After staying some time in Antioch, Paul suggests a return to the churches established in Galatia (15:36). This tour of established churches is not unexpected since Paul has already made a return trip through Derbe, Lystra and Iconium for the purpose of continued development and encouragement of these churches.
The suggestion that John Mark re-join the ministry team results in a “sharp disagreement” (v. 37-38). Barnabas wants to have John Mark travel with Paul once again. Sometimes Barnabas is presented as acting like a protective uncle, hoping to give the young and inexperienced John Mark another “chance” to prove himself. While this makes good preaching, that is not the way Luke describes the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas.
Paul “did not think it wise” (NIV) since John Mark has already abandoned them once. The NIV’s translation is adequate, but the word has the sense of being “worthy” or even “suitable to an activity” (BDAG). This could be taken in a positive sense (Paul does not see John Mark as a good “fit” for his vision of the ministry team), or negatively, Paul sees John Mark as unworthy since he has already abandoned the ministry.
John Mark did not depart because he was afraid of the tough travels or potential persecution. Rather, Paul’s rather harsh words to the Jewish sorcerer Elymas on Cyprus was a bit of a shock and perhaps even the idea that gospel should go to a Gentile like Serguis Paulus was a theological error. Luke uses the Greek word ἀφίστημι (afistemi, aorist participle). This word can mean more than simply “depart,” it can have the sense of “fall away” or “become a backslider.” The word appears in Daniel’s prayer of confession (Dan 9:9) and LXX Jer 3:14 to describe “faithless Israel.”
More significantly, Luke used the word in the Parable of the Sower in Luke 8:13 to describe the seed which does not take root and “falls away” when persecution comes. Perhaps there is a hint here that John Mark was not quite “rooted” in Paul mission and when he experienced the theologically disturbing idea that Paul was going to turn to the Gentiles, he fell away.
The way Luke describes this disagreement is significant – Paul and Barnabas had a “sharp disagreement,” a word used for provoking one to “love and good works,” Heb 10:24, but also anger, exasperation, etc. The word appears in the LXX for “furious anger of the Lord” in Deut 29:27 and LXX Jer 32:37. Paul and Barnabas are in such a heated disagreement over John Mark that there is no solution other than to separate their ministries.
This is another chance to observe some diversity within the early church. Whatever the reason, John Mark disagreed with Paul and separated from him, then later Barnabas did the same thing. If John Mark and Barnabas represent the “Jerusalem Church,” then I think there is a hint here of serious tensions between the Pauline Mission and the style of ministry happening in Jerusalem.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 13, 2013 at 6:19 pm
arenberg93
Whenever i read this text i always feel sort of bad for John Mark. I know he messed up the first time, but what ever happened to grace? And why does Paul seem so harsh? Isn’t he the one who is declaring forgiveness of sins and second chances? But as you dive into the text, we find that it is not nearly as simple as it appears. If this is between the “Jerusalem Church” (Barnabas and John Mark) and Paul, there is some real tension that is growing at this point about Gentiles keeping the law. Yes, it is possible that John Mark was homesick and ran back to mom, but i feel like Paul would have allowed him back after he matured if this was the case. I think that this came down to theology and John Mark believing that they should have the Gentiles keep the law. Well, we see in Galatians 2 (in Paul rebuking Peter) that Paul is in no way, shape, or form going to allow that to happen. Paul is going to stand by his gospel, and if one of the men with them has the potential and determination to undermine that, he will not allow it. We can not be exactly sure what Paul and Barnabas were arguing about, but if it was about the Gentiles living out the law, Paul was going to be very defensive and sharp, even to the point of not allowing John Mark on the trip.
March 13, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Jake Fields
This conflict between Paul and Barnabas is a really good thing and Luke has a reason for wording it as he did. I read an interesting article online on epm.org about this part of Acts. Their perspective about this issue was very similar to yours. One thing I liked that they talked about was about the good things that came from this separation of Paul and Barnabas. Paul saw John Mark as someone who wasn’t mature enough to continue with them on the ministry team. Barnabas was more of a leader and I think it ended up being a good thing that Barnabas went with John Mark. Both the ministries that Paul and Barnabas did separately were successful. I have never looked deep into this story, as deep as looking at the words that Luke uses. I always thought that this was a negative confrontation and that this was a bad thing. However, you see how God has a purpose for this separation and how he uses the strengths of Barnabas to co-minister with John Mark who wasn’t as mature at the time. Had Luke used different words and had their been sin in this division of Paul and Barnabas, then it would look a lot different. I like the attitude of Barnabas as he sticks with John Mark, even though Paul is saying John is not worthy of his ministry team. I think this says a lot about who Barnabas is.
