BARNABAS: SERVANT

Before I left, we had spent a lot of time talking about the various "also ran" folks in the Bible; the servants in scripture. Well, now we're going to meet some of the New Testament versions on this theme. 
Before we do, it's been long enough now that I want us to reconsider WHY we go to all the trouble to learn about a bunch of really dead folks from a really long time ago. In case you were wondering, it's NOT because there's a TV Bible trivia contest; and it's NOT because we will earn frequent prayer mileage, either. We study their lives for the same reason we consider ANYthing in scripture: TO LEARN ABOUT OUR LORD. It is THROUGH the lives of these precious brothers and sisters that we can more clearly see our Saviour and Father, and in seeing our Father THERE, we can maybe even begin to see Him HERE in OUR OWN lives.
The first one I want us to meet is a guy named Joe, from Cyprus, whom his buddies nicknamed "Barnabas". 
[HAVE THEM READ ACTS 4:36]
Luke (Acts 4:36) interprets 'son of paraklesis', 'one who encourages, or exhorts' (cf. 'son of peace' in Lk. 10:6). Nabas may reflect Aramaic newa��, 'pacification', 'consolation' (the abnormal Greek transcription being eased by the contemporary soft pronunciation of b), or some derivative of the root nb�, 'to prophesy'. Strictly, this would be 'son of a prophet' or 'of prophecy', but exhortation was supremely a prophetic function (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3), and Luke is concerned, not to provide a scientific etymology, but to indicate the man's character. We find him engaged in paraklesis in Acts 11:23. (Deissmann equates the name with Barnebous (Aramaic Barneb-, 'son of Nebo') found in Syrian inscriptions; but Luke states that the apostles gave it, and they would hardly confer a name redolent of a pagan deity.)
OK, we know from Acts 4:36 that he came from a Jewish-Cypriot priestly family, a Diaspora Jew (i.e., one born in a country outside Palestine) who may have come to Jerusalem originally because of his priestly connections and then came to know the Lord, either before OR after the death and ressurection of the Lord; we know that he was an early member of the Jerusalem church. [Clement of Alexandria calls him one of the Seventy.] Later on Luke (Acts 14:4, 14) and Paul (1 Cor. 9:6, in context) call him an apostle. But does anyone here actually remember anything about his life from your occasional wanderings through scripture? ME NEITHER. 
The Lord gives us several episodes from the life of this man, and I want us to look at them to see what we can learn about the Lord and ourselves. We already read the first one, Acts 4:36. What does it say about Barnabas? (and I REFUSE to call him "Barny" like I usually do to Bible names because two of the WORST characters in ALL of TV-land are named that: Barny Fife and Barney the purple Dinosaur, YEECH!)
He has a desire to support the church, he gives what he can, from his own pocket. He is NOT a native born Jew, but rather from a place OUTSIDE Palestine. He "wasn't from aroun' heah" as they say...
Ok, lets move on and learn some MORE about ol' Joe the encourager. 
[READ ACTS 9:26-31]
What did B. DO? What had he been willing to do? To take the risk of alienating the other Christians, of even maybe getting himself killed (remember what Paul used to DO for a living!). Did he do it because he was STUPID? NO! Was he just used to picking up strays? NO! WhY was he able to do this? He KNEW about the man Saul. AND, he was willing to ACT on what he knew.
What was the RESULT? vs 28: Saul NOW has access to the FULL body of believers, to ALL that THEY know of Jesus and His words to them. He ALSO has a base of operations from which to preach the gospel. 
What was the RESULT? PERSECUTION FOR SAUL! Oh NO! Oh YES!! This ALSO had the crucial effect of PROVING to a frightened church that Paul really WAS saved AND a poweful force for the gospel, RATHER that a continued THREAT to them. 
WHAT was the RESULT? The church embraced Paul, protected him; this showed Paul what Christian fellowship could be AND it gave the church a chance to PRACTICE that love. 
WHAT was the RESULT? [READ Vs 31!!]
ALL because B. decided to go "encourage" someone he had heard about, and knew something about named Saul. WHO COULD HAVE SEEN IT ALL? Only the Lord, of course. 

