39<\/strong>. And the contention was so sharp, that<\/em>, &c.] More literally (with R. V.<\/em>), And there arose a sharp contention so that<\/em>, &c. The Greek word (from which our English paroxysm<\/em> comes) intimates a temporary rather than a prolonged dispute, although it may for the time be severe. The result to the church was that two missionary journeys were undertaken instead of one. Though the Apostles might differ in their estimate of Mark, they were at one with reference to the work of the Gospel. Barnabas is mentioned no more in the Acts after this chapter. His name occurs in St Paul’s Epistles, 1Co 9:6<\/span>; Gal 2:1<\/span>; Gal 2:9<\/span>; Gal 2:13<\/span>; and Col 4:10<\/span>, in which last passage, written no doubt after the events here related, we can see that Mark had been again received as a fellow-worker by St Paul. We learn too from 2Ti 4:11<\/span> and Phm 1:24<\/span> that St Paul became warmly attached to him afterwards.<\/p>\n sailed unto Cyprus<\/em> ] In which island Barnabas, and it may be Mark also, was born (Act 4:37<\/span>). They chose therefore for their labours a district in which they were likely to have some influence.<\/p>\n And the contention was so sharp – <\/B>The word used here <\/SPAN><\/span> paroxusmos is that from which our word paroxysm is derived. It may denote any excitement of mind, and is used in a good sense in Heb 10:24<\/span>. It here means, however, a violent altercation that resulted in their separation for a time, and in their engaging in different spheres of labor.<\/P> And sailed into Cyprus – <\/B>This was the native place of Barnabas. See the notes on Act 4:36<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 39. The contention was so sharp between them<\/B><\/I>] For all this sentence, there is only in the Greek text ; there was therefore a paroxysm<\/I>, an incitement<\/I>, a stirring up<\/I>, from , compounded of , intensive<\/I>, and , to<\/I> whet<\/I>, or sharpen<\/I>: there was a sharp contention. But does this imply anger<\/I> or ill-will<\/I> on either side? Certainly not. Here, these two apostles differed, and were strenuous, each in support of the part he had adopted. “Paul,” as an ancient Greek commentator has it, “being influenced only with the love of righteousness; Barnabas being actuated by love to his relative.” John Mark had been tried in trying circumstances, and he failed; Paul, therefore, would not trust him again. The affection of Barnabas led him to hope the best, and was therefore desirous to give him another trial. Barnabas would not give up: Paul would not agree. They therefore agreed to depart from each other, and take different parts of the work: each had an attendant and companion at hand; so Barnabas took John Mark, and sailed to Cyprus: Paul took Silas, and went into Syria. John Mark proved faithful to his uncle Barnabas; and Silas proved faithful to his master Paul. To all human appearance it was best that they separated; as the Churches were more speedily visited, and the work of God more widely and more rapidly spread. And why is it that most men attach blame to this difference between Paul and Barnabas? And why is it that this is brought in as a proof of the sinful imperfection<\/I> of these holy apostles? Because those who thus treat the subject can never differ with another without feeling wrong tempers<\/I>; and then, as destitute of good breeding as they are of humility, they attribute to others the angry, proud, and wrathful dispositions which they feel in themselves; and, because they cannot<\/I> be angry and sin not, they suppose that even apostles<\/I> themselves cannot. Thus, in fact, we are always bringing our own moral or immoral qualifications to be a standard, by which we are to judge of the characters and moral feelings of men who were actuated by zeal for God’s glory, brotherly kindness, and charity. Should any man say there was sin<\/I> in this contention between Paul and Barnabas, I answer, there is no evidence of this in the text. Should he say, the word , paroxysm<\/I>, denotes this, I answer, it does<\/I> not<\/I>. And the verb is often used in a good sense<\/I>. So Isocrates ad Demosth. cap. xx. ‘ “But thou wilt be the more stirred up<\/I> to the love of good works.” And such persons forget that this is the very form used by the apostle himself, Heb 10:24<\/span>: which, these objectors would be highly displeased with me, were I to translate, Let us consider one another to an angry contention of<\/I> love and good works<\/I>. From these examples, it appears that the word is used to signify incitement<\/I> of any kind; and, if taken in a medical sense, to express the burning fit<\/I> of an ague: it is also taken to express a strong excitement<\/I> to the love of God and man, and to the fruits by which such love can be best proved; and, in the case before us, there was certainly nothing contrary to this pure principle in either of those heavenly men. See also Kypke on Heb 10:24<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n They departed asunder; as Abraham and Lot parted, Gen 13:9<\/span>, yet keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; loving of and praying for one another, as we may judge, being both good men. But they verified here what they had said at Lystra, Act 14:15<\/span>, <\/P> We are men of like passions with you; yet God overruled these very divisions between Paul and Barnabas for his own glory, and the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, several places being by this means blessed with the gospel. And this reflection upon this John Mark, is thought, to have made him for the future more diligent and valiant in the cause of the gospel, which occasioned that kind salutation from St. Paul unto him, Col 4:10<\/span>. <\/P> Cyprus; an island in the Mediterranean Sea. <\/P> <\/p>\n 39. And the contention was so sharpbetween them<\/B>such was the “irritation,” or”exacerbation.” <\/P> that they departed asunderone from the other<\/B>Said they not truly to the Lystrians thatthey were “men of like passions with them”; (Ac14:15<\/span>). But who was to blame?<\/I> (1) That John Mark hadeither tired of the work or shrunk from the dangers and fatigues thatyet lay before them, was undeniable; and Paul concluded that what hehad done he might, and probably would, do again. Was he wrong inthis? (See Pr 25:19<\/span>). But (2)To this Barnabas might reply that no rule was without exception; thatone failure, in a young Christian, was not enough to condemn him forlife; that if near relationship might be thought to warp hisjudgment, it also gave him opportunities of knowing the man betterthan others; and that as he was himself anxious to be allowed anothertrial (and the result makes this next to certain), in order that hemight wipe out the effect of his former failure and show what”hardness he could now endure as a good soldier of JesusChrist,” his petition ought not to be rejected. Now, since JohnMark did<\/I> retrieve his character in these respects, and areconciliation took place between Paul and him, so cordial that theapostle expresses more than once the confidence he had in him and thevalue he set upon his services (Col 4:10<\/span>;Col 4:11<\/span>; 2Ti 4:11<\/span>),it may seem that events showed Barnabas to be in the right, and Paultoo harsh and hasty in his judgment. But, in behalf of Paul, it maywell be answered, that not being able to see into the future he hadonly the unfavorable past to judge by; that the gentleness ofBarnabas (Act 4:36<\/span>; Act 11:24<\/span>)had already laid him open to imposition (see on Ga2:13<\/span>), to which near relationship would in this case make himmore liable; and that in refusing to take John Mark on thismissionary journey he was not judging his Christian character norpronouncing on his fitness for future service, but merely providingin the meantime against being again put to serious inconvenience andhaving their hands weakened by a possible second desertion. On thewhole, then, it seems clear that each of these great servantsofChrist had something to say for himself, in defense of theposition which they respectively took up; that while Barnabas wasquite able to appreciate the grounds on which Paul proceeded, Paulwas not so competent to judge of the considerations which Barnabasprobably urged; that while Paul had but one object in view, to seethat the companion of their arduous work was one of thoroughlycongenial spirit and sufficient nerve, Barnabas, over and above thesame desire, might not unreasonably be afraid for the soul of hisnephew, lest the refusal to allow him to accompany them on theirjourney might injure his Christian character and deprive the Churchof a true servant of Jesus Christ; and that while both sought onlythe glory of their common Master, each looked at the question atissue, to some extent, through the medium of his own temperament,which grace sanctifies and refines, but does not destroyPaul,<\/I>through the medium of absolute devotion to the cause and kingdom ofChrist, which, warm and womanly as his affections were, gave a tingeof lofty sternness to his resolves where that seemed to be affected;Barnabas,<\/I> through the medium of the same singleness of heartin Christ’s service, though probably not in equal strength (Ga2:13<\/span>), but also of a certain natural gentleness which, where aChristian relative was concerned, led him to attach more weight towhat seemed for his spiritual good than Paul could be supposed to do.In these circumstances, it seems quite possible that they might haveamicably “agreed to differ,” each taking his own companion,as they actually did. But the “paroxysm” (as the word is),the “exacerbation” which is expressly given as the cause oftheir parting, shows but too plainly, that human infirmity amidst thegreat labors of the Church at Antioch at length sundered those whohad sweetly and lovingly borne together the heat and burden of theday during a protracted tour in