Acts 15:36-41 (Paul & Barnabas) -- 7/15/07 (The Lord's Church)

Sunday, July 15, 2007

PAUL AND BARNABAS
Acts 15:36-41

Is there any salvation outside of Jesus Christ? What if a person is humble and loves his fellowman? Is there any hope for him outside of Jesus? I remind you of what Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:6). And we read the words of Peter in Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." This is a great eternal truth that cannot be compromised. There are other things we are not so sure about. If I were to ask you the question, "Should a Christian purchase health insurance?" there would be disagreement. While we would like to agree on everything, the simple truth is that we don’t. Here is a question that will always confront us: What are the most important issues? What are the issues upon which we cannot and will not compromise?

The last two weeks we have looked at Acts 15, which gives us the record of the deliberations and the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. That gathering came about as a result of the dispute at Antioch of Syria, when certain men came from Judaea and began to teach the disciples that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved. After "no small dissension and disputation," the Antioch church sent Paul, Barnabas, and some other brothers up to Jerusalem to discuss with the apostles and elders there this very divisive issue.

Praise God for the way He worked in that gathering. Though there was strong opinions that could have torn the church to pieces, the Spirit of God worked among the people of God to arrive at the truth of God and deliver the decision of God. That decision is briefly stated in Acts 15:19-20, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Last week we took some time to look at the remarkable unity that was evident in Jerusalem among God’s people. Let’s read again those strong statements… 22. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men…" 23. "And t hey wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting..." 25. "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men…" 28. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." It wasn’t just the leaders who agreed, but the entire assembly was in agreement. And this agreement was not some sort of outward harmony that they were able to achieve, but it was a vital unity produced by the Spirit of God Himself.

So this large assembly, being confronted by the most difficult issue ever to face a Christian assembly, could say with confidence that the Holy Spirit was guiding in the decisions made. And when the letter was delivered to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilica, they "rejoiced for the consolation." Not only was the truth of the gospel preserved, but fellowship within the church of Jesus Christ was advanced. Both Jews and Gentiles rejoiced together in the body of Christ.

Now we come to the last part of chapter 15. Let’s read it in Acts 15:36-41…
And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40. And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. 41. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

What happened to the unity about which we have been reading? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. How things change in a hurry. What happened to this great unity about which we read in chapter 15? Had Paul and Barnabas forgotten?

Let’s take a few moments to look at the three main people involved. I say "three," because I want to include Luke, the man who wrote this account. Remember that Luke was the author of the third gospel account, the one that bears his name, as well as this book of Acts. So let’s look at the role of Luke, Paul, and Barnabas.

Luke… Let’s commend Luke for being honest and not glossing over this incident. While Luke was a Christian and later joined Paul on this second missionary trip, he was also an accurate historian. In the past, many questioned the accuracy of Luke’s writing, especially with regard to the travels of Paul. However, through careful study, it has been found that Luke was extremely accurate in what he tells us. On this occasion, he tells things as they happened, not as he would have liked them to happen.

In recent times there has been a multiplication of those who are spreading the idea that the Bible is the work of the church, centuries after Jesus walked the earth. In other words, this isn’t the account of a historian named Luke, but the work of later writers who either wrote a fictitious work, or who doctored the documents that came from the first century. But surely we can see that this very account makes such a charge ridiculous. If the church had been intent on producing a New Testament that would be acceptable to the natural man, this is one section that would have never been included. It would have been foolish for them to raise questions about the character of two heroes in the early church. And we could name many other New Testament passages that could have conveniently been left out. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible tells it like it is, and that was certainly true of Luke.

Paul… So in this dispute between Paul and Barnabas, was Paul right? Or, was he wrong? We can certainly understand Paul’s concern. After all, Mark did desert them early on during their missionary endeavor. Of course, it would further our understanding, if we knew why Mark left, but we aren’t told. The Spirit of God did not lead Luke to record the reason. If Mark did not have some compelling reason for leaving, you can understand Paul’s reluctance to take him along again. We cannot conclude that Paul was down on young John Mark, that he wrote him off, simply because he didn’t want to take him on this trip. It may be that Paul didn’t believe it was time for Mark to take on such a role. Perhaps he needed some seasoning and maturity before joining them on another mission trip.

