Why did Paul and Barnabas have such a sharp disagreement in Acts 15:39? Setting within the Book of Acts Acts 15 closes the Jerusalem Council (c. AD 49), where the apostles settled the issue of Gentile salvation apart from Mosaic circumcision. Luke immediately records, “And after some time Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing’ ” (Acts 15:36). The church in Syrian Antioch commissions the two men for a second missionary journey that would revisit Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe—regions evangelized in Acts 13–14. Who Was John Mark? • House church host in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) • Cousin to Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) • Assistant on the first journey (Acts 13:5) Mark had left Paul and Barnabas mid-mission at Perga of Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Luke offers no motive, but logistics, illness, hostility, or homesickness have been proposed. Genesis of the Disagreement Barnabas “wanted to take John called Mark” (Acts 15:37), but “Paul thought it best not to take him, since he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work” (v. 38). Two convictions collided: 1. Barnabas (“Son of Encouragement,” Acts 4:36) prioritized restoration and familial loyalty. 2. Paul, forming a lean, resilient team to tackle perilous overland travel through Taurus mountain passes, prioritized proven reliability. The Greek Term Paroxysmos Used in Acts 15:39 and Hebrews 10:24 (“to stir up”), paroxysmos denotes intense emotional contention. Luke’s honesty about apostolic disagreement provides an undesigned mark of authenticity; fabricated propaganda would normally suppress flaws. Guidance of the Holy Spirit despite Conflict Acts presents no censure of either man. Instead, God providentially multiplies ministry: • Barnabas and Mark sail to Cyprus (Acts 15:39) and evidently strengthen churches planted in Acts 13. • Paul selects Silas, commended by Jerusalem leaders (Acts 15:22, 40), and journeys north through Syria and Cilicia (15:41), soon adding Timothy (16:1) and Luke (16:10). Two missionary teams now penetrate the Roman world. Later Reconciliation and Vindication Paul later lists Barnabas as a ministry peer (1 Corinthians 9:6) and describes Mark as “useful to me for service” (2 Timothy 4:11, cf. Colossians 4:10; Phm 24). The New Testament thus records relational restoration, validating Barnabas’s confidence in Mark. Theological Implications 1. Sanctification is progressive; failure does not disqualify permanently. 2. Diverse gifts sometimes produce differing strategies without moral compromise. 3. God’s sovereignty works through human frailty (Romans 8:28). Practical Applications for the Church • Assess team composition with both grace and prudence. • Mentor emerging servants even after failure. • Submit disagreements to Scripture and prayer, trusting God to redirect for greater fruit. Answer in Summary Paul and Barnabas clashed because Barnabas insisted on giving John Mark a second chance, whereas Paul judged Mark presently unfit for the rigors ahead. The contention, though sharp, was neither sinful nor destructive in God’s providence; it produced two missionary teams, eventual reconciliation, and lasting instruction on perseverance, accountability, and divine sovereignty. |
    |