In John 17:21, the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father on behalf of the disciples “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). The Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10): “I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
But despite these and many other statements in the New Testament, Christians still have sharp disagreements. Indeed, the very apostle who exhorted Christians to be of “the same mind” and of “the same judgment” did not always attain to that ideal himself. In Acts 15:36-41, we read the sad story of a sharp disagreement between Paul and his close companion, Barnabas—two of the greatest leaders of the early church. What made their disagreement so disheartening was the subsequent division that resulted.
Many of us can think of modern examples of disagreements among true believers. I believe this is part of the explanation for so many different evangelical churches in our day. Sometimes these disagreements have been so sharp that brothers have gone their separate ways even though they may hold the same creed!
These kinds of divisions can challenge our faith. We have a God-given affection for the church of Christ, and it pains our heart to see brethren divided. But the fact remain, good and godly believers (even church leaders!) may sharply disagree and, as a result, divide into separate spheres of ministry. The Bible itself acknowledges this fact. But the Bible’s purpose in revealing these sad realities is not that of the gossip magazine. Its design is not to make us disillusioned and cynical. Rather, the Bible reveals these things for our instruction and edification.
The Incident Recounted
After a brief furlough, Paul decides it’s time to get back on the mission-field. Therefore, he suggests to Barnabas that they revisit their former church-plants to check on the spiritual condition of the brethren and to give them further instruction: “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing” (15:36). Barnabas agrees, but he adds a stipulation: “Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark” (15:37). The Greek word translated, “was determined,” refers to purpose or intent. Barnabas intended to go with Paul on this second journey, but he also intended to take John-Mark.
We’re first introduced to John-Mark back in Acts 12:12, where we are told that he was the son of a Christian woman named Mary. In Colossians 4:10, we learn that Mark was the cousin of none other than Barnabas. So, it’s not surprising that Barnabas would want to take Mark on this missionary journey. But this wouldn’t be the first time Mark had assisted his cousin. According to Acts 13, Mark had accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. So Barnabas’ plan to take Mark on the second missionary journey seems a natural and logical plan.
Paul, however, firmly objects. He “insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work” (15:38). Literally, Paul didn’t consider Barnabas’s plan “worthy of consideration”! Why was Paul so opposed? “Because,” says Paul, “Mark deserted us half-way through our first missionary journey!” Paul’s accusation is confirmed by Acts 13:13, where we’re told that John-Mark “left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Luke doesn’t tell us exactly why Mark left Paul and Barnabas. But the word he uses to describe Mark’s action is commonly used for “apostasy” or “defection” (Lk. 8:13; Heb. 3:12). Mark didn’t apostatize from the faith, but he did apostatize from the ministry. As a result, Paul had some deep concerns. He didn’t believe Mark had the Christian maturity and character necessary for gospel ministry. Therefore, he opposes Barnabas’ plan to take Mark.
This brings us to the sharp disagreement and sad separation that resulted:
Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches (15:39-41).
Perhaps you thought only churches had splits. Here we have an “apostolic split”! And with that split a harmonious partnership comes to an end. Not a pretty picture! This prepares us for our second part of our study.
The Disagreement Assessed
The first question we are compelled to ask is “Who was in the right?” To address this question, let’s consider the matter both from Paul’s as well as Barnabas’ perspective. Paul’s rationale is explicitly mentioned in the text. John-Mark had deserted his post. The apostle would remind us that such defection is a serious matter. He would remind us of the words of Jesus in Luke 9:62: “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Paul would remind us that faithfulness and reliability is an essential prerequisite for Christian ministry (1 Tim 1:12; 1Cor 4:2). And he would also remind us of the danger of putting one’s trust in a man who has proven himself to be unreliable (Prov. 25:19): “Like a bad tooth and an unsteady foot is confidence in a faithless man in time of trouble.” Do you think the captain of a Special Forces unit would be eager to take along a soldier who had just deserted their unit on an earlier mission? Of course, not! This was no doubt Paul’s perspective. This is why he would later tell young Timothy, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin” (1 Tim. 5:22).
It certainly seems that the apostle Paul is acting according to biblical principle. In fact, verse 40 gives us the impression that the church at Antioch may have agreed with Paul: “But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord” (emphasis added). Notice there’s no mention of Barnabas or Mark. On the surface, it seems Paul was right. But before we form a settled judgment, let’s give Barnabas a chance to speak. After all, Solomon wisely reminds us that “the first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Prov 18:17). And as Nicodemus reminded the Jewish council, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:52).
