37<\/strong>. And Barnabas determined<\/em> ] The Greek of the best MSS. gives a weaker verb “wished.” The reason of Barnabas’ choice was probably because Mark was his nephew (Col 4:10<\/span>). R. V.<\/em> renders “was minded.”<\/p>\n whose surname was<\/em> ] The Greek is merely “who was called.”<\/p>\n And Barnabas determined – <\/B>Greek: willed, or was disposed to (<\/SPAN><\/span> ebouleusanto).<\/P> John … – <\/B>See the notes on Act 12:12<\/span>. He had been with them before as a traveling companion, Act 12:25<\/span>; Act 13:5<\/span>. He was the son of a sister of Barnabas Col 4:10<\/span>, and it is probable that Barnabas affection for his nephew was the main reason for inducing him to wish to take him with him in the journey.<\/P><\/p>\n Act 15:37-39<\/span><\/p>\n And Barnabas determined to take with them John.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The contention between Paul and Barnabas<\/strong><\/p>\n The contents of this chapter are famous for two things, that had most contrary events. The one, how a great variance was concluded with a happy concord. The other, how a small variance did proceed to an unhappy discord. The great variance was, whether such as were converted to believe in Christ must continue in the observation of the law of Moses. For some in the first verse of the chapter were so rigid that they held, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. This point was decided. And they that were Jewish were overborne by a moderate determination agreed upon by all the apostles and elders that met at Jerusalem. But when matter of doctrine and deep dispute could not divide the Church, Satan laid a smaller stumbling block in their way, and the two most holy servants of God, Paul and Barnabas, dashed their foot against it; and they that plucked a beam out of their brothers eye were troubled with a mote in their own. It was not about a point of doctrine, but upon a circumstance of a person, no way considerable to the main benefit of the gospel, that begat a quarrel and a disjunction between them. Rather than Barnabas would suffer Mark to be discountenanced, he would forsake Paul. Rather than Paul would consent to Marks readmission, he would forsake Barnabas. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder the one from the other. Upon the handling of the text in several points–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>We must enter in at a breach. Here was a contention.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This struggling was not between mean and ordinary persons, but between the champions of the holy cause, between Paul and Barnabas.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>It was not carried with meekness and cool temper, but it swelled high, it was , a sharp, a fretful contention.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>They fell not out for anything that touched the life of truth, or the honour of Christ; the fortunes of Greece, as the proverb is, did not lie upon it; it was only about the accommodation of a person, whether Mark were fit for the present work: that was all the matter, and no more.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>As small a matter as it was, it waxed to a separation, and to disjoin these two in body as well as in mind. They departed asunder the one from the other. Now I resume all this again.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>There is no exception to be made against the sentence of the law under which we live.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>As the kingdom hath statute law, so the Church hath canons, which served our turn, to much benefit, in the best ages, before imperial laws came forth to help us.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>When some cases fall out, for which neither laws nor canons have provided, custom hath much force to decide them. Long permission is a tolerable confirmation.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>If it fall out that laws are silent, and customs are contrary one to another, then, by the privilege which we have above beasts, we must resort to reason.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>I report me to the apostles, how they handled a discord in this chapter. Some would have all the ceremonies of Moses kept, which would have made the Gentiles become Jews, and not Christians. To prevent all schism, the apostles and elders fall upon that course, which we call media consilia, <\/em>a middle temper. Some ceremonies the Gentile shall conform unto, that will appease the Jew. Some ceremonies the Jews shall forego, that will edify the Gentile.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>What think you of arbitration? And the fewer arbiters the better. When many take the thing in hand, commonly it is so long a doing that it is never done. Make the appeal then to few.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>This is utterly against our Saviours rule, Go and be reconciled to thy brother (Mat 5:24<\/span>). A wound will never be healed but by drawing the parts together that were dissolved. Affability and sweet conversation strikes fire out of a flint. But disjunction of persons is an eclipse of friendship, till the light of one doth shine with a propitious aspect upon the other. I know that in the case of these two apostles, though they were prevented with an error, yet shortly after their unkind farewell they returned to their Christian temper, and afterwards in sundry texts of Scripture Paul did put himself in the same scale with Barnabas, as with his sworn brother, as 1Co 9:6<\/span> : I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? And Gal 2:9<\/span> : James, Cephas, and John gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. Here is another thing worthy our consideration. If Paul and Barnabas had both gone to Cilicia, Cyprus had wanted them; or if both had gone to Cyprus, Cilicia had wanted them. Now they were singled they propagated the faith of Christ both by sea and land. Barnabas sailed into Cyprus, and Paul journeyed into Cilicia. This was not like a bowstring snapped asunder; but they were two strings to one bow, and that which was division to themselves was multiplication to the gospel of Christ. Finally, they performed what they intended, to visit their brethren in every city, where they had preached the Word of God (verse 32). All governments, in all ages, have approved this to be the best way to conserve unity. It is impossible to avoid a multitude of corruptions in faith, and not to contract a prodigious licentiousness in discipline. Paul and Barnabas supervised the several cities where they had laid the foundation of evangelical faith; and, like careful rulers, interposed the power with which Christ had endued them, to keep their brethren dispersed far and wide in one. Though they were two upon a small disgust, yet they remembered there was but one Shepherd and one sheepfold, whose peace they studied to preserve by their pastoral vigilancy. (J. Hacket, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The dissension between Paul and Barnabas<\/strong><\/p>\n The two men were bound together by early associations, perhaps had been schoolmates at Tarsus. When Paul came to Jerusalem, Barnabas was the first to trust and welcome him. They were both devoted to the work among the Gentiles, and had shared the dangers and the glories of the first missionary tour. This companionship ended with the controversy about Mark. However unfortunate, it was not strange. Barnabas had reason for his confidence, Paul for his distrust. Both were right, both were wrong. They could agree only to disagree; and the second missionary tour was begun in unhappiness. Many familiar suggestions arise from this scene.