Commentary - Acts 15:36-41

Bird's-eye view

This short narrative records a painful but ultimately productive division between two spiritual giants, Paul and Barnabas. Fresh off the doctrinal victory at the Jerusalem Council, the apostolic band is ready to get back to the work of mission. Paul proposes a second missionary journey to strengthen the churches they had previously planted. The conflict arises over a personnel decision: Barnabas wants to take his cousin, John Mark, and Paul refuses, citing Mark's previous desertion in Pamphylia. The disagreement is not a petty squabble; it is a "sharp" conflict between two godly men with differing but legitimate principles. The result is a separation. Barnabas takes Mark to Cyprus, and Paul takes Silas through Syria and Cilicia. What appears to be a ministerial failure, a breakdown in fellowship, is sovereignly overruled by God to become a multiplication of ministry. Instead of one missionary team, there are now two. This passage is a stark reminder of the reality of sin and friction even among the most mature saints, and a glorious display of God's providence in bringing good out of our failures and conflicts.

Luke, under the inspiration of the Spirit, includes this story without taking sides. He presents the positions of both men as understandable. Paul, the task-oriented apostle, is concerned with the reliability and fortitude necessary for the grueling work of the mission. Barnabas, the son of encouragement, is concerned with restoration and second chances. In the end, both men's judgments are vindicated in different ways: Paul's new team with Silas proves immensely effective, and Barnabas's patient mentorship of Mark results in Mark's restoration to fruitful ministry, a fact Paul himself later acknowledges. The ultimate lesson is that the advance of the gospel is not dependent on the perfect harmony of its messengers, but on the sovereign grace of God who works all things, including our sharp disagreements, together for good.

Outline

Context In Acts

This passage comes immediately after the watershed event of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1-35. The council had settled the crucial doctrinal question of whether Gentile believers needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to be saved. The verdict was a resounding "no," a victory for the gospel of grace that Paul and Barnabas had championed. Having successfully defended the truth of the gospel in Jerusalem, they returned to Antioch, where they "remained... teaching and preaching the word of the Lord" (Acts 15:35). The account of their disagreement, therefore, is jarring. It follows a moment of great unity and doctrinal clarity with a story of personal friction and division. This placement is instructive. It shows us that solving major theological controversies does not render the church immune to practical, personal conflicts. The fight for the gospel happens on both the grand theological stage and in the messy details of interpersonal relationships and ministry decisions.

Key Issues

When Good Men Disagree

It is one of the more uncomfortable passages in the book of Acts. We have two heroes of the faith, Paul and Barnabas, men who had faced down hostile crowds, endured persecution, and stood shoulder to shoulder for the truth of the gospel in Jerusalem, and now they are at loggerheads. And it is not a polite difference of opinion. The Greek word for the "sharp disagreement" in verse 39 is paroxysmos, from which we get our word paroxysm, meaning a sudden, violent outburst. This was a hot conflict.

The world believes that if people are truly good, they will always get along. The church can sometimes fall into a similar trap, thinking that if believers are Spirit-filled, they will never have sharp disagreements. This passage demolishes that sentimental nonsense. Here are two men, full of the Holy Spirit, who cannot come to an agreement on a significant ministry decision. Luke doesn't whitewash it. He doesn't tell us who was "right." He simply records the clash. This is profoundly realistic and therefore profoundly encouraging. It teaches us that sanctification is a process, and that godly men can, from godly motives, arrive at opposing conclusions. The issue is not whether conflict will arise, but how we handle it, and how God in His sovereignty can use it.

Verse by Verse Commentary

36 Now after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.”

The proposal is pure pastoral concern. Paul is not just an evangelist who wins converts and moves on; he is a church planter who cares for the flock. He wants to go back over the ground of the first missionary journey to strengthen, encourage, and check on the spiritual health of these new believers. This is the heart of a true shepherd. The work is not done when a person makes a profession of faith; the work has just begun. These young churches were in hostile territory, facing pressure from both paganism and Judaizers, and Paul's desire to "see how they are" is a model for all ministry.