We don't hear much about B. again until Acts 11.
[READ ACTS 11:19-26]
11:19. PERSECUTION! What a BAD thing, RIGHT? NO! It TOOK that to get the church OFF their togas and OUT INTO the world that the Lord had COMISSIONED them to go to. But what happened? Only the Jews were ebing preached to. None of these fleeing christians had heard of Peter's "roof-top luncheon" with the Lord, nor of the Punch-line delivered through Cornelious the next day in Acts ch 10. 
11:20. BUT, SOMEONE was willing to share news too good to keep hidden in a city called Antioch! 
FIRST a note about Antioch. There were several towns with this name. But THIS one was the grand-daddy of them all. It was actually referred to as "Antioch on the Orontes River". It was the THIRD largest city in the entire Roman Empire, had over HALF a MILLION people in it. It was ALSO widely regarded as one of the most morally depraved and debauched places in the Empire. One Roman writer of satire liked the Orontes River to a sewer that "drained" into the city of Rome over a thousand miles away because of the "evil influence" Antioch had on the Empire, extending even as far as the capital city itself. 
11:21. And WHAT was the result of these nameless servants efforts? SALVATION! And on a pretty large scale, too. Large enough that 300 miles away, the church heard about ALL those thousnds of baby Christians in that horrible town. SO...
11:22. Such an important move on the part of the church could not escape the attention of the mother church in Jerusalem. Earlier the Jerusalem apostles sent Peter and John to check up on Philip's ministry in Samaria. Now the Jerusalem saints sent Barnabas all the way to Antioch, over 300 miles north. The selection of that delegate was of crucial importance; send a JERK, and he could SOUR the new-born lives of MANY baby Christians. 
So WHY send B? Barnabas was a wise choice for several reasons. First, he, like some of these first Christian missionaries fleeing persecution, was from Cyprus (4:36; 11:20). Second, he was a generous man (4:37) and therefore thoughtful of others. Third, he was a gracious gentleman as attested by his nickname. 
11:23. Barnabas could not escape the conclusion that God was genuinely at work in Antioch. What was his reaction? The NIV just says "he was glad". BLAH! I like the AMP better, for the trans lit means "he was full of joy"! I picture Barnabas doing high-fives and such. WHY? I mean, BIG DEAL, another church...what made THIS group of converts SUCH a BIG deal? You have GOT to see this event in it's proper historical perspective. Satan could not keep Jesus in the tomb, so he apparently tried to keep the Gospel limited to Jerusalem, contained and hopefully destroyed by persecution; BUT he couldn't do that - the persecution of Stephen and it's accompanying program of broad-based persecution (ie courtesy of Saul, by the by) didn't destroy the church, it scattered it! YIKES!! (says Satan) Well, if he couldn't contain the gospel geographically, at LEAST he'll contain it CULTURALLY and confine it ONLY to the Jews as a trivial aberrant cult/sect of Judaism...But THEN came Acts 10! At FIRST it was just an odd dozen or so  of Greek, alien, Gentiles facing a very puzzled Peter in a tiny room in a small town, but if THAT wasn't bad enough, THEN came ANTIOCH! One of Satan's STRONGHOLDS!  