The Quarrel – Acts 15:36-41

When medical students are learning their trade, they use two primary methods:

First they study how things ought to be;

They study text books about health and anatomy, and they examine systems that are working properly.

But then they go on to also study disease and damaged bodies.

They may spend time looking at livers and lungs deformed by years of abuse.

They may examine the hearts of people who died of coronaries.

They look at bodies mangled through accidents and try to learn how to fix them.

Likewise, as Christians and Bible students, the Holy Spirit has given us both the positive and negative in order to make sure that we really learn what it is to behave properly as Children of God.

First we have the laws of God,

But then come the instructions of the Saviour and the exhortations of the Apostles.

And during all of these we have little vignettes of either trials or sins, to remind us of our vulnerability.

If Paul and Barnabas can behave in a shameful manner, then to what evil might WE succumb?

I think that there are several important lessons that we can learn from this somewhat embarrassing affair.

Let’s start with the PROPOSAL.

“And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.”

Doesn’t it appear that the letter which was sent from Jerusalem stayed pretty-well in Syria?

James didn’t address the letter to the saints scattered across Galatia, but rather to those of Syria and the province just to the west – Celicia.

But there is no record that anyone went into Celicia to tell the Gentiles there the good news.

That doesn’t mean that someone didn’t make that trip, but at the very least we aren’t told about it.

After a while, Paul suggested that not only the Celicians, but also the Galatians should hear the Truth.

Perhaps it was because they had been negligent in forwarding the Judean letter.

Not that it was Paul who made the suggestion about commencing a second missionary trip.

I don’t think that this reflects on Barnabas in any way, but it certainly reveals the heart of the Apostle Paul.

Throughout his later letters he often referred to his love for the people to whom he was writing.

When he was privileged to lead a family of idolaters to Christ, those people became HIS family.

He spoke about Timothy as if he was his own son, and in a sense he was – in the Lord.

Perhaps he could remember the face of the lame man in Lystra who had been healed.

He would never forget the joy and love that swept over them both.

And Paul’s heart became bound to the heart of that man.

There were a couple of widows whose son turned their backs on them because of their faith in Christ.

There where the Jews who had trusted Christ.

And there were probably hundreds more.

How were those infant saints doing under the care of their neophyte elders?

How many had fallen under the persecution which was already brewing before the missionaries left?

Did Paul feel any special responsibility because the persecution was initially directed towards him?

Had any of the professed believers returned to their former idolatry?

Had any of them merely been caught up in the emotions of some of the genuinely converted?

“Let’s go and see how they are doing.”

Obviously, it was not mere curiosity that was driving Paul.

He longed to be of help to those to whom he could be of help.

Paul wanted to make sure that the saints were learning the word of God as they should have been.

There may have been pastors who needed a seminar on eschatology or ecclesiology.

Paul wanted to make sure that everyone realized the sinfulness of sin.

They needed to hear the consolation and exhortation from the church in Jerusalem.

He knew that those babes in Christ were in a precarious position;

They were still nearly new-borns when he and Barnabas had to leave them.

It is also interesting to remember that the missionaries had established churches, wherever they had converts.

And those churches had “native” pastors.

No where do we read of Paul and Barnabas or Silas returning to churches and behaving like the corrupted bishops of the modern denominations.

Those churches were not under the authority of the missionaries.

Paul only wanted to return to see how they did, and to encourage them in whatever way that he could.

And notice lastly in this verse, that Paul proposed to return to ALL of the cities, both on Cyprus and in Galatia.

After Paul’s proposal came Barnabas’ SUGGESTION:

“And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.”

We remember that John Mark was the nephew of Barnabas.

Barnabas had a sister named Mary, and her son was this John Mark.

So Barnabas had a natural affection towards this younger man.

Have you ever wondered how Mark got from Jerusalem to Antioch?

He had been living in Jerusalem, and after his departure on the first missionary journey, he returned home.

So how did he get to Antioch?

My guess would be that after the Council in Jerusalem, he joined Barnabas.

My guess would be that he had been living with Barnabas in Antioch for the past few months.

But those are only guesses.

Perhaps he came up later with Peter or even later with other members from Jerusalem.

We don’t know how John Mark ended up in Antioch, and it doesn’t really matter very much.

But now, we are told that Barnabas was determined to take John Mark on the Second Missionary Journey.

Literally, Barnabas “was of a mind” to take Mark.

But Luke used the imperfect tense to tell us that he was not going to be dissuaded; his mind was made up.

He really was DETERMINED.

The question is: Why was Barnabas so determined to take Mark?

Was it merely affection for his nephew?

Was it that Mary had died and Barnabas had promised his sister to care for her son?

Or was it that he recognized the potential for a great servant of God, but there was the need of some extraordinary mentoring and nurturing?

Once again, we can only guess about Barnabas’ motives.

But that brings us to Paul’s REJECTION.

“Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.”

There is no doubt about Paul’s motives in rejecting John Mark as a traveling companion.

Acts 13:13 says, “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.”

The Holy Spirit has not chosen to tell us the reason for Mark’s departure.

Was it fatigue, was it bad health, was it fear of the dangers ahead, was it worry about his mother?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter what the reason was.

Perhaps the lesson is that no matter what the reason, it was wrong for John Mark to leave.

Perhaps . . .

“But Paul thought not good to take him with them.”

Paul didn’t think that it was good – That is a very polite way of wording it.

He might have said that it would be a disaster to take that cowardly quitter with them again,

But he didn’t put it that way.

In fact, we can’t say for sure that Paul even meant by those words.

But I think that it is interesting that we are told two things about that infamous event on the first journey.

“He departed from them from Pamphylia, AND went not with them to the work.”

