5). Perhaps Silas is the leader of his team with Timothy and working with Paul prepared him for this role. Sidekicks do not always become leaders as evidenced by the fact that only four vice presidents, habitual sidekicks, have later been elected president.

Are Christian sidekicks always being prepared to lead? Who is the quintessential sidekick? Literarily speaking, sidekicks always serve some function: What is Silas’? How did Silas benefit from his pairing with Paul? Is Silas better with Paul? What does Silas do for Paul? What tandems can you think of where one member is decidedly more prominent? Is there anything wrong with being a sidekick? In your story, are you the hero or the sidekick?

“The sidekick business has been good to me.” - Sean Astin (b. 1971)

The Name “Christian” (Acts 11:26)

In what city were the believers first called Christians? Antioch (Acts 11:26)

In the nascent years of the Christian movement, the early church was seen simply as a rebellious offshoot branch of Judaism. As such, the sect was not initially associated with the word “Christian”. In fact, the word “Christianity” is not found in the Bible and “Christian” appears only sparsely.

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) reminds:

We use that term so commonly we think it must be scattered all across the New Testament, but it appears only three times—Acts 11:26, 26:28; I Peter 4:16...Christians was an outside nickname, possibly given in derision. It means “Christ followers” or “people of Christ’s party.” (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary ), 180)

Jesus’ followers were known by many names and “Christian” was hardly the first. From the book of Acts, Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) catalogs:

Up to this point the followers of Jesus have been called “saints” (Acts 9:13, 32, 41), “disciples” (Acts 6:2, 7, 9:1, 10, 26, 36), “believers” (Acts 4:32, 5:4, 10:45), “the church/assembly” (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 26), “the brothers” (Acts 1:15, 10:23, 11:1). Now outsiders give the disciples a new name: Christianoi. (Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 104)

The New Testament records that the name Christian was derived in Antioch.

and when he [Barnabas] had found him [Saul], he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:26 NASB)

There are two cities known as Antioch in the book of Acts, Syrian Antioch (Acts 11:19-30, 14:1-28) and Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-52). The moniker “Christian” originated with the former.

Syrian Antioch was a leading city in the Roman world at the time. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) details:

Antioch, called by Josephus [37-100] “third among the cities of the Roman world” after Rome and Alexandria (War 3.29), was of great strategic importance to early Christianity. It was to be the first major cosmopolitan city outside Israel where Christianity clearly established itself as a force with which to be reckoned. Located on the Orontes, some eighteen miles upstream from its seaport on the Mediterranean (Seleucia, Pieria), Antioch was a great commercial center and near an important religious center connected with Artemis and Apollo (Daphne). It was the Roman provincial capital for Syria, and by the middle of the first century had an estimated population of a half-million people. On its coins Antioch called itself “Antioch, metropolis, sacred, and inviolable, and autonomous, and sovereign, and capital of the East.” It had come a long way since its founding by Seleucus I about 300 B.C., who named it after his father Antiochus...Jews had played a part in the city from its earliest days, and there was a considerable and well-established Jewish community in Antioch in the middle of the first century. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 366-267)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) specifies that:

Antioch was a cosmopolitan city, where Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian rubbed shoulders, where Mediterranean civilization met the Syrian desert; racial and religious differences which loomed so large in Judaea seemed much less important here. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 228)

Though the name’s origin is registered, its etymology is not. Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) acknowledges, “Luke doesn’t tell how this name was pinned on the disciples, whether by way of ridicule, for example. So he lets drop this bit of information either as a historical note or as an indication of popular recognition of the disciples’ attachment to Jesus as the Christ (Gundry, Commentary on Acts).”

The interpreter cannot even be certain when the name was given. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) reminds:

It is doubtful whether the name originated during the time when Saul and Barnabas worked together in Antioch – Luke does not quite say that it did. It was probably used in Pompeii between the earthquake of AD 62 and the destruction of the town in AD 79. (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 175)

Scholars have developed some hypotheses as to how the name developed. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) relays:

The verb were called implies in all probability that ‘Christian’ was a nickname given by the populace of Antioch, and thus ‘Christ’ could well have been understood as a proper name by them, even if at this stage the Christians themselves still used it as a title; it was not long, however, before the title became increasingly more like a name for Jesus. It is likely that the name contained an element of ridicule (cf. Acts 26:28; I Peter 4:16, its only other New Testament uses). The Christians preferred to use other names for themselves, such as ‘disciples’. ‘saints’ and ‘brothers’. (Marshall, Acts (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 203)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