<\/p>\n The quarrel of Barnabas and Saul<\/strong><\/p>\n The <\/em>fact that such a scene is recorded proves the genuineness of the men. Had it been their object to impose upon mankind, such a scene as this would have been either not mentioned at all, or would have appeared in such a form as to conceal altogether what is morally offensive. As genuine men, they reveal themselves to us in the costume of real life, with all their imperfections about them. Note here–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>An increased area of usefulness. Instead of one district for both, which was contemplated, there was one for each. It led Paul into Europe.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>An increased power of usefulness. Instead of two men there were four.<\/p>\n The quarrel about John Mark<\/strong><\/p>\n As a general rule there is nothing more miserable than to dwell upon others short comings. I call attention to the faults of three disciples to see that the old Adam is not utterly killed in the best of men.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The most godly men are still liable to sudden falls. A man never becomes so advanced in holiness as to get beyond the danger of old faults of temper. Let us seek the grace that makes a man the conqueror of his own spirit.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Those who are engaged in the same work may have antagonistic views on matters of prudence. It is no use trying all to see with one eye. Meanwhile we must have the spirit of charity, and bear with schemes which seem stupid and court failure.<\/p>\n Paul and Barnabas, their contention and separation<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>There was union between the Churches, but that was purely spiritual.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The visit was perfectly natural.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Being a second visit, it was calculated to show that they were not ashamed of their principles, nor afraid of their opponents.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Friendship is no reason in itself why a man should be promoted to office.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Fickle men are not to be trusted in the service of truth when there is difficulty in the way.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Some wreak their vengeance on the cause of truth.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>When two men cannot agree to toil in the same corner of the vineyard, let them honestly divide, and betake them to other departments.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The holiest men may have ruffled tempers sometimes.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The apostle afterwards received Mark into fellowship. To err is human–to forgive, Divine. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The separation of Paul and Barnabas<\/strong><\/p>\n We are now out in the open air again (verse 35). For some days we have been in a stifling atmosphere, listening to great men debating the vexed question of circumcision. We feel our need of rest, after the passionate excitement through which we have gone. We will now live amongst friends, and be quiet and trustful, and grow in our apprehension of Divine purposes. Yet this is not to be. We come out of one contention into another. This is life all through and through–namely, a series of conflicts. Observe–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Both men were honest. It is something to have to deal with honest men, even when they oppose you.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The contention was not about the Master. Paul and Barnabas did not take two different views of Christ. They are not going to found separate theological sects.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>The work was not abandoned, but was doubled. The destinations they selected were revelations of the spirit of the men. Barnabas goes into obscurity, Paul rises like a sun into a broader firmament.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>The parties afterwards become reconciled. We have already said good-bye to Peter; so now we must say good-bye to Barnabas and Mark. At this point they both retire from the Acts of the Apostles. The withdrawment is in a kind of thunderstorm. Surely this cannot be all. Such lifelong friends cannot part in this way! We must know more about this. In 1Co 9:6<\/span> we hear again about Barnabas, and in 1Pe 5:13<\/span>; Col 4:10<\/span>; Phm 1:24<\/span>; 2Ti 4:11<\/span> we hear again about Mark. Well done, Mark! Well done, Paul! Few men have moral courage to correct themselves openly, to repair wrongs which, however unconsciously, they once inflicted. (J. Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Unity in disunion<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The subject of this dissension was a Christian subject. They were at variance as to the best way of prosecuting Christs work. It was not a quarrel arising out of this, that one of the two had gained, what both could not have, of the riches or honours or pleasures of the world. It was not that one had disparaged the ability or the probity or the spirituality of the other, and that this must awaken in the natural mind a resentment to be shown in retort or cherished in malice. Happy should we be, if our faults were only those of an excess of zeal and tenacity in reference to the work of Christ and the interests of souls!<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>That infirmity was redressed in the wisest and best of ways. It was with the dissension of two apostles, as with the dispute of Abram and Lot, Where no Divine law compels coexistence, separation is oftentimes the best cure for discord. Live and let live. If two of Gods servants cannot see things alike, let them agree to see them differently. If they cannot act together, they can at least believe together, and hope together, and together love. If each has Christs work and glory at heart, they will all be reconciled by the great reconciler: death, which is the gate of heaven, will make the crooked straight, and the rough places plain.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Separation was in this case followed–we know it–by concord.