And there the ROOF blew off that satanic containment field - Satan must have begun to hear faint but shaking resonating ringing blows - suddenly BAM!! his carefully built hellish wall around the church blows apart into battered fragments, pounded into dust; the hammer fo God is blazing away w/ deafening ringing blows, driving a diamond hard wedge into that wall, blasting off huge pieces until in Antioch "MANY" GREEKS were being saved SOLEY on the basis of Jesus gospel ALONE, NO LONGER 1st under the law, but ABOVE it, BEYOND it! And WHAT was His divinely wielded tool! God's awesome terrible weapon of mass Satanic destruction? A couple of nameless guys who decided under the prompting of the Holy Spirit that the Gospel was just TOO GOOD to keep to themselves and decided to SHARE it with who WAS there; NO Jews available? NO synagogue around to preach in? OK, these Greek gentiles will do JUST FINE!! and from that instant on, the unstoppable flood of the Gospel ROARED out of confinement and flashflooded the city of Antioch, and from there into the WHOLE WORLD! Jerusalem may be the heart of the early church, but Antioch was it's FEET and HANDS. And WHO was there to keep this sudden flame of missionary zeal alive? BARNABAS (the Sam Gamgee of the Gospel!) Now THAT'S why Antioch was SUCH a CRITICAL event in the life of the early church, and why the choice of Barnabas was so CRUCIAL.
I also like the Gr word and tense used for "encouraged"; it best reads in the AMP: "continuously exhorted-warned, urged and encouraged...". 
11:24. Three things were said about Barnabas: he was a good man, he was full of the Holy Spirit, and he was full of faith (Stephen too was full of faith and the Holy Spirit; 6:5). NOTE! Luke wrote this description of Barnabas after the confrontation between Paul and Barnabas over taking John Mark on the 2nd missionary trip, recorded in 15:39. Since Luke was Paul's traveling companion, this statement about Barnabas surely would NOT have escaped Paul's watchful supervisory eye on the historical text Luke was producing; the fact it was left in there withOUT any Pauline "challenge" of it's accuracy must have meant it was Paul's assessment as well. 
11:25. SO! The work is going great! In fact, the work in Antioch grew to such proportions Barnabas needed aid. SO, what's B. do? Does he call for one of the HIGH Vis, well recognized, BIG GUNS? NO! He looks for Saul who was living in Tarsus (cf. 9:30). WHO??!! You mean that ex-Nazi Pharisee?? The one that got chased off to Tarsus?? YES!! Based on Acts 22:17-21, it's possible that Saul was already ministering to Gentiles when Barnabas went to bring him to Antioch. Barnabas KNEW people, and he knew that this Saul was PERFECT for this job. 
11:26. Barnabas and Saul ministered a full year in Antioch, teaching great numbers of people. The church was continuing to grow numerically (cf. 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1; 9:31; 11:21, 24).
Jesus' disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. The ending "-ian" means "belonging to the party of"; thus "Christians" were those of Jesus' party. The word "Christians" is used only two other times in the New Testament: in 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. The significance of the name, emphasized by the word order in the Greek text, is that people recognized Christians as a distinct group. The church was more and more being separated from Judaism.  