The term christianoi...is obviously based on the title christos/chrestos = Messiah. If compared to a similarly formed designation like hērōdianoi (Mark 3:6, 12:13), it appears to mean a follower of someone, or a member of a movement. The translation “Messianist” would be appropriate in English. The other New Testament occurrences are placed in the mouths of outsiders: King Agrippa (Acts 26:28), and opponents (I Peter 4:16). It appears to have originated, therefore, as a somewhat slighting designation given not by the “believers” themselves but by hostile observers (see also Tacitus, Annals 15:44). The contemporary example of the name “Moonies” given to the members of the Unification Church (based on the name of the founder, Sun Yung Moon) is instructive. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 204-205)

There was precedent for an opprobrious name developing in Antioch. William J. Larkin, Jr. (b. 1945) recounts:

Ancient Antioch was famous for its humor, especially the coining of jesting nicknames. When an organized brigade of chanting devotees of Nero led crowds in adulation, his band of imperial cheerleaders with their ludicrous homage was quickly dubbed Augustiani. And earlier, when the devotees of the one called Christ came to public attention, they were named Christianoi, partisans of Christ (Acts 11:26). (Larkin, Acts (IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 175)

Many a truth is said in jest and even if it was intended to mock, the epithet is fitting. Though Christians in the Bible do not use the name, it obviously stuck and likely did so at an early date.

Paul Trebilco (b. 1958) notes:

Luke could well be indicating more widespread use of the term...Acts 11:26 suggests that Luke can presume his readers know the term. He does not need to explain it in any way, but can simply indicate this indication of its origin. His use of πρὡτως [“first”]also suggests the readers are to recall other times when they have heard the term, and they know of its ongoing use. At the very least, these points suggest that when Luke writes, the term was quite widely known both by outsiders (such as Agrippa) and by ‘Christians’ in a range of places. (Trebilco, Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, 282)

John J. Pilch (b. 1936) observes:

Only outsiders use the word “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16-17) in mocking or pejorative fashion. Historically the word is most appropriately used after the time of Constantine (around A.D. 300). Prior to that time, the word is anachronistic. From this point of view, there are no “Christians” in the New Testament. How can one interpret or explain this statement? (Pilch, Visions and Healing in the Acts of the Apostles: How the Early Believers Experienced God , 150-151)

As Christ is a title and Jesus is a name, why were the early followers called Christians instead of Jesusians? What would you have called Jesus’ followers? Would you rather a group be named by insiders or outsiders? What do outsiders call your church? What other common names were originally intended to be disparaging? Is there significance to the fact that the name originated in Antioch?

James S. Jeffers (b. 1956) speculates:

The followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” at Antioch according to Acts 11:26. This is probably because believers in Antioch, for the first time, stood out enough from Jews to be nicknamed “Christus-people” by the local pagans. (Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, 288)

Mark DeYmaz (b. 1961) and Harry Li (b. 1961) assert that it is fitting that the Christian name emerged in Antioch:

Jews loved Gentiles, Gentiles loved Jews, and they were all worshiping God together as one in the local church at Antioch...Its pastoral leadership team included two men from Africa, one from the Mediterranean, one from Asia Minor, and one from the Middle East (Acts 4:36; 9:11; 13:1), providing the church with a visible witness and a model of unity at the highest level. And it was the church at Antioch, and not the church in Jerusalem that first sent missionaries to the world. With these things in mind, it’s not coincidental that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). For there Christ was clearly recognized in the midst of unity, just as he had said he would be (John 17:23). (DeYmaz and Lee, Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity into Your Local Church (Leadership Network Innovation Series), 42)

Bruce Milne (b. 1940) concurs:

It is...highly significant that it was here that the name “Christian” began to be applied to the followers of Jesus (Acts 11:26)—a further critical indication of their sheer “newness,” but a newness, be it noted, expressed not least in the diversity of their community. The citizens of Antioch could find no serviceable term to refer to them, either within Judaism or in any other Gentile religious tradition. It was a new thing and required a new name, but one which identified it with its primary focus—the Lord Jesus Christ—and with its most obvious feature, its welcoming of every race and every type—hence “Christ-ones,” Christians. Is it too much to claim that we truly justify our right to the name Christian only when we practice diversity in unity under Christ? (Milne, Dynamic Diversity: Bridging Class, Age, Race and Gender in the Church, 46-47)

Where, if ever, were you first called “Christian”? Do Christians still stand out today? Should they? What does it mean to be a “Christian”?

“The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Anti-Christ, p. 111