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The Holy Scriptures are no flattering tale. There is no screening, no palliating, of the infirmities of holy men. If men will make mischief of this they must. If men will say either, Because a saint did this, therefore it cannot be sin; or else, Because such a man did this, therefore he cannot be a saint: they are left to do so. The business of the Holy Scriptures, in these respects, is with facts, not with inferences. That Book which paints not men as either demons or heroes; that Book which tells me just what is true, and teaches me how to rise out of this which is truly the natural man into this which is as truly the Christian man; how to mourn over myself without despairing, and how to deal justly with others and yet not condemn; that I call a true Book: I see there man as he is, and God as He is: I see there a light to my steps, because it describes truly the wilderness which I traverse, and because it shows me how and by what guidance I can traverse it in safety. And if I see that the Book describes all else truly, because according to my daily experience of man and of mans world, then I can believe it when I see that there is one Person, just one, and one only, whom it paints as indeed without sin; perfect Man, as much in the blamelessness of His life, as in the completeness of His nature.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This passage sets before us an all-working and all-ruling and all-restoring Providence of God. Out of evil comes forth good. Out of human infirmity there grows Divine strength. The unity of the work is broken, but out of the one divided there has sprung a two-fold completeness. (Dean Vaughan.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 37. Barnabas determined to take with them John<\/B><\/I>] John Mark was his sister’s son; and natural affection might have led him to the partiality here mentioned.<\/P><\/p>\n This John, or Mark, was sisters son to Barnabas, as Col 4:10<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 37. Barnabas determined to take withthem John . . . Mark<\/B>his nephew (Col4:10<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And Barnabas determined<\/strong>,…. Or consulted, and contrived in his own mind, and purposed within himself; the Alexandrian copy, and two of Beza’s, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, “he would”, or was willing; he had a mind, a very great desire,<\/p>\n to take with them John, whose surname was Mark<\/strong>; of whom see<\/p>\n Ac 12:12<\/span> he being his sister’s son, Col 4:10<\/span> him they brought with them to Antioch, when they returned from Jerusalem thither, where they had been sent by the church at Antioch, with money for the relief of the poor saints; see Ac 11:29<\/span> and who seems to have come with them from Jerusalem again; for thither he went, when he parted from them at Pamphylia, Ac 13:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n Was minded to take with them <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect middle (<\/SPAN><\/span>), not aorist middle <\/SPAN><\/span> of the Textus Receptus. Barnabas willed, wished and stuck to it (imperfect tense). <\/SPAN><\/span> is second aorist active infinitive of the double compound <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to take along together with, used already about John Mark in 12:25<\/span> and by Paul in Ga 2:1<\/span> about Titus. Nowhere else in the N.T. Barnabas used the ingressive aorist in his suggestion. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Barnabas determined to take with them,”<\/strong> (Barnabas de ebouleto suparalabein) “Then Barnabas covetously, of himself, strongly wished to take in or as colleague,” in affinity with them, as an equal. Barnabas deemed it a just and right thing to do, perhaps influenced by his kinship to John Mark.<\/p>\n 2) “John, whose surname was Mark,”<\/strong> (kai ton loannen ton kaloumenon Markon) “Also John who is called (surnamed) Mark,” his nephew, Col 4:10<\/span>; 2Ti 4:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n This quarrel and lengthy breach of fellowship in labors of Barnabas and John Mark with Paul indicates that the best of men are not infallible, but earnest and conscientious pursuit of differing brethren in the common ministry of the Master, with the passing of years, may bring them together again for the greater interest and welfare of the Master. Note that in later years Paul called for their rejoining him because they were still profitable in the work of the Lord among the Gentiles, 1Co 9:6<\/span>; 2Ti 4:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 37. And Barnabas gave counsel. Luke doth here set down that doleful disagreement which ought to make all the godly afraid for just causes. The society of Paul and Barnabas was consecrated by the heavenly oracle. They had long time labored, being of one mind, under this yoke whereunto the Lord had tied them; they had, by many experiences, tried [felt] the excellent favor of God, yea, that wonderful success mentioned heretofore by Luke was a manifest blessing of God. Though they had been almost drowned so often in so many tempests of persecution, and were set upon so sore − (165) by infinite enemies, though domestical sedition were everywhere kindled against them, yet they were so far from being pulled in sunder, that their agreement was then most of all tried, [proved.] But now, for a light matter, and which might easily have been ended, they break that holy bond of God’s calling. − <\/p>\n This could not fall out without great perturbance to all the godly. Seeing that the heat of the contention was so great and vehement in these holy men, who had long time accustomed themselves to suffer all things, what shall befall us, whose affections being not as yet so brought to obey God, do oftentimes rage − (166) without modesty? Seeing that a light occasion did separate them, who had long time, amidst so great trials, retained unity holily, how easily may Satan cause those to be divided who have either none, or, at least, a cold desire to foster peace? What great pride was it for Barnabas, who had no more honorable thing than to be Paul’s companion, that he might behave himself like a son towards his father, so stubbornly to refuse his counsel? Peradventure, also, some might think that Paul was not very courteous in that he did not forgive a faithful helper this fault. Therefore, we be admonished by this example, that unless the servants of Christ take great heed, there be many chinks through which Satan will creep in, to disturb that concord which is among them. − <\/p>\n But now we must examine the cause itself, for some there be who lay the blame of the disagreement upon Paul; − (167) and, at the first hearing, the reasons which they bring seem probable. John Mark is rejected, because he withdrew himself from Paul’s company; but he fell not away from Christ. A young man, being as yet unacquainted with bearing the cross, returned home from his journey. He was somewhat to be borne with for his age, being a fresh-water soldier [a tyro] he fainted in troubles even at the first dash; he was not, therefore, about to be a slothful soldier during his whole life. Now, forasmuch as his returning to Paul is an excellent testimony of repentance, it seemeth to be a point of discourtesy − (168) to reject him; for those must be handled more courteously, who punish themselves for their own offenses of their own accord. There were also other causes which ought to have made Paul more courteous. The house of John Mark was a famous inn, − (169) ( Act 12:12<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 his mother had entertained the faithful in most grievous persecution; when Herod and all the people were in a rage, they were wont to