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. And Barnabas
determined to take with them John, whose surname was
Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them,
who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with
them to the work. 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; And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being
recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And
he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the
churches.
What happened
here? What brought about such a division? Is there a
practical application in this? Let’s examine this
passage with a two-fold emphasis: the incident and its
importance.
The Incident
The scene
here is the beginning of Paul’s second
church-planting journey
(which has always seemed to me to be a far better term
than “missionary,” which is somewhat ambiguous at best
nowadays). While Barnabas wanted to include his cousin
John Mark in the team (Col. 4:10), Paul did not. Why?
The answer is back in Acts 13:13, which recounts, “Now
when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came
to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them
returned to Jerusalem.” While John Mark was a member of
the team during the first journey, he left the
team.
“Departing”
translates the Greek apochoreo, from the root
choreo, “to depart,” and the prefix
apo, “from.” This word occurs
only two other times in the New Testament, the most
graphic being when Jesus says that the day is coming
when He will say to false professors, “I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). The
idea in this word, then, is total
abandonment.
So why did John
Mark abandon the team? Several reasons have been
offered. One commentator summarizes:
(1) Perhaps he
was disillusioned with the change in leadership. After
all, Barnabas, the original leader, was John Mark’s
cousin. (2) The new emphasis on Gentiles may have been
too much of an adjustment for a Palestinian Jew like
Mark. (3) Possibly he was afraid of the dangerous road
over the Taurus Mountains to Antioch which Paul was
determined to travel. (4) There is some evidence Paul
became quite ill in Perga, possibly with malaria, as the
city of Perga was subject to malarial infections.
Furthermore, Paul preached to the people of Galatia
“because of an illness” (Gal. 4:13). The missionary
party may have gone inland to higher ground to avoid the
ravages of malaria and Mark in discouragement over this
may have returned home. (5) Some think Mark was
homesick. His mother may have been a widow (Acts 12:12);
perhaps Mark became lonesome for her and
home.[i]
In the final
analysis, however, we submit that the reason for John
Mark’s defection was (and is) irrelevant. He abandoned
not only God’s work but also God’s
workers. The word translated departed in verse 38 is not the same
word used back in 13:13. The Greek here is the stronger
aphistemi, to withdraw,
remove oneself, forsake, desert, retire, or cease from
something. Of its sixteen other New Testament
appearances, one of the most graphic is when Paul
declares that in “the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1). Paul Later uses the
same word to declare that believers are to “withdraw”
themselves from all kinds of false teachers (6:5). There
is no doubt, then, as to John’s Mark’s serious
defection.
Paul, therefore,
flatly refused to allow John Mark to return to the team.
This offended Barnabas for the obvious reason that John
Mark was his cousin. Can there be any doubt that this
was the real issue as far as Barnabas was concerned? Was
he looking at the situation objectively? Was he
concerned for the ministry or simply his cousin’s hurt
feelings (or even wounded pride)?
We should
also take careful note of the phrase Barnabas determined
to take with them John, which in a sense is the key to
the whole question. Determined is
the Greek bouleuo, to resolve in council, to
decree, take counsel, consult, determine, or deliberate
with oneself or with one another in counsel. So, with
whom did Barnabas take council? The answer lies in the
fact that the verb is in the aorist tense and the
middle voice. Please bear
with me in this technical point because it is pivotal.
The aorist tense
is used for simple, undefined action.[ii] We can best
understand the middle voice by contrasting it with
active and passive voice. While the active pictures the
subject of the verb doing the acting, and the passive
pictures the subject being acted upon, the middle voice
pictures the subject acting in its own
interest, that is, it receives
the benefit of the action. Putting it together, then,
the “aorist middle represents non-continuous action by
the subject as acting upon himself or concerning
himself.”[iii]
To
illustrate, the aorist middle is used in Ephesians
1:4—“According as [God the Father] hath chosen us in
[Christ] before the foundation of the world”—declaring
that God did the choosing independently in the past and
did so primarily for His own interest, that is, “To the praise of
the glory of his grace” (v.
6).