the service of Christ. “Thereforelet no man glory in men” (1Co3:21<\/span>). As for John Mark, although through his uncle’s warmadvocacy of his cause he was put in a condition to dissipate thecloud that hung over him, how bitter to him must have ever afterwardsbeen the reflection that it was his culpable conduct which gaveoccasion to whatever was sinful in the strife between Paul andBarnabas, and to a separation in action, though no doubt with amutual Christian regard, between those who had till then wroughtnobly together! How watchful does all this teach Christians, andespecially Christian ministers and missionaries, to be against givingway to rash judgment and hot temper towards each other, especiallywhere on both sides the glory of Christ is the ground of difference!How possible is it that in such cases both parties may, on thequestion at issue, be more or less in the right! How difficult is iteven for the most faithful and devoted servants of Christ, differingas they do in their natural temperament even under the commandinginfluence of grace, to see even important questions precisely in thesame light! And if, with every disposition to yield what isunimportant, they still feel it a duty each to stand to his ownpoint, how careful should they be to do it lovingly, each pursuinghis own course without disparagement of his Christian brother! Andhow affectingly does the Lord overrule such difference of judgmentand such manifestations of human infirmity, by making them “turnout rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel”; as in this caseis eminently seen in the two missionary parties instead of one, nottravelling over the same ground and carrying their dispute over allthe regions of their former loving labors, but dividing the fieldbetween them! <\/P> and so Barnabas took Mark,and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas<\/B>(See on Ac15:34<\/span>) going two and two, as the Twelve and the Seventy(Mar 6:7<\/span>; Luk 10:1<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And the contention was so sharp between them<\/strong>,…. About this matter; Barnabas insisting on it, that John Mark should go with them, he being a relation of his; and in whose favour it might be urged, that his mother Mary was an excellent good woman, who had received the saints into her house, in a time of persecution; and that it should be considered, that this her son was but a young man, and could not be thought to have that courage, resolution, constancy, and solidity, as older professors and ministers; and that his crime was not very heinous, and should be overlooked. Paul, on the other hand, opposing his going with them, as a very unworthy person, because he had behaved so cowardly, and had shown such a coldness and indifference to the work of the ministry, and had so shamefully left them; and thus they disputed the point till there was a paroxysm between them, as is the word used: they were irritated and provoked by one another, and were so warmed and heated on both sides,<\/p>\n that they departed asunder one from another<\/strong>; thus as soon almost as peace was made in the church, a difference arises among the ministers of the word, who are men of like passions with others; and though it is not easy to say which was to blame most in this contention; perhaps there were faults on both sides, for the best men are not without their failings; yet this affair was overruled by the providence of God, for the spread of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest; for when these two great and good men parted from one another, they went to different places, preaching the word of God:<\/p>\n and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed unto Cyprus<\/strong>;<\/p>\n [See comments on Ac 13:4]<\/span>.<\/p>\n A sharp contention <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Our very word paroxysm in English. Old word though only twice in the N.T. (here and Heb 10:24<\/span>), from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to sharpen (, <\/SPAN><\/span>) as of a blade and of the spirit (Acts 17:16<\/span>; 1Cor 13:5<\/span>). This “son of consolation” loses his temper in a dispute over his cousin and Paul uses sharp words towards his benefactor and friend. It is often so that the little irritations of life give occasion to violent explosions. If the incident in Ga 2:11-21<\/span> had already taken place, there was a sore place already that could be easily rubbed. And if Mark also joined with Peter and Barnabas on that occasion, Paul had fresh ground for irritation about him. But there is no way to settle differences about men and we can only agree to disagree as Paul and Barnabas did.<\/P> So that they parted asunder from one another <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). Actual result here stated by <\/SPAN><\/span> and the first aorist passive infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to sever, to separate, here only and Re 6:4<\/span> in the N.T. The accusative of general reference (<\/SPAN><\/span>) is normal. For construction with <\/SPAN><\/span> see Robertson, Grammar<\/I>, pp. 999f.<\/P> And Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second infinitival clause <\/SPAN><\/span> after <\/SPAN><\/span> connected by <\/SPAN><\/span>. The same participle is used here minus , <\/SPAN><\/span> (second aorist active). Barnabas and Mark sailed out (<\/SPAN><\/span> from <\/SPAN><\/span>) from the harbour of Antioch. This is the last glimpse that Luke gives us of Barnabas, one of the noblest figures in the New Testament. Paul has a kindly reference to him in 1Co 9:6<\/span>. No one can rightly blame Barnabas for giving his cousin John Mark a second chance nor Paul for fearing to risk him again. One’s judgment may go with Paul, but one’s heart goes with Barnabas. And Mark made good with Barnabas, with Peter (1Pe 5:13<\/span>) and finally with Paul (Col 4:10<\/span>; 2Tim 4:11<\/span>). See my little book on John Mark (Making Good in the Ministry<\/I>). Paul and Barnabas parted in anger and both in sorrow. Paul owed more to Barnabas than to any other man. Barnabas was leaving the greatest spirit of the time and of all times. <\/P> <\/p>\n The contention was so sharp [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. More correctly, there arose a sharp contention. Only here and Heb 10:24<\/span>. Our word paroxysm is a transcription of paroxusmov. An angry dispute is indicated. <\/P> Barnabas. The last mention of him in the Acts.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And the contention was so sharp between them,”<\/strong> (egeneto de paroksusmos) “Then there existed (came to be) sharp feeling,” tension, argument, between them, between Paul and Barnabas, companions for ten years in labor together, Act 11:25-27<\/span> to this time.<\/p>\n 2) “That they departed asunder one from the other:<\/strong>(hoste apochoristhenai autous ap’ allelon) “So that it came to separate them from each other,” for many years, caused a breach of fellowship. Yet, not a total severance of friendship, but a separation into different paths of mission labors. Paul later associated himself with Barnabas in equal Divine rights to forego working and to have a wife, within the providence of God, 1Co 9:5-6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And so Barnabas took Mark,”<\/strong> (ton te Barnaban paralabonta ton Markon) “Then Barnabas taking (to himself) John Mark,” his nephew, Col 4:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “And sailed unto Cyprus,”<\/strong> (ekpleusai eis Kupron)”To sail away from Antioch into Cyprus,” his native homeland, to have his later labors unreported in either the book of Acts or the Bible, Act 4:36-37<\/span>; Act 13:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n When brethren differ in opinions they should not abandon principles or conduct themselves so as to damage the cause of truth. “To err is human, to forgive divine;”- Sharp differences of opinions must not, can not be permitted to seethe into bitterness or an unforgiving spirit, Eph 4:30-32<\/span>.<\/p>\n (39) And the contention was so sharp between them, that . . .<\/strong>Literally, there was a sharp contention, <\/em>(or paroxysm<\/em>), so that<\/em> . . . The warmth of previous affection, of a friendship begun probably in boyhood, and cemented by new hopes, and a great work in which both were sharers, made the breach between the two more painful. At this stage, both Barnabas and Mark disappear from the history of the Acts, but it will be worth while to note the chief facts in the after-history of each. (1) Probably Barnabas and Paul met again in the visit of Act. 18:22<\/span>, unless, indeed, we refer the incidents of Gal. 2:11-13<\/span> to an earlier period, and then there was a yet further cause of division in his yielding to the dissimulation of the Judaising teachers. (2) In writing to the Corinthians (1Co. 9:6<\/span>) the Apostle names Barnabas as setting the same noble example as himself in labouring with his own hands and accepting nothing from the churches. (3) On the later life of Mark see the Introduction to St. Marks Gospel.<\/em> Here it will be sufficient to note that the discipline did its work. After labouring with his cousin in Cyprus, he appears to have returned to St. Peter, as his first father in the faith, and to have been with him at Babylon (1Pe. 5:13<\/span>). He and St. Paul met during the latters first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10<\/span>; Phm. 1:24<\/span>), and the Apostle learnt to recognise in him one who was profitable to him for the ministry (2Ti. 4:11<\/span>), and whom he wished to have with him at the last.