have their secret meetings there, as Luke reported before. Surely he ought to have borne with such a holy and courageous woman, lest immoderate rigor should alienate her. She was desirous to have her son addicted to preach the gospel; now, what a great grief might it have been to her that his pains and industry should be refused − (170) for one light fault? And now whereas John Mark doth not only bewail his fault, but in very deed amend the same, Barnabas hath a fair color why he should pardon him. − (171) − <\/p>\n Yet we may gather out of the text, that the Church did allow Paul’s counsel. For Barnabas departeth, and with his companion he saileth into Cyprus. There is no mention made of the brethren, (as if he had departed privily without taking his leave;) but the brethren commend Paul in their prayers to the grace of God; whereby appeareth that the Church stood on his side. Secondly, whereas God showeth forth the power of his Spirit in blessing Paul, and doth bless his labors with happy success of his grace, and leaveth Barnabas, as it were, buried, there may a probable reason be drawn thence, that it pleased him that such an example of severity should be showed. And surely the offense of John Mark was greater than it is commonly taken for. He slid not back, indeed, from the faith of Christ, yet did he forsake his calling, and was a revolt [apostate] from the same; therefore, it was a matter which might have given evil example, if he had been straightway received again into the calling from which he was slid back. He had given himself over to serve Christ upon this condition, that he should be free no longer. It was no more lawful for him to break his promise made in this behalf, than it is for a husband to leave his wife, or for a son to forsake his father. Neither doth infirmity excuse his unfaithfulness, whereby the holiness of the calling was violated. − <\/p>\n And we must note, that he was not altogether rejected of Paul; he counted him as a brother, so he would be content with the common order; he refused to admit him unto the common [public] function of teaching, from whence he fell filthily through his own fault. And there is no great difference between these two, whether he which hath offended be quite excluded from pardon, or he have only public honor denied him; though it may be that they did both exceed measure, as accidents do oftentimes mar a matter which is otherwise good. It was well done of Paul, and according to the right of discipline profitably, not to admit him to be his companion, whose inconstancy he had once tried, [experienced;] but when he saw Barnabas so importunate, he might have yielded to his desire. We ought to make more account of the truth than of the favor of all the whole world; but it is convenient that we ponder wisely what great weight there is in the matter which is in hand. For if, in a matter of no weight or edification, a man vaunt of his constancy, prepare himself for the conflict, and cease not to defend that until the end, wherein he did once take delight it shall be but foolish and perverse obstinacy. There was also some middle way and means whereby Paul might have granted somewhat to the importunateness of his fellow [colleague] in office, and yet have not revolted from the truth. It was not for him to flatter Mark, or to cloak his offense, yet was he not letted by religion, but that after he had freely professed what he thought, he might suffer himself to be overcome in that matter, which did neither indamage true doctrine, nor endanger man’s salvation; which I say for this cause, that we may learn to moderate our desire, even in the best causes, lest it pass measure, and be too fervent. <\/p>\n (165) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Subinde,” ever and anon. <\/p>\n (166) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Subinde lasciviant,” do every now and then wanton. <\/p>\n (167) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Nimio Pauli rigori,” on Paul’s excessive rigor. <\/p>\n (168) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Minime humanum,” contrary to humanity. <\/p>\n (169) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Celebre erat Ecclesiae hospitium,” was celebrated for its hospitality to the Church. <\/p>\n (170) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Ejus operam respui,” that his assistance should be spurned away. <\/p>\n (171) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Speciosum colorem… cur ignoscat,” a specious excuse for pardoning him. <\/p>\n (37) Barnabas determined.<\/strong>The Greek verb is hardly so strong, better, was minded.<\/em> The ties of relationship led the uncle, or cousin, to wish to make another trial of his kinsmans fitness (Col. 4:10<\/span>). He saw extenuating circumstances which St. Paul could not recognise, and which half-excused his turning back when he had set his hand to the plough. (See Note on Act. 13:13<\/span>.) To St. Paul one who had so acted, seemed, in our Lords words, not fit for the kingdom of God, and needing at least the discipline of rejection for a time, from the higher work for which he had shown himself unworthy.<\/p>\n 37<\/strong>. <\/strong> Determined<\/strong> He presumes not to decide the amount or share of blame. He might have so selected, grouped, and coloured his facts as to have shown to which party he belonged. Yet the sum total of the facts, as he states them, combined with facts elsewhere learned, produce the impression that Barnabas acted from personal affection to a relative, Paul from a regard to the apparent right and the good of the enterprise. He takes his nephew and flies off the track, leaving Paul to select a new colleague instead of Barnabas in Silas, a new minister instead of Mark in Timothy. He goes unblest of the Church, even his own Antioch, leaving Paul and his chosen to receive its commendation to the grace of God.<\/p>\n ‘And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark, but Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.’<\/p>\n Barnabas was clearly happy to fall in with the idea, but when the matter was further considered Barnabas firmly insisted that John Mark came with them. Paul on the other hand did not feel that he could agree with this. In his view Mark could not be depended on. He had failed once on their previous mission, he could fail again. He was unreliable. And experience had shown him how important it was that all the party on any of their journeys were reliable.<\/p>\n The fact that Barnabas was so insistent helps to support the idea that part of the reason for Mark’s ‘failure’ had been due to his loyalty to Barnabas. Thus Barnabas would feel that he must respond with a similar loyalty. Furthermore it was of the nature of Barnabas to seek to encourage those who were having difficulties. He had done it with Paul. He was an encourager. He would not desert Mark.<\/p>\n Paul, however, was single-minded, and at this stage in his life unyielding. To his mind Mark had failed God and could therefore only be a hindrance in the work. He might well have seen in him what appeared to him to be a lack of dedication which he feared could act as a barrier that could hinder the work of the Spirit and their spiritual usefulness. He may well have considered that compromise was unacceptable.