So, with
whom did Barnabas take council? Himself. He
determined the matter totally in himself and
for himself. While the NIV, NASB, and ESV weakly
render this “wanted,” determined is
better, as is “was determined” in the NKJV and “was
minded” in the original ASV (1901). All three
demonstrate Barnabas’ self motivation. Jay Green’s
Literal Translation is also
good with “purposed.”[iv]
Does this not
graphically demonstrate that Barnabas was, to use a
modern idiom, “way out of line”? He was acting in his
own interest and for his own purpose. The language
allows no other conclusion.
Some immediately
argue that John Mark deserved a “second chance.” Well,
Paul didn’t think so, and we need to be reminded that
Paul was now in charge! He was the Apostle, and Barnabas
should have submitted to that authority. Harry Ironside
well explains Paul’s view:
Paul considered
the work of the Lord so serious he could not think of
linking up again with a man who had shown so little
sense of the importance of service for the Lord. It was
no picnic! It was severe testing, hard work, and service
for the glory of God. Paul did not wish to take anyone
who was not divinely guided nor ready to endure
hardship.[v]
Sadly, the
contention was so sharp between them, that they departed
asunder one from the other. The word contention is the
extremely strong Greek word paroxusmos (English
paroxysm, a
fit or outburst). The root oxuno means to
sharpen, incite, or irritate, and the prefix para
pictures movement toward a certain point. The idea then
is to impel, incite, or rouse someone toward something.
Used in a
bad sense, paroxusmos speaks of sharp contention,
or even an angry dispute (i.e., inciting to anger), as
is evident here. Another instance of the word is in Acts
17:16, where Paul’s “spirit was stirred
[paroxusmos] in him, when he saw the city wholly
given to idolatry.” He was incensed to see how truly and
totally pagan the city was. From this it would seem that
Barnabas was just mad at Paul for his
“unreasonableness,” while Paul was incensed at the idea
of taking along a man who had
quit.
We would
also submit that a factor that seems to be overlooked by
many commentators is that the church at Antioch was the
sending church. There is no indication whatsoever that
there was a single voice of disagreement in the church
regarding Paul’s decision. Neither do we see a single
repercussion from this incident in Paul’s ministry. If
this was really “sin” on Paul’s part, should we not read
of a hindrance to his ministry and his eventual
repentance? Recall that Paul himself condemned the
disunity of Euodias and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2), as well as
other instances of disunity (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:1–7; etc.).
But there is no condemnation from anyone anywhere in our
text. Why? We submit that it is because this is not
really a matter of unity at all, rather a matter of
spiritual qualification for ministry. (We’ll return to this point in our second
section.)
It puzzles me that
in their quest to reconcile this situation, some
commentators make odd statements. One such anomaly is,
“In God’s providence, not one team of missionaries but
two teams leave from Antioch,” but the same writer goes
on to negate such an idea with his very next comment:
“Even if we know nothing about the result of the work
performed by Barnabas and Mark, we still see God’s
marvelous care for the believers in
Cyprus.”[vi] But wait! How can
both be true? Is it probable that God would sovereignly
decree a second great missionary team but never inspire
the Scripture writer to report on the ministry of that
team? Yes, the text says that Barnabas and John Mark
went to Cyprus, but it says absolutely nothing about
what was accomplished there, if anything. To say that
“we still see God’s marvelous care for the believers in
Cyprus” is pure speculation; we know nothing of the
sort. There is no record that they ever planted a church
or even ministered effectively.
Further still,
note that there is no direct evidence that Barnabas and
John Mark actually continued in active ministry, at
least for a time. Cyprus, in fact, was Barnabas’ home
(Acts 4:36), so is it not possible that the words
Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus imply that
they simply left the ministry for awhile, choosing to go
home instead?
Even more
significant, it is essential to note that at this point
both John Mark and Barnabas vanish from the Acts
narrative, their ministries never being mentioned again.
We cannot help but be reminded of Demas (2 Tim. 4:10),
who forsook the ministry and disappeared. Yes, John Mark
appears again in 2 Timothy 4:11, where he and Luke are
the only ones who are by Paul’s side at the end, but
this is an entirely different setting. It has nothing to
do with preaching, planting churches, or any such
ministry. He is mentioned twice more as Paul’s co-worker
(Col. 4:10; Phile. 24), but this says nothing of his
ministry while apart from Paul.