<\/p>\n 39<\/strong>. <\/strong> The contention was so sharp<\/strong> There was a sharpness, <\/em> , or excitement. <\/em> The principal word may signify an excitement, whether good, bad, or indifferent. It has been adopted as a medical term, paroxysm, <\/em> which, however, would not rightly express the mental term. The excitement of a purely ethical emotion, in opposition to a wrong collision from another, may be in a high degree right. <\/em> Such was very probably <\/em> the case here with Paul, but certainly not <\/em> with Barnabas. There was equally a in Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch; but the Church has ever pronounced Paul wholly right and Peter wholly wrong. The same sharpening pervades Paul’s utterance to Elymas, the sorcerer, and indeed the whole epistle to the Galatians. But it is a sharpening against error and wrong. <\/p>\n Took Mark<\/strong> An abruptness of leaving, indicating passion. He loses the honour of bearing the banner of the cross with Paul into Europe. Barnabas henceforth disappears from all authentic history, being mentioned by Paul alone, 1Co 9:6<\/span>. As it was to his native Cyprus he went with his young relative, in Cyprus he seems to have remained. Very possibly the quietude of approaching age had some influence in separating him from the young and too active Paul. Legends alone pretend to relate his subsequent life and his martyrdom in Cyprus. An epistle, early as the second century, bears his name, but is neither worthy of his fame, nor accepted as indisputably genuine by the early Church.<\/p>\n ‘And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.’<\/p>\n The word translated ‘sharp disagreement’ means a ‘stirring up’ It can refer to a stirring up of love, and in this case a stirring up of disagreement and differing views. It does not necessarily mean that they had a flaming row. It was a case of two men with firm views not being able to come to agreement on what each saw as an important issue and looking at each other eye to eye with firm expressions, and interestingly enough a case where both may have been right under the different circumstances. We do not need to idealise them, on the other hand we should not stigmatise them so that we can get a good sermon out of it. What we can say is that as neither could agree they went their separate ways, but there is no reason for us to think that in the end it was other than amicable and by agreement. And we can reasonably assume that Barnabas as a Cypriot went to Cyprus by mutual agreement, taking Mark with him, in order to look after that side of the work. Later history suggests that he was right to do what he did. But that does not man that Paul was wrong. Had Mark gone with Paul and Barnabas together it might have been a disaster.<\/p>\n We must recognise that there are times when Christians will on principle take up differing positions, and may have to do things differently. It is inevitable, and as long as it does not cause division, is healthy. Paul certainly never speaks of Barnabas in any other than a friendly manner, and we can be sure that Barnabas, that supremely gracious man of God, was the same. Paul would in fact later soften his attitude towards Mark, probably because Mark later demonstrated how reliable he was, and Mark would also later become a help to Paul in his ministry and one on whom he learned to depend. During his first imprisonment at Rome, Paul mentioned Mark to Philemon as a fellow-labourer present there with him (Phm 1:24<\/span>), and to the Colossians he speaks of him as one who was a fellow-worker in the Kingly Rule of God and as one who had been a comfort and strength to him (Col 4:10-11<\/span>), while during his second imprisonment, he writes to Timothy: “Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is profitable to me for ministry” (2Ti 4:11<\/span>). But all this might not have been had they set off on that second journey together.<\/p>\n We might reasonably assume therefore that they agreed together that it would be best if Barnabas and Mark looked after the Cypriot side of the work, while Paul and whoever he chose looked after the work on the mainland in Asia Minor.<\/p>\n For Barnabas to take on the Cypriot side of the work clearly made sense as he would be going to his fellow-countrymen. In the same way so would Paul, at least to some extent, when he went to Asia Minor. But it was Paul who would, partly through force of circumstances, also be going to pastures new, and that is one reason why Luke in his narrative follows Paul. His aim was to portray continual expansion and spreading of the word. (Another reason was because he himself would eventually meet up with Paul and take part with him in his ministry).<\/p>\n ‘Paul chose Silas.’ As we know Silas was a distinguished figure in the Jerusalem church, a prophet, and one who could confirm the agreement reached at Jerusalem. He may well also have been a witness to the resurrection. He was almost certainly a Roman citizen, as was Paul. This would provide them with mutual status. As Silvanus (his Latin name) we see him acting as amanuensis to both Paul and Peter. He was thus both competent and spiritual.<\/p>\n ‘And went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.’ We are told this of these two simply because the concentration of Luke is on this venture. There are no grounds for suggesting that the Antioch church was showing favouritism and ignoring Barnabas. The point that is being made is that what happens in the future in the ministry of Paul and Silas results from the grace of the Lord, and has behind it the fellowship of the whole church.<\/p>\n Act 15:39<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>The contention<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> , a paroxysm, is a medical term, and signifies here a sharp fit of anger.And there was a sharp contention,so that,<\/em> &c. However, we find not only that Paul and Barnabas were afterwards thoroughly reconciled, (compare 1Co 9:6<\/span>. Gal 2:9<\/span>.) but also that St. Mark was taken into St. Paul’s favour again, and admitted by him as a companion in his labour. Compare Col 4:10<\/span>. Phm 1:24<\/span>. 2Ti 4:11<\/span>. Some have thought that, notwithstanding this contention, these two excellent men parted in as friendly a manner as Abraham and Lot did after their contention, Gen 13:7<\/span>; Gen 13:18<\/span>. But, suppose they parted with dislike and resentment, there is nothing wonderful in it; for though they were inspired with the whole scheme of the Christian doctrine, and so far under the guidance of an unerringSpirit;yetno Christian supposes they were inspired in their ordinary conduct, or diverted of all human infirmities; and it would be ridiculous to make such things any objection to the truth of the Christian religion. On the contrary, it ought to be looked upon as a proof of the great fairness and impartiality in the sacred writers, that they franklyowned, and without reserve published, the foibles and imperfections of their fellow-Christians, and even of the apostles and first planters of the glorious gospel. But whatever human infirmity there was in this contention, God, in his good providence, made this separation of the two apostles turn to the greater and more extensive welfare of mankind; Christianity by this means being more generally and widely spread. <\/p>\n 39 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; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 39. And the contention, &c.<\/strong> ] The paroxysm ( ) or fit of a fever, so great was the commotion, the perturbation. St Luke being a physician, saith Brentius, useth here a physical expression. Heed must be taken that we overshoot not in the best causes, lest if we be overshot, God’s wrath be kindled against us. There is a most sad story of the dissension between Luther and Carolostadius, both good men. And another as sad of those who fled to Frankfort hence in Queen Mary’s days; yet among them there were such grievous breaches that they sought the lives one of another, picking out some words against the emperor, in a sermon that Master Knox had preached in England long before, and now accusing him for them to the magistrates of Frankfort, upon which divers of them were fain to flee.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That they departed asunder<\/strong> ] And we read not that they joined any more together after this. Barnabas we find halting together with Peter, Gal 2:13<\/span> , rather than he would walk uprightly together with his old associate Paul,Act 15:14<\/span>Act 15:14<\/span> , for the which Paul reproved Peter, who yet maketh honourable mention of Paul,2Pe 3:15<\/span>2Pe 3:15<\/span> , which was his holy ingenuity. But much to be commended were Basil and Eusebius, who perceiving the Arians to improve a difference between them to the prejudice of the orthodox, were soon reconciled, and united their forces against the common enemy. <\/p>\n 39.<\/strong> ] , , Chrysostom: who also remarks on their separate journeys, , , , , . . Hom. xxxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out<\/em> . Barnabas appears to have gone with his cousin [see Col 4:10<\/span> , note] without any special sympathy or approval; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assembled church.<\/p>\n We find Mark afterwards received into favour by Paul, see Col 4:10<\/span> ; 2Ti 4:11<\/span> ; and in the former of those places it would seem as if he was dependent for his reception on Paul’s special commendation.<\/p>\n Act 15:39<\/span> . , Heb 10:24<\/span> , in different sense, nowhere else in N.T. The verb is found twice, Act 17:16 , 1Co 13:5<\/span> ; in the former passage of Paul’s righteous provocation in Athens, and in the latter of irritation of mind as here; the noun twice in LXX of God’s righteous anger, Deu 29:28<\/span> , Jer 39<\/span> (32):37 ( cf.<\/em> also the verb, Deu 9:7-8<\/span> , etc.), so too in Dem. Both noun and verb are common in medical language (Hobart); , , ; in the result good, for Mark was stirred up to greater diligence by Paul, and the kindness of Barnabas made him cling to him all the more devotedly, cf.