Acts 15:36-41 “Going Separate Ways”

From the Book of Acts, we read that there was a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas. Some Bibles use the term “contention.” I like the term “schism” because that is actually the Greek word that is being used here, and it implies a cutting off the relationship that the terms “disagreement” or “contention” do not. So, a schism is more of the notion that “I don’t want to live in a contentious disagreement with you, so I will cut and run instead.”

How many of us today can think of an example in our own lives when we have decided that we do not want the disagreeable contention in our lives any more and that it would be better to just cut and run? Let us look at the situation between Paul and Barnabas so that we can understand this first schism of the early church.

Paul and Barnabas are almost always today referred to as “Paul and Barnabas.” From our perspective today, Paul is always seen as the more important of the two figures; hence, his name is generally mentioned first. However when we read in the Book of Acts where Paul and Barnabas are mentioned together what do we see? In Acts 11:25 we read, “So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul (later he was called by his Roman name but here the Jewish equivalent ‘Saul’ is used); and when he had found him, brought him back to Antioch. . . .” In verse 30 we read, “and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.”

In Acts 14:12, the people of Lystra give pagan epithets, nicknames, to Barnabas and Paul. They call Barnabas “Zeus,” and Paul they call “Hermes.” Once again, Barnabas comes first and Paul second. Interesting to note is that Barnabas is equated with the chief God of the Greek pantheon while Paul is only equated as a messenger boy who speaks for Barnabas.

In Acts 15:12 we read, “And all the assembly kept silent; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God has done through them among the Gentiles.” Again, Barnabas is seen as more important than Paul.

Even in our Scripture that we read this morning, the actual Greek puts Barnabas ahead of Paul in sentence order. “Μετα δε τινας ημερας ειπεν προς Βαρναβαν Παυλος” Even those who do not speak Greek can hear that Barnabas falls before Paul in this sentence order. Only English grammar requires that Paul be named first in our translated versions of the Bible.

Today we get to talk about getting angry. The text for today tells us that there was a “disagreement” between Paul and Barnabas. I think that that is a carefully chosen word for what happened. The word in the Greek is actually παροξυσμός. If you are a doctor or a nurse you might hear in that word a similar English word “paroxysm.” That is when somebody has a high temperature and starts convulsing. It is also used to describe an active volcanic eruption in geology. It may also be used in everyday speech simply to mean convulsive or fit-like actions. For instance, one can have a paroxysm of laughter when hearing a joke.

I mention all of this because I think our translation has sweetened up the taste of the issue more than it should. Literally, Paul had a paroxysm. He erupted. He had a fit. He got really angry. Eugene Petersen’s translation, called The Message states “tempers flared.” That is still nicer than how I read it from the Greek.

What was Paul so angry about? Well, this other apostle named John Mark (Yes, this is the author of the Gospel of Mark) seemed to have disappointed Paul on a previous trip. John Mark had abandoned Paul and Barnabas on their journey to Pamphylia. John Mark had decided not to join in the mission work there, electing instead to head back to Jerusalem. He headed home in fact.

Okay, so John Mark took a little vacation from the ministry. That is no reason to get so upset. Added to the intrigue is the fact that he is a cousin to Barnabas. Of course, Barnabas is going to stand up to Paul in favor of his cousin John Mark. This then got so heated up that the two men, Paul and Barnabas decide not to continue to do ministry together. They separate. They have the first church “schism.”

Up until this schism, Barnabas is considered a greater leader than Paul in the early church. After Acts 15, Paul begins to become pre-eminent. However, it is Barnabas that is the first leader of the first Christian Church in Antioch. It is Barnabas that introduces Paul to the leaders in Jerusalem and vouches for him (Acts 9:27) as a good Christian. It is Barnabas that is highly respected in the early church because of his Levitical training as a priest (Acts 4:36-37) and his willingness to sacrifice worldly possessions for the faith. This is not the kind of man that we would assume would put so much of himself into his relationship with Paul and then simply cut and run. He was Paul’s encourager, his supporter, and his mentor.

I think, maybe I am right and maybe I am not, that Barnabas looked at the situation with John Mark and Paul and came to the following conclusion: Paul still needs encouragement, support, and a good Christian mentor; but so does John Mark. In fact, John Mark needs a lot more encouragement, support, and mentoring than Paul at this time. Paul’s leadership ability has blossomed. Perhaps it was time to cut the mentoring relationship with Paul so that he could become the leader that God intended him to be. Perhaps it was time to really focus on encouraging John Mark in the faith because he needed this more.