[READ 11:27-30 AND 12:25]
Here is a little bit of a story about B. What does it tell us about his life, about his ministry? There is a natural progression here, I think. We first see B. as just another Christian willing to give what he had in his own pocket, and he gave it joyfully, delighted that it would "encourage" even more brothers and sisters in the Lord. He is "known" pretty much only by the Church in Jerusalem. THEN, he agrees to go to Antioch into a totally unknown situation, and give of himself, of his LIFE. Because of that, he is NOW in these passages being entrusted by OTHERS with THEIR giving; these baby Christians are acting JUST LIKE HIM! He has NOW gone from just being a generous encourager to MAKING generous encouragers out of an entire CHURCH. 

Now we come to the next major section on our boy Joe. Having done such a great job in Antioch in building up a church, they're NOW going to take their show ON THE ROAD. This is found in Acts 13 AND 14. This "Barnabas and Paul's Traveling Evangelistic Road Show" is more commonly referred to as the FIRST Missionary Journey. DON'T PANIC, we PROBABLY won't read ALL of these two chapters (NOT that it wouldn't hurt us any if we DID). 

13:1. The church at Antioch now became the base of operation for Saul's ministry. Jerusalem was still the mother church, but the missionary church was Antioch on the Orontes River. Furthermore, Peter was no longer the central figure in the story line; Saul became that.
Before we go further, we need to consider the diversity in the backgrounds of the leaders of the church at Antioch. This was NOT your typical Palestine-based Church made up of typical synagogue oriented Jews. Barnabas was a Jew from Cyprus (4:36). Simeon was also a Jew, but his Latin nickname Niger not only indicates he was of dark complexion but also that he moved in Roman circles. Some authors have suggested he could be the Simon of Cyrene who carried Christ's cross (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21), but this is highly debatable. Lucius was from Cyrene in North Africa (cf. Acts 11:20). Manaen had high contacts for he had been reared with Herod the tetrarch, actually Herod Antipas, who beheaded John the Baptist and who treated the Lord so shamefully at His trial. One in that court (Manaen) became a disciple; the other (Herod) an antagonist! At the end of the list, for he was last on this scene, was Saul, a Jew trained in the STRICTEST Rabbinical school there WAS at that time. Now THESE boys understood DIVERSITY! They MUST have understood what it meant to live and serve with folks who "JUST AIN'T LIKE MY KIND OF FOLKS". And yet, despite their wide and mutually wierd looking backgrounds, these men functioned as one. Is this church starting to sound FAMILIAR??!! I should HOPE so! 
Perhaps the name of Barnabas appears first in the list because as the delegate from the mother church in Jerusalem he held the priority position. 
13:2. Evidently God made His will known by means of the "prophets" in the church (cf. v. 1). Frequently in Acts the Holy Spirit gave directives to God's leaders (e.g., 8:29; 10:19; 13:4). Here He directed the five, while they were worshiping and fasting, to set apart for Him Barnabas and Saul. Once again the principle of two men working together is underscored. The verb "set apart" (aphoriz-) is used of three separations in Saul's life: at his birth he was separated to God (Gal. 1:15); at his conversion he was set apart for the gospel (Rom. 1:1); and in Antioch he was separated for a specific service (Acts 13:2). 
13:3. The church leaders placed their hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them off. The laying on of hands identified the church with their ministry and acknowledged God's direction for them (cf. Ananias' identifying himself with Saul by laying hands on him, 9:17). 
13:4. Directed by the Holy Spirit (cf. v. 2) they first went down to Seleucia, a seaport 16 miles from Antioch, and sailed from there to Cyprus. This island, known in the Old Testament as Kittim (Gen. 10:4), was the homeland of Barnabas (Acts 4:36). This implies Barnabas was the leader of the party and this was EMPHASIZED by the order of names Luke used in 13:2, 7. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS, because it will MATTER later. 
13:5. Salamis was the largest city in the eastern half of Cyprus. Evidently a large number of Jews resided there, for Barnabas and Saul proclaimed God's Word in the synagogues, not "a" synagogue.
Barnabas showed some wisdom in going to these religious centers: (1) It gave priority to the Jews receiving the gospel first (cf. Rom. 1:16; Acts 13:46; 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8). (2) Gentiles in the synagogues would be a fruitful field for sowing the gospel because they would already be acquainted with the Old Testament and its anticipation of the Messiah.

NOW pay attention to this next event, because it tells us something of the character of B., and shows us what a heart that yearns ONLY for the LORD to be glorified can do.
13:8. The sorcerer tried to turn the proconsul from the faith.
The name Elymas is something of a problem. Probably it is a Semitic word meaning "sorcerer," which was given or taken by him as a nickname. 
13:9. At this juncture Saul, now for the first time called Paul, stepped to the fore and assumed leadership. He probably was more aggressive and also knew Gentile minds better than Barnabas. From this point on Paul was the leader and his name preceded Barnabas' name except when they were in Jerusalem (15:12, 25) and in 14:14.
Furthermore, the Roman name Paul was used from here on; the Jewish name Saul was used only when he in his personal testimonies referred to his former life (22:7; 26:14). 
What did B. DO?! [HEY! I'M supposed to be in charge of this trip!! Who the blazes does this PUNK think he IS??!] NO! B. had a heart ONLY for the LORD! What was the RESULT of this attitude of his? HE was able to SEE the Lord at work AND RESPOND TO IT! Clearly Saul was the one that was filled w/ the Holy Spirit, NOT B. and B. HAD to KNOW that; SO instead of getting upset about this unexpected change in "plans", B. is READY! Ready to do WHAT?? To SERVE AND SUPPORT THE LORD'S WORK, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT. 
And WHAT was the RESULT? A BRILLIANT Pauline discourse of salvation that lead to 13:42-43. And was B. OUT of the picture, off sulking somewhere? NO! Because he was READY to respond to the Lord, he was THERE, available to answer questions, and encourage the listeners! 

13:44. So the WHOLE TOWN turns out to hear more! 