<\/em> Oecumenius, in loco<\/em> . : “they parted asunder,” R.V., cf.<\/em> , Gen 13:11<\/span> ; Gen 13:14<\/span> , cf.<\/em> Luk 9:33<\/span> . : not the compound verb, because Barnabas alone takes Mark. : with also in Act 18:18<\/span> , with in Act 20:6<\/span> ; On and the number of its compounds in St. Luke, cf.<\/em> Act 27:4<\/span> , etc. .: where he could be sure of influence, since by family he belonged to the Jews settled there, Act 4:36<\/span> . Barnabas is not mentioned again in Acts, and it is to be noted that St. Paul’s friendship was not permanently impaired either with him or with Mark (see Chrysostom, in loco<\/em> , and cf.<\/em> 1Co 9:6<\/span> ). In Gal 2:13<\/span> St. Paul in speaking of Barnabas marks by implication his high estimate of his character and the expectations he had formed of him; . “even Barnabas” (Lightfoot, Gal., in loco<\/em> , and Hackett). According to tradition Barnabas remained in Cyprus until his death, and the appearance of Mark at a later stage may point to this; but although possibly Mark’s rejoining Paul may have been occasioned by the death of Barnabas, the sources for the life of Barnabas outside the N.T. are quite untrustworthy, “Barnabas,” B.D. 2 ; Hackett, Acts<\/em> , p. 192. Whatever his fortunes may have been, St. Luke did not estimate his work in the same category as that of Paul as a main factor in the development of the Church, although we must never forget that “twice over did Barnabas save Saul for the work of Christianity”. : In his two imprisonments St. Paul mentions Mark in terms of high approval, Col 4:10-11<\/span> , Phm 1:24<\/span> , 2Ti 4:11<\/span> . In the first imprisonment St. Paul significantly recommends him to the Colossians as being the cousin of Barnabas, one of his own fellow-labourers unto the kingdom of God, one amongst the few who had been a , a comfort unto him. In such words as these St. Paul breaks the silence of the years during which we hear nothing of the relations between him and Mark, although the same notice in Colossians<\/em> seems to indicate an earlier reconciliation than the date of the letter, since the Churches of the Lycus valley had already been instructed to receive Mark if he passed that way, Expositor<\/em> , August, 1897, “St. Mark in the N.T.” (Dr. Swete), p. 85.<\/p>\n And the contention, &c. But there arose a sharp contention. Greek. paroxusmos. Only here and Heb 10:24. A medical word. The verb occurs in Act 17:16. <\/p>\n that = so that. <\/p>\n departed asunder = separated. Greek. apochorizomai. Only here and Rev 6:14. <\/p>\n one from the other = from one another<\/p>\n Barnabas. He here disappears from the history. <\/p>\n took and = having taken. <\/p>\n sailed = sailed away. Greek. ekpleo. Only here, Act 18:18; Act 20:6. <\/p>\n 39.] , , Chrysostom: who also remarks on their separate journeys,- , , , , . . Hom. xxxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out. Barnabas appears to have gone with his cousin [see Col 4:10, note] without any special sympathy or approval; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assembled church.<\/p>\n We find Mark afterwards received into favour by Paul, see Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; and in the former of those places it would seem as if he was dependent for his reception on Pauls special commendation.<\/p>\n Act 15:39. , the exasperation of their minds [contention]) Whether Barnabas sometime before looked upon the greatness of Paul, as being a colleague junior to himself, with less joyful feeling; or this present was the only source of contention between them; vehement excitement is denoted by this word. Barnabas was leaning more on the lenient view of the case, Paul, on the truth [strict justice]. There is no other sin of which there is greater danger in the case of holy and great colleagues. How comprehensive is the grace, how powerful the faith, which, in the midst of the world, in the midst of sin, amidst so many snares of Satan, and in the case of such incredible infirmity on our parts, notwithstanding sanctifies, still sustains, and preserves!-Justus Jonas.-, that they departed asunder) This separation also was directed (overruled) by the Lord to good. For so out of one pair, two were made: and Paul having obtained, instead of one colleague who was his equal, several subordinates, was the less restricted in his movements. Paul also afterwards made kind mention of Barnabas: 1Co 9:6.-) sailed forth, on a different course. The infinitive depends on . The exasperation on the part of Barnabas was more violent: for it is the sailing of Barnabas, rather than the setting out of Paul, that is deduced from it.-, Cyprus) His country, intending again to see it, and know in what state it was (how it had itself): Act 15:36, with which comp. ch. Act 13:4 [Barnabas and Saul at the first had sailed to Cyprus].<\/p>\n Barnabas <\/p>\n And is heard of no more in the Bible story. <\/p>\n the contention: Act 15:2, Act 6:1, Psa 106:33, Psa 119:96, Ecc 7:20, Rom 7:18-21, Jam 3:2 <\/p>\n and sailed: Act 4:36, Act 11:20, Act 13:4-12, Act 27:4 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 31:6 – I have given Jdg 5:15 – For the Pro 18:19 – brother Ecc 4:9 – are Act 11:19 – Cyprus Act 15:7 – much Act 21:3 – Cyprus Act 21:16 – Cyprus Phi 2:14 – disputings 2Ti 4:11 – Mark<\/p>\n RIGHTEOUS ANGER<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Act 15:39<\/p>\n That St. Paul and St. Barnabas erred in this matter, there can be no question. But I wish to make a distinction which is not perhaps sufficiently considered. The error of each of these two men was not that he was angryanger, in itself, is not necessarily a wrong thing; anger is an instinct of nature implanted in us, and given us by God for good.<\/p>\n I. Anger is a part of righteous indignation.We may be angry with the sinner, as well as with the sin. It is the wrong use of anger which turns anger into sin. What we have to do with angeras with everything else that is goodis to curb it, and mould it, and use it, and sanctify it, so that it may not run into evil, but remain an instrument of good. It is the abuse of anger which is the sin.<\/p>\n (a) In every instance anger should be deliberate, not a thing of passion, but of principle. And therefore there are several passages in the Bible which say, Be slow to anger.<\/p>\n (b) You may be angry with what a person does to hurt and injure another when you should not be angry with the same thing which is done only against yourself. I find that distinction in the life of Jesus. Your conscience should tell you that you are rightly angry.<\/p>\n (c) Your anger should never be expressed by a hot and provoking word, still less by an impetuous and injurious action. Anger should never be a motive. Anger must never act angrily. Anger must be always short; it trespasses if it is long. It must never pass the first sunset. It must be very ready to be pacified. A very little acknowledgment indeed should remove it altogether. In all things your anger is to imitate, as closely as it can, the anger of God.<\/p>\n II. But if anger be, sometimes, right, quarrelling never is.Quarrelling lasts. Quarrelling is full of self. Quarrelling is vindictive. Quarrelling never does any good. I can conceive an angel angry; but I cannot think of two angels quarrelling! Anger is God-like; quarrelling is set on fire of hell. I could wish that in every household in Christendom these words were set up, and this truth remembered, It is God that maketh men to be of one mind in a house. Where there is no religion, in any position of life, there is almost sure to be quarrelling. Peace and piety are such twin sisters that each would die without the other. They live in their own common life. And every Christian should remember the simple adage, It takes two to make a quarrel. Neither can say it is the others fault. Wherever there is a quarrel both are responsible; both are guilty. Each could have prevented it, if he tried.<\/p>\n III. But you will never conquer or prevent any sin simply by a negative.There must be the opposite of quarrel. If you determine only that you will not quarrel, it will come to nothing. You must do moreyou must love. If you say, I cannot love! let me tell you the way: Do the acts of love. Everybody can do that. Do the acts of love, and they will bring the spirit of love. Speakwith whatever effortspeak words of attraction; gently; in a low voice; with a subdued tone. A kind manner; a smile; a joke; a little praise; a change in the channel of conversation; a bringing in a brighter subjectall these will do much, but they will not do alone, Christ must be brought in. He is our Peace.<\/p>\n It is a relief, and very pleasant to believe, and almost be certainas we may bethat St. Paul and St. Barnabas afterwardsprobably very soonquite made up their quarrel. For we find Mark with St. Paul in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the Epistle to Philemon. And St. Paul makes the kindest reference to Barnabas in the Epistle to the Galatians. And in the second Epistle to Timothy we have those loving words of St. Paul, concerning Markas if to compensate for what he before had said at AntiochTake Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.<\/p>\n Rev. James Vaughan.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n The worst disputes and enmities spring out of wounded and misguided love. Very often the most affectionate persons are those who fall into anger the most quickly, and their anger is the worst! It would lead to a great mistake to think that because you love, you will never quarrel. The love, making you sensitive, in a sense prepares you to quarrel; and therefore, those who are fondest must be the most on their guard against the beginnings of misunderstandings and jealousies. This is the reason why Christians are so often the more irritable, and have the more disputes; and why churches and schools of thought in the same Church, when they differ, run into so much virulence. Religion makes the feelings of the heart very acute, and a religious person is almost sure to be a sensitive person, and he will be sensitive in proportion as he is religious. And most of all this will be on religious subjects, because on religious subjects he feels the most strongly. Thus the very excellence of the feeling leads to its wrongness. Our graces become our snares, and we fall in our strongest.