Likewise, it seems
Paul and Barnabas also later reconciled—Paul spoke of
him in positive terms in 1 Corinthians 9:6—but once
again, this is a different setting, with still no
mention of ministry while divided from
Paul.
In dramatic
contrast to the ministry of Barnabas and John Mark (if
there even was any), Paul chose Silas, and departed,
being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
The word recommended renders the
strong Greek word paradidomi, which occurs some
120 times in the New Testament and is translated most
often as “deliver” (or
similar form), although at times as “give, gave, and
betrayed.” A study of this important word reveals
much.
The
root didomi means “to give of one’s own
accord and with good will.” The prefix
para adds the idea of
alongside or over to, providing the full meaning, “to
deliver over to the power of someone.” It was used in
Classical Greek (before the New Testament) as a legal
term for delivering a prisoner to the court. Likewise,
the basic New Testament meaning is to deliver someone
over to judgment and death. In Matthew 4:12, it’s used
of John the Baptist when he was “cast into prison” with
the ultimate end of death.
With
that in mind, it’s noteworthy that most occurrences of
paradidomi refer to
the Lord Jesus being delivered over for certain death.
This was the whole reason He came to earth in His first
advent. He did not come to live or even to “judge the
world” (John 12:47); He came to die that sinners would
be saved. We see this in every stage of his final days
on earth: He was “betrayed” into the hands of men (Matt.
17:22), “betrayed” to the High Priest (20:18),
“delivered” to the Gentiles (20:19), “delivered” to
Pilate (27:2), “delivered” to the death sentence (Luke
24:20), and “betrayed” for crucifixion (Matt.
26:2).
It’s
also significant that paradidomi is used
of the Christian’s response to what Christ did for them.
Acts 15:25–26 describes Paul, Barnabas, and other
“chosen men . . . that have hazarded
[paradidomi] their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Can each of us say
this of ourselves? Are we willing to “hand ourselves
over” to whatever might come in the cause of
Christ?
There
is one other important meaning of
paradidomi. It’s also
used in the sense of “to hand down, pass on instruction
from teacher to pupil”[vii] This
meaning is vivid in Jude 3, where Jude writes that every
believer “should earnestly contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints.” As “the faith” is
the preaching and teaching of the apostles that was
handed down and passed on, it is that faith, that
body of truth which comprises
historical, evangelical Christianity and is the faith we
are to continue to hand
down.
With that in mind,
Luke used this strong word to demonstrate that the
church recommended, that is, delivered up and handed
over Paul and Silas for the ministry at hand. There is
no word of rebuke towards them, only blessing. In
contrast, no such word is used of Barnabas and John Mark
because they had left the team and gone their own way.
I’m convinced that
the weight of evidence overwhelmingly indicates that it
was Barnabas and John Mark who were at fault in this
incident, not Paul. Motivated out of sentimentality and
misplaced family loyalty, Barnabas wanted to include a
man in a difficult and demanding ministry who had once
quit and thereby (at least temporarily) disqualified
himself from ministry, and Paul would have not of it.
That leads us to our second
emphasis.
The
Importance
Why is this
incident important? We submit two
reasons.
First, as mentioned above, the primary
issue in this passage seems to be that of spiritual
qualification for ministry. The
common attitude of our day is that anyone can do
anything he (or she) wants, regardless of God’s calling,
qualification, or examination, as noted in an earlier
issue of TOTT
(#18, January/2007, “Is There a
So-Called ‘Call’ to Ministry?”).
As noted in
that previous article, 1 Timothy 3:1 is pivotal: “If a
man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work.” To summarize, “desire” is
orego, “to stretch one’s self
out in order to grasp something; to reach after or
desire something.”[viii] It speaks
of a deep longing, a complete disregard for all else.
“Desireth,” then, is epithumeo, “to long after,
to have a passionate compulsion for something,” in this
context something “good.” While orego implies
only the outward, epithumeo
refers to the inward feeling of desire. Taken together,
the two terms describe the man who pursues the ministry
outwardly at all cost because of a driving compulsion
inwardly.
John Mark,
therefore, is a classic example of one who did not
pursue the ministry in disregard of everything else.