13:45-52. And WHAT was the RESULT? PERSECUTION!! Oh NO, AGAIN?? YES! But THIS time it was MORE than just another bad hair day for the preachers. THIS time the result was that NOW the Gentiles would be the FULL TIME TARGET of these POWERFUL men of God. POOR SATAN! He must have thought it was a good idea at the TIME to chase the boys out of the synagogue. But WHAT was the RESULT? NOW the REST of the entire human race gets to hear the gospel! [RELATE THE STORY OF WHITEFIELD AND WESTLEY] This journey with Paul in Acts 13-14, beginning in B.s own Cyprus, resulted in a chain of predominantly Gentile churches far into Asia Minor.

Ch 14 has our boys entering new gentile territory. Among OTHER things, Paul finds out one of the "fringe benefits" of being the new "point man" of the operation: everyone throws their rocks AT HIM! 
14:19. Some think that when Paul wrote about the man taken to the 3rd heavens in 2 Co 12:2, that he was talking about himself and what happened during this stoning and before he "got up". 

[READ 15:1-35]. Well, NOW that Paul's the new BIGSHOT of the group, does this mean B. sinks back into the woodwork? NO! Barnabas had another crucial task. 
15:1-2. Back at Antioch, the "circumcision" question became so acute that he and Paul were appointed to bring the matter before the Jerusalem Council. 
[WHAT WAS THIS "CIRC" QUESTION?] It was NOT a simple question of someone wanting a second opinion on a surgical recommendation! It struck at the very HEART of what salvation WAS in the Gospel; it was an attempt to CHANGE the answer to the age old yet always immediately crucial question: What must I do to be saved? The so-called Judaizers believed that to be saved by their Jewish Messiah, YOU yourSELF 1st had to become a Mosaic law abiding convert and THEN to STAY saved you had to REMAIN one; THAT included getting circumsized, as commanded by Mosaic Law. P and B said NO WAY! Not EARNED, but RECIEVED! NOT because we DESERVED it, but because JESUS DEATH allowed God to GIVE it to those who would accept it. 

15:3-21. God USED this crisis to teach the Church to UNDERSTAND more clearly what He meant in Jer 31:31-34 about a NEW Covenant between Himself and Mankind. [READ THE TEXT IN JER THEN Mat 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20] This NEW Covenant is based on GRACE and NOT on Man's performance (established under Moses in Ex 19). 

15:3-12. Paul and Barnabas understood what that NEW Covenant meant, and Peter and James ALSO understood it because of God's work in the Gentile Cornelius seen back in Acts 10...which, by the way, was apparantly 10 YEARS before THIS little crisis. However, because of the controversy Peter and James would be able to reinforce to the entire REST of the Church the SAME lesson: Grace has imparted to the Christian ALL the merit that we could EVER need (Jn 1:16; Ro 5:1-2; 8:1-2; Col 2:9-10). 