Those who would see Paul in the right and Barnabas in the wrong might point to verse 40, "And Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God." It seems that Paul had the endorsement of the church of Antioch. Barnabas, on the other hand, took Mark with him and sailed for Cyprus. Nothing is said about the church sending them out. Neither Barnabas or Mark is mentioned again in the book of Acts.

Barnabas… So what about Barnabas? Was he right in insisting that they take Mark with them? Or, should he have yielded to Paul, let go of his preference, and accompanied Paul on this second missionary journey? As we ask these questions, we have a certain regret that the Lord didn’t give us more information. The truth is that we are not given enough details to form firm conclusions.

From what we are told, surely we cannot conclude that Barnabas was the one in the wrong. Remember that Barnabas is well described by the meaning of his name, "son of encouragement" (son of consolation). While Paul must have had a great concern for the effectiveness of the mission work, Barnabas had a great concern for the spiritual development of the young man John Mark, who was dear to him. (Mark was the cousin, uncle, or some relative of Barnabas, depending on which translation you read in Col. 4:10). As we see in this passage, Barnabas did end up taking Mark under his wing, as they set out to do mission work in Barnabas’ native Cyprus.

While those who favor the view that Paul was in the right can point to the endorsement of the church at Antioch, those who side with Barnabas can point to the fact that God did use Mark later on. Let’s look at the other New Testament passages where Mark is mentioned…

Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)"
II Tim. 4:11, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."
Philemon 1:23-24, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers."
I Pet. 5:13, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

Notice especially the note in II Tim. 4:11. Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to him, "for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Praise God! Here at the end of Acts 15, Paul did not see Mark as being profitable to him for the ministry. That is the very reason he refused to take Mark with him. But now things are different. We don’t know why? While it is true that Mark may have matured greatly in the Lord, there are those who would contend that it was Barnabas’ willingness to take Mark under his wing that made the difference. While Paul didn’t have the patience to work with this young man, Barnabas devoted himself to the task and made a great difference in Mark’s life. Perhaps that’s the way it was, but we don’t know for sure.

So should we see this disagreement as any problem at all? Were Paul and Barnabas simply pawns in the Lord’s hand? That is, did they disagree in order that the Lord might launch two mission teams instead of just one? This aspect is often emphasized. Had they not disagreed, there would have been no mission endeavor to Cyprus. What about that line of thinking? While God is certainly able to work things together for good, that does not necessarily excuse Paul and Barnabas for the sharp contention between them.

This much we know. Despite the conflict between these two men of God, the Lord did preserve the strong relationship between them. In I Cor. 9 Paul refers to Barnabas as a fellow-apostle. I Cor. 9:5-6, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" (This letter was written some six to eight years after the events of Acts 15). And let’s read again Col. 4:10, "Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him.)" Such references reveal that there was no lasting division between Paul and Barnabas. I suspect that before they had gone very far in their respective mission endeavors, there was friendly correspondence and mutual prayer for one another.

Now please think with me for a minute. Earlier I asked the question: What happened to the unity about which we have read in Acts 15? Whereas a great multitude had unity in such a crucial issue, now just two of that number could not agree on whether or not to take John Mark with them as a missionary. What happened?

We must understand the great difference between the two issues involved. The issue before the Jerusalem Conference was one of earth-shattering proportions. They were dealing with the question of what was necessary for salvation. Their decision would affect thousands upon thousands for centuries to come. The issue Paul and Barnabas faced here at Antioch was very different in nature. While it is true that every issue is important, this issue could not compare with the decision of the Jerusalem Conference.

The issue facing Paul and Barnabas was also different in that it was not a clear matter of right and wrong. At the Jerusalem Conference, there was a crucial truth at stake. Could a person be saved apart from the law, or could he not? It couldn’t be both ways; it was one way or the other. Eternal truth was at stake. This was not the case with the conflict between Paul and Barnabas. It would be difficult to say that one man was totally right and the other totally wrong. We have explored some of the possibilities, but we can’t go beyond that.

Can you see it? The fact that these two heroes of the faith disagreed shouldn’t destroy us. Norman and I are undershepherds in this local body, but we don’t agree on everything. I hope that doesn’t shock you. However, we are totally agreed that Jesus is the only way to God the Father, that salvation is in Christ alone and does not depend upon keeping the law. Let me repeat it again – disagreements among the people of God are inevitable. Perhaps that is the main reason the Spirit included this incident in the book of Acts, to show us that even mighty men of God are capable of disagreeing. There are many issues that are not as crucial and not as black and white as the issue of what is required for salvation.