<\/p>\n We need not therefore see Paul and Barnabas as falling out with each other in any personal way. It was rather a question with each of principle, on which, as strongminded men, they were taking up a different viewpoint, the result being that they simply agreed to differ and go their separate ways. We may see it as a mature Christian decision on both sides, and it unquestionably turned out for the good of the work, for by separating and forming two parties they would be able to accomplish twice as much. In fact Barnabas, who in his gracious way had probably given way to Paul on much, was no doubt now able to expand and develop his ministry in his own way, in a way that he could never have done while he was with Paul.<\/p>\n 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 37. To take with them John<\/strong> ] Who was Barnabas’s sister’s son, Col 4:10<\/span> . Hence Barnabas might be so desirous to promote him. Paul was also afterwards better conceited of him, as may be seenCol 4:10<\/span>Col 4:10<\/span> . <\/p>\n Act 15:37<\/span> . , but see critical note, “wished,” volebat<\/em> ; R. V., “was minded” almost too strong. Possibly owing to his kinship, Barnabas may have taken a more lenient view than Paul.<\/p>\n Acts<\/p>\n A GOOD MAN’S FAULTS<\/p>\n Act 15:37 – Act 15:38 <\/strong> .<\/p>\n Scripture narratives are remarkable for the frankness with which they tell the faults of the best men. It has nothing in common with the cynical spirit in historians, of which this age has seen eminent examples, which fastens upon the weak places in the noblest natures, like a wasp on bruises in the ripest fruit, and delights in showing how all goodness is imperfect, that it may suggest that none is genuine. Nor has it anything in common with that dreary melancholy which also has its representatives among us, that sees everywhere only failures and fragments of men, and has no hope of ever attaining anything beyond the common average of excellence. But Scripture frankly confesses that all its noblest characters have fallen short of unstained purity, and with boldness of hope as great as its frankness teaches the weakest to aspire, and the most sinful to expect perfect likeness to a perfect Lord, It is a plane mirror, giving back all images without distortion.<\/p>\n We recall how emphatically and absolutely it eulogised Barnabas as ‘a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith’-and now we have to notice how this man, thus full of the seminal principle of all goodness, derived into his soul by deep and constant communion through faith, and showing in his life practical righteousness and holiness, yet goes sadly astray, tarnishes his character, and mars his whole future.<\/p>\n The two specific faults recorded of him are his over-indulgence in the case of Mark, and his want of firmness in opposition to the Judaising teachers who came down to Antioch. They were neither of them grave faults, but they were real. In the one he was too facile in overlooking a defect which showed unfitness for the work, and seems to have yielded to family affection and to have sacrificed the efficiency of a mission to it. Not only was he wrong in proposing to condone Mark’s desertion, but he was still more wrong in his reception of the opposition to his proposal. With the firmness which weak characters so often display at the wrong time, he was resolved, come what would, to have his own way. Temper rather than principle made him obstinate where he should have been yielding, as it had made him in Antioch yielding, where he should have been firm. Paul’s remonstrances have no effect. He will rather have his own way than the companionship of his old friend, and so there come alienation and separation. The Church at Antioch takes Paul’s view-all the brethren are unanimous in disapproval. But Barnabas will not move. He sets up his own feeling in opposition to them all. The sympathy of his brethren, the work of his life, the extension of Christ’s kingdom, are all tossed aside. His own foolish purpose is more to him in that moment of irritation than all these. So he snaps the tie, abandons his work, and goes away without a kindly word, without a blessing, without the Church’s prayers-but with his nephew for whom he had given up all these. Paul sails away to do God’s work, and the Church ‘recommends him to the grace of God,’ but Barnabas steals away home to Cyprus, and his name is no more heard in the story of the planting of the kingdom of Christ.<\/p>\n One hopes that his work did not stop thus, but his recorded work does, and in the band of friends who surrounded the great Apostle, the name of his earliest friend appears no more. Other companions and associates in labour take his place; he, as it appears, is gone for ever. One reference 1Co 9:6 at a later date seems most naturally to suggest that he still continued in the work of an evangelist, and still practised the principle to which he and Paul had adhered when together, of supporting himself by manual labour. The tone of the reference implies that there were relations of mutual respect. But the most we can believe is that probably the two men still thought kindly of each other and honoured each other for their work’s sake, but found it better to labour apart, and not to seek to renew the old companionship which had been so violently torn asunder.<\/p>\n The other instance of weakness was in some respects of a still graver kind. The cause of it was the old controversy about the obligations of Jewish law on Gentile Christians. Paul, Peter, and Barnabas all concurred in neglecting the restrictions imposed by Judaism, and in living on terms of equality and association in eating and drinking with the heathen converts at Antioch. A principle was involved, to which Barnabas had bean the first to give in his adhesion, in the frank recognition of the Antioch Church. But as soon as emissaries from the other party came down, Peter and he abandoned their association with Gentile converts, not changing their convictions but suppressing the action to which their convictions should have led. They pretended to be of the same mind with these narrow Jews from Jerusalem. They insulted their brethren, they deserted Paul, they belied their convictions, they imperilled the cause of Christian liberty, they flew in the face of what Peter had said that God Himself had showed him, they did their utmost to degrade Christianity into a form of Judaism-all for the sake of keeping on good terms with the narrow bigotry of these Judaising teachers.<\/p>\n Now if we take these two facts together, and set them side by side with the eulogy pronounced on Barnabas as ‘a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith,’ we have brought before us in a striking form some important considerations.<\/p>\n I. The imperfect goodness of good men.<\/p>\n <\/strong> A good man does not mean a faultless man. Of course the power which works on a believing soul is always tending to produce goodness and only goodness. But its operation is not such that we are always equally, uniformly, perfectly under its influence. Power in germ is one thing, in actual operation another. There may be but a little ragged patch of green in the garden, and yet it may be on its way to become a flower-bed. A king may not have established dominion over all his land. The actual operation of that transforming Spirit at any given moment is limited, and we can withdraw ourselves from it. It does not begin by leavening all our nature.