‘Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner salutes you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, about whom you received firm instructions. If he comes to you, receive him. And Jesus who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These alone are my fellow-workers to the kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort to me.'
These first three who are mentioned are Jewish Christians. It would seem that they were the only members of the Jewish church in Rome that had much close contact with Paul so as to be his ‘fellow-workers'. This need not mean antagonism by the remainder, only a lack of enthusiasm to be involved in his ministry. It may have been by mutual agreement to prevent the stigma of his imprisonment affecting the Jewish church in Rome in the eyes of the authorities. He was after all there on charges relating to Jewish matters.
‘Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner.' Literally ‘fellow prisoner-of-war.' This indicates that Paul sees himself as such too, as a soldier of Christ. Not just a prisoner but a prisoner-of-war. If Aristarchus shared Paul's imprisonment voluntarily, as seems very possible, this would be a suitable title for him. Not a prisoner, but by choice a prisoner-of-war.
In the letter to Philemon Epaphras is the one who is called ‘my fellow prisoner-of-war', while there Aristarchus is described as a fellow-worker. But we must remember that Epaphras is a Colossian (‘one of you') and there he is writing to a Colossian.
It would seem therefore that it may be an honourable title not to be applied too literally. However, the fact that Epaphras is not taking the letters may indicate some kind of legal restraint, even if only temporary, so it might suggest a literal situation. Either way the use of the title here of Aristarchus has the purpose of highly commending him to the church of Laodicea. But it may or may not mean that he was himself under legal restraint.
Aristarchus was a native of Thessalonica (Acts 20:4), and at times a companion of Paul (Acts 19:29; Acts 20:4; Acts 27:2).
‘And Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.' The word translated ‘cousin' (anepsios) strictly means cousin. It was only later that its meaning extended to include a nephew. Mark was therefore the cousin of Barnabas, not his nephew. He was “John, whose surname was Mark” (Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25). Markos was clearly his Greek name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 13:13; Acts 15:37, and Mark here and in Acts 15:39; Philemon 1:23; 2 Timothy 4:11. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). Of his father we know nothing.
It was in Mark's mother's house that Peter found "many gathered together praying" when he was released from prison, and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his "son" (1 Peter 5:13). It is quite probable that the "young man" spoken of in Mark 14:51-52 was Mark himself.
He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about A.D. 47), but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; Acts 13:13). Three years later a "sharp contention" arose between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him and this caused them to divide their ministries. It is clear, however from his mention here that he has been restored to Paul's good favour. At a later period he would be with Peter in ‘Babylon' (1 Peter 5:13). It is possible that this was Babylon itself, then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning, but it may be a disguised name for Rome. And he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote to him during his second imprisonment (2 Timothy 4:11). He then disappears from view apart from the writing of his Gospel.
‘Touching whom you received firm instructions. If he comes to you receive him.' The latter sentence may be the firm instructions given, that Mark is to be received as a faithful witness and reliable minister. Or Paul may just be adding his commendation to instructions already given by another.
‘Jesus who is called Justus.' Only mentioned here (and not to Philemon). Probably mentioned here because of his personal devotion to Paul and because with Aristarchus and Mark he is the only Jewish Christian in Rome to give him firm support at this stage.
‘Who are of the circumcision.' Jewish Christians.
‘These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, men who have been a consolation to me.' The Jewish Christians in Rome were seemingly holding aloof from Paul. There would be many churches in Rome and on the whole it was only the leaders who might be expected to have taken some interest in Paul's position. But the Jewish Christian leaders were lacking in their attention.
As suggested above the Jewish Christian leaders may have been, with his agreement, chary of getting involved with someone being arraigned for anti-Jewish behaviour which might draw Roman wrath down on them. But these words here suggest that he felt that they might have offered a little more help than they did, and demonstrates how deeply he felt the faithfulness of these three. Was this one of the things that restored his relationship with Mark, who might have been seen as having some excuse for neglecting him?