<\/p>\n 9<\/p>\n Act 15:39. The original for contention is defined in Thayer’s lexicon by the one word “irritation.” Robinson defines it, “A paroxysm, sharp contention.” It should be noted that no “doctrinal” difference came up between these brethren; it was only a matter of judgment. And after they each went his own way, they preached the same Gospel; neither was there ever any personal ill feeling between them. Instead, Paul made favorable mention of Barnabas afterward (1Co 9:6; Galations 2:9).<\/p>\n Act 15:39. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other. Neither would yield; they separated for ever. This is the last mention of the generous-hearted Barnabas in the Acts. However, if the two old friends and devoted servants of God parted in anger, they soon forgot all bitterness; for, in the first Corinthian letter, Paul speaks in high terms of Barnabas as of one busy in the Masters service, while in later days he writes even of Mark as his fellow-labourer, as of one who was profitable to the ministry, and one of the causes of his (Pauls) comfort (Phm 1:24; 2Ti 4:11; Col 4:10-11).<\/p>\n And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus. If, as the shores of Asia lessened upon his sight, the spirit of prophecy had entered into the heart of the weak disciple, who had turned back when his hand was on the plough, and who had been judged, by the chiefest of Christs captains, unworthy thenceforward to go forth with him to the work, how wonderful would he have thought it that by the lion symbol in future ages he was to be represented among men! How woeful, that the war-cry of his name should so often reanimate the rage of the soldier on those very plains where he himself had failed in the courage of the Christian, and so often dye with fruitless blood that very Cypriot Sea over whose waves, in repentance and shame, he was following the Son of Consolation! (Ruskin, Stones of Venice, The Sea Stories, chap. 4).<\/p>\n In later times, we know Mark became once more the loved and trusted companion of Paul (see above for New Test. ref.). We find him with Peter at Babylon (1Pe 5:13). In the closing days of Pauls life, he seems to have been with Timothy at Ephesus (2Ti 4:11). That he was long the trusted friend and secretary of Peter was the undisputed tradition of the early Church. Papias, writing very early in the second century, records how John the elder said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote down exactly whatever things he remembered, but yet not in the order in which Christ either spoke or did them, for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lords, but he was afterwards, as I (Papias) said, a follower of Peter. Another record speaks of Mark as Peters companion at Rome. Subsequently, church historians relate how Mark founded (probably organized) the Church of Alexandria, and became its bishop, and there endured a martyrs death.<\/p>\n See notes on verse 36<\/p>\n Verse 39 <\/p>\n The contention. The historian leaves us uninformed in regard to the merits of this controversy. It is uncertain whether Paul was unreasonable or Mark unfaithful. Paul was afterwards reconciled to Mark, and sent for him to come to Rome. (2 Timothy 4:11.) The disposition of Barnabas to judge more leniently than Paul, in this case, may have arisen from the fact that Mark was his relative. (Colossians 4:10.)<\/p>\n 15:39 {16} And {r} the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;<\/p>\n (16) God uses the faults of his servants to the profit and building of the Church: yet we have to take heed, even in the best matters, that we do not let our anger overflow.<\/p>\n (r) They were in great heat: but in this we have to consider the power of God’s counsel, for by this means it came to pass that the doctrine of the Gospel was spread into many places.<\/p>\n Chapter 11<\/p>\n APOSTOLIC QUARRELS AND THE SECOND TOUR.<\/p>\n Act 15:36; Act 15:39; Act 16:6; Act 16:8-9<\/p>\n THE second missionary tour of St. Paul now claims our attention, specially because it involves the first proclamation of Christianity by an apostle within the boundaries of Europe. The course of the narrative up to this will show that any Christian effort in Europe by an apostle, St. Peter or any one else prior to St. Pauls work, was almost impossible. To the Twelve and to men like-minded with them, it must have seemed a daring-innovation to bring the gospel message directly to bear upon the masses of Gentile paganism. Men of conservative minds like the Twelve doubtless restrained their own efforts up to the time of St. Pauls second tour within the bounds of Israel, according to the flesh, in Palestine and the neighbouring lands, finding there an ample field upon which to exercise their diligence. And then when we turn to St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who had dared to realise the free-ness and fulness of the gospel message, we shall see that the Syrian Antioch and Syria itself and Asia Minor had hitherto afforded them scope quite sufficient to engage their utmost attention. A few moments reflection upon the circumstances of the primitive Christian Church and the developments through which Apostolic Christianity passed are quite sufficient to dispel all such fabulous incrustations upon the original record as those involved in St. Peters episcopate at Antioch or his lengthened rule over the Church at Rome. If the latter story was to be accepted, St. Peter must have been Bishop of Rome long before a mission was despatched to the Gentiles from Antioch, if not even before the vision was seen at Joppa by St. Peter when the admission of the Gentiles to the Church was first authorised under any terms whatsoever. In fact, it would be impossible to fit the actions of St. Peter into any scheme whatsoever, if we bring him to Rome and make him bishop there for twenty-five years beginning at the year 42, the time usually assigned by Roman Catholic historians. It is hard enough to frame a hypothetical scheme, which will find a due and fitting place for the various recorded actions of St. Peter, quite apart from any supposed Roman episcopate lasting over such an extended period. St. Peter and St. Paul had, for instance, a dispute at Antioch of which we read much in the second chapter of the Galatian epistle. Where shall we fix that dispute? Some place it during the interval of the Synod at Jerusalem and the second missionary tour of which we now propose to treat. Others place it at the conclusion of that tour, when St. Paul was resting at Antioch for a little after the work of that second journey. As we are not writing the life of St. Paul, but simply commenting upon the narratives of his labours as told in the Acts, we must be content to refer to the Lives of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, and Archdeacon Farrar, and to Bishop Lightfoots “Galatians,” all of whom place this quarrel before the second tour, and to Mr. Findlays “Galatians” in our own series, who upholds the other view. Supposing, however, that we take the former view in deference to the weighty authorities just mentioned, we then find. that there were two serious quarrels which must for a time have marred the unity and Christian concord of the Antiochene Church.<\/p>\n The reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul for his dissimulation was made on a public occasion before the whole Church. It must have caused considerable excitement and discussion, and. raised much human feeling in Antioch. Barnabas too, the chosen friend and companion of St. Paul, was involved in the matter, and must have felt himself condemned in the strong language addressed to St. Peter. This may have caused for a time a certain amount of estrangement between the various parties. A close study of the Acts of the Apostles dispels at once the notion men would fain cherish, that the apostles and the early Christians lived just like angels without any trace of human passion or discord. The apostles had their differences and misunderstandings very like our own. Hot tempers and subsequent coolnesses arose, and produced evil results between men entrusted with the very highest offices, and paved the way, as quarrels always do, for fresh disturbances at some future time. So it was at Antioch, where the public reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul involved St. Barnabas, and may have left traces upon the gentle soul of the Son of Consolation which were not wholly eradicated by the time that a new source of trouble arose.<\/p>\n The ministry of St. Paul at Antioch was prolonged for some time after the Jerusalem Synod, and then the Holy Ghost again impelled him to return and visit all the Churches which he had founded in Cyprus and Asia Minor. He recognised the necessity for supervision, support, and guidance as far as the new converts were concerned, The seed might be from heaven and the work might be Gods own, but still human effort must take its share and do its duty, or else the work may fail and the good seed never attain perfection. St. Paul therefore proposed to Barnabas a second joint mission, intending to visit “the brethren in every city wherein they had proclaimed the word of the Lord.” Barnabas desired to take with them his kinsman Mark, but Paul, remembering his weakness and defection on their previous journey, would have nothing to say to the young man. Then there arose a sharp contention between them, or as the original expression is, there arose a paroxysm between the apostles, so that the loving Christian workers and friends of bygone years, “men who had hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” separated the one from the other, and worked from henceforth in widely different localities.