<\/p>\n So we have to note-<\/p>\n The root of goodness.<\/p>\n \n The main direction of a life.<\/p>\n \n The progressive character of goodness.<\/p>\n \n The highest style of Christian life is a struggle. So we draw practical inferences as to the conduct of life.<\/p>\n \n This thought of imperfection does not diminish the criminality of individual acts.<\/p>\n \n It does not weaken aspiration and effort towards higher life.<\/p>\n \n It does alleviate our doubts and fears when we find evil in ourselves.<\/p>\n \nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>And that which we meet first of all at the door of the text is contention. None of the least sins, none of the least punishments. For if Babel itself could not be built up among discord of tongues, how much more can Sion never be well built up with discord of hearts? If the nets be broken, the fishers of men may catch a draught, but they can keep nothing. Cut a seed of wheat in twain, and the pieces lose the nature of fructification. If words be not well put together they will make no sense; and if mens senses do not well join together in one profession, they will make no Church. Contention is the devils wedge to rive asunder the Cross of Christ; it turns order into a heap, amity into jangling, unity into schism, and truth into heresy. The work of men is contention, the way of God is peace. We are sure He is in the still voice, and we are sure that He is not in the whirlwinds of controversies and uproars. Be it therefore propounded what we should do as well as pray, that we may be one, and that no contention fall among us. First bring a supple, a soft, a tractable mind, that hath a good affection to agreement, and I will undertake to furnish you with rules enough, that if you differ in no greater things than Paul and Barnabas did (yea, what if they were greater?) you may soon greet one another with the kiss of peace. Only by pride cometh contention, says Solomon (Pro 13:19<\/span>). He that is wise in his own opinions will never want occasions to begin them, nor arguments to maintain them. And he that thinks the yielding party loseth in his honour, had rather lead and perish than follow after and be preserved. But humility is limper, and will easily bend; it is never given to contradiction; it stands not upon vain points of reputation, to carry the sway in every opposition. For let the wrangler get the better in obstinacy, the modest Christian shall overcome in charity. Mortify self-love, and peace will please you better than victory. The best that he can say for himself that continues in contention is, It is unreasonable that I should yield, for I am in the right. It were no hurt for a modest judgment to suspect itself in that confidence of persuasion. After this which I have required, that men be not rigid, but humble and flexible, the rules to be kept for composing smaller debates, and my text reacheth to no other, are these:<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Though there are so many remedies to stop contention, law, canons, custom, reason, middle temper, arbitration, yet my text tells you they do not always prevail, for the most considerable members of Christs body were at odds, Paul and Barnabas, which is the next point. Had they been enmities with infidels and pagans, with those that are without, they had been natural: for what agreement hath light with darkness? But this was a war at home, among themselves, a civil war. God help us if the right hand fight against the left, when both are made to defend the body. When the rams of the flock contend, the poor sheep that look on must stand amazed. But I stand to this doctrine, that Paul and Barnabas, and such good men as they are, may pursue a good meaning in a contrary way one to another, and be guiltless. For it is the ignorance of good men, and not their perverseness, which makes them seek the true end by multiplicity of means, and very opposite. Cloth of the same making hath not always the same dye. And they that are propense to glorify one God in the same Church, with the same charity, do not always build with the same materials. Paul loves the Church as well as Barnabas, but he would not offend it for want of justice. Barnabas loves the Church as well as Paul, but he would not offend it for want of clemency and compassion. Here is one wool and one cloth, but dipped in two colours. Then I let you see, that for their part that do equally consent to maintain the true gospel, the inequality of their judgments may be inoffensive. I would I could say for our own parts, that the dissensions of our Reformed Churches were unblamable, and that there were no transgression against charity in our discords. And no wonder if there be turbulent opinions in the congregation of malignants; for the best of Gods servants draw not the same yoke without a little jogging of the ark, there was a contention between Paul and Barnabas.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Nay, to our wonder, it rested not there, it exceeded the bounds of meekness, for in the third point my text says it was , a sharp contention. An unanimity of opinions is not necessary to friendship, says Aristotle very well. Dear friends may retain the sweetness of love together, and yet vary in some conclusions of judgment. The dissensions of them that keep benevolent minds are not failings out, but wranglings. As Paul resisted Peter to his face (Gal 2:11<\/span>) boldly, but charitably. His confidence for the truth became him, and his inoffensiveness commended him. It was otherwise at this bout between him and Barnabas; passion and provocation transported them both so far, that it was a sharp contention. The Greek word hath a cursed meaning in it. When a disease hath intermitted awhile, and begins its access and violence again, that is called a paroxysm of sickness; and when a babble is worse and worse louder and louder, that is a paroxysm of contention. These two, that had been fellow soldiers under Christs banner, in so many travails, in so many perils, in so many persecutions, they cannot bear with one another with patience; and they that were ready to die together cannot live together; they that were the strongest confederates in the world are the strongest opposites. Oh what a fickle and fallacious thing is the concord of men! Yet I must not say that the sharpness between two such sweet olive branches had any taste of the acid of reproach, or that they pierced one another with opprobrious speeches. I do not onerate them with any such accusation. Have they no regard of their common brotherhood in Christ, who are not satisfied to contend, but they must mix sharpness with it? And no small quantity. A sting is a little matter; they tear one another in pieces as with the paw of a lion. Their pen drops nothing but gall and venom, as if their quill were plucked from the wing of a cockatrice. And who is there of a candid and a clean soul that will not sooner be gained with the coolness of charity than with the heat of rage.