March 13, 2013 at 7:23 pm
danpierpont
Reading this causes me to think many things. First, why did Paul have such a hard stance against John Mark. The second thing is what makes Barnabas feel like he can question Paul?
I read Adam’s post and agree that John Mark could have been “running back home to Mom”. However, I want to bring up another point, other than the theology that Adam brought to the table. Paul was going back to the Churches that he had started to, “See how they were doing”. Maybe he thought that John Mark was not ready to go with him and that he, and his theology, was not mature enough to venture on another trip.
The Next thing that I noticed was the nerve that Barnabas had. Paul was one of the apostles, and for Barnabas to even question his authority is something that just really took me by surprise. Again, I believe that this does relate back to the difference between the Pauline Mission and the ministry that was taking place in Jerusalem.
March 13, 2013 at 8:36 pm
taczhompson
This disagreement brings two major thoughts to my mind. First, as everyone else is pointing out, what makes Paul so harsh towards John Mark? Secondly, why did Barnabas side with John Mark, and leave with him? I think that Paul probably had dissagreements, most likely of a theological nature, the whole time John Mark was with him. He was probably tired of having the same argument, and when Barnabas suggested that John Mark come along again, Paul thought it more wise to avoid the arguments again, because he did not think John Mark was going to see the light of what Paul had to say. It is likely that the argument, like most church arguments at this time, had to deal with how to minister to the Textiles, and whether they should keep the law or not. The second question, dealing with Barnabas, can not be definitely anwered. I say there are two options for why Barnabas wanted John Mark to go along with them. Firstly, he could have simply been agreeing with what John Mark and the Jerusalem church were saying about Gentile-law-keeping . The second reason could be that Barnabas was hoping to see more of what Paul was seeing in his Gentile ministry. Possibly, Barnabas wanted to see for himself, and also, for Barnabas to see and maybe have a change of heart towards the Gentile ministry.
March 13, 2013 at 9:23 pm
heatherjoyy
The fact that Paul and Barnabas entered into a disagreement over John Mark’s position within the ministry seems to show some importance. Whenever I read about John Mark departing from the ministry, I wonder what he was thinking. Many others have already mentioned this, but I also wonder why Paul took held such a harsh stance against John Mark. As Adam mentioned, Paul was there to pass on the Gospel to the Gentiles and in doing so, he told them that they did not need to be “burdened down” by the Law. They could recieve salvation in the same way that the Jews could. Yet Paul is not extending any hope or grace towards John Mark. Maybe that is why it is so significant for John Mark to depart from the ministry at that time. When he reaches a deeper maturity in the faith, Barnabas extends that grace and allows John Mark to continue in the ministry. This seems to shadow the disagreement in the beginning between Jews and Gentiles in relation to salvation.
March 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm
Nick Van Loo
For some reason, the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas has always been of interest to me. I think it odd that two “model like missionaries” can have a disagreement so severe, that it results in them splitting up. Not only did it happen but it was recorded in the Bible (obviously)! I think this is a standing testament proving the Bible is truth because if it was trying to be false or misleading, wouldn’t they leave out all the “bad” parts.
In your post, you said “It can be taken as a positive or a negative” when talking about how Paul felt about Jon-Mark. I think because of his passionate personality (Acts 9, from persecuting to preaching in 10 seconds flat!) that it was more of a negative context. Paul felt that since he held himself to such a high moral standard that others should hold themselves to the same standard. This is all well and good but Paul is a much disciplined individual and does not appreciate mistakes. I too feel like Paul sometimes. I hold myself to such a high standard and expect others to hold themselves to the same standard.
