Acts 15:35-41: Barnabas and Paul
The Jerusalem and Antioch churches settled a dispute in Acts 15. After that, a rift occurred between long time fellow laborers. Here is the text (verses 35-41):
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
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;
40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
I have heard at least 3-5 sermons in my lifetime on this passage and listened to many discussions on it. In addition, I’ve read an abundance of commentaries and articles on this story. Men take many, many different positions. They describe it different ways. The most common overall position I could represent with these following comments.
How To Take The Story
First, I don’t now who wrote this, but it mirrors the next three comments:
Either way, Luke does not write this account in such a way that puts Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong, or vice versa. They made a mutual decision to split ways because neither could agree with the other. In a way, they both were right. It wouldn’t have been productive for Paul to take Mark when he didn’t trust him, but Barnabas saw the long-term potential in Mark and gave him another chance.
Robertson
Second, here’s A. T. Robertson:
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…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.
Gill
Third, I quote John Gill:
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:
Spurgeon
Fourth, here’s what Spurgeon said and wrote:
There was no help for it but to part. Barnabas went one way with his nephew, and Paul another with Silas. Mark turned out well, and so justified the opinion of Barnabas, but Paul could not foresee that, and is not to be condemned for acting upon the general rule that he who puts his hand to the plough and looks back has proved himself unworthy.
This separation, though painful in its cause, was a most excellent thing. There was no need for two such men to be together, they were each able to lead the way alone, and by their doing so double good was accomplished.
What Not To Do
What no one should do is to read into the text or the story and argue from silence. No one should use this passage to show that he’s right and someone else is wrong. It is a very weak section of a chapter to make strong, dogmatic application. Even with quotes like the four above, some church leaders will read into Acts 15:35-41 application that just isn’t there.
Someone could say, “I’m Paul in this story, and the other guy is Barnabas.” Well, how do you get to be Paul? It reminds me of playing with my brother as a child. I say, “You are him, and I’ll be this guy,” choosing the favorite for myself. “Hey, let’s play these characters and I’ll be David and you get to be Saul. How’s that sound?”
The story of the divisive contention between two godly men says essentially the following to me. This kind of division occurs between even two godly men, based upon differing opinions. God does not come down on one side or the other in the story. I could explain both men as wrong, or one or the other wrong, just using speculation.
Something to Learn
When a sad split occurs, one that we really, really wish wasn’t happening, this story with Paul and Barnabas says to us, “It even happened to Paul and Barnabas.” It isn’t an example for division, an affirmation of fighting and severing a relationship. God doesn’t leave out of His Word these types of events. Almost anyone reading here know these kinds of incidents occur.
Later Paul and John Mark
Rather than depend on speculation, which is not rightly dividing or practicing scripture, the Bible gives non-speculative truth concerning the rest of the story. A quite well-known fact, the rest of the New Testament says many good things about John Mark. He wrote the gospel of Mark, which some call the gospel of Peter, even as the Apostle Peter was close to him (1 Peter 5:13).
The Apostle Paul also later speaks of John Mark well, working closely with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:23-24). ,When the Apostle Paul is at the very end of his life, he writes 2 Timothy. In that final state with his execution imminent, he says about John Mark in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” In his final hours, of the few things he could request and of all people, he wanted John Mark.
Later Paul and Barnabas
The events of Acts 15 and the split between Paul and Barnabas occurred around 49-50 AD. Paul wouldn’t have written 1 Corinthians until a few years after that at least, so at least 53, if not 55. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he wasn’t traveling with Barnabas anymore. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 9:6 Paul writes the church at Corinth: “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?”
The Apostle Paul wrote for the continued financial support for the missionary work of Barnabas. He treated Barnabas as an equal to him in the work of the Lord, not something lesser. Pay Barnabas. He had the right to forbear working. Muzzle not that ox that treads out the corn (1 Cor 9:9). For sure, Paul wasn’t laboring toward the discontinuation of support of Barnabas, arguing to the church at Corinth that Barnabas should not receive money from churches. Just the opposite. He uses his name in the argument after the rift between them.