Let me bring it down to where we live. Concerning building on the slab out here, we do not all agree. Some believe building would glorify the Lord. Others believe the Lord would be glorified more, if the money were spent on missions. I believe what we find here in Acts 15 is very applicable to our situation. Just as some would side with Barbnabas and others would side with Paul, there are good arguments on both sides of our building question. So does that mean that God cannot bring us into agreement, that God does not have a perfect will for us? Surely we can’t say that it doesn’t matter which way we go. Doesn’t everything matter to God?

The truth is that we are weak when it comes to hearing the voice of the Lord. None of us see perfectly. Yes, we should be able to come to perfect agreement, but the truth is that we haven’t. Now the biggest question is this: How will we handle the disagreement? First of all, we don’t let it destroy us. Let us take heart in the fact that even Paul and Barnabas experienced a contention so sharp that they parted ways for a while. No, that shouldn’t have happened, but it did. However, they were still unified in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference. Though we are not specifically told, I can assure you that both Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to Gentiles, as well as to Jews, assuring one and all that salvation was only through God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Concerning our building situation, those who are hesitant to spend the money to build on the slab have yielded to those who are strongly convicted that we should build. Some might see that as compromise in a bad sense, but surely that is not the case. I certainly believe that God either does want us to build on the slab or doesn’t want us to build on the slab. It is a bit sad that we can’t discern the Lord’s will more accurately in this matter, but we have to face reality. As with Paul and Barnabas, we do not yet see clearly, but through a glass darkly.

So what is our attitude to be, as we confront issues upon which we don’t agree? We realize our weakness, seek the Lord, and move on, focusing as much as possible upon the eternal issues of life. As we build the addition on the slab, that is not our focus. Our focus is on glorifying the Lord, as we seek to know Him and make Him known.

Over 20 years ago, we were putting in the doublewide mobile home in which Rhonda and I now live. A man who was a leader in church work was here for a meeting and made a comment something like this: "Ron, if I were a pastor again, I would always have something like this happening, so that the people in the church could always see that something is going on, that we are doing something." Brothers and sisters, that is wrong. There is a place for doing physical things. After all, we live in a physical body and it must be cared for. Nevertheless, the physical must never distract us from the spiritual; the temporal must not take precedence over the eternal.

Col. 3:1-4… "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
2 Cor. 4:15-18… "For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I would like to close by sharing with you something I discovered as I was studying this passage. I’m not sure exactly what to make of it, but I find it very interesting. As I was reading this passage, there was a question which occurred to me: "How serious was this conflict between Paul and Barnabas? I know they disagreed, but how serious a disagreement was it?" Then we read in verse 39, "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took mark, and sailed unto Cyrpus." Notice those words, "the contention was so sharp." The NASV, NIV, and Amplified Bible all refer to it as a sharp disagreement.

Please do a brief word study with me. "Sharp contention" (sharp disagreement) is the translation of the single Greek word paroxusmoV. It is found only twice in the New Testament, once here and then again in Heb. 10:24, "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:" More literally, "Let us consider one another unto the provoking of love and good works." So we see that the word is used once in a negative sense, and then once in a positive sense.

While this word is found only twice in the New Testament, it has a verb from [paroxunw] which also occurs twice. Acts 17:16, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry." Paul’s spirit was stirred in him. I Cor. 13:5, "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil." The phrase that contains the word is "is not easily provoked." "Is easily provoked" is the translation of this one word. Notice that this verb form is also used once negatively and once positively.

Isn’t it interesting that we can be provoked or stirred up for good or for evil. Praise God that Paul’s spirit was stirred when he saw the idolatry in Athens. Praise God that the Lord can enable us to provoke one another, to stir one another to love and good works. On the other hand, God’s love is not provoked. It is not stirred up to misbehave and focus on self. This word that should point to a stirring up of one another to good works became a source of irritation between two saints of the Lord. It is wonderful to know that it didn’t remain that way. If and when we become irritated with one another, may it not remain that way for long. May we seek reconciliation, that the Lord may be glorified in and through us.

Let me give you a little assignment. I ask you to read through the first three chapters of Ephesians and then at least the first seven verses of chapter 4. If the Lord continues to lead in that direction, we will look at spiritual unity in that context next Sunday morning.

We haven’t talked much about the gospel and the glorious salvation of the Lord this morning, but you will read it in abundance, as you go through the first three chapters of Ephesians.