So let’s consider Barnabas’s perspective. Admittedly, the text does not explicitly identify Barnabas’ reasoning. Based on what we’ve seen of Barnabas’ character and based on other NT teaching, however, I think we can infer his perspective. First, I don’t believe Barnabas would have defended Mark’s previous actions in any way. Second, I don’t think Barnabas was indifferent to Paul’s concerns. He would have agreed with Paul that a minister of the gospel must be faithful. However, I believe Barnabas would have reminded his beloved colleague of another biblical principle. That other biblical principle is this: past sin and failure do not preclude future faithfulness and success.
This principle is beautifully illustrated in the life of the apostle Peter. Peter didn’t just desert his Lord and Savior; he denied Jesus three times! It’s hard to know which hurt Jesus more—Judas’ kiss or Peter’s three-fold denial. Thankfully, Peter repented, and Jesus forgave him. In fact, not only did Jesus forgive Peter, but according to John 21, Jesus re-commissioned Peter to the office of apostle. And the Lord didn’t wait five years or three years or one year or even six months. Jesus gave Peter a second chance within 40 days of Peter’s fall! Jesus knew that past sin and failure do not preclude future faithfulness and success.
I suspect Barnabas and Paul were familiar with the story of Peter’s re-commission. I can just hear Barnabas saying to Paul, “Paul, if Peter, why not Mark? If Jesus gave the other disciples who deserted him a second chance, why not Mark?” And I can also hear Barnabas also saying, “Brother, don’t you remember that when the Jerusalem church initially refused to trust you and accept your profession of faith, I was your advocate. Paul, I was right about you. Won’t you concede that I may also be right about Mark?”
What should we think? If I took a poll, there would probably be some who’d say, “I’m of Paul” and other, “I am of Barnabas.” But before we take sides, let me make two important observations. First, the disagreement was not a matter of heresy or immorality, but it was a difference of judgment regarding the application of biblical principle. Neither Paul nor Barnabas was accusing Mark or one another of heresy. This wasn’t a disagreement over one of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the deity of Christ or justification by faith or the hope of the resurrection. Nor was this a disagreement over a black-and-white moral issue. They weren’t debating whether it was appropriate for a minister to live in adultery or to steal or to commit murder. Instead, we have two men fully committed to Christ and to the Scriptures. Both of these men sought to live and labor in accord with biblical principle. The problem is that Paul was putting a greater emphasis on one principle, whereas Barnabas was placing a greater emphasis on another. And as they each placed their biblical principles in the balance, the argument was over which way the scales were tipping.
I believe many disagreements and divisions among brethren today can be boiled down to difference over which biblical principle to emphasize most in a given situation. For example, some pastors believe that forming and joining formal church associations is the way to implement the biblical teaching on unity and cooperation among churches. Other pastors are zealous to protect the autonomy of the local church, and are therefore opposed to forming or joining formal church associations. The result: we have associational and non-associational Baptist churches. And we can probably think of more examples: differences over methods of evangelism, styles of worship, approaches to childrearing, etc. Oftentimes these differences boil down to differences regarding the application of biblical principle. This was certainly true in the case of Barnabas and Paul.
But who was right? That brings me to my second observation: the Bible doesn’t demand us to take sides in this particular case. I don’t believe the immediate context or the rest of Scripture gives a clear judgment either for Paul or for Barnabas. The reference in verse 40 to the brethren commending Paul and Silas to the grace of the Lord doesn’t necessarily mean they were taking Paul’s side. It may simply mean that in spite of Paul’s separation from Barnabas the church in Antioch wasn’t going to cut Paul off. They’d still recognize his ministry as well as Barnabas’ ministry. And even if they were siding with Paul, it doesn’t mean they were right.
We know that Mark turned out to be a faithful minister of the gospel, and even Paul acknowledged this to be the case! In this letter to the Colossians, he refers to Mark as a “fellow laborer,” and in his final letter to Timothy, he writes, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service” (2 Tim. 4:11). Moreover, not only was Mark useful to Paul. He became useful to Peter. Peter refers to him affectionately in his first epistle as his “son” in the ministry. According to tradition, it was this same Mark who under Peter’s direction and supervision became the human author of the second Gospel in our New Testament! That doesn’t mean Paul was wrong in his concerns about Mark at the time of his judgment. It does suggest, however, that Barnabas had a point.
So, what should we conclude about this strong disagreement and sad separation? I don’t believe the Bible demands us to take one side or the other. In fact, I believe the safest path is that taken by most commentators. Most commentators believe that both of these men were partly in the right, but they were also partly in the wrong. Which was mostly right and which was mostly wrong we probably cannot know this side of the grave. That’s my assessment.
Some Lessons Learned
In light of what we’ve seen, how should we view and respond to some of the disagreements and divisions among godly brothers in our day?