Whatever the rift in Acts 15 between Paul and Barnabas, it wasn’t there in 1 Corinthians 9:6. He advocated for Barnabas as a missionary and for his receiving support as one. That didn’t mean they still didn’t have a difference between each other. Men have differences. I’ve never met a man that did not have at least one difference with another man. Some men think they’re always right in every single difference. Everyone needs to submit to them. They’re pretty close to stop listening to anyone else.
Judging Situations
I know my heart, that I’m sincere when I look at situations to judge them. In addition, I’ve prayed and maybe even fasted. Everyone else has got to be wrong. And then later I find out that I’m not always right. This is why the Apostle Paul could write in Romans 7:19:
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Paul gets it wrong. Everyone gets it wrong. It’s even a law, a principle. He writes about that in Romans 7:21:
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
When Paul would do good, a principle resides in him, like gravity, that opposes his doing good. Always that law functions in his body parts when he would do good. This is why everyone needs mediation, something Paul certainly understood by the time (60-62AD) he wrote Philemon.
Acts 15:35-41 is a wonderful group of verses in the Bible. Everyone can learn from them. At the same time, anyone could speculate about them too, and then go ahead and use them for personal reasons.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I agree that we need to be careful and not make arguments from silence. However, looking at this:
Acts 15:39 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;
Acts 15:40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
It seems like the narrator (Luke) specifically says that Silas was recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God, while not saying that for Mark. Why do you believe that is the case? Could it be that Barnabas was in the wrong here, but by the time 1 Corinthians was written the rift had been healed, something one would expect for godly people like Paul and Barnabas? I recognize that this is not a didactic portion of Scripture, but a narrative, but we are supposed to learn from narrative.
Thanks for pointing out how, at least by the time of 1 Corinthians, it appears that Paul and Barnabas were no longer contending and are both still serving the Lord. I don’t know if I had thought about that before.
Thomas,
The Greek word for “departed asunder” is only here and in Revelation 6:14 where the heavens depart as a scroll. It’s like the splitting of an atom. Both sides split. It wasn’t Paul left. It wasn’t Barnabas left. They left one another. The report is not: Paul separated from Barnabas so Barnabas was a man without a country, so he left too. No, it’s very clear a mutual departure, no one taking the charge or authority in the matter. Nothing in the text makes that point. Allelon shows it was reciprocal. Is there the assumption that Barnabas lost his authority or sending? It doesn’t say that. 1 Corinthians 9:6 goes the other direction.
One more thing on the first paragraph here. Paul and Barnabas were both sent. Paul did not unilaterally function. Just like Barnabas, he was sent. He submitted to the church. Nothing says the church unsent Barnabas. If Barnabas was going to be unsent, would that be a unilateral decision by Paul? I really am asking. Since the church sent him, just like with the Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15, would there not be a vetting of this situation? Barnabas would present his side, Paul his, and the church decide? We don’t read that at all.
Paul wasn’t going alone after Barnabas and John Mark left. Without them, he chose Silas, and they recommended Silas. Silas needed a charge to go. It doesn’t say, they didn’t recommend Barnabas or John Mark or that they lost their charge. Paul didn’t have a problem with Silas. The brethren didn’t have a problem with Silas. Just because Paul does something doesn’t mean it is right. I show that at the end. Paul had an open door in Troas in 2 Corinthians 2. The open door was given to him. He left it because of depression. Was that the right thing to do? Do we assume that if Paul does it, it’s right?
Personally, I’m not judging either side to be right or wrong. Neither is Robertson, Gill, or Spurgeon, and many others. They could both be wrong. Gill says it is the providence of God, like the persecution of the Jerusalem church that lead to the spread of the gospel. God moved people to Antioch by His providence and a church started there.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Those are points to think about. I have never studied 2 Cor 2 about what you asked about and would need to look at it before being able to intelligently comment.
