By such criticism we lose much of the instruction which the honest record of their lives was intended to convey. Without attempting to balance too nicely the faults on either side, our simplest course is to believe that, as in most quarrels, both Barnabas and Paul were to blame for the split.
But Paul did not think it good to take him because he had departed from them at Pamphylia, and did not go with them to the work. As a result, such a sharp contention arose between them that they parted split from one another Acts - 39, HBFV. Paul's natural disposition was impetuous and impatient, easily kindled to indignation, and overbearing.
Barnabas had shown his weakness when he yielded to the influence of Peter and the Judaizers. The remembrance of the indirect censure he then received may have been perpetually irritated by the consciousness that his position was becoming daily more and more subordinate to that of the friend who rebuked him. Once he was spoken of as chief of those "prophets at Antioch," among whom Saul was the last.
Now his name was scarcely heard, except when he was mentioned as the companion of Paul. In short, this is one of those quarrels in which, by placing ourselves in imagination on the one side and the other, we can alternately justify both, and easily see that the purest Christian zeal, when combined with human weakness and partiality, may have led to the misunderstanding. How could Paul consent to take with him a companion like Mark who could prove an embarrassment and a hinderance?
Such a task as that of spreading the Gospel of God in a hostile world needs a resolute will and an undaunted courage. And the work is too sacred to be put in jeopardy by any experiments. Mark had been tried once and found wanting. And Barnabas would not be without strong arguments to defend the justice of his claims. It was hard to expect him to resign his interest in one who had cost him much anxiety and many prayers.
His dearest wish was to see his young kinsman approving himself as a missionary of Christ. Now, too, he had been won back to a willing obedience, he had come from his home at Jerusalem, he was ready now to face all the difficulties and dangers of the enterprise. To repel him in the moment of his repentance was surely "to break a bruised reed" and to "quench the smoking flax" Matthew It is not difficult to understand the obstinacy with which each of the disputants, when his feelings were once excited, clung to his opinion as to a sacred truth.
The only course which now remained was to split and choose two different paths and to labor independently. We cannot, however, suppose that Paul and Barnabas parted, like enemies, in anger and hatred. To their credit, neither Paul nor Barnabas allowed their personal opinions, however strongly expressed, to distract them from their respective roles as missionary leaders and servants of the gospel and of the local church.
The young church at Antioch had grown out of social and cultural diversity where, for the first time, Jews and non Jews rejoiced together over the good news concerning Jesus.
Antioch soon became a vibrant missionary centre as a direct result of this oneness of faith and love, forged out of a diverse mix of social and cultural Christian expression. The gospel message was found to be strong enough to bind together such an unlikely assembly.
They were united with a zeal for the gospel which had power to carry the message of the cross over many continents. Even when a sharp disagreement arose between its two leading missionaries, this loving and spirit led community were quick to commend a solution Acts Barnabas and Mark retained their original commission which resulted in a strengthening and an expansion of the missionary arm of the church, to the blessing and benefit of all 2 Timothy ; Colossians.
In spite of strong differences of opinion, there remained a sense of mutual respect and an on-going spirit of cooperation and selfless service I Corinthians Paul and Barnabas were acutely aware that the church is a community that works together as one, a communion of faith where individual differences are forged in a way that serves to strengthen and provide new opportunities, new approaches and new incentives to develop in the common work of the gospel.
A lesson for us all. The simple answer is yes and as on here more than just ones say so is wanted in the answer, I will give someone else's evidence other than my 40yrs worth of studies The Inception - After the Jerusalem Council Paul returned to Antioch where he spent some time, "teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord with many others also. The Companions Acts But Paul strenuously objected, basing his objection on the ground that this young man had deserted them Acts at a very important juncture in the first journey.
We are told that the contention was very sharp between Barnabas and Paul over this matter. It was finally settled by Barnabas taking John Mark and sailing for the island of Cyprus and Paul choosing Silas for his companion.
Luke, the author of the Acts, goes with this company into Macedonia Acts We can trace Luke's connection with the missionaries by the "we" passages. That Paul was afterwards reconciled to Barnabas and John Mark is shown by his kindly mention of them in his Epistles 1 Cor. Hopefully this will add to already good answers and give them support and credence Sign up to join this community.
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Was Barnabas ever reconciled to Paul? Ask Question. Asked 7 years, 6 months ago. Active 8 months ago. Viewed 50k times. First the timeline of events of Paul and Barnabas' falling out: Acts : When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.
Apparently, after this, John-Mark and Paul were reconciled; 2 Timothy b : Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. Further evidence of their reconcilliation comes from Colossians , which has an interesting note in the Amplified version: Aristarchus my fellow prisoner wishes to be remembered to you, as does Mark the relative of Barnabas.
Improve this question. Community Bot 1. Wishing I could upvote this twice! FrankLuke - thanks Frank, but why? Most just make the assumption that the two parted badly and never spoke again.
FrankLuke, perhaps it is a question so few think to ask because "most" don't think they never spoke again. Many, like myself who have taught Bible for 40 yrs, think they reconciled as clear in scripture Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. AD 60 2 Timothy Only Luke is with me. That Luke is willing to record not only the marvelous events during the establishment of the church, but also the rough patches as well, lends credibility to his account.
We can take comfort knowing that even the best of men disagree on occasion. So we know Paul and Barnabas disagreed over whether or not Mark should be taken with them on the second missionary journey, but why? When did this happen? When did Mark abandon them? For that answer we go back to Acts And John Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem. Our path gets a little tricky here because this is all the information we are given, at least directly. Some men a whole lot smarter than me have speculated about the possibility that Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem to alarm the church, reporting that Paul received Gentiles apart from going through the synagogue.
If Mark did in fact alarm the church, it may have stirred up the controversy we find later in Acts Mark joining a journey lead by Paul at this point would have been unwise. Mark likely felt guilty about abandoning the journey to Perga and wanted an opportunity to redeem himself. Barnabas wanted to give Mark this chance at redemption. To be fair, we must note that Mark and Barnabas were cousins Col 4. Galatians 2.
This was the time immediately following the Jerusalem Council. In Galatians 2. So what happened? He ate freely and enjoyed fellowship with the Gentile converts. And not only did Peter exercise this lapse in judgment, but Barnabas was pulled down with him as well Gal 2. Paul confronted Peter regarding their regression from the Gentiles and a peaceful resolution followed. Peter and Barnabas admitted to the error of their ways and restored fellowship with the Gentiles.
Who was right? Barnabas or Paul? Some of the other apostles needed to be convinced. From a maturity in the faith standpoint, I think Barnabas was right in not judging Mark based on his past. He rightly understood that walking with the Lord changes people and the more time they have to walk, the more time they have to change. 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.
0コメント