<\/p>\n I. There are few portions of the Acts more fruitful in spiritual instruction, or teeming with. more abundant lessons, or richer in application! to present difficulties, than this very incident. Let us note a few of them. One thought, for instance, which occurs at once to any reflecting mind is this: what an extraordinary thing it is that two such holy and devoted men as Paul and-Barnabas should have had a quarrel at all; and. when they did quarrel, would it not have been far better to have hushed the matter up and never! have let the world know anything at all about it?<\/p>\n Now I do not say that it is well for Christian people always to proclaim aloud and tell the world at large all about the various unpleasant circumstances of their lives, their quarrels, their misunderstandings, their personal failings and backslidings. Life would be simply intolerable did we live always, at all times, and under all circumstances beneath the full glare of publicity. Personal quarrels too, family jars and bickerings, have a rapid tendency to heal themselves if kept in the gloom, the soft, toned, shaded light of retirement. They have an unhappy tendency to harden and perpetuate themselves when dragged beneath the fierce light of public opinion and the outside world. Yet it is well for the Church at large that such a record has been left for us of the fact that the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas waxed so fierce that they departed the one from the other, to teach us what we are apt to forget-the true character of the apostles. Human nature is intensely inclined to idolatry. One idol may be knocked down, but as soon as it is displaced the heart straightway sets to work to erect another idol in its stead, and men have been ready to make idols of the apostles. They have been ready to imagine them supernatural characters tainted with no sin, tempted by no passion, weakened by no infirmity. If these incidents had not been recorded-the quarrel with Peter and the quarrel with Barnabas-we should have been apt to forget that the apostles were men of like passions with ourselves, and thus to lose the full force-the bracing, stimulating force-of such exhortations as that delivered by St. Paul when he said to a primitive Church, “Follow me, as I, a poor, weak, failing, passionate man, have followed Christ.” We have the thorough humanity of the apostles vigorously presented and enforced in this passage. There is no suppression of weak points, no accentuation of strong points, no hiding of defects and weaknesses, no dwelling Upon virtues and graces. We have the apostles presented at times vigorous, united, harmonious; at other times weak, timorous, and cowardly.<\/p>\n Again, we note that this passage not only shows us the human frailties and weaknesses which marked the apostles, and found a place in characters and persons called to the very highest places; it has also a lesson for the Church of all time in the circumstances which led to the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas. We do well to mark carefully that Antioch saw two such quarrels, the one of which, as we have already pointed out, may have had something to say to the other. The quarrel between St. Paul and St. Peter indeed has a history which strikingly illustrates this tendency of which we have just now spoken. Some expositors, jealous of the good fame and reputation and temper of the apostles, have explained the quarrel at Antioch between St. Paul and St. Peter as not having been a real quarrel at all, but an edifying piece of acting, a dispute got up between the apostles to enforce and proclaim the freedom of the Gentiles, a mere piece of knavery and deception utterly foreign to such a truth-loving character as was St. Pauls. It is interesting, however, to note as manifesting their natural characteristics, which were not destroyed, but merely elevated, purified, and sanctified by Divine grace, that the apostles Paul and Barnabas quarrelled about a purely personal matter. They had finished their first missionary tour on which they had been accompanied by St. Mark, who had acted as their attendant or servant, carrying, we may suppose, their luggage, and discharging all. the subordinate offices such service might involve. The labour and toil and personal danger incident to such a career were too much for the young man. So with all the fickleness, the weakness, the want of strong definite purpose we often find in young people, he abandoned his work simply because it involved the exercise of a certain amount of self-sacrifice. And now, when Paul and Barnabas are setting out again, and Barnabas wishes to take the same favourite relative with them, St. Paul naturally objects, and then the bitter, passionate quarrel ensues. St. Paul just experienced here what we all must more or less experience, the crosses and trials of public life, if we wish to pass through that life with a good conscience. Public life, I say-and I mean thereby not a political life, which alone we usually dignify by that name, but the ordinary. life which every man and every woman amongst us must live as we go in and out and discharge our duties amid our fellow-men, -public life, the life we live once we leave our closet communion with God in the early morning till we return thereto in the eventide, is in all its department most trying. It is trying to temper, and it is. trying to principle, and no one can hope to pass through it without serious and grievous temptations. I do not wonder that men have often felt, as the old Eastern monks did, that salvation was more easily won in solitude than in living and working amid the busy haunts of men where bad temper and hot words so often conspire to make one return home from a hard days work feeling miserable within on account of repeated falls and shortcomings. Shall we then act as. they did? Shall we shut out the world completely and cease to take any part in a struggle which seems to tell so disastrously upon the-equable calm of our spiritual life? Nay, indeed, for such a course would be unworthy a soldier of the Cross, and very unlike the example shown by the blessed apostle St. Paul, who had to battle not only against others, but had also to. battle against himself and his own passionate. nature, and was crowned as a victor, not because-he ran away, but because he conquered through the grace of Christ.<\/p>\n And now it is well that we should note the special trials he had to endure. He had to fight against the spirit of cowardly self-indulgence in others, and he had to fight against the spirit of jobbery. These things indeed caused the rupture in the apostolic friendship. St. Barnabas, apostle though he was, thought far more of the interests of his cousin than of the interests of Christs mission. St. Paul with his devotion to. Christ may have been a little intolerant of the weakness of youth, but he rightly judged that one who had proved untrustworthy before should not be rapidly and at once trusted again. And St. Paul was thoroughly right, and has left a very useful and practical example. Many young men among us are like St. Mark. The St. Marks of our own day are a very numerous class. They have no respect for their engagements. They will undertake work and allow themselves. to be calculated upon, and arrangements to be made accordingly. But then comes the stress of action, and their place is found wanting, and the work undertaken by them is found undone. And then they wonder and complain that their lives are unsuccessful, and that men and women who are in earnest will not trust or employ them in the future! These are the men who are the social wrecks in life. They proclaim loudly in streets and highways the hard treatment which they have received. They tell forth their own misery, and speak as if they were the most deserving and at the same time the most ill-treated of men; and yet they are but reaping as they have sown, and their failures and their misfortunes are only the due and fitting rewards of their want of earnestness, diligence, and self-denial. To the young this episode proclaims aloud. Respect your engagements, regard public employments as solemn contracts in Gods sight. Take pains with your work. Be willing to endure any trouble for its sake. There is no such thing as genius in ordinary life. Genius has been well defined as an infinite capacity for taking pains. And thus avoid the miserable weakness of St. Mark, who fled from his work because it entailed trouble and self-denial on his part.<\/p>\n Then, again, we view St. Paul with admiration because he withstood the spirit of jobbery when it displayed itself even in a saint. Barnabas in plain language wished to perpetrate a job in favour of a member of his family, and St. Paul withstood him. And how often since has the same spirit thus displayed itself to the injury of Gods cause! Let us note how the case stood. St. Barnabas was a good pious man of very strong emotional feelings. But he allowed himself to be guided, as pious people often do, by their emotions, affections, prejudices, not by their reason and judgment. With such men, when their affections come into play, jobbery is the most natural thing in the world. It is the very breath of their nostrils. It is the atmosphere in which they revel. Barnabas loved his cousin John Mark, with strong, powerful, absorbing love, and that emotion blinded Barnabas to Marks faults, and led him on his behalf to quarrel with his firmer, wiser, and more vigorous friend. Jobbery is a vice peculiar to no age and to no profession. It flourishes in the most religious as in the most worldly circles. In religious circles it often takes the most sickening forms, when miserable, narrow selfishness assumes the garb and adopts the language of Christian piety. St. Pauls action proclaims to Christian men a very needful lesson. It says, in fact, Set your faces against jobbery of every kind. Regard power, influence, patronage as a sacred trust. Permit not fear, affection, or party spirit to blind your eyes or prejudice your judgment against real merit; so shall you be following in the footsteps of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, with his heroic championship of that which was righteous and true, and of One higher still, for thus you shall be following the Masters own example, whose highest praise was this: “He loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.”