In Acts 15:40, the Greek text reads:
Παῦλος δὲ ἐπιλεξάμενος Σίλαν ἐξῆλθε, παραδοθεὶς τῇ χάριτι τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν.
And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
I wanted to see if there was a basis for saying that it was “Silas” that was the one recommended by the brethren to the grace of God here. That would seem like a strong point if it were the case. However, it looks to me like the main verb is “departed,” and “being recommended” is a verbal participle dependent upon the “departed.” Since “Paul” is the (singular) subject of the (singular) verb “departed,” would you agree that “being recommended,” as dependent upon “departed,” is specifically indicating that “Paul” was the one recommended by the brethren to the grace of God? I’m sure that recommending Paul would recommend Silas as well, but if the text actually states that it was Paul, then would this passage not indicate the brethren specifically approving Paul and Silas for what they did on this new evangelistic journey, rather than being specifically the church authorizing Silas as an evangelist/missionary?
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that the grammar of the verse means that the brothers, which I also think refers to the church at Antioch, commended Paul to take Silas with him on the missionary journey in lieu of Barnabas splitting with him. It reads that they handed him over to the grace of God. They entrusted Paul to God’s grace.
They were approving of him. Paul could go without Barnabas. With his Roman citizenship, I think Silas was a good choice to move on with Paul’s Gentile ministry. In light of what else I wrote, I don’t see a reprimand by the church of Barnabas. There was not a basis for saying he didn’t continue with ministry. He went to Cyprus with John Mark. I rest on the 1 Corinthians 9:6 argument. We have it. It isn’t silence. My main question, how far do you go in application of this narrative in Acts 15?
Thanks.
It is often worth taking a step back and looking at the larger context.
A significant theme of Acts is to validate Paul as an apostle. Without Acts, we’d be asking, “Who is this guy who wrote all these books and why are they included in the New Testament?” New Testament believers were told to accept the teachings of the apostles on a par with the writings of the Old Testament prophets (II Peter 3:2). Acts makes it clear (which Peter also affirms in a later verse) that Paul is one of those apostles.
Once we recognize that as one of the purposes of the book, then it is obvious why the commendation of Paul and Silas by the church is mentioned. Acts tells us nothing about whether Barnabas and John Mark were commended by the church because the book isn’t about them. But the commendation of Paul and Silas was important because it helped to support the account of Paul’s ministry and apostleship.
Silence sometimes does mean something, no doubt, especially when it is contrasted with a definite statement, as in this case. But when there’s a clear purpose for the definite statement, as there is in Acts, and the “statement that is missing” wouldn’t fit with that clear purpose, then the silence holds little weight.
The commendation of the church mentioned here says everything about how the church viewed Paul’s mission, but doesn’t tell us anything about how it viewed Barnabas’ mission or the conflict between them. You can fill in the silence with anything you want and it could make sense — which means we shouldn’t fill it in at all, I believe.
Very good comment, Jon. Thanks. Good point.
The brethren under whom I came up tended to thinking that Paul was in the right here, and they did so based on verse 40 — that is, Paul & Silas had the sending of the church of Antioch behind them and Barnabas & Mark did not. I can see how they came to that conclusion, but it seems problematic when considered in light of what we know about Barnabas and Mark going forward. I may not be able to make a great case that satisfies others, but viewing this in the whole New Testament context, I am satisfied that this is mentioned in verse 40 because Paul is going out with someone new. Paul, Barnabas (and by extension, Mark) had previously been “recommended” and sent out by the church at Antioch.
More generally to the rift, my father’s generation and the preachers of that generation had grown up in the shadow of a split, and then experienced another in their lifetime. A certain number of them just couldn’t get over continuing to debate who was right (they were, of course!). The “best” of them eventually settled in on a view much like that of Gill — the split was wrong, but in God’s providence it worked to bring about more preaching of the gospel, more mission work, more churches constituted, and so on.