I also like your last sentence in the blog. I do not think it is a stretch at all to say there was some tension between the Pauline style and between the ways the church was doing things in Jerusalem. The fact that they had to have a council and discuss differences between the two hints in the way that there was controversy. The Paul/Barnabas argument is just more evidence
March 13, 2013 at 10:03 pm
anthony_beaulieu
Well there is without a doubt a difference in the Pauline mission and the style of ministry happening in Jerusalem. It’s very sensible and reasonable for Paul to not want John Mark to go with them. I think that Paul knew that John Mark wasn’t willing to be committed and stay true to the ministry and to stay with them longer or even permanently so Paul did not want him. If there was a missionary that went to some place and then backed out and tried to go on another journey and try to do ministry again, people would not be too fond of that or even supportive of it because they know that they are not fully committed to the ministry that they are trying to do. I think that Paul is afraid that John Mark will fall away and ruin his testimony of Jesus Christ and cause people in his ministry to also fall away because of what they see him do. I think that John Mark has the good intentions but not the full commitment to go and do the ministry that Paul is wanting to do. Since Paul is so strong willed about not having John Mark go with them, Barnabas then separates and they go to their own ministries. I don’t think that the diversity is within so much the early church but more to the people running the ministries in the early church. The church seems to be going fine but the commitment of the leaders is not as strong.
March 13, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Joseph Furno
I think that perhaps Paul’s reaction to the proposition of bringing John back for the continuation of their journey may be what is over exaggerated. Paul is known for being harsh and easily worked up especially when it comes to matters of Gentile conversion and inclusion. Just look at how Paul called out Peter when he was showing favor to the Jews in Acts chapter 11. If the cause for John Mark leaving was that he had problems accepting the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit without following the whole law than it would be responsible to expect this reaction from Paul. Of course than Barnabas, being John Mark’s uncle would become defensive for his nephew and as Paul would most likely not back down because of his passion for the issue they had nothing to do but part ways. I find this then to be a very predictable and expected occurrence when you know Paul’s tendencies and passion for his calling to the Gentiles and his anger toward prejudiced directed at Gentiles.
March 13, 2013 at 10:56 pm
nfisher2013
I think that Paul’s reaction to Barnabas’ request is just. See, the Holy Spirit had a specific audience for Paul in mind. He had a specific message for the Gentiles. If it is true that John Mark was offended by this message, or didn’t agree with it, it was right that he left. However, for Barnabas to suggest bringing his nephew back on after that is ridiculous. Did John Mark have a change of heart? Did he finally agree with the message Paul was giving? Paul’s desire to keep John Mark away, due to John Mark’s opinion, is perfectly just. He doesn’t need a partner who doesn’t agree with what he is teaching. It would defeat the purpose of a partner. Joe points out that Paul was known to be harsh and easily worked up. I think that his harshness and zeal were much need, as the Jews were so hard-headed about their circumcision laws! They were still narrow-minded on the new law of grace to all that Jesus brought. They didn’t want to change, and they certainly didn’t want to include the Gentiles. The thought of Gentiles as God’s people was unheard of and outrageous. If this is what John Mark believed, as P. Long suggests, then it was right of Paul to react the way he did. Paul didn’t need someone who came against his word. God gave Paul the authority to spread the Gospel, not John Mark. Also, if Barnabas was pushing Paul to include John Mark again, I’m sure this reaction is understandable. If I were pushed to include someone who left because they didn’t agree with my teaching, I would be furious too.
March 13, 2013 at 10:58 pm
DJ horsfall
I think this part is very interesting. For one Paul and Barnabas are arguing but why? Second, Barnabas picked the underdog. He was giving him a second chance. You see alot of these kind of acts coming from Barnabas. He did the same thing with Paul when he came to Jerusalem to be with the council and they turned him away. Barnabas came and told the apostles that Paul was good now. Without Barnabas, Paul’s ministry may have not been the same. God had a plan for Barnabas and He had a plan when Barnabas picked John mark after John mark abandoned Paul and Barnabas before.
March 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Denise VanBeek
Paul is so harsh on John-Mark that it makes me think that there is something else going on. Paul was at one time this crazy guy who went around killing for God. My first reaction is that he would be a little bit more understanding to someone who may have had a past issue. It makes me wonder what exactly the argument was and why it was as heated as it was to make Barnabas and Paul split. It may have been as simple as a feeling from Paul. God put certain feelings on his heart previously that had only helped his ministry. Perhaps Paul felt uneasy about John-Mark making his decision to split from Barnabas a little easier.
March 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm
April Lorenz
In verse 36, it seems as though Paul and Barnabas are going to continue together and then they depart separated after a sharp disagreement. Whether or not you allow a follower of Christ to come on a ministry trip with you is odd that this was an argument. Even if John had once left them to return home, its not very clear to me why Paul didn’t want him to accompany them. so John Mark went with Barnabas and Silas with Paul. Paul and Silas it said in (verse 40) they had “been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.” and i was wondering if that meant that in their decision to go without the others, they had the blessings of each other and that even though their disagreement was “sharp” they had made up with each other?