<\/p>\n We have now bestowed a lengthened notice upon this quarrel, because it corrects a very mistaken notion about the apostles, and shows us how thoroughly natural and human, how very like our own, was the everyday life of the primitive Church. It takes away the false halo of infallibility and impeccability with which we are apt to invest the apostles, making us view them as real, fallible, weak, sinful men like ourselves, and thereby exalts the power of that grace which made them so eminent in Christian character, so abundant in Christian labours. Let us now apply ourselves to trace the course of St. Pauls second tour.<\/p>\n The effect of the quarrel between the friends was that St. Paul took Silas and St. Barnabas took Mark, and they separated; the latter going to Cyprus, the native country of Barnabas, while Paul and Silas devoted themselves to Syria and Asia Minor and their Churches. The division between these holy men became thus doubly profitable to the Church of Christ. It is perpetually profitable, by way of warning and example, as we have just now shown; and then it became profitable because it led to two distinct missions being carried on, the one in the Island of Cyprus, the other on the continent of Asia. The wrath of man is thus again overruled to the greater glory of God, and human weakness is made to promote the interests of the gospel. We read, too, “they parted asunder, the one from the other.” How very differently they acted from the manner in which modern Christians do! Their difference in opinion did not lead them to depart into exactly the same district, and there pursue a policy of opposition the one against the other. They sought rather districts widely separated, where their social differences could have no effect upon the cause they both loved. How very differently modern Christians act, and how very disastrous the consequent results! How very scandalous, how very injurious to Christs cause, when Christian missionaries of different communions appear warring one with another in face of the pagan world! Surely the world of paganism is wide enough and large enough to afford scope for the utmost efforts of all Christians without European Christendom exporting its divisions and quarrels to afford matter for mockery to scoffing idolaters! We have heard lately a great deal about the differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant missionaries in Central Africa, terminating in war and bloodshed and in the most miserable recriminations threatening the peace and welfare of the nations of Europe. Surely there must have been an error of judgment somewhere or another in this case, and Africa must be ample enough to afford abundant room for the independent action of the largest bodies of missionaries without resorting to armed conflicts which recall the religious wars between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland! With the subsequent labours of Barnabas we have nothing to do, as he now disappears from the Acts of the Apostles, though it would appear from a reference by St. Paul- 1Co 9:6, “Or I only, and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?”-as if at that time, four or five years after the quarrel, they were again labouring together at Ephesus, where First Corinthians was written, or else why should Barnabas be mentioned in that connection at all.<\/p>\n Let us now briefly indicate the course of St. Pauls labours during the next three years, as his second missionary tour must have extended over at least that space of time. St. Paul and his companion Silas left Antioch amid the prayers of the whole Church. Evidently the brethren viewed Pauls conduct with approbation, and accompanied him therefore with fervent supplications for success in his self-denying labours. He proceeded by land into Cilicia and Asia Minor, and wherever he went he delivered the apostolic decree in order that he might counteract the workings of the Judaisers. This decree served a twofold purpose. It relieved the minds of the Gentile brethren with respect to the law and its observances, and it also showed to them that the Jerusalem Church and apostles recognised the Divine authority and apostolate of St. Paul himself, which these “false brethren” from Jerusalem had already assailed, as they did four or five years later both in Galatia and at Corinth. We know not what special towns St. Paul visited in Cilicia, but we may be sure that the Church of Tarsus, his native place, where in the first fervour of his conversion he had already laboured for a considerable period, must have received a visit from him. We may be certain that his opponents would not leave such an important town unvisited, and we may be equally certain that St. Paul, who, as his Epistles show, was always keenly alive to the opinion of his converts with respect to his apostolic authority, would have been specially anxious to let his fellow townsmen at Tarsus see that he was no unauthorised or false teacher, but that the Jerusalem Church recognised his work and teaching in the amplest manner.<\/p>\n Starting then anew from Tarsus, Paul and Silas set out upon an enormous journey, penetrating, as few modern travellers even now do, from the southeastern extremity of Asia Minor to the northwestern coast, a journey which, with its necessarily prolonged delays, must have taken them at least a year and a half. St. Paul seems to have carefully availed himself of the Roman road system. We are merely given the very barest outline of the course which he pursued, but then, when we take up the index maps of Asia Minor inserted in Ramsays “Historical Geography of Asia Minor,” showing the road systems at various periods, we see that a great Roman road followed the very route which St. Paul took. It started from Tarsus and passed to Derbe, whence of course the road to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch had already been traversed by St. Paul. He must have made lengthened visits to all these places, as he had much to do and much to teach. He had to expound the decree of the Apostolic Council, to explain Christian truth, to correct the errors and abuses which were daily creeping in, and to enlarge the organisation of the Christian Church by fresh ordinations. Take the case of Timothy as an example of the trouble St. Paul must have experienced. He came to Derbe, where he first found some of the converts made on his earlier tour; whence he passed to Lystra, where he met Timothy, whose acquaintance he had doubtless made on his first journey. He was the son of a Jewess, though his father was a Gentile. St. Paul took and circumcised him to conciliate the Jews. The Apostle must have bestowed a great deal of trouble on this point alone, explaining to the Gentile portion of the Christian community the principles on which he acted and their perfect consistency with his own conduct at Jerusalem and his advocacy of Gentile freedom from the law. Then he ordained him. This we do not learn from the Acts, but from St. Pauls Epistles to Timothy. The Acts simply says of Timothy, “Him would Paul have to go forth with him.” But then when we turn to the Epistles written to Timothy, we find that it was not as an ordinary companion that Timothy was taken. He went forth as St. Paul himself had gone forth from the Church of Antioch, a duly ordained and publicly recognised messenger of Christ. We can glean from St. Pauls letters to Timothy the order and ceremonies of this primitive ordination. The rite, as ministered on that occasion, embraced prophesyings or preachings by St. Paul himself and by others upon the serious character of the office then undertaken. This seems plainly intimated in 1Ti 1:18 : “This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee”; while there seems a reference to his own exhortations and directions in 2Ti 2:2. where he writes, “The things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men.” After this there was probably, as in modern ordinations, a searching examination of the candidate, with a solemn profession of faith on his part, to which St. Paul refers in 1Ti 6:12, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses. I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And finally there came the imposition of hands, in which the local presbyters assisted St. Paul, though St. Paul was so far the guiding and ruling personage that, though in one place {1Ti 4:14} he speaks of the gift of God which Timothy possessed, as given “by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” in another place he describes it as given to the young evangelist by the imposition of St. Pauls own hands. {2Ti 1:6} This ordination of Timothy and adoption of him as his special attendant stood at the very beginning of a prolonged tour throughout the central and northern districts of Asia Minor, of which we get only a mere hint in Act 16:6-8 : “They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden of the Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia; and when they were come over against Mysia, they essayed to go into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not; and passing by Mysia, they came unto Troas.” This is the brief sketch of St. Pauls labours through the northwestern provinces of Asia Minor, during which he visited the district of Galatia and preached the gospel amid the various tribal communities of Celts who inhabited that district.