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Having acquainted you that Paul and Barnabas did disagree, and not simply so, but with some eagerness and provocation, might not a solid judgment suspect that some great offence had thrust itself in between them? You shall find it otherwise, that the contention was in no weighty cause; it touched not the life of truth, or the honour of Christ. The verse before my text will tell you all in the beginning of it, Paul thought it not good to take Mark with him. And our translation gives it more than is due to it, as I conceive. We say that Paul thought it not good, as if it were a matter of good or evil. Much better thus, as I apprehend, Paul thought it not fit. It was not what was good, for it was good either way, but what was more fit and meet that made the controversy. This is fit, says one; Tis not so fit, says his partner; a poor beginning for a sharp contention. It may be supposed, as I find it in part in a good author, that Barnabas pleaded on this wise for Mark. He had shrunk indeed from his calling, and left Paul at Pamphilia; but it was not strange in a novice to be a little daunted, when he was in jeopardy of his life. But give him his due, he had not renounced the faith, but retired home for fear of the worlds anger. Yet he defended not this fault, but repented, and bewailed it. Now he would fain begin afresh, for he felt himself by the grace of God more strong and resolute than ever. Should not indulgence be shown to his unfeigned repentance? Surely the son of so good a mother deserved some mildness and favour from the presidents of the Church. And what was more proper to Christs commissioners than to reconcile offenders that had gone astray? These reasons prevailing not with Paul, you may imagine with me, if you please, that his sentence was to this purpose. That they are worthy of great reproof that make excuses, and follow not Christ when He calls them. An easy pardon would flatter him in his fault; this repulse would make him know the magnitude of his sin. And why might not Paul have remitted a little of his rigour to have gratified Barnabas? And why not Barnabas have taken the denial friendly to content Paul? Sacrifice small and indifferent things to the fruition of peace. To hold fast to our conclusions in petty matters with all the strength of our will and wit is not constancy, but a worse thing.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>This is the last point, and the saddest word of the text, this , the departing asunder. To come even with the time I will fall presently upon the use.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Very good men may have faults. These two had confessed at Lystra that they were men of like passions with us, but now each seems to have forgotten that; neither will make allowance for the other. We cannot expect always to have our own way, even when we are in the right. Were it certain that oar opponent is wholly in the wrong, we have no right to forget that, notwithstanding this error, he may be a good man. Trust his proved character. Do not lightly imperil a fellowship which has grown up in kindly helpfulness. A few hot words may undo the love of years, as a few blows of the axe cuts down the oak of a centurys growth. The Master had only faulty disciples, but He never lost one real friend. What would have become of them, of us, did He dwell upon real faults as much as upon possible virtues?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Personal characteristics and surroundings affect the judgment. Barnabas was Marks uncle; he knew him better than Paul could, and loved him better. The trusting spirit which had welcomed the newly-converted persecutor now received the repentant backslider; yet this charity of itself did not prove the young man was deserving of such a trust. Charitableness and affection become leniency, putting unfit men into responsible positions. Courage and self-denial stiffen into severity in judging weaker brethren.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>One sin brings other sins and many sorrows. Marks weak shrinking shamed himself, dishonoured his Lord, and betrayed these true yoke-fellows into a pitiable strife.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Christ uses imperfect labourers. He has no other. God must make the folly and wrath of man to praise Him, since folly and wrath appear even in true disciples.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>True Christians will not remain at variance. How glad we are for that message from Paul to Timothy, Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry; and for the commendatory mention of Barnabas ten years later, in writing to the Corinthians. (Sermons by the Monday Club.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>That probability is no certain guide for us in judging the future. To all who were acquainted with these apostles, nothing could have appeared more improbable than that they should ever quarrel. They were both good men, they were old friends. They had been fellow labourers for a long time. They were apostles too, acting under the inspiration and direction of Christ. Under such circumstances, could anything appear more improbable than that such men should quarrel? Yet they did. We look to the future, and say, probably such an event will happen; yet how often the future falsifies our calculations and disappoints our hopes.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>That little things are often more trying to the temper than great. These men for years had been in the most trying circumstances together. They had contended together with the bigoted Jew and the idolatrous Gentile. They had just returned from Jerusalem, where they had engaged in a most exciting debate, and seem to have gone through the whole of these things with unbroken equanimity. But now the mere question as to whether John should accompany them produces great irritation. Now this seems to us a small matter compared with other things that engaged their united attention; and yet it was this that broke the harmony of their friendship. It is often so. Call men together to discuss small questions, and they will quarrel; call them to work out a great object, and they will be cordial and unanimous. The best way to promote Church union is to engage in great works. Flies irritate the noble steed more than the roll of the chariot wheel.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>That Christianity allows scope for discretionary action. These apostles took upon themselves to decide as to whether John should accompany them or not. No principle was involved in it–it was a mere question of expediency. We are allowed no discretionary action either as to moral principles or cardinal truths. But there is much in connection with the methods of extending Christianity that is left entirely with our judgment. Hence the discussion at Jerusalem was under the direction of the Holy Spirit. But here there was no special direction. Many such questions are left for such treatment–Church government, etc.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>That the best of men are not absolutely infallible. When the apostles spoke and acted under the inspiration of the Spirit, they were infallible. But they did not always thus speak and act, as the event we are discussing shows. There is but one perfect example, and thank God there is One; and He is to be followed through evil as well as good report.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>That under the gracious rule of heaven evil is made subservient to the progress of good.<\/p>\n
