How do you interpret the theology of the division of Paul & Barnabas?

[drivenfuture]

I think it is presumptuous to claim Barnabas was being divisive. I don't think he was. I think God caused this division so there could be two mission groups instead of one.

So God creates divisions, which he lists as sin through Paul? God cannot sin, and therefore cannot be divisive between brethren, whom he calls to unity. As to whether or not Barnabas was at fault--of this I am unclear--but if he was the unrepentant one; then Paul's authority no longer remains in question for me.

 

[drivenfuture]

I agree with @Scarlett O. in post #2.
I think the Lord sometimes overrules disagreements among Christians for His own sovereign purposes.

There was a church in Cardiff, Wales where they had had one Pastor for around 50 years. Toward the end of his time there, he brought his son in as 'assistant to the Pastor' with a view to his taking over when he retired.
However, the elders and the majority of the congregation took a different view and appointed someone else to the post when the Pastor finally retired. But about 50 members of the congregation left the church and set up a new one with the Pastor's son as the minister.

While this is all regrettable in many ways, the result is that there are now two fine Bible-believing churches where there was formerly one. I don't know the situation well enough to say if they are now fully reconciled or not, but I believe God has used an unfortunate situation for His glory.

[N.B. I am not saying that there are only two Bible-believing churches in Cardiff. PTL, there are many more than that, but there is one more than there used to be]

So you have a son who does not honor his father and mother and does not repent, and both parties leave matters unreconciled? That doesn't sound very Bible-believing, in particular on the son's part.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you have a son who does not honor his father and mother and does not repent, and both parties leave matters unreconciled? That doesn't sound very Bible-believing, in particular on the son's part.

That is not the case at all. The father felt his son had been poorly treated and supported him when the new church started up.
Also, I should add, the son did not start up a church at his own initiative, but joined the new one as Pastor when invited by people who had already left the old church.

I hope that clarifies. I'm not sure you do well constantly to look for sin in others. I think we all do well to look for sin in ourselves and seek to mortify it (c.f. Colossians 3:5-11).

 

[Reynolds]

Specifically curious about the reformed theology on the matter. For those who aren't aware, a brief synopsis on the situation is Paul & Barnabas were both great teachers who sailed together, but there came a rift due to differing viewpoints considering Jon-Mark, another fellow believer. Some believe they reconciled, some believe they did not.
To summarize the theological debate, many consider this a hateful division, or at least a sinful division left unreconciled; while many others might say the division was a mutually agreed upon departure for the sake of the Gospel---this text often comes into play in the non-reformed camps when there is a division that leads to the "let go and let God" heresy, generally claiming it is a loving thing to just let things be. There is probably much more than that to dive into, but that's a base start for the sake of this discussion.

I dont see how it's "theology" at all.

 

[rlvaughn]

There is no explicit scripture that details a reconciliation between Paul and Barnabas. I believe, however, that there is a bit of evidence that indicates that Paul and Barnabas did not continue to be at odds with one another.

In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul makes a statement about his apostleship and his rights as an apostle. In the context of this statement, 1 Corinthians 9:3-6, Paul mentions Barnabas as a Christian laborer who also "forebears working" (v. 6). It is short and straightforward, but hard to understand in a way that Paul doesn't recognize Barnabas as a co-laborer, or that he is still angry.

Now if we follow a biblical timeline, we find that the split between Paul and Barnabas is recorded in Acts 15, and from that point Barnabas went with Mark, and Paul went with Silas. Paul's trip to Corinth is not recorded until Acts 18, and this is during the time that he was laboring with Silas. Clearly, then, when Paul wrote to the church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 9 and mentions Barnabas, this mention is after the split of Acts 15. To me that suggests or implies that they had made their peace. It is enough to satisfy me. Others mileage may vary. Other than the clear indication that Paul and Mark were reconciled, I don't think there is anything else in the NT that speaks directly to this subject.

 

[AustinC]

So God creates divisions, which he lists as sin through Paul? God cannot sin, and therefore cannot be divisive between brethren, whom he calls to unity. As to whether or not Barnabas was at fault--of this I am unclear--but if he was the unrepentant one; then Paul's authority no longer remains in question for me.

God created the nation of Babylon to judge his people (read Habakkuk). God created persecution in Jerusalem to uproot his church. God created a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas to have two groups of missionaries rather than one.
The issue was a disagreement. There was no, zero, zip, naughta division on theology. God orders conflict in the church to have us accomplish his will when we are too narrow-minded to see his plans.
I have no doubt that God ordained this split in order to advance the Kingdom. I also see that Paul and Mark were working together later in time.
Perhaps you are looking for sin where there was no sin.

 

[canadyjd]

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 15:36-41 - New International Version

Seems as though it was a division solely based on the disagreement, and done in anger or something similar.

BTW - Where in the Bible is the reconciliation mentioned? I have yet to find this.

P.S. I don't have an agenda other than learn the texts that have always been troubling/confusing to me.

I think you are seeing something that isn’t there (anger?). The church made the decision to send Paul and Barnabas. The church gave the blessing to send Silas with Paul the second time around. It seems reasonable to believe Barnabas and Mark also received the blessing of the church to visit the churches founded in Cyprus. Both groups submitted themselves to the authority of the church in their efforts.

As mentioned earlier, the intention was to visit churches they had founded to strengthen them. Luke is focused on Paul’s ministry at this point in Acts, so he records Paul’s journey and gives only a small mention of how/why the two parted company.

As far as I’m concerned, the matter was taken before the church and reconciled, mutually agreed upon by both, and the ministry continued by separating into two groups to visit the areas where churches had been planted.

There is more evidence of this senerio than to assume these Godly men parted in anger and never reconciled.

peace to you

 

[rsr]

So you have a son who does not honor his father and mother and does not repent, and both parties leave matters unreconciled? That doesn't sound very Bible-believing, in particular on the son's part.

It appears you have a problem reading things into the text that are neither explicit or implicit. The posters have attempted to help you, but you are having none of it.

The thread is closed.