15:13-18. [HERE IS WHERE THE BKNT COMMENTARY DISCUSSION IS, PLUS MY MARGINAL NOTES]
OK, but what NOW? Since Christians are not required to live according to the Mosaic Law, just how SHOULD they live? What rules of behavior SHOULD they obey and live out daily? Jesus had taught the Disciples much about how to live and treat each other, MUCH that probably was NOT included in the 4 Gospel accounts (remember, they were NOT biographies or Sytematic Theology Textbooks, they were salvation tracts); BUT to the Jewish Church it would have seemed easy to have it ALL STILL be in the context of their STILL living according to Mosaic Law (hence the confusion for the Pharasaical converts who genuinely believed the need for Jewish conversion 1st), after all, the New Covenant did not PROHIBIT them from continuing to practice the customs created by Mosaic Law. The issue would NOT have arisen to CAUSE the growth of understanding about this NEW Covenant except for these Gentiles who NEVER were raised under the Law, who had their OWN cultural rules. The problem was worsened by the fact that MANY of the Gentile cultural practices were CONTRARY to God's expressed will for ALL mankind. 
It's important NOT to confuse God's "law" for all mankind and His "law" for Israel as expressed through Moses. They ARE NOT contradictory, what God declares as true in Mosaic law REMAINS true forever (hence it's study is STILL worthwhile, as God's TRUTH, ESP what He reveals about HIMSELF, STILL can be CLEARLY seen in Mosaic Law); HOWEVER, what He demands of men does NOT remain the same. Mosaic Law IS MORE restrictive, placing requirements upon Israel that were NOT meant to be UNIVERSALLY applied FOREVER to ALL mankind, ONLY while Israel was under the OLD MOSAIC Covenant, now superceded by the NEW Covenant. 
So, how DO we all live if the Mosaic Law ISN'T binding on us? How DO we determine what ARE God's general requirements upon ALL of us, Jew AND gentile? Although Mosaic Law is no longer OUR life, interestingly enough, God showed His consistancy by giving us guidelines that remained consistant with His laws given to Moses. All the 10 Commandents appear in the epistles except the one refering to the Sabboth; NOT as prohibitions, but as gracious opportunities of a redeemed people possessed of the Holy Spirit to please and obey the Lord. For us as Christians the critical issue is to understand that being "in-lawed" to Christ (1 Co 9:20-21) does NOT mean that the Christian is without law, but it does mean, as one redeemed by grace, that we have the PRIVILEDGE, of NOT doing what is is displeasing to God and of fully desiring that which is well pleasing to Him on the basis of gratitude for His salvation to us. We are no LONGER unwilling subjects under the yoke of a King with crushingly heavy laws, rather we are His CHILDREN, and it is as CHILDREN that we now are led by Him to obey Him as our Loving Father. No LONGER afraid of being cast out of His family, having been born into it FOREVER, we NOW wrestle with our sins on the basis of FELLOWSHIP. Our failures do not cast us out of salvation, they instead pull us away from that deeper fellowship and intimacy with our Father that He yearns for ALL of us to enjoy with Him. But through it all, He is the One Who will ALWAYS REMAIN our Father because of what JESUS DID, rather than because of what we are DOING.

15:19-29. SO, GIVEN this larger context, what WAS the point of the particular injunctions given to the Gentile Church at Antioch? Some commentators would imply that the only purpose was to give the Gentile Christians a "limited" or "special" list of Mosaic laws to comply with just to molify and avoid grossly offending the Jewish Christians. However, these same rules are ALSO found OUTSIDE Mosaic law, as part of God's wider universal desires for ALL mankind. James is NOW teaching these baby Ex-Pagan Christians what their new God desires of ALL Christians, NOT for salvation, but as we talked about earlier, for FELLOWSHIP; to teach them what GOD considers to be "sin", rather than what their CULTURE calls right and wrong. These were the FIRST or beginning of God's revelations for Christian behaviour under the New Covenant, the REST of His NEW Testament (or Covenant) was yet to be written. 
There were THREE things that the Gentile Christians were to abstain from or just simply NOT do and QUIT doing if they WERE doing them now: 
1. Eating food "polluted by idols"; cf v29, meaning sacrificed TO the idols, in which eating the food could be seen as participating in that idol worship (cf Pauls remarks 1 Cor 10:1422). And even if those Christians who were eating it DID know the freedom that Paul talked about in 1 Co 10, there was STILL the legitimate concern for OTHER "weaker" Christians being mislead or unnecessarily upset by the others doing such. 
2. Committing "fornication"; lit sex outside of marriage; From the very beginning with Adam and Eve, LONG before the Mosaic Law, God has clearly stated that He hates this and desires ALL mankind to flee from such behaviour. Then as now, the local culture had long since accepted such behaviour as "OK". 
3. Eating the meat of "strangled animals" and "blood"; This prohibition precedes Leviticus 17; Gen 9 tells how God established the Noahic Covenant, a "contract" some theologians believe is still in effect today whereby God gave people the privilege of eating flesh but the blood was to be drained from it. If this IS the case, Christians today should not eat blood sausage and raw meat.
These encouragements to Christian living were God's desires even before and apart from Mosaic law SO BOTH Jew AND Gentile could act TOGETHER to live out these standards. By acting on them the gentile Christians of Antioch would live out a high moral standard and ALSO would help them from un-necessarily offending their Jewish brothers and sisters. 
Paul and Barnabases policy was triumphantly vindicated. Significantly, Barnabas stands before Paul both in the account of the proceedings (v. 12) and in the Council's letter v. 25, contrast (22); probably the words of the original apostolic representative in Antioch carried greater weight with many in the Council. 

