And Barnabas proposed to take with [them] John also, called Mark;
John Mark had walked off the job once, and now Paul and Barnabas could not agree about giving him a second chance. Why was Barnabas set on taking him, why did Paul refuse, and why does Scripture record the quarrel at all?
The argument was about Mark, and his record so far was poor. One writer traces how far the damage from his retreat reached:
The writer of the Gospel of Mark was that "John called Mark" (Acts 15:37). He failed in his service while he was with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Later he became a bone of contention between them. First he failed himself. Then he became the occasion of further failure in men greater than himself.
Barnabas had real affection behind his proposal, and Mark was his relative. One writer weighs that love, and points to an earlier slip of Barnabas's that gave Paul more reason to be firm:
You would expect Barnabas to be ready. But he proposes to take Mark with them, and Mark had failed them on the earlier journey, at the very start of what was the real work. Here was love too, no doubt, but as to his sister's son, too purely human. Paul is unwilling. Feelings run very hot between them, and this separates two men who had been so close until then… Barnabas had failed also, just before this, as we learn from Galatians, following Peter's example on the Jewish question; and this would naturally add to the seriousness of the matter in Paul's eyes.
Paul's objection was not about Mark's place among believers. It was about fitness for a hard and public service:
No one touched John Mark's right to fellowship, with any or all of its privileges. No one forbade him to preach where he pleased over "the field." No one wished to close his mouth in the assembly, whether in Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But after his failure it was quite another thing to put him forward again before there was proof that he had recovered. That service was prominent and weighty, as honourable as it was full of difficulty. How could a runaway who was not yet restored urge the disciples to continue in the faith?
The man Paul chose instead makes the contrast plain:
Paul wants someone who had not drawn back from the work. He wants someone who had not given up the place of a stranger, taken for the work's sake, to go back to his own home… Paul takes Silas and departs. Silas had preferred the work to Jerusalem, instead of Jerusalem to the work.
When the two parted, only one of them went out with the united backing of the believers:
Barnabas was loved. But it seems plain that at this moment he failed to carry the conscience of his brothers and sisters with him. Paul, on the other hand, again received that mark of united recommendation to the grace of the Lord, and Silas with him. He and Barnabas had enjoyed the same thing on their first mission to the Gentiles from Antioch.
After the parting, Barnabas himself drops out of the story:
Barnabas is a kindly man. His affections are now ruffled, though they are surely mixed with a gracious desire that the young man may recover himself. He shows most of all the impatience that hurries him off with his nephew to his native land; and we lose him from the history.
Scripture could have passed over this episode. That it does not is itself the lesson:
The Spirit of God takes good care to record this. It needed to be noted. It should act as a warning. It should also prepare the minds of the children of God for this: even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences. We must not be too cast down if we meet with anything of the kind. I do not say this to make light of such disagreements in any way; but sadly, we know that these things do happen.
The man refused here does not stay refused. Later Paul himself sends for him:
Luke alone remained with Paul. Then Paul gives a direction that holds a very precious instance of restoring grace: "Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry." Mark, once unfaithful, was restored.
- Failure. Mark left the work early, and that one retreat later hurt not only himself but two men greater than he was.
- Affection. Barnabas wanted to restore his relative. That was love, but love too purely human to see the case clearly.
- Fitness. Paul never questioned Mark's place among believers. He questioned putting an unproven man into a service full of hardship.
- Silence. Paul and Silas went out commended to the grace of the Lord. Scripture records nothing of the kind for Barnabas.
- Restoration. The man refused here is the man Paul later sends for as useful for ministry — and the one who wrote the Gospel of Mark.
but Paul thought it not well to take with them him who had abandoned them, [going back] from Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work.
The plan was simple: revisit the churches and see how they were doing. It broke down over one name. Paul would not take John Mark, who had deserted the team in Pamphylia. The clash grew sharp enough to split two men the Spirit had once sent out together.
Paul's refusal settled one question only: whether to give Mark this job again.