1. Disagreements and Divisions Happen
We need to face the reality that godly brothers may have sharp disagreements and even sad divisions. Commenting on this incident, John Piper writes, “Here the bubble of idealism bursts on the needle of reality.”1Cited from Piper’s sermon “The Weakness of a Great Leader,” which was accessed on April 26, 2005 here: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/87/071987.html. Internet. Sometimes we have too idealistic a view of the church and church leaders. And when some church or church leader disappoints us, we’re tempted to question the power of the gospel. We’re tempted to give up on the Christian faith. But God wants us to be biblical realists. He wants us to set our affections on things above, but He also wants us to keep our feet planted on the earth. As a result, we can’t expect to enjoy the degree of unanimity and unity that we’ll someday enjoy in glory.
Is your faith strong enough to accept that? Can you live with the reality that remaining sin may have clouded to some degree even the judgment of godly apostles? And if remaining sin could hinder the harmonious relationship of two godly apostles and send them in opposite directions, it shouldn’t surprise us when godly leaders and genuine believers strongly disagree and even separate from each other in our own day. Even the best of men are but men at best.
Can you live with the fact that God has not given us all the answers to every judgment call we have to make in this life? It’s true that God has revealed to us everything we need to know in order to be saved and to live lives that are pleasing to Him. This is what we call the “sufficiency of Scripture.” But God has not revealed to us everything we would like to know. Paul refers to this fact in 1 Corinthians 13 where he says,
For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come [that is, when Christ returns and the Age to Come is ushered in], then that which is in part [both mode of revelation and the knowledge it imparts] will be done away (9-10).
The day is coming, Paul goes on to say in verse 12, when we will “know fully just as [we] also have been fully known.” Until that time, we live in an age in which revelation and the knowledge it imparts is partial and, in a sense, incomplete. I like to think of it as a large puzzle. God has given us enough pieces of that puzzle to enable us to make out the picture. We can see what God wants us to see. However, there are some pieces of that puzzle that are missing. There are some details that we cannot see and will not see until we get to heaven. This is one reason why genuine Christians don’t always arrive at the same conclusions in their attempt to apply biblical principle. And as Matthew Henry correctly observes, “We shall never be all of a mind till we come to heaven, where light and love are perfect.”2A Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6:200.
Is our faith strong enough to accept this? Can we live with the imperfections of this age? I believe God wants us to. So He takes the needle of Acts 15 and pops the bubble of unhealthy idealism. He doesn’t do it to make us disillusioned or cynical. He does it to help us learn to cope with the challenges of living in a sin-cursed world.
2. Take Sides? Maybe Not
We learn that though we may not overlook brotherly disagreements and divisions, yet we do not always have to take sides. Sometimes we do have to take sides. But in many cases, we don’t. We don’t have to form firm opinions. We may have concerns. We may have suspicions. But in many cases, it may be the better part of wisdom to leave the matter with the Lord. That seems to be what Luke is doing here. Luke doesn’t try to gloss over this sad situation. He doesn’t try to sweep it under the rug. But neither does Luke compel us to pick sides—nor does the Holy Spirit for that matter. Apparently, God doesn’t want us to know who was mostly right and who was mostly wrong.
I think that’s true of many disagreements among believers today. Why is it that two great Christian leaders labor in different ministries? Why don’t they attend the same pastors’ conferences? Why don’t they support the same missionary? Why doesn’t “Church A” have more communion with “Church B”? They’re in the same city. They hold the same doctrinal beliefs. Why aren’t they working together more? Brothers, God doesn’t always expect us to take sides. Therefore, resist the temptation to figure it all out and commit both sides to the Lord (Phil. 3:15).
3. God Can Overrule for Good
We learn that God’s providence is able to overrule such disagreements and divisions for good. This is not to deny the devil’s involvement in such disagreements and divisions. I’m quite sure he was able to get some mileage out of this apostolic split. As Matthew Henry suggests, the enemies of Christ would no doubt warm their hands at the flames of contention between Paul and Barnabas.3Ibid. But as John Piper notes, “The celebrations of hell are very soon ruined by the sovereign wisdom and grace of God.”4“The Weakness of a Great Leader.” What the devil intended for evil, God intended for good. As Paul reminds us in Romans 8:28: “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” God uses His blessings for our good. God uses persecution and suffering for our good. And God even uses disagreements and divisions among genuine believers for the ultimate good of the church and glory of His name.
How so, you ask? Consider the following. First, as a result of this split between Barnabas and Paul, the missionary endeavor doubled in manpower. Instead of one missionary party consisting of two; now there would be two missionary parties consisting of four. And I suspect Silas counted Paul’s invitation a blessing and answer to prayer!