Brother Brandenburg, a lot of people miss (or don’t care) that the 1 Corinthians 9 reference is after the rift between Paul and Barnabas. That is an important point of consideration.
Robert,
Thanks for the comment. I always enjoy your comments and writing. Like you, I’ve read a lot of different conclusions on Acts 15:35-41. I think “commend” is the strongest argument on the Paul’s right side, but it easily could be their commending Paul to a trip with his new partner, Silas. They agreed it was fine that he take Silas along.
I could have written more than I did. When Paul confronted Peter to his face, Barnabas was guilty of going along with Peter. You see that in Galatians 2. All this had just happened at this time. John Mark was obviously in the Peter circle in Jerusalem. It was a tight group, meeting in his mother’s house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Barnabas was tight in that group too, appearing there at the end of Acts 4. They were less inclined for the Gentile ministry. When I say all this, I’m saying that I don’t know. This is more to think about.
Brother, this is sort of off-topic, but related to your mention of Galatians 2, timelines, and different conclusions. Do you have an opinion on where to place the Galatians 2 account into the historical account of Acts? I take your comment “All this had just happened at this time” as you probably placing it with Acts 15, but would appreciate your clarifying. Thanks.
Hi Robert,
The account to which Paul refers in chapter 2 seems to be Acts 15 and between the first and second missionary journey. Paul and Barnabas ministered in Galatia on their first missionary journey. It’s not explicit, but it fits, and you can tie it together language-wise between Acts 15:10 and Galatians 5:1 with the word “yoke.” I think “circumcision” also ties it together in Acts 15:1 and Galatians 2:3.
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thank you for making a good point about the larger context. You are certainly correct that the focus of Acts moves to Paul in the later portions of the book. You are also correct that we need to be careful in making arguments from silence, and correct that when the context indicates a contrast in a narrative, we are to take note of that contrast.
Must a transition in Acts to a focus on Paul be exclusive of Luke, through the method of his narration, ascribing blame to Barnabas in this text? It would not have taken more than a handful of extra words to say that both pairs of people were recommended by the churches, if that had been the case. In Acts 13 we see a specific reference to the evangelists being sent out. In Acts 15:39-40 one of the two pairs is specifically commended by the brethren and then in in 15:41 is strengthening the churches. The last thing we hear in Acts about Barnabas here is that there is a big contention and then he goes away with Mark. I have a hard time thinking that we are not intended to view this negatively. Bro Brandenburg has made a valid point that Barnabas is seen a few years later doing good things as Corinthians mentions, and thus, saying “Barnabas was set aside the rest of his life” or something like that is an overstatement contradicted by Scripture. But I do not see why Barnabas doing the right thing a few years later means that what he did now was right any more than Mark doing the right thing some years later means that his going away here was right. In that intervening time there could well have been reconciliation, especially in light of the clearly godly people that both Barnabas and Paul were. We move away from a focus on Peter in the earlier portions of Acts as well, but there is nothing that at least gives many readers a sense that something is wrong when Peter drops off in Acts, while that is the case with Barnabas and Mark here.
So can one affirm your well-made point about the broader context of Acts while also recognizing that in the more immediate context it looks like what Paul and Silas do is right and what Mark and Barnabas do is not? Thanks.
Brother Ross, of course one >can< draw those conclusions. The text is silent.
You are correct that later profitable service proves nothing about a particular incident. I suspect every one of us who has had any profitable service for the Lord can point to our own early unprofitable incidents! If we can't, we are undoubtedly suffering from a very bad kind of amnesia! So of course, the later mentions of Barnabas and Mark are not conclusive.
You state rightly that it would have taken few words to affirm Barnabas and Mark, as well as Paul. Likewise, it would have taken few words to specifically blame them, would it not? Since we both believe in the preservation of Scripture, we can both agree that God provided neither set of words, neither exculpatory nor condemnatory. If God chose to neither directly nor clearly (if indirectly) ascribe innocence or blame, why is it my job to do so? And does not charity call me to believe the best of my brother that the facts allow, even if he happens to be long gone by now? The older I get the less willing I am to attribute blame to Biblical characters that the facts don't require of me. It may make for "good preaching" but I seem to be able to find good things to preach anyway, and plenty of Biblical characters who are clearly intended to provide bad examples.