In Acts 13:5 John Mark was counted worthy to be associated with Paul in the ministry. In Acts 15:38 he was disapproved, but in 2 Timothy 4:11 he was again acknowledged as a profitable servant. Now, Mark was just as truly a child of God, a saved person, a believer in Christ, when Paul rejected him as a co-worker. He was the same man when Paul first accepted him, and the same when Paul at last restored him to confidence. In no case was the question of John Mark's personal salvation raised. It was altogether a matter of fitness for service.
Mark lost nothing else — not his place among believers, not his freedom to preach.
No one interfered with John Mark's right to fellowship or to any of its privileges. No one wanted to shut his mouth in the assembly, whether in Antioch or Jerusalem or anywhere else. But it was quite another thing to put him forward again after his failure, before his recovery was proved. That service was public, weighty, honourable, and full of difficulty.
Barnabas wanted to give his relative a second chance. One writer sees warm feeling put where loyalty to the Master belonged.
John Mark had grown weary of the labour, scorn, and opposition of the first apostolic journey from Antioch. Paul refused to work with him again until Mark proved his devotion of spirit beyond dispute... Here Barnabas, sadly, thought more of his relative than of the Master. He confused kindness with grace and brushed aside the wise and holy warning of Paul. From then on he drops out of notice, both he and his work, in the divine record that tells the story.
Paul and Mark had not been looking at the same thing. And one writer does not leave Paul blameless.
Paul only thought of God, Mark of the circumstances; but that is not how difficulties are overcome. It is possible that the flesh showed itself in Paul; but at any rate he could not boast of being in the right... At bottom Paul was right, and the hand of God was with him. Still, harshness was unnecessary. Even where the purpose of the heart is right, the flesh may very soon show itself.
This quarrel could have gone unrecorded. It did not.
The Spirit of God takes good care to record this. It needed to be noted. It should act as a warning. On the other hand it would also prepare the children of God to see that even the most blessed men may have their difficulties and differences. We must not be too downcast if we meet with anything of the kind. I do not say this in any way to make light of such disagreements, but sadly we know that these things do arise.
The split was permanent, and Luke's wording hints at which man the believers at Antioch stood behind.
The sharp contention between the two fellow workers ended in their separating — never, as far as we know, to work together again... Luke notes that Paul chose Silas as his companion, and that the brothers commended Paul to the grace of the Lord. Nothing of the kind is said about Barnabas. So it seems that the church at Antioch fully endorsed Paul's judgment about Mark's conduct.
Years later Paul brought Mark back — into the very service he had once failed in.
Paul had been deeply grieved by Mark's desertion in the early days. It even led to a break with Barnabas (Acts 15:37-40). But the healing goodness of God had long since wiped that out... Now he goes further. He puts Mark back into close personal service beside him — the very thing in which he had failed at the start. In nature a breakdown is beyond repair; not so where grace prevails.
Notice who was later chosen to write about perfect service.
It is beautiful and gracious that Mark should be the one chosen to set the unfailing, perfect Servant before us. He was the failed servant who shrank back from the work he had put his hand to (Acts 15:38). But afterwards he recovered, and through grace he was made useful (2 Tim. 4:11). What comfort for us in this!
- Failure. Mark left the team in Pamphylia and never went on to the work. He had grown weary of the labour, scorn, and opposition of that first journey.
- Refusal. Paul's refusal was about fitness for a hard mission. It never touched Mark's salvation, his place among believers, or his freedom to preach.
- Fracture. Commentators differ on the blame. One says Barnabas confused kindness with grace. Another says the flesh may have shown in Paul too, since harshness was not needed.
- Warning. The Spirit kept this quarrel on record as a warning. It also keeps us from being crushed when the best servants differ.
- Restoration. Paul later called Mark a profitable servant and gave him back the service he had failed in. He was the one chosen to set the perfect Servant before us. In nature a breakdown is beyond repair; grace repairs it.