Something, whatever it was, turned him aside from the
task at hand, thereby disqualifying him. While he
returned later, and we rejoice in that, in this incident
he was wrong and Paul was absolutely right in excluding
him.
This
incident further exposes another trend in our own day,
namely, restoring men to the pastoral office no matter
what the offense. To illustrates, commenting on the
critical meaning and implications of a man being
“blameless” (anepilemptos in 1 Tim. 3:2, “nothing
which an adversary could seize upon to base a charge,”
and anengkletos in Titus 1:6,
“not be called in,” above reproach) one writer puts it
far better than I could:
One contemporary
trend that is cause for great concern is the shocking
moral sins pastors commit only to step back into
ministry as soon as the publicity cools down. . . . The
Bible clearly teaches that once a man fails in the area
of sexual immorality, he is unqualified for pastoral
ministry any longer. Certainly we want him restored to
the Lord and to the fellowship, but biblical
qualifications for one who preaches God’s Word and is
identified as pastor, overseer, or elder exclude him
from that role in a church that is pleasing God. . . .
This world overflows with sexual sin, and Paul directs
the church to find as leaders men who have impeccable
reputations . . . . This is the kind of man God is
looking for to set up as the model in His church. . . .
Sexual sin disqualifies any man from being a pastor. The
Apostle Paul remained keenly aware of that fact, saying,
“I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly,
after I have preached to others, I myself should be
disqualified (1 Cor. 9:27, [NASB]).” That is strong
terminology. Paul maintained rigorous self-discipline to
avoid being disqualified from pastoral ministry. He knew
that any kind of sexual sin brings lifelong
reproach.[ix]
Of course,
sexual sin was not the issue with John Mark, but the
point here is qualification.
Men do not just “jump in and out” of ministry as they
feel like it. They cannot do whatever they want and
remain in a place of leadership. The qualifications for
leadership are high, irrevocable, and
non-negotiable.
A corollary
to this is the modern trend of “missionary trips,” often
involving a group of young people, an idea nowhere
supported in Scripture. While sincere, such excursions
are often little more than “school projects” at best, or
vacations at worst, that demand very little in sacrifice
and labor and certainly do not underscore the true
hardships and total dedication of biblical ministry.
Second, we should also note the church’s
place in all this. Another modern trend is that people
are either self-appointed to ministry or are appointed
by any one of a thousand entities outside the local
church (commonly called parachurch organizations). But
it is beyond doubt that these practices are unsupported
in Scripture. The local church is to ordain and send
out men for ministry. In this
incident, the church at Antioch blessed the ministry of
Paul and Silas, but not that of Barnabas and John
Mark.
So, as Paul (and
by implication the church) recognized disqualified
servants, we do well to recognize them today.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (ed.), The Bible
Knowledge Commentary (Cook Communications
Ministries), electronic
edition.
[ii] Only in the indicative
mood does the aorist denote punctiliar action (action
that happens at a specific point in time) in the past.
With few exceptions, when the aorist is used in any
other mood, it refers only to the reality of the action,
not when it occurred.
[iii] Spiros Zodhiates, The
Complete Word Study New Testament (Chattanooga: AMG
Publishers, 1991), p. 863.
[iv] A note for the technical
reader. While our discussion refers to the Textus
Receptus’ and Majority Text’s ebouleusato (aorist
tense), the
Critical Text has ebouleto, which is the
imperfect tense, indicating continuous action and
Barnabas’ persistence (e.g. Wuest’s Expanded
Translation renders: “Barnabas, after thinking the
matter over, kept on insisting that they take along with
them also John”). Both are middle voice, however, so the
point is basically the same.
[v] Harry Ironside,
Lectures on the Book of Acts (Loizeaux Brothers,
1943, 1977), p. 361.
[vi] Simon J. Kistemaker,
Baker’s New Testament Commentary: Acts (Baker
Books, 1990), p. 570.
[vii] Colin Brown, The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
(Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 3, pp.
772–773.
[viii] Joseph Thayer,
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Hendrickson), p.
452.
[ix] John MacArthur,
Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry (W Publishing
Group, 1995), pp.
89–91.