37 And Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.

Barnabas's desire is entirely understandable. His name means "son of encouragement," and his character consistently lives up to it. He was the one who took a risk on the newly converted Saul of Tarsus when everyone else was afraid of him (Acts 9:27). Now he wants to take a risk on his cousin, John Mark. Mark had failed, yes, but Barnabas is the man of second chances. His instinct is restorative. He sees the potential in the young man and wants to bring him back into the fold of active ministry. This is the heart of a grace-filled mentor.

38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.

Paul's position is also entirely understandable. He is not operating out of personal spite. His concern is for "the work." Missionary work in the first century was not a Sunday school picnic. It was arduous, dangerous, and demanding. Paul had been stoned and left for dead on the first journey. From his perspective, Mark had proven himself unreliable under pressure. To bring him along again would be a poor stewardship of the mission. It would be a risk to the team and the work itself. Paul is applying a principle of proven character for ministry leaders, a principle he would later codify in his pastoral epistles. This is the heart of a responsible apostolic leader.

39 And there was such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

Here is the painful result. Two men, two valid principles, and no middle ground. Paul's principle was "reliability in the work is essential." Barnabas's principle was "restoration of a fallen brother is essential." Both are biblical. But in this specific application, they were irreconcilable. So they parted ways. It is a sad moment. But notice what they do. They don't form factions in the church at Antioch. They don't write nasty letters about each other. They divide the ministry and get back to work. Barnabas, true to his roots, takes Mark and heads for his home territory of Cyprus, the first stop on the first journey. He is going to mentor this young man on familiar ground.

40-41 But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Paul also gets back to work. He chooses Silas, a respected leader from the Jerusalem church and a Roman citizen, who would prove to be a steadfast companion. It is noteworthy that Luke records that Paul and Silas were "committed by the brothers to the grace of the Lord." This seems to indicate that the church at Antioch, or at least a significant portion of it, sided with Paul's judgment in the matter. But more importantly, it shows that the work continued under the blessing of God. Paul immediately begins the work he set out to do, strengthening the churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, the area north of Antioch, before heading west. The result of the division was not subtraction, but multiplication. One team became two. The mission field was expanded. God did not waste this conflict. He used it to further His own sovereign purposes, demonstrating that the gospel advances not because of our perfect harmony, but in spite of our sinful frictions.

Application

First, we must be realistic about conflict in the church. It will happen. Even between the best of men. We should not be surprised or disillusioned when disagreements arise. The goal is not a conflict-free existence, which is impossible this side of glory, but rather to handle conflict in a way that, even if it leads to separation, does not lead to sin, slander, or schism in the broader body.

Second, we see the beautiful tension between principled leadership and restorative grace. Paul was not wrong to demand high standards for ministry. Barnabas was not wrong to want to restore a young man who had stumbled. The church needs both Pauls and Barnabases. We need men who will guard the integrity and effectiveness of the work, and we need men who will come alongside the fallen and help them get back on their feet. A church that is all Paul might become harsh and unforgiving. A church that is all Barnabas might become lax and undiscerning. We need the wisdom to know when to apply which principle.

Finally, this passage is a tremendous comfort because it puts the sovereignty of God on full display. God is not wringing His hands in heaven when His servants quarrel. He is working His purposes out. He took this apostolic argument and used it to launch a second missionary front. He used Barnabas's patience to restore John Mark, who would go on to write a Gospel and become "useful" to Paul himself (2 Tim. 4:11). He used Paul's new partnership with Silas to push the gospel into Europe. Our failures, our sins, our foolish arguments, none of them can thwart the plan of God. He is so great that He weaves even our discord into the tapestry of His glorious redemptive plan. Our confidence is not in our ability to get along, but in His ability to get His work done.