You ask rightly, "Must a transition in Acts to a focus on Paul be exclusive of Luke, through the method of his narration, ascribing blame to Barnabas in this text?" No, it must not be exclusive of Luke ascribing blame, and I would not argue that it is.
I would only argue three points:
1. It's not exclusive of Luke ascribing blame, and yet, he neglected to do so indisputably.
2. Luke's focus on Paul is a legitimate explanation for why Luke might ascribe neither blame nor innocence to Barnabas — Barnabas' guilt or innocence is irrelevant to Luke's Spirit-driven message.
3. Luke's focus on Paul suggests there is a spiritual danger for me in seeking to pass judgment here. Pride is something against which we must always guard. If I am passing judgment on a detail which is not central to the truth of the passage, and which God has not made very clear, I risk pridefully exalting my own judgment into an area where the sufficient Scriptures have not spoken.
And I see little spiritual benefit to be gained by making such a judgment, yea or nay. It's not like we need this passage to teach us of the dangers of conflict. We do not need this passage to tell us that conflict cannot always be avoided. We don't need it to tell us that God's blessing can flow through those who at times end up in conflict. I don't see any Scriptural, spiritual truth for which we need to pass judgment on Barnabas and John Mark. Nor do we need to exonerate them to know that God can use a strong difference of opinion between brothers to further the Gospel. Every lesson we could draw from this passage, whether we adjudge them innocent or guilty, can be drawn from elsewhere.
You have every right, and the passage gives you room to do so, to decide that you think Barnabas was in the wrong and that the church did not support his actions. I might even concede that if I were forced to make a judgment, I think the evidence is a little stronger your way than the other way.
I think the evidence is stronger still that God did not intend us to make such a judgment in this case. I don't think He forgot to insert the words that would have made it crystal clear for us. He intentionally left them out. I'm content with that. Blessings to you!
Thomas,
My main point is that it is at least a very weak point from which to make a strong one. There are many strong ones in the rest of scripture for John Mark and Barnabas and one especially clear one for the latter (1 Cor 9:6). Why downplay 1 Cor 9:6? I wonder about the inconsistency of emphasizing what is convenient and deemphasizing what is inconvenient. If someone will not take everything, then take nothing from all the evidence through scripture. When someone cherry picks a text to get what he wants, it’s suspect to me.
I’m also saying, don’t make an exaggerated point either way. I conceded the grammatical point. We could hunker down into the weeds on it. Paradidomi according to BDAG means “to hand over.” They handed Paul over to the grace of God. One could say, “They weren’t making any kind of judgment at all on the future of Paul and his choice of Silas except that they would hand Paul over to the grace of God. BDAG uses Acts 15:40 for the meaning of “to entrust for care or preservation.” It was nothing of authority. It easily could be saying, “We hope that choice works out for you Paul, that having this new partner will work out as well as your old one.” The church at Antioch wasn’t going on the journey, so they could only entrust Paul to God’s grace.
Dear Bros Brandenburg & Gleason,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I agree that 1 Cor 9:6 is clear. By that time, AD 57, I believe, Barnabas was getting support as an evangelist, and it looks like he was on good terms with Paul. If someone argues that Barnabas was set aside the rest of his life and was out of God’s will because of the end of Acts 15, he is ignoring a pretty plain point in the 1 Cor 9 passage.
I did not know (and so did not point out) before that Acts 14:26 contains the same “departed being recommended … to the grace of God” language as Acts 15:40. The Acts 14:26’s past periphrastic clearly refers back to Acts 13:1-3. So what happened in Acts 13:1-3 happened with Paul and Silas in Acts 15:40–I think the Acts 14:26 is a clincher on that. Paul and Silas were sent with church authority, while Barnabas and Mark were not.