God was still working through that disagreement, and Paul and Silas went through the churches and strengthened them.
If you look at the context around this passage also, you get a glimpse of God’s bigger plan, and in ch. 16 Timothy joins Paul’s ministry team.
If I am looking at this passage and wondering about how to apply this to my life and also interacting with the text, I am guessing that Paul and Barnabas disagreement was needed in order for God to change the direction of Timothy, and of John Mark. And I wonder if the disagreement was ever settled or how the argument ended?
March 13, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Marc Mullenix
One question that comes to mind concerning Paul’s harsh words towards John-Mark and even asking him not to come, is this; could it be that Paul had heard of what Jesus would say to people who wanted to follow him, that they need to give up all they had, their family, property, everything. Could it be that Paul had heard this and perhaps thought that John Mark had not done so and therefore he decided that it would be best for JM to not go with them on the journey? It would make sense to me for this to be the thought Paul would have in a situation like this.
March 13, 2013 at 11:35 pm
steveroemer
I find this text very interesting. It is one of those stories that when you look back on, you are still not sure what really happened. On one hand, it seems like John Mark is getting a bad rap for messing up once, but on the other hand, I can understand that if he did not completely agree with what Paul was teaching, then there he really should not be there. I know that when I am helping someone do something, but I do not necessarily agree with what they are doing, that it can be very hard to put my whole heart into what I am helping with. I am sure that this is what Paul was thinking. If John Mark is not going to put his whole heart into this mission, then he does not need to be here. Especially since he has already abandoned the mission before. Isn’t it funny how things have not changed a bit in today’s churches though?
March 14, 2013 at 12:03 am
Zac_schutte
I agree with Adam, when I read this passage, I do feel sorry for John Mark, as well as believe that Paul may be acting a little harsh. However, when I think about it from Paul’s perpspective, I can understand why he would be so critical of John Mark and have little compassion for him. Verse 38 appears to be the key to this event, “But Paul did not think it appropriate to take along this man who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work.” Obviously, John Mark abandoning Paul and Barnabas had a twofold effect. One, a trust was destroyed between them, and two, there was most likely an increased responsibility and workload for them to carry out with one less in their company.
The first missionary journey is crucial because it will form the foundation of the Church. In Paul’s mind, a man who could not stay true to the task of preaching the Gospel on a missionary journey does not understand the true meaning of devotion and faith that would be required of these new believers. Kind of a “blind leading the blind” idea. Paul knew, and it is obvious, that the foundation is the key to the growth and spread of the church. For John Mark to participate in the second mission trip would be to wreck a foundation carefully laid by Paul and Barnabas, and Paul was not about to let that happen, even if it means hurting some feelings along the way.
March 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Pastor Jim Gray
Good study. There are two other aspects I see that are not touched upon in the discussion. First the omission of the church at Antioch reaction to this separation. I think that this is significant and overlooked. I think this points to the fact that this is a personal dispute, not a church dispute. There is no indication that either part made an issue of the disagreement to the church. They did not use their position or prominence to gain an advantage over the other, nor enlist help from the congregation as far as the record is concerned. Nor is there any indication that the congregation tried to interfere in the disagreement.
Second, while there is a sharp disagreement between the parties, there seem to be no lasting hostility. Paul in 1 Cor. 9:6 speaks well of Barnabas, and John Mark is later called to Paul’s side to minister (2 Tim. 4:11).
March 14, 2013 at 4:58 pm
Phillip J. Long
Both good comments. I am not sure that Luke would have given us the reaction of Antioch, since there is a tendency to omit fractious details like Paul’s confrontation of Peter at Antioch. I did a glad a while back on the absence of Barnabas in the address of the letter to the Galatians. If he was a co-founder of those churches, it is very odd that he is missing from the letters – James Dunn suggested that he was estranged from Paul at the time the letter was written.
1 Cor 9:6 is at least “not negative,” but it is not really all that positive either, probably best to call that neutral. It seems to be simply a statement that Paul and Barnabas worked to support their mission.
March 19, 2013 at 6:45 am
The value of un-success | Dr Ken Baker
[...] Acts 15:36-40 – Disagreement with Barnabas (readingacts.wordpress.com) [...]