<\/p>\n St. Pauls work in Galatia is specially interesting to ourselves. The Celtic race certainly furnished the groundwork of the population in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and finds to this day lineal representatives in the Celtic-speaking inhabitants of these three islands. Galatia was thoroughly Celtic in St. Pauls day. But how, it may be said, did the Gauls come there? We all know of the Gauls or Celts in Western Europe, and every person of even moderate education has heard of the Gauls who invaded Italy and sacked Rome when that city was yet an unknown factor in the worlds history, and yet but very few know that the same wave of invasion which brought the Gauls to Rome led another division of them into Asia Minor, where-as Dr. Lightfoot shows in his Introduction to his Commentary about three hundred years before St. Pauls day they settled down in the region called after them Galatia, perpetuating in that neighbourhood the tribal organisation, the language, the national feelings, habits, and customs which have universally marked the Celtic race, whether in ancient or in modern times. St. Paul on this second missionary tour paid his first visit to this district of Galatia. St. Paul usually directed his attention to great cities. Where vast masses of humanity were gathered together, there St. Paul loved to fling himself with all the mighty force of his unquenchable enthusiasm. But Galatia was quite unlike other districts with which he had dealt in this special respect. Like the Celtic race all the world over, the Gauls of Galatia specially delighted in village communities. They did not care for the society and tone of great towns, and Galatia was wanting in such. St. Paul, too, does not seem originally to have intended to labour amongst the Galatians at all. In view of his great design to preach in large cities, and concentrate his efforts where they could most effectually tell upon the masses, he seems to have been hurrying through Galatia when God laid His heavy hand upon the Apostle and delayed his course that we might be able to see how the gospel could tell upon Gauls and Celts even as upon other nations. This interesting circumstance is made known to us by St. Paul himself in the Epistle to the Gal 4:13 : “Ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you for the first time.” Paul, to put it in plain language, fell sick in Galatia. He was delayed on his journey by the ophthalmia or some other form of disease, which was his thorn in the flesh, and, then, utilising the compulsory delay, and turning every moment to advantage, he evangelised the village communities of Galatia with which he came in contact, so that his Epistle is directed, not as in other cases to the Church of a city or to an individual man, but the Epistle in which he deals with great fundamental questions of Christian freedom is addressed to the Churches of Galatia, a vast district of country. Mere accident, as it would seem to the eye of sense, produced the Epistle to the Galatians, which shows us the peculiar weakness and the peculiar strength of the Celtic race, their enthusiasm, their genuine warmth, their fickleness, their love for that which is striking, showy, material, exterior. But when we pass from Galatia we know nothing of the course of St. Pauls further labours in Asia Minor. St. Luke was not with him during this portion of his work, and so the details given us are very few. We are told that “the Spirit of Jesus” would not permit him to preach in Bithynia, though Bithynia became afterwards rich in Christian Churches, and was one of the districts to which St. Peter some years later addressed his first Epistle. The Jews were numerous in the districts of Bithynia and Asia, and “the Spirit of Jesus” or “the Holy Ghost”-for the sacred writer seems to use the terms as equivalent the one to the other-had determined to utilise St. Paul in working directly among the Gentiles, reserving the preaching of the gospel to the Dispersion, as the scattered Jews were called, to St. Peter and his friends. It is thus we would explain the restraint exercised upon St. Paul on this occasion. Divine providence had cut out his great work in Europe, and was impelling him westward even when he desired to tarry in Asia. How the Spirit exercised this restraint or communicated His will we know not. St. Paul lived, however, in an atmosphere of Divine communion. He cultivated perpetually a sense of the Divine presence, and those who do so experience a guidance of which the outer world knows nothing. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in one of his marvellous spiritual discourses called the “Via Intelligentiae,” or the Way of Knowledge, speaks much on this subject, pointing out that they who live closest to God have a knowledge and a love peculiar to themselves. And surely every sincere and earnest follower of Christ has experienced somewhat of the same mystical blessings! Gods truest servants commit their lives and their actions in devout prayer to the guidance of their heavenly Father, and then when they look back over the past they see how marvellously they have been restrained from courses which would have been fraught with evil, how strangely they have been led by ways which have been full of mercy and goodness and blessing. Thus it was that St. Paul was at length led down to the ancient city of Troas where God revealed to him in a new fashion his ordained field of labour. A man of Macedonia. appeared in a night vision inviting him over to Europe, and saying, “Come over into Macedonia and help us.” Troas was a very fitting place in which this vision should appear. Of old time and in days of classic fable Troas had been the meeting-place where, as Homer and as Virgil tell, Europe and Asia had met in stern conflict, and where Europe as represented by Greece had come off victorious, bringing home the spoils which human nature counted most precious. Europe and Asia again meet at Troas, but no longer in carnal conflict or in deadly fight. The interests of Europe and of Asia again touch one another, and Europe again carries off from the same spot spoil more precious far than Grecian poet ever dreamt of, for “when Paul had seen the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” Whereupon we notice two points and offer just two observations. The vision created an enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm was contagious. The vision was seen by Paul alone, but was communicated by St. Paul unto Silas and to St. Luke, who now had joined to lend perhaps the assistance of his medical knowledge to the afflicted and suffering Apostle. Enthusiasm is a marvellous power, and endows a man with wondrous force. St. Paul was boiling over with enthusiasm, but he could not always impart it. The two non-apostolic Evangelists are marked contrasts as brought before us in this history. St. Paul was enthusiastic on his first tour, but that enthusiasm was not communicated to St. Mark. He turned back from the hardships and dangers of the work in Asia Minor. St. Paul was boiling over again with enthusiasm for the new work in Europe. He has now with him in St. Luke a congenial soul who, when he hears the vision, gathers at once its import, joyfully anticipates the work, and “straightway sought to go forth into Macedonia.” Enthusiasm in any kind of work is a great assistance, and nothing great or successful is done without it. But above all in Divine work, in the work of preaching the gospel, the man devoid of enthusiasm begotten of living communion with God, such as St. Paul and St. Luke enjoyed, is sure to be a lamentable and complete failure.<\/p>\n Then, again, and lastly, we note the slow progress of the gospel as shown to us by this incident at Troas. Here we are a good twenty years after the Crucifixion, and yet the chief ministers and leaders of the Church had not yet crossed into Europe. There were sporadic Churches here and there. At Rome and at possibly a few Italian seaports, whence intercourse with Palestine was frequent, there were small Christian communities; but Macedonia and Greece were absolutely untouched up to the present. We are very apt to overrate the progress of the gospel during those first days of the Churchs earliest Church life. We are inclined to view the history of the Church of the first three centuries all on a heap as it were. We have much need to distinguish century from century and decennium from decennium. The first ten years of the Churchs history saw the gospel preached in Jerusalem and Palestine, but not much farther. The second decennium saw it proclaimed to Asia Minor; but it is only when the third decennium is opening that Christ despatches a formal mission to that Europe where the greatest triumphs of the gospel were afterwards to be won. Ignorance and prejudice and narrow views had been allowed to hinder the progress of the gospel then, as they are hindering the progress of the gospel still; and an express record of this has been handed down to us in this typical history in order that if we too suffer the same we may not be astonished as if some strange thing had happened, but may understand that we are bearing the same burden and enduring the same trials as the New Testament saints have borne before us. <\/p>\n 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; 39. And the contention was so sharp, that, &c.] More literally (with R. V.), And there arose a sharp contention so that, &c. The Greek word (from which our English … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:39”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/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: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist 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: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"