Bro Gleason, you make a good point that the argument from silence cuts both ways. My initial thought was whether by the time Luke wrote Acts reconciliation had taken place and he did not want to emphasize their former disagreement.
I also agree with you that we do not want to over-read narrative and say that someone is sinning if that is not the point, although we also don’t want to under-read it either. God intended us to learn a whole lot from Melchizedek in Genesis and Psalm 110:4, including from things that are not stated (“without father, without mother …”), as we see from Hebrews. Your point about thinking the best about our ancient brethren in the faith from 2000+ years ago is well taken. (I’m glad you find good things to preach without reading into narrative!)
I have not looked at any commentaries on this, so if someone reading this has, I would be interested to see if anyone argues that Barnabas took Mark, but it was not sin because Barnabas was not intending to go on a missionary journey, but just to take his cousin Mark under his wing and help him to grow. He appears to have done something similar with Paul earlier. Perhaps God gave Paul the desire to go on another missionary journey while Barnabas had more of a desire to help Mark get stronger. If that is the case, it would seem to not place either pair in sin in their actions. If someone reading this is convinced that Barnabas and Mark were wrong, I would be interested in seeing a response to the idea that they were not intending to go on an evangelistic/missionary journey the way Paul and Silas were at this point, and so they were not “bucking” the church, or at least it cannot be proven that they were. (I’m not saying this is correct; I am throwing it out as a possibility as we try to work out what can and cannot be concluded from this passage.) My initial assumption was that if one can prove Barnabas and Mark were not sent out, they must have been sinning. I think it is clear that they were not sent out (perhaps y’all disagree, but that looks pretty clear to me from the Acts 14:26), but that may not necessarily prove that they were sinning.
The article below does not answer these questions, but provides a little background on John Mark:
MARK (JOHN MARK)
Cousin of Barnabas; companion to both Paul and Peter; author of the second Gospel
A member of a Jewish family in Jerusalem who were early believers in Jesus Christ, John Mark bore both a Jewish and a Roman name. The Roman name “Mark” was perhaps a badge of Roman citizenship, as in Paul’s case, or was adopted when he left Jerusalem to serve the Gentile church in Antioch (Acts 12:25). When an angel of the Lord freed Peter from prison, the apostle went directly to “the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12:12, NRSV). This house, described as having an outer gate, being of adequate size to accommodate a gathering of many believers, and served by a slave named Rhoda (Acts 12:12–13), was obviously the dwelling of a wealthy family. By the time of this event (c.A.D. 44) Mark may have already been converted through the personal influence of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13). The fact that he was chosen to accompany Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to Antioch indicates that Mark was held in high esteem by the church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:25).
John Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul to “assist them” (Acts 13:5, NRSV) on their expedition into Asia with the gospel. He soon left the apostles, however, and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Scripture does not reveal the cause of this desertion. Perhaps the rigors and hardships of the journey overwhelmed the young man. Another possible explanation was that at Paphos, shortly into the journey, Paul stepped to the front as leader and spokesman (Acts 13:13). Thereafter Acts (with the natural exception of Acts 15:12, 25) speaks of Paul and Barnabas rather than Barnabas and Paul. Perhaps it offended Mark to see his kinsman Barnabas, who had preceded Paul in the faith (Acts 4:36–37) and had ushered him into the apostles’ fellowship (Acts 9:27), take second place in the work of the gospel.