Right after the schism, we have to note that Paul begins to encourage another brother in Christ, Silas, and takes on a mentoring relationship almost immediately with Timothy. After the schism, John Mark grows in the faith tremendously with the encouragement and support of Barnabas and goes on to eventually write the second Gospel, the Gospel of Mark. Not bad for a guy who Paul judged to be lacking in the faith! We should never question or judge another person’s faith—but we should only encourage and support in the faith that God has something in mind for that person.

From the book Barnabas, Encouraging Exhorter by Laura Raab comes this line in regards to the separation of Paul and Barnabas: “Each was probably partly right, for each had convictions, and partly wrong” (p46). I think that Paul and Barnabas probably understood what they were doing was both right and wrong. They both probably had many sleepless nights over the situation. Yes, it was right that Paul was cut loose to become the great leader of the faith that he became. It was right that Barnabas chose to mentor John Mark. However, it was wrong to show the church that two great leaders of the faith could not get along as such. Because Barnabas is the first one to cut and run, he never fully recovers his leadership status among the early churches.

When you break an allegiance of loyalty, you must do it with the greater good in mind, but it will be hurtful. Whenever we speak of “the greater good,” we imply that there is certainly a “lesser wrong” involved. Every time that a friendship is broken, all friendships suffer. Every time a marriage is dissolved, all marriages suffer. Any time that any loyalty is cut, all loyalties become more tenuous. That is why we are all collectively saddened and hurt.

Alan Barth once wrote: “Loyalty. . . depends upon the toleration of disloyalty” (The Loyalty of Free Man, 1951). Barnabas already knew this lesson. He was loyal to John Mark even when John Mark was disloyal to him. Paul had not yet learned this, but later he realizes that he had owed John Mark some loyalty. In Colossians 4:10, Paul writes from his prison cell: “My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)” In the next verse we hear Paul calling John Mark one of his fellow workers. In 2 Timothy 4:11 we read from Paul: “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.” One gets the sense that in the end Paul wanted to correct the wrong against John Mark.

No, you do not stop being loyal to another person just because that person has been disloyal to you. You do not cut and run simply because there is a disagreement. You do not break a relationship because you have come to a conclusion that that person is lacking in some way. You do not rip apart a marriage because you have heard that most marriages end in divorce anyway. You do not quit your job because your boss seems to like another co-worker better. The only time that you get to break your loyalty to an allegiance is when you figure things as Barnabas did and come to the conclusion that there is a greater good that will be served while accepting that it is still in essence a terrible wrong. In other words you cut and run out of a more profound sense of loyalty and sacrificial love than you ever thought possible and with the utter hope that the person you are leaving will one day understand this to be the greater truth of the situation.

CS Lewis once wrote about his childhood friend Owen Barfield (also a writer of great renown): . . .[He] is the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the anti-self. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle. He has read all the right books but has got the wrong thing out of every one. It is as if he spoke your language but mispronounced it. How can he be so nearly right and yet, invariably, just not right? He is as fascinating (and infuriating) as a woman. When you set out to correct his heresies, you find that he forsooth has decided to correct yours! And then you go at it, hammer and tongs. Far into the night, night after night, or walking through fine country that neither gives a glance to, each learning the weight of each other’s punches, and often more like mutually respectful enemies than friends. Actually (though it never seems so at the time) you modify one another’s thought; out of this perpetual dogfight a community of mind and a deep affection emerge. But I think that he changed me a good deal more than I him. [Surprised by Joy, 199-200]

CS Lewis was able to see the larger truth of his friendship with Owen Barfield and could realize that his disagreements with his friend were causing him to grow and be a better person. In this case, the greater good was served by not separating and going their separate ways. You must have this kind of perspective on your own life. How is the greater good going to be served? Stay together? Or, cut and run?

I can easily relate to Barnabas in his dealings with Paul—the hurt he must have felt. We are all often times confronted with the question of whether it is better to just move on from a relationship. Here the bible tells us that it is sometimes the better thing as long as a greater good comes out of it and eventual healing takes place. So, today in Christian circles we still talk about a “Barnabas Act.”

Amen.