And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cili'cia, strengthening the churches.
In a Nutshell
Paul and Barnabas no longer work together. They separate over the role to be played by Mark. Barnabas took him back to Cyprus. Paul went off with Silas.
Questions
Think about the disagreement. What was it all about? Do we know?
Luke
lets it all hang out. This is an upsetting passage isn't it? From an early time
there has been a lot of discussion about the exact original wording and its
meaning. And when you think about it, no wonder. Paul, the former student of
Gamaliel, and Barnabas the Levite, parted company. They parted after a bitter
disagreement over Mark. Think about it. Here it is straight after Luke's
account of a most important resolution about a truly daunting and difficult
issue. There would be no separate Jewish and Gentile denominations. When the
Lord's Supper is celebrated Christians share together as One Body. They welcome
each other unreservedly into each other's houses. But now the former Pharisee
and the Levite part company because they disagree about Mark's role in their
work. Paul felt that because Mark had left them in Pamphylia, it was not appropriate
for him to be part of the return visit. He had assisted them on Cyprus and
returned to Jerusalem soon after they reached Perga. I surmise that Mark may
have then been free to leave because of the death of Herod Agrippa. If Barnabas
had taken Mark along with them in the first place, then it may well have been
because he was in danger. Paul and Barnabas slipped out of Jerusalem around the time Peter miraculously
escaped from prison and went into hiding. James, the brother of John, had been
killed so it is feasible that Herod was on the look-out for those who could
receive his kind of special treatment. Why not?
Then,
when Agrippa died, Mark may have realised he was free to return to Jerusalem
when the news finally reached Paul and Barnabas. He had been in the care of his
uncle and it was in that capacity that he rendered a service. We have no more
data to help us understand Paul's attitude to Mark. Luke says it was
contentious, and this is also Luke's last written mention of Barnabas. Luke seem
to avoid taking sides. We should not automatically assume that not going with them to the work meant that
Mark lacked courage or that Paul thought he lacked courage. With matters like
these we should not get our exercise by jumping to quick conclusions. Consider
this. If we admit that a person is not called to a particular task we are not
criticising that person. And maybe God had not called Mark to that work. Luke
is not telling us of Mark's weaknesses - any more than he is telling us of the
weaknesses of Paul and Barnabas and their inability to overcome their
disagreement. What he might be telling us is that God knew the work He had
called Mark to do - a task that nobody else could do.
And
besides, how could you tell the story of how Mark
came to write his gospel if the the 'barney' between Paul and Uncle Barnabas
was left out?