Acts 15:35-39
EVERY Christian reader of the Acts of the Apostles has been arrested at this pathetic incident. What did it not cost the great heart of Paul? Had it been Apollos or Philip the evangelist, had it been one of the twelve, or even Cephas, it would have been sore trial to his spirit. But the rupture of cooperation with Barnabas, for it did not exceed that limit, must have been anguish to him.
Was it not the Son of Consolation, who, when all the faithful in Jerusalem were afraid of Paul (not believing him to be a disciple), took him and brought him to the apostles and related to them his seeing the Lord and His speaking to him, and his bold testimony to the name of Jesus in Damascus? Was it not the same (for he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith), who, when sent to Antioch to investigate the work of the Lord first informally carried on among the Greeks, went off to Tarsus to seek him who was still called Saul, to its mighty furtherance at Antioch? Were not they also singled out and associated in the help sent to the brethren in Judaea when famine was predicted by Agabus? Were not they two separated by and to the Spirit for the first or express missionary work to which they were called? And after that most fruitful errand among the Gentiles, was it not arranged that Paul and Barnabas, though not alone, should go up to Jerusalem from Antioch to have the question of circumcision settled according to God where and whence fleshly influence sought to press it to the danger of the gospel and the damage of the church? And no wonder; for it was the virtual denial of Christ, the dead and risen Savior, the glorified Head on high. Were they not, in the letter which emanated from that notable assembly with the apostles and elders, characterized as “our beloved Barnabas and Paul,” men having given up (or staked) their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?
And now, not long after, must there be an open breach as far as concerned joint service between souls so closely and long united? It was even so. At Antioch before they had been separated by the Spirit for the work; there now they parted never to be so joined again. “And Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and evangelizing with many others also the word of the Lord, But after some days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren where we have evangelized the word of the Lord, how they fare. And Barnabas wished to take with them also John that was called Mark; but Paul thought proper as to him that withdrew from them from Pamphylia and went not with them to the work, not to take him with them. And a provocation arose, so that they parted from one another, and Barnabas took with him Mark and sailed for Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and set out, commended to the grace of the Lord by the brethren” &c. (vers, 35-39).
There ought not to be a question that Barnabas was wrong, and that Paul was right, in this painful difference. Yea, a principle was at stake, which the Holy Spirit saw fit to record for permanent admonition, even though it laid bare the failure of an eminently blessed witness of Christ. This very fact attests how momentous it must be that other servants of God far below either of those concerned should take heed. Yet if it had not been here presented with the adequate notice of inspired authority, what on the one hand could have seemed more gracious than that Barnabas should desire a fresh opportunity to efface the past discredit of his cousin? And how many at all times would on the other hand be ready to implite rigor to him whose delight was in grace beyond all other men? But the grace he delighted in was according to truth; both made him all the more jealous for the Lord's glory. From this Barnabas had swerved into amiable feeling where it had no place but was the power of the Spirit devotedly and without compromise.
The case before us is all the more emphatic because it is the mildest form of failure one can conceive. No dark spot was on the name of John Mark. Never was he accused of loving this present age or of seeking to stand well with the religious world. He was no fawner on the rich and great. He was no despiser of the poor, nor covetous of social distinction. Still less could it be said that he shirked the reproach and the sufferings of the Christian life; or that he declined the constant burdens and trials of that holy fellowship. Nobody taxed him with half-heartedness to the “within” which grace has formed, or could lay the charge of coquetting with such as ought to be avoided scripturally. He that was in due time honored of God to write the inspired narrative of our Lord's service incurred no suspicion of laxity or indifference. Who could accuse him of barely keeping within the form of communion or of cultivating the friendship of its adversaries?
No; John Mark had grown weary of the labor, scorn, and opposition of the first apostolic journey from Antioch; and Paul refused association with him again in that work till his consecration of spirit was proved beyond dispute. Paul would have no honey any more than leaven in the oblation; he looked for unction from the Holy One, and that seasoning of salt which should never be lacking. Barnabas alas! in this question thought more of his relative than of the Master, confounded graciousness with grace, slighted the wise and holy warning of Paul, and henceforth lost notice for himself and his work in the divine records of the chronicle which tells the tale. Nor this only; for when Paul chose Silas and set out, he was recommended to the grace of the Lord by the brethren (compare Acts 13:1-4; 14:26). Nothing of the kind is said of Barnabas now, but an ominous silence prevails.
It was in vain for Barnabas to talk about his “right” any more than “love” or “largeness of heart,” pleas often urged in excuse without the least real ground. No one trenched on John Mark's title to fellowship with any or all of its privileges.
No one forbade John Mark to preach where he pleased over “the field;” nor did anyone desire to close his mouth in the assembly, be it in dangerous and evil; whereas the service demanded Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But it was quite another thing after his failure, to put him forward again till his recovery was proved, in a service conspicuous and weighty and as honorable as full of difficulty. What consistent part could he take in a testimony of hardness and danger, who was known to have so soon withdrawn himself, even before persecution grew hot, or shameful usage set in, or resisting unto blood? How could a runaway not yet restored exhort the disciples to continue in the faith? With what face could such a one preach that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom?
Alas! in our day far more glaring is the incongruity which a fleshly or worldly-minded policy dictates. And the low scattered state of Christendom is often argued as its excuse or extenuation. But that low state is never rightly used save to overcome it by faith, certainly not to yield to it by those who profess to feel its evil, which is but to sink lower still. What could expose the testimony of God's truth to greater ignominy and juster censure for hollowness than to put forward men whose ways are glaringly out of harmony with their theme, and even a source of continual pain and shame to those that love them best?
Besides, when a self-willed act like this takes place, which violates the spiritual sense of true-hearted souls as not of the Lord, whatever the motives, it naturally (not to say inevitably) breeds party and division. For the faithful and wise cannot but blame it, especially if initiated without seeking counsel or yet worse if pursued against it. There is in our day and perhaps always a radical spirit, ready to oppose those whom God has given to lead or guide, and as ready to support such as are disposed to independency and self-assertion. For the same person who plays the despot in his own sphere often incites to insubordination elsewhere. What can the unhallowed issue be but confusion and every evil work?
It is a comfort to think that eventually grace blessed, not the weak temporizing of Barnabas, but the fidelity of Paul. For, years after, he was led by the Spirit to write cordially in favor of Mark (Col. 4:10, 11, Philem. 1:24 Tim. 4:11): a joy at the end greater than the sorrow of earlier days, when he refused to sanction the wish of his dearest friend, even at the cost of parting from him as a colleague.