I now want to review this whole situation from a perspective of HOW the Barnabas and Church handled INTERNAL conflict. In 15:3 what was B. doing? Although a tender hearted guy who was always trying to reconcile and restore people in the Church, here he was up to his NOSE in profound hard-hitting CONFLICT! Salvation was at stake, and though always considerate of other's feelings, he NEVER would let salvation be compromised; that is HE UNDERSTOOD WHEN IT WAS TIME TO DRAW THE LINE, WHEN TO DECLARE THE ABSOLUTES OF THE WORD, EVEN IF IT CREATED FRICTION IN THE CHURCH. We TOO must be willing to face this moment of decision; to be aware that there ARE some issues that canNOT be "compromised" or "covered over in love". 
THEN what did he do? Denounce the Judaisers with venom and bodily throw them out? NO. They had a higher church authority to whom to appeal this matter, EVEN AS WE DO! WHO is OUR referrent authority, OUR arbiter of conflict within our church? Bobby, AND the Spiritual Leadership Committee! 
How did the church leaders handle the issue? Did they denounce the motives or character of those with whom they disagreed? NO. They spoke to the QUESTION, NOT the questioners. 
They also listened to EVERYONE, they gave ALL the people time to speak their hearts concerns in the matter. 
What was the FINAL criteria by which they judged the merits of the issue? THEY CONSIDERED GOD'S WORD, 1ST REVEALED IN HIS DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE LIVES OF THE APOSTLES, AND THEN AS WRITTEN IN THE OT. Remember, they had no "NT" text to refer to like we do; so that at THAT time God's actions took on the same strength of authority as His "written" Word. We, however, should be careful to NOT think that NOW any "experiences" we may have carry the same weight as God's WRITTEN Word. We are now NO LONGER "writing" God's New Testament through our lives and experiences in the Church, adding, as it were, to the text; we NOW are PROVING the truth of what GOD wrote through them so long ago. Even THEN they ALSO went to what written word they had to CONFIRM the authenticity of what experiences were being recounted, as seen in James references to Amos and the other prophets. They knew a truth we ALSO should keep in mind: God's actions are ALWAYS consistent with ALL that He has written in His Word. And it is HIS WORD that MUST be used as the plumb line for ANY disagreement within OUR church as well. 
In addition, when they considered their options, they sought a decision that considered ALL the peoples feelings, so long as God's TRUTHS were NOT compromised. There was no attempt to achieve what a lawyer friend of mine called "a carpet bombing victory" over their differing brothers and sisters. 
Then they chose those among them who BOTH sides trusted and who were known for their fairness and honesty to INSURE that the final decision of the Church was ACCURATELY represented to everyone involved. 

15:31. There it is again! EVERYTIME B. is involved, SOMEONE'S getting "encouraged"! This guy just can't seem to HELP himself!