Second, now that the missionary endeavor had doubled in size, more work could be done and new churches could be planted. Paul’s original proposal to Barnabas was merely to revisit the churches they had already planted. But God had other plans. God wanted the work to expand into Macedonia and Greece. Therefore, Almighty God by a wise and holy decree permitted Paul and Barnabas to disagree and divide in order to bring the gospel to un-reached lands. After assessing this disagreement and division, Conybeare and Howson write:
Of this at least we are certain, that the quarrel was overruled by Divine Providence to a good result. One stream of missionary labor had been divided, and the regions blessed by the waters of life were proportionately multiplied.5The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 194.
Third, not only does God cause such things to work together for the good of the church and the spread of the gospel; I also believe He’s able to use them for the good of those involved in the disagreement and division. Think of how God may have used both Barnabas and Paul for Mark’s good. On the one hand, Barnabas’s willingness to restore Mark gave the young man hope. One commentator remarked, “Humanly speaking, Mark may have dropped out of Christ’s service altogether” were it not for Barnabas.6William LaSor, Great Personalities of the New Testament, 126. On the other hand, I suspect that God used Paul’s perspective for Mark’s good as well. Can’t you picture Mark more determined than ever to show Paul by God’s grace that he really is useful to the ministry? In fact, God probably used this disagreement for the good of Barnabas and Paul. Perhaps, as a result of Paul’s emphasis on faithfulness, Barnabas became more watchful and demanding of Mark. Perhaps, Barnabas’s emphasis upon grace helped Paul to become a bit more sensitive and patient in his later ministry. We do know that in later years Paul would do for a slave named Onesimus, what Barnabas did for Mark. Paul would become Onesimus’s advocate and ask the slave’s master, Philemon, to give Onesimus another chance. So let’s look for ways in which God might be using the disagreements and divisions among godly brothers for their good, for our good, and for the glory of His name.
4. God’s Kingdom Marches On
We learn that in spite of such disagreements and divisions, the work of God’s kingdom goes forward. We have here one of the most tragic splits in all of church history—two of the greatest apostles divided! But this disagreement and division between Paul and Barnabas did not stop Christ from advancing His kingdom. It did not stop Paul and Barnabas from doing the work of missions. It did not paralyze the church. God’s people kept on doing what God had called them to do. And because they persevered, you and I are gather in Christian churches to worship 2,000 years later!
We too must persevere despite disagreements and division. Therefore, let’s not become disillusioned or cynical. Let’s not give up hope. Let’s remember the words of Paul to the church in Corinth—a church that was struggling with disagreements and divisions: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). That’s how God wants us to respond when brethren disagree. May He grant us the grace we need!
5. Keep Praying for Each Other
We learn it’s possible for brethren to have sharp differences over matters of principle and yet to remain supportive of one another’s labors for the kingdom. What do we do when we’re one of the brothers having a disagreement? Even though Barnabas and Paul had such a sharp disagreement and even though they found it necessary from that point on to work separately, yet the Bible seems to indicate that both parties continued to view one another as faithful brethren and were overall supportive of one another’s labors in the Lord. Paul continued to view and refer to Barnabas as an apostle of Christ and fellow laborer for the kingdom (1 Cor 9:5-6). I suspect that he who exhorted the brethren to pray for “all the saints” did so himself (Eph 6:18). Paul kept Barnabas and Mark on his prayer list. And I think we can reasonably assume that Barnabas and Mark continued to pray for Paul.
Brothers, don’t take everyone who disagrees with you off your prayer list. You may not have the same degree of responsibility to pray for someone who has left the church as you did when he was a member. But you may still pray for him as God brings them to your mind and gives you opportunity. You say, “I’ll still pray for them all right. I’ll pray they get right with God and see things my way!” Very well. But also pray that God may bless them inasmuch as they are walking in the truth. And inasmuch as they’re not walking in the truth pray that God might have mercy on them. Just don’t take them off your list.
Furthermore, don’t allow your disagreement to be so firm and your separation to be so fixed, that it cannot be revised in the future. Paul had to later revise his opinion about Mark. As it turned out, Mark became a very faithful and useful minister. As it turned out, Barnabas’s willingness to give Mark a second chance paid off. And not only was Paul willing to revise his opinion about Mark and commend him to others. But he was also willing and humble enough to ask Mark for help. To Timothy he writes, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service” (1 Tim 4:11). Can you imagine the joy in Mark’s heart as the he learned that Paul, who once doubted his usefulness, now desired his service!
So too, brothers, let us always be willing to revise our judgment calls. There are some convictions regarding clear doctrine and biblical ethics that we may not revise. But when it comes to making judgment calls based on the application of biblical principle, we should at least be willing to revise our opinions. And that won’t be so difficult to do if we maintain a disposition of brotherly love. That’s why Paul urges believers not to lose sight of the value and importance of brotherly love in our quest for knowledge:
Love is patient …
Love is kind …
Love is not arrogant …
Love is not easily provoked …
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things! (1 Cor. 13:4-7)
May God grant us greater measures of this love!
Leave a Reply