But there may have been a deeper and more significant cause for Mark’s withdrawal. Like Paul, Mark was “a Hebrew born of Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5, NRSV). Because of this Mark may have objected to Paul’s offer of salvation to the Gentiles based only on faith without the prerequisite of keeping the Jewish law. It is noteworthy that the Bible uses only the Hebrew name “John” when recording Mark’s presence on the Gospel journey (13:5) and his departure at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Also important is the fact that John Mark returned, not to the Gentile church in Antioch, the site of his former service, but to the Jewish church in Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Luke’s history records that later “the disagreement [between Paul and Barnabas over Mark] became so sharp that they parted company” (Acts 15:39, NRSV). Nothing stirred Paul’s feelings more than the question of justification by faith, and Barnabas had already demonstrated his weakness on this point (Gal. 2:13). Therefore it may have been the cause of their separation: Barnabas and Mark to Cyprus, and Paul and Silas into Asia to strengthen the new churches (Acts 15:39–41).
About eleven years pass before Mark again appears in the biblical record. In Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24, he is in Rome with “Paul the aged,” who is there as “a prisoner of Jesus Christ” (Philem. 19). The fracture has been healed, such that Paul says that Mark and others are “the only ones of the circumcision [the Jews] among my co-workers for the kingdom of God” (Col. 4:11, NRSV). Paul, in his last epistle, pays Mark his final tribute. He tells Timothy, “Do your best to come to me soon.… Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry” (2 Tim. 4:9, 11, NRSV, italics added). Although all had deserted Paul in his trial before Caesar Nero (2 Tim. 4:16), Mark, who in his youth had also deserted the apostle, traveled from Ephesus to Rome, endeavoring to come to the beloved Paul with Timothy.
In 1 Peter 5:13 the apostle Peter sends Mark’s greeting along with that of the church in Babylon (signifying Rome), indicating Mark’s close relationship with the apostle to the circumcision (Gal. 2:9). The most important and reliable extrascriptural tradition concerning Mark is that he was the close attendant of Peter. The early church Fathers said this association produced the Gospel of Mark, inasmuch as Mark took account of Peter’s teachings about Jesus and then used them to shape his Gospel—perhaps written in Rome[.]
D. Partner, “Mark (John Mark),” ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort, Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 454–455.
I believe Paul and Barnabas went with authority and agree Acts 14:26 refers back to their original sending. Everyone should leave their church with the authority of the church: the other two options are death or discipline.
The two, 14:26 and 15:40, talk about the same aspect, I believe too. However, when I read the usage of paradidomi, I don’t see it as a word that relates to authority, a popular subject, because saying it does intimates or implies Barnabas and John Mark were renegades and making the absence of that statement mean they were functioning on their own. The passage does not say that. This in many ways was the point of my post, not taking things from the story that are not there, especially in light of 1 Cor 9:6, etc. When did Barnabas receive the authority that meant that Paul could suggest supporting him? Scripture doesn’t say he had authority, so does silence mean Paul recommended supporting a missionary who didn’t have authority? Was Paul joining Barnabas in supporting renegades?
The paradidomi aspect sounds like something I would say to someone when he leaves to move on to the next difficult thing in life for God. That’s what Gill says about Acts 14:26: “they had in prayer commended them to God, and to his grace to assist them, and succeed them, as well as to fit them.” Everyone else I read, including BDAG, says the same thing on its meaning.
I was studying something else and noticed that Barnabas was from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), which, of course, is where he went with Mark in Acts 15:39. Maybe Barnabas took Mark to his homeland to work on Mark for a while and build him up, while Paul and Silas went on another evangelistic mission, authorized by the church at Antioch, Acts 13:1ff., 14:26; 15:40.
Thanks Thomas.
Cyprus was the first stop on the first missionary journey and it seemed like it may be because of Barnabas, that Paul and he went there first. Going back there to work on Mark and help people in Cyprus makes sense to me. If Barnabas was still a missionary in 1 Cor 9:6, where was he? He could still get a lot done in Cyprus.