The word “departed,” in the Greek, is root word for “apostatized.”

I can’t tell you definitively, but it could be that John Mark had quarreled with Paul over the matter of Gentile conversions.

His sympathies MAY have lain with the Judaizers.

He MAY have wanted Paul to circumcise all of the Gentile converts, beginning with Sergius Paulus.

It was just after that Roman’s conversion that he departed AND went not with them to the work.

So it could be that because of a theological disagreement, John refused to any farther and returned to Jerusalem.

And his absence may have caused some considerable hardship on the two remaining missionaries.

This is the POSSIBLE cause of Paul’s rejection of John Mark on this second journey.

The man had proven himself UNSTABLE in doctrine and UNRELIABLE in practice.

Comparing what Luke initially said about Paul to what he initially said about Barnabas,

Paul appears to have had the better attitude,

(Barnabas DETERMINED, but Paul THOUGHT IT NOT GOOD).

But actually in the Greek there was very little difference.

The same verb tense was used of both men.

Paul as just as adamant about NOT taking John Mark as Barnabas was about taking him.

And that provoked a serious CONTENTION between them.

“And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.”

Can we conclude that peace between brethren, and peace in a church, are difficult to maintain?

I have been reading about an old group of Baptistic people who had some strange ideas and practices.

One of their doctrines was that unless there was complete unanimity within a church then whatever was under discussion could not be the will of God.

Beloved, complete unanimity is a very, very difficult thing to achieve when there is more than one person trying to achieve it, and even then it isn’t always possible.

We should always strive to love one another, and to be patient and kind towards each other even when there are disagreements between us.

But complete, 100% agreement is almost always next to impossible.

Church decisions should be determined by a simple majority vote, except in extremely important cases, when perhaps a 2/3 majority might be more appropriate, such as in the calling of a pastor.

But the fact is, there will always be differences between saints, and even between church leaders.

Just don’t let it get out of hand.

Don’t let it bring shame to Name of the Lord.

It is ironic that when the people of Lystra were preparing to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas,

“When the apostles heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you.”

Yes, they WERE men of like passions with us.

And they were VERY PASSIONATE about whether John Mark should travel with them again.

It is also ironic that Barnabas had the nick-name “Son of Consolation.”

At least towards Paul in this case, he was NOT very conciliatory.

And all of this was truly, truly sad.

Paul owed a great deal to Barnabas, because he had befriended him when no one else would.

And Barnabas was turning his back on the greatest man in that entire generation.

Perhaps there is a little light shed on this contention in the Book of Galatians.

I’ve touched on this event once before, but since it isn’t mentioned in Acts, we’ve not a message on it.

I think that Paul’s confrontation with Peter about the Gentiles occurred just before this occasion.

Let’s look at Galatians 2:11-14:

“When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

We notice that not only did Peter revert to his old Pharisaical ways when the visitors from Jerusalem arrived, but so did Barnabas.

And if we assume that John Mark was there as well, we can also assume that he stood with his uncle.

So my guess would be that Paul was already a little ticked with Barnabas before suggesting this Second Missionary Journey.

And, if my hunch is correct, he might have looked on John Mark’s behavior as proving that he hadn’t changed or matured at all since his departure from the earlier work.

But do you know what is really sad about this contention?

There are ways in which both men were right.

As we see elsewhere, John Mark did grow up and did become a fruitful servant of the Lord.

In fact he became precious even to the Apostle Paul.

So Barnabas was correct in his assessment of Mark, and in recognizing that all he needed was time and a little confidence from some of the older saints.

And yet on the other hand, I fully sympathize with Paul’s decision not to risk the success of the Second Journey by trusting in a man who had yet to prove that he could be trusted.

Our judgments are with Paul, but our hearts are with Barnabas.

Isn’t that often the way that it is when there are disagreements between brethren?

Very rarely is any case clearly black and white, with one person absolutely wrong while the other is perfectly correct.

There is almost always room for mutual understanding and room for Christian love.

I am convinced that it was the Lord’s will that two missionary parties be sent out, with one going to Cyprus and the other headed towards Europe.

But I am also convinced that it could have been done more amicably.

Don’t let preferences and opinions be allowed to separate brethren.

In this case there was a DIVISION.

“And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other:

And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.”

It appears that Barnabas left first, taking Mark with him.

And they headed toward Cyprus, the place of Barnabas’ birth.

This is the last that we see Barnabas, although Paul made a nice reference to him in I Corinthians.

We remember that Barnabas appears to have been older than Paul.

Perhaps he died sometime during the next few years.

And of course, we see that Paul asked Silas to join him.

They began their journey over land passing through the Cilician Gate between Syria and Asia Minor.

They ministered to the churches in Cilicia, which may have been started by Paul years before,

And then they crossed through the mountainous pass between Cilicia and Lyconia, confirming the churches in Galatia.

So now that there were two missionary teams, they were able to accomplish twice the work.

The Lord certainly knew what He was doing.

What about the statement that Paul and Silas were recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God?

That seems to me to be a reference to a formal church service of some sort.

It may have been an ordination for Silas, or just a “Going-away Party.”

But is there anything significant in the fact that there was nothing said about the same for Barnabas and Mark?

The scholars are pretty well split down the middle on that question.

Some say that this means that the church took Paul’s side of the issue.

But others say that since Luke was only recording the history of Paul, he simply chose not to mention anything more about Barnabas.

One of the rules of Bible interpretation is not to read too much into the periodic silence of the scriptures.

So what are the lessons of these verses?

Among others, there is encouragement not to let unnecessary differences separate Christian friends.

And another is that God has the omnipotence to be glorified in absolutely everything.

So even in this, let God be praised.