The church of Antioch having thus made great advances under these very
abundant and extraordinary instructions, the apostles began to turn
their eyes again to a foreign field, and longed for a renewal of those
adventurous labors from which they had now had so long a repose. Paul
therefore proposed to Barnabas that they should go over their old
ground again:――“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.” To
this frank and reasonable proposition, Barnabas readily agreed, and as
it was desirable that they should have an assistant with them on this
journey, he proposed that his nephew Mark should accompany them in this
capacity as he had done on their former voyage. But Paul, remembering
the manner in which he had forsaken them just as they were entering
upon the arduous missionary fields of Asia Minor, refused to try again
one who had once failed to do them the desired service, at a time
when he was most needed. Yet Barnabas, being led, no doubt by his near
relationship to the delinquent evangelist, to overlook this single
deficiency, and perhaps, having good reason to think that he had now
made up his mind to stick to them through thick and thin, through
good and bad fortune, was disposed to give him another trial in the
apostolic service, and therefore strongly urged Paul to accept of him
as their common assistant in this new tour for which he was well fitted
by his knowledge of the routes. Paul, however, no doubt irritated
against Mark, for the wavering spirit already manifested by him at
Perga, utterly refused to have anything to do with him after such a
display of character, and wished to take some other person who had
been tried in the good work with more satisfactory results as to his
resolution and ability. Barnabas of course, was not at all pleased to
have his sister’s son treated so slightingly, and refused to have any
substitute whatever, insisting that Mark _should_ go, while Paul was
equally resolved that he should _not_. The conclusion of the whole
matter was, that these two great apostles, the authorized messengers
of God to the Gentiles, quarreled downright; and after a great deal
of furious contention, they parted entirely from one another; and so
bitter seems to have been the division between them that they are not
known to have ever after been associated in apostolic labors, although
they had been the most intimate friends and fellow-travelers for many
years, standing by one another through evil and good report, through
trials, perils, distresses and almost to death. A most lamentable
exhibition of human ♦weakness marring the harmonious progress of the
great scheme of evangelization! Yet it must be esteemed one of the
most valuable facts relating to the apostles, that are recorded in
the honest, simple, clear, and truly impartial narrative of Luke;
because it reminds the Christian reader of a circumstance, that he
might otherwise forget, in an undue reverence for the character of
the apostles,――and that is, the circumstance that these consecrated
ministers of the word of truth were, really and practically, in spite
of their holiness, “men of like passions with ourselves,” and even in
the arrangement of their apostolic duties, were liable to be governed
by the impulses of human passion, which on a few occasions like this,
acting in opposite directions in different persons at the same time,
brought them into open collisions and disputes,――which, if men of
their pure martyr-spirit, mostly too, under the guidance of a divine
influence, could not avoid, nor could satisfactorily settle, neither
may the unconsecrated historian of a later age presume to decide. Who
was right and who was wrong in this difficulty, it is impossible to
say; and each reader may judge for himself. It may be remarked, however,
that Paul was no more likely to be right than Barnabas; he was a
younger man, as it would appear from the circumstance that he is named
after him in the apostolic epistle;――he was no more an apostle than
Barnabas was; for both are thus named by Luke in his account of their
first journey, and both were expressly called by a distinct revelation
from the Holy Spirit to undertake the apostleship of the Gentiles
together. Paul also is known to have quarreled with other persons, and
especially with Peter himself, and that too without very just cause;
and although Barnabas may have been influenced to partiality by his
relationship to Mark, yet much also may be justly chargeable to Paul’s
natural violence and bitterness of temper, which often led him into
hasty acts, of which he afterwards repented, as he certainly did in
this very case, after some time; for he repeatedly mentions Mark in his
epistles in terms of regard, and what is most in point, declares him to
be “profitable to him in the ministry.”
♦ “weaknes” replaced with “weakness”
Witsius remarks, (Vita Pauli, iv. 16,) that the ancient
Christian writers ascribe the greatest part of the blame of this
quarrel to Barnabas, whom they consider as having been unduly
influenced by natural affection for his kindred according to the
flesh. “But”, as Witsius rather too cautiously remarks, “it may
well be doubted whether Paul’s natural violence of temper did
not carry him somewhat beyond the bounds of right. The Greeks
have not unwisely remarked――Ὁ Παυλος ἐζητει το δικαιον, ὁ
Βαρναβας το Πιλανθροπον ‘Paul demanded what was just――Barnabas,
what was charitable.’ It might have been well enough if Barnabas
had yielded to the zeal of Paul; but it would not have been bad
if Paul had persuaded himself to allow something to the feelings
of that most mild and amiable man. Meanwhile, it deserves notice,
that God so ordered this, that it turned out as much for the
individual benefit of Mark, as for the general benefit of the
church. For the kind partiality of Barnabas was of advantage
to Mark, in preventing him from being utterly cast off from
apostolic companionship, and forsaken as unworthy; while to the
church, this separation was useful, since it was the means of
confirming the faith of more of the churches in the same time.”
(Witsius.)
“From hence we may learn, not only that these great lights in
the Christian church were men of the like passions with us,
but that God, upon this occasion, did most eminently illustrate
the wisdom of his providence, by rendering the frailties of two
such eminent servants instrumental to the benefit of his church,
since both of them thenceforward employed their extraordinary
industry and zeal singly and apart, which till then had been
united, and confined to the same place.” (Stanhope on the
Epistles and Gospels, vol. 4.)