Acts 15:37

15:36-41 Here we have a private quarrel between two ministers, no less than Paul and Barnabas, yet made to end well. Barnabas wished his nephew John Mark to go with them. We should suspect ourselves of being partial, and guard against this in putting our relations forward. Paul did not think him worthy of the honour, nor fit for the service, who had departed from them without their knowledge, or without their consent: see ch.

Acts 15:37-41 . And Barnabas determined — Greek, εβουλευσατο , counselled, or advised; to take with them — As their minister; John — His nephew, who had set out with them before. But Paul thought not good — Thought it not proper; to take him who departed, &c. — Who had shown such cowardice or fickleness as to desert them in Pamphylia; who had shrunk from the labour and danger of converting those whom they were now going to confirm. And the contention was so sharp — Greek, εγενετο παρο , ξυσμος , there was a paroxysm. It is a medical term, signifying a fit of a fever; and here means, a sharp fit of anger; but nothing in the text implies that the sharpness was on both sides. It is far more probable that it was not; that Paul, who had had the right on his side, maintained it with love. The strife, however, between these good men, which certainly was to be lamented, was made the occasion of a more extensive spread of the gospel. For Barnabas sailed with Mark into Cyprus, to visit the churches which he and Paul had planted there in their former journey: and Paul, choosing Silas, who was himself a prophet, and a chief man among the brethren, departed to pursue the course which he had intended; being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God — Which recommendation we do not find that Barnabas waited for.

And he went through Syria and Cilicia — Which was his native country, (as Cyprus was that of Barnabas,) confirming the churches — Which had been planted in those parts, in their adherence to the Christian faith. These churches in Cilicia had been formed before the council held in Jerusalem, and probably by Paul. It appears, not only that Paul and Barnabas were afterward thoroughly reconciled, ( 1 Corinthians 9:6 ; Galatians 2:9 ,) but also that John was again admitted by Paul as a companion in his labours, Colossians 4:10 ; Philemon 1:24 ; 2 Timothy 4:11 .

Acts 15:37 . Μάρκον , Mark ) his kinsman. Mark seems to have caught up a fresh feeling of alacrity, on the free admission of the Gentiles having been decreed in the council: but, ch. Acts 13:13 , he had neglected the opportunity which he had had of proving himself, in the cross which ensued at that time: therefore he experiences the severity of Paul, who, however, afterwards again admitted him to favour: Colossians 4:10 ; 2 Timothy 4:11 . One may continue in the number of believers, and that, too, in a distinguished place, and yet lose some special dignity,—be acknowledged as pious, and yet be excluded from some special distinction. Comp. Ezekiel 44:10 .

Verse 37. - Was minded for determined , A.V. and T.R.; John also for John , A.V. and T.R.; who was called for whose surname was , A.V. Was minded . It is doubtful which is the true reading, ἐβουλεύσατο or ἐβούλετο . The difference of meaning is small. The first means "took council with himself," i . e. planned, thought, to take Barnabas; the second, "wished," i . e. his deliberate will was to take Barnabas. Singularly enough, Alford, who rejects ἐβούλετο , which is the reading of R.T., translates ἐβουλεύετο by "was minded," which is the translation of ἐβούλετο in the R.V. We see in this choice of Mark by Barnabas the natural partiality of a near relation. We may also see the same flexibility of disposition which made him yield to the influence of the emissaries of James ( Galatians 2:13 ). Who was called . It might seem odd that this description of John should be repeated here after having been given in Acts 12:25 . But perhaps it was usual so to designate him (see Luke 8:2 ; Luke 22:3 ; Matthew 10:3 ; Acts 1:23 ; Acts 10:6 ). Acts 15:37

(37) Barnabas determined. —The Greek verb is hardly so strong, better, was minded. The ties of relationship led the uncle, or cousin, to wish to make another trial of his kinsman’s fitness ( Colossians 4:10 ). He saw extenuating circumstances which St. Paul could not recognise, and which half-excused his turning back when he had set his hand to the plough. (See Note on Acts 13:13 .) To St. Paul one who had so acted, seemed, in our Lord’s words, “not fit for the kingdom of God,” and needing at least the discipline of rejection for a time, from the higher work for which he had shown himself unworthy.

Acts A GOOD MAN’S FAULTSActs 15:37 - Acts 15:38 . Scripture narratives are remarkable for the frankness with which they tell the faults of the best men. It has nothing in common with the cynical spirit in historians, of which this age has seen eminent examples, which fastens upon the weak places in the noblest natures, like a wasp on bruises in the ripest fruit, and delights in showing how all goodness is imperfect, that it may suggest that none is genuine. Nor has it anything in common with that dreary melancholy which also has its representatives among us, that sees everywhere only failures and fragments of men, and has no hope of ever attaining anything beyond the common average of excellence. But Scripture frankly confesses that all its noblest characters have fallen short of unstained purity, and with boldness of hope as great as its frankness teaches the weakest to aspire, and the most sinful to expect perfect likeness to a perfect Lord, It is a plane mirror, giving back all images without distortion. We recall how emphatically and absolutely it eulogised Barnabas as ‘a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith’-and now we have to notice how this man, thus full of the seminal principle of all goodness, derived into his soul by deep and constant communion through faith, and showing in his life practical righteousness and holiness, yet goes sadly astray, tarnishes his character, and mars his whole future.

The two specific faults recorded of him are his over-indulgence in the case of Mark, and his want of firmness in opposition to the Judaising teachers who came down to Antioch. They were neither of them grave faults, but they were real. In the one he was too facile in overlooking a defect which showed unfitness for the work, and seems to have yielded to family affection and to have sacrificed the efficiency of a mission to it. Not only was he wrong in proposing to condone Mark’s desertion, but he was still more wrong in his reception of the opposition to his proposal. With the firmness which weak characters so often display at the wrong time, he was resolved, come what would, to have his own way. Temper rather than principle made him obstinate where he should have been yielding, as it had made him in Antioch yielding, where he should have been firm. Paul’s remonstrances have no effect. He will rather have his own way than the companionship of his old friend, and so there come alienation and separation. The Church at Antioch takes Paul’s view-all the brethren are unanimous in disapproval. But Barnabas will not move. He sets up his own feeling in opposition to them all. The sympathy of his brethren, the work of his life, the extension of Christ’s kingdom, are all tossed aside. His own foolish purpose is more to him in that moment of irritation than all these.