Paul and Barnabas .... disagreement noted in the Bible

[hotcoffee]

Acts 15:36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.​

It must have been quite a disagreement. I haven't read of any disagreements since the Apostles fought over who was most important.

 

[SamSpade]

Mark was Barnabas's relative (cousin, nephew) and was very strongly inclined to overlook Mark's previous abandoning them on their first journey. Paul realized, perhaps for good reason, that the next journey was fraught with a LOT more peril - stonings, imprisonment and so forth.

It's hard to know who's right. Barnabas isn't mentioned a lot, but he always seems to be there for people - he was the one person who stood up for Paul when everyone else was still fearful of his previous life as Saul of Tarsus. It was his nature to believe in people. Later in the New Testament writings, we find that Mark DID join Paul and WAS able to endure the hardship he faced.

Apostles weren't always square with one another - when Peter arrived in Antioch, he was eating with the Gentile Christians, but when the Judaizers came - the ones who felt that you must observe all of the Old Law to be a Christian, including things like circumcision - Peter got up quietly and stopped eating with them. Paul confronted him publicly on this.

I guess what I get from all this is, they were all very human, but very much on the same side as to what their purpose was.

 

[b23hqb]

Mark was Barnabas's relative (cousin, nephew) and was very strongly inclined to overlook Mark's previous abandoning them on their first journey. Paul realized, perhaps for good reason, that the next journey was fraught with a LOT more peril - stonings, imprisonment and so forth.

It's hard to know who's right. Barnabas isn't mentioned a lot, but he always seems to be there for people - he was the one person who stood up for Paul when everyone else was still fearful of his previous life as Saul of Tarsus. It was his nature to believe in people. Later in the New Testament writings, we find that Mark DID join Paul and WAS able to endure the hardship he faced.

Apostles weren't always square with one another - when Peter arrived in Antioch, he was eating with the Gentile Christians, but when the Judaizers came - the ones who felt that you must observe all of the Old Law to be a Christian, including things like circumcision - Peter got up quietly and stopped eating with them. Paul confronted him publicly on this.

I guess what I get from all this is, they were all very human, but very much on the same side as to what their purpose was.

Well stated. People are people, and Christians have differences of personality and/or practicality that may cause splits but does not change doctrinal beliefs. In this particular case, separation seemed to be the best solution for their immediate problem.

From commentaries written by men far more knowledgeable than me that I've read, this incident was actually a blessing for Gods work: there were now two teams of missionaries covering twice the ground, and Barnabas essentially rescued John Mark from uselessness into a worker for the Lord.

 

[hotcoffee]

It's wonderful when people join in.

Is this Mark [also known as John] the same one who wrote the Gospel?

I haven't done a lot of work in these books. I'm learning as I go as well!