15:36-41. OK, so having dealt with one area of confict within an entire Church, we NOW get to see how INDIVIDUAL Christians sorted out a problem between them. Later when Paul proposed to Barnabas a return trip to confirm the churches established on their first journey, Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them. Paul disagreed with this suggestion because Mark had split on them earlier, in Pamphylia (cf. 13:13). The argument became such a sharp disagreement (paroxysmos, "provoking, stirring up, arousing," the root of the Eng. "paroxysm") that they parted company. The KJV trans the GR as "departed asunder"; the Gr word is only used one other place in the NT, and THAT in Rev 6:14, where the heavens "departed" in apocalyptic catastrophe with the breaking of the 6th Seal. In other words, this wasn't a simple quiet considered discussion over coffee.
Was this an argument about Scriptural truth? Was this an argument over dcotrinal issues? 
NO! It was about what to do with Mark! 
WHY such a ruckus over one kid? BOTH men felt passionately and strongly about the issue, but what WAS the issue?? Paul saw everything from the perspective of the MISSION, and ANYthing or ANYONE who might compromise it's completion in ANYWAY is a THREAT and NOT to be allowed and never to be trusted again. Barnabas saw everything in terms of the PEOPLE involved. Just as he had with Paul before, he was willing to take a chance during the "mission" for the sake of perhaps one more Brother to build up. 
Probably both Paul and Barnabas were right in their assessments of Mark. It may have been too soon for Mark to venture out with such an apostle as Paul, but Barnabas certainly and correctly saw good raw material in his cousin Mark that Paul came to see, too (cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phile. 24; 1 Peter 5:13). 
Ultimately the Lord overruled in this dissension and as He often does, brought good out of a sad unfortunate situation for through it two missionary journeys instead of one were formed - one to Cyprus with Barnabas and Mark, and the other to Syria and Cilicia and ultimately Europe with Paul and Silas. Because of this Barnabas was able to perhaps rescue John Mark from possible uselessness and Silas was able to get discipled under Paul and go on to be another powerful builder of the Church. 
It was a difficult and painful time for the two friends. Given the apparantly rather harsh exchange between them, how did they resolve their conflicting convictions about John Mark? They went different ways. Here we see an example of "separation" because of personality or practicality, rather than because of DOCTRINAL issues. This may have been the ONLY possible solution to the problem. 
But did they continue to engage in a running gun battle over who was right or about how he said what mean thing to me? NO! 
Did they strive to suck the entire Antioch Church into their private NON-doctrinal squabble, eagerly soliciting allies and attacking others who failed to agree with them? NO! UNlike the 1st situation with the Judaisers, which was a conflict over the DOCTRINAL truth of Salvation, this was a case of conflicting PERSONAL views about how to conduct their ministry, now ministries. 
Did they see this as a justification for PERMANANTLY dispising and repudiating and criticising eqach others efforts? NO! In principles and practice they were identical, and the Apostle Paul owed much to Barnabas. It appears they remained friends despite their contention over Mark. Their close partnership was broken, but not their friendship. Paul later spoke of Barnabas in positive terms (1 Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10). 'Whenever Paul mentions Barnabas, his words imply sympathy and respect' (Lightfoot on Gal. 2:13). 
After ch 15, Neither Mark nor Barnabas are seen again in the Book of Acts; When 1st Corinthians was written, Barnabas was still alive, and, like Paul and unlike most of their colleagues, supporting himself without drawing on the churches (1 Cor. 9:6). After this, we hear only insubstantial traditions associating him with Rome and Alexandria. The Epistle to the Hebrews has often been ascribed to him, at least from Tertullian's time. There is a late Cypriot martyrology.

The next glimpse we get of B. is a sort of snap-shot in Pauls letter to the Galatians. In 2:11-21 we see that B. is just like us, NOT bullet-proof to getting on the wrong end of a bad situation in the church. How did this differ from their conflict over John Mark? THIS WAS a DOCTRINAL issue; here the conflict was about Salvation! Here Peter's gradual withdrawal from PUBLIC fellowship with Gentile Chriatians in reaction to the vivid shocked responses from a visiting jerusalem crowd precipitated a crisis. Peter was in effect teaching through his actions that there were TWO bodies of Chris, Jewish and Gentile. THIS WAS HERESY! The pressure must have been powerful and pervasive. Finnaly "even Barnabas" fell into the trap of worrying more about men's approval than God's. Paul's "even barnabas" has an almost plaintive hurt note to it; one of surprise and betrayal regarding one in whom Paul felt to be a rock of Doctrinal strength, with whom he had shared many trials and persecutions without ANY hint of weakness or giving in. 
This was a PUBLIC failure on their part, a PUBLIC statement of a FALSE doctrine, so Paul confronted and denied it PUBLICALLY. Barnabas apparently did not try to defend or exonerate his own failure. It can be assumed that Paul's declaration was accepted and agreed with by the offenders, resulting in a restoration of the TRUTH in their lives. The fact that our religeon was and always has been "led" by men who can and DO fail and mess up might cause some to say "Aha! See there! How unreliable is your truth because its leaders are/can be unreliable!" NO! For you see, OUR church has but ONE leader: the Incomparable Flawless Son of God, Jesus Who is God and yet Man. Let those who wish to know about Christianity look to only ONE place, to gaze upon only ONE Person: JESUS, crucified and risen NOW and ALIVE. If you MUST look at the rest of us, SEE then the JESUS at work IN us and even sometimes THROUGH us.