I get that you think that paradidomi means authorize. It’s not found with that meaning in any lexicon. It’s not what it means in Acts 14:26 and in 15:40. The word isn’t in Acts 13:1-4. In the latter two, again, it says they handed them over to the grace of God. That fits with another usage in Acts 15:26, where they hazarded their lives. They “authorized” their lives? In Acts 16:4, they delivered (handed) them the decrees for to keep.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
You are correct that the word should not be translated as “authorize”; it is properly translated in the KJV, and the sense is, as BDAG says:
παραδίδοσθαι τῇ χάριτι τοῦ κυρίου ὑπό τινος be commended by someone to the grace of the Lord Ac 15:40. Ἀντιόχεια, ὅθεν ἦσαν παραδεδομένοι τῇ χάριτι τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τὸ ἔργον Antioch, from which (city they had gone out) commended to the grace of God for the work 14:26.
But Acts 14:26 clearly refers back to Acts 13:1ff, where they were “separated” to the mission (here again no word “authorize,” but the sense is clearly there that the Holy Spirit through the church sent them out).
So it seems to me a better argument to say that Barnabas and Mark were not on an official journey as authorized evangelists because of the different language for Paul and Silas vs. Mark and Barnabas, rather than saying that there is nothing significant in the language change for the two pairs. Perhaps if Barnabas was working on Mark for a while at home in Cyprus they didn’t need to do that. Later both Barnabas and Mark were serving the Lord in different places, and the rift was resolved; we can rejoice that godly people can resolve their rifts.
I have no idea where Barnabas was in 1 Cor 9:6–if we have a way to tell at this point 2,000 years later, I would be happy to find out about it.
Thanks for pointing out that info in BDAG.
I’m sure you noticed that I already acknowledged that Acts 14:26 refers back to the Antioch church handing Paul over to the grace of God in the original sending. They weren’t supporting. The trip would be hard and dangerous, as one saw it was when reading about their journey. They wouldn’t be able to do anything to take care of these men, so they had to turn them over to God’s grace. They said the same thing to Paul when he left on the second trip.
On the other hand, 1 Corinthians 9:6 shows Barnabas to still be a missionary, perhaps in the same way as Paul. I agree with Brother Gleason that the rest of the Acts narrative would focus on Paul as the main character. Crafting something into silence, when we have 1 Cor 9:6 not being silent, I don’t get. You will have to live with that. It would seem people who care would make a bigger deal of 1 Cor 9:6. Crickets on that and trumpets on paradidomi.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thanks for your comment. I agree that we should not overlook 1 Cor 9:6, and certainly it is also true that Paul becomes the main character as we move into the later portions of Acts. Getting into what Barnabas and Mark were doing could well have distracted from the developing focus in Acts.
When you say “they weren’t supporting,” are you arguing that the sending church for Paul and Barnabas (1st journey) and Paul and Silas (2nd journey), the church at Antioch, did not give them financial support, and that is what you mean by “weren’t supporting”? I have not been thinking about financial support but being their sending church for the evangelism/missionary journey. Have we been talking past each other?
Good question on supporting. I don’t think we know of any but the Philippian church that sent money to Paul. I meant physically supporting him, being there with him, defending him when someone tried to beat him or kill him, stop false teachers from falsely accusing him and corrupting what he said, which is what it meant to turn him over to the grace of God, give him over the Lord to take care of him. What if he just disappeared on a missionary journey? No more Paul.
Why would Paul defend financial missionary support to Barnabas if he wasn’t a missionary? If he didn’t have any authority to be a missionary, would Paul defend financially supporting him as a missionary? I think I essentially asked these questions before, maybe in a little different way.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I think by the time Corinthians was written Barnabas was an evangelist.
Thanks.
Do you think it was possible that the dispute between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15 could be what is talked about in Galatians 2, the justification by faith and whether Gentiles need to live like Jews issue? That is the only other disagreement between Paul and Barnabas in Scripture.
I’m preaching through Galatians right now, so it occurred to me, but there is no evidence. It does manifest this strong connection between Peter and Barnabas though, which one could turn into one with John Mark too. These people were not throwing others under the bus. Paul wrote, restore such a one in a spirit of meekness. This isn’t restore such a one in a spirit of the inquisition. Panels sitting in angry judgment, coming down with edicts.