VI. <\/strong>That earnest work will inevitably rectify our tempers. They had not been parted long, I presume, before every particle of animosity went out. We find Paul referring kindly to Mark (Col 4:10<\/span>; 2Ti 4:11<\/span>; Phm 1:24<\/span>), and also to Barnabas (1Co 9:6<\/span>). (D. Thomas, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The sharp quarrel between Paul and Barnabas. Mark, fired perhaps by the zeal of Paul, or impelled by the roving fancy of youth, had gone with the two to Antioch. They then took him on a missionary tour, but just when most needed he deserted. By and by, when another tour was in contemplation, Barnabas proposes to try him again. Paul refuses, and the contention was sharp. The only wise thing about the whole matter was the separation. It is far better for men who cannot work comfortably together to separate. If the contention had been patched up neither could have gone to the work with wholeheartedness. There were faults on both sides, but it would be difficult to say on whom the lesser blame rested. On the one hand there was the brave consistency which felt that a weak and irresolute man was not to be trusted with such a perilous mission; on the other there was the honest conviction that Mark was worth another trial.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The different stages of Marks life which these verses reveal. The unpromising youth often surprises us by superior development. Soldiers who have quailed before the first fire have afterwards distinguished themselves as brave men. So with Mark. Barnabas encouragement, combined with the sharp tonic administered by Paul, made a man of him. Both are needed today.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The honourable confession of Paul that Mark had turned out better than he had expected. (E. H. Higgins.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The apostles were not going forth as the delegates of a supreme central legislative assembly.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Stability of character was necessary to usefulness in such a mission.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Differences of opinion should not lead to the abandonment of principle.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>Pauls love of work–Let us go again. Paul was bitten again with mission hunger. He himself was earnest; therefore he could not tolerate insincerity. There was no breach in his all but infinite integrity, and therefore a flaw in other men was not an accident but a crime. In his criticism of Mark, Paul gave a criticism of himself. Paul meant his work to be solid and enduring. This was the very purpose he had in view–namely, to consolidate young believers and immature thinkers and students; and to take with him, on such a mission, a man who himself had turned back from the plough, was an irony which vexed his soul. His purpose was to confirm the Churches, to make them stronger and stronger; and to be working with an instrument which had already broken in his hands was a moral irony, from which his very spirit recoiled. Everything depends upon the kind of work you are going to do. There is a place in the Church for everyone, and that is the problem which the Papacy has solved. The Papacy can use all sorts of men; Protestantism can use only one or two kinds. We must learn to employ men in proper departments who do not come up to the Pauline standard of excellence. Do not throw away any man for the sake of one fault, or even two. There may be a great deal of soundness in the apple that has upon it one patch of rottenness.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Barnabas charity. He is willing to give a man another chance in life. By so much he was a great man. From the point of righteous discipline, there can be no doubt of the grandeur of Paul; but a man who would give a youth another chance seems to me to have in him the true spirit of the Cross. Take heed how you administer discipline. Thank God for the few men here and there who are willing to try us again! We owe them our lives: we ought to live for them. We have hitherto considered Barnabas only a well-disposed, loving man, who would sit down or stand up, go or come, just as some superior nature might suggest or require. Such are often amongst the sternest men. Barnabas said to Paul, No! and even Paul could not change that No into a Yes. Afterwards the judgment of Barnabas was vindicated. Barnabas was in this respect a further-sighted man than Paul. There is only one infallible Person in the Church, and he is its Lord. Paul was but a man at the best; he himself said so. Who then is Paul and who is Apollos? In this respect Barnabas was a greater man than Paul. He is the true intellectual reader who says about a young man, He has the Spirit of God in him, and the indestructible seed of the kingdom. And he who, twenty years after, simply gives in to facts is not a man of penetration at all. Young man, live in the warm sunshine of those who hope the best about you. You owe nothing to the men who affirm your excellence when they cannot deny it.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>There are mitigating circumstances in this controversy.<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>St. Pauls proposal (verse 36) to revisit the congregations was a proof of his sense of the precariousness of the Christian life. Throughout his Epistles we have the expression of the same spirit. He has scarcely left a place, when his anxiety about the well-being of his converts becomes too painful for him to bear. He sends back his only companion, and consents to be entirely solitary in a strange city, if he may but gain the desired tidings as to the stability of those whom he has left behind. It was so already at this early point in his ministry. It is a good thing to form new plans, originate new machineries, and carry the ministrations of the Church into homes and haunts which they have not yet penetrated. But in all this we must take heed lest we be chargeable with not well following up a work which has been well begun. When an impression is by Gods grace secured, still it may fade and flag and at last disappear if it be not vigorously and earnestly and constantly renewed. Oh, how precarious is the work of grace in the most promising of us all! What snares does Satan lay for the young, the newly confirmed, the just awakened, the recently reformed! So soon is the ground once cleared again overgrown; so soon is the impulse once communicated checked and impeded; so soon is the seed once sown snatched away, or scorched in its first budding, or choked finally in its growth; that there is need to say in the words here before us, Let us go again, etc.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The result of the proposal. Barnabas shared St. Pauls feeling. But in settling the details of the enterprise a grave difference presented itself.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The various aspects of the history.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n