Commentary on Acts
A certain misunderstanding arose between Paul and Barnabas: one stood on the ground of justice, while the other wished to set justice aside, but each had one goal—the service of faith. The cause of the misunderstanding was as follows. On the evangelical journey, a certain Mark accompanied them from Palestine to Perga of Pamphylia, who, being a weak person, fell behind the apostles and returned to Palestine, not denying Christ, however, but refusing to continue the journey as too difficult for him. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas returned with abundant fruits of faith and piety and proclaimed to the church in Jerusalem the conversion and repentance of the Gentiles. When Paul and Barnabas began to receive praise for their labors, Mark grew sorrowful and troubled in soul, because he thought: if he too had been with the apostles, he would have become a partaker in their glory. And therefore he again wished to accompany them. Barnabas accepted him as one who had repented, but Paul insisted that one should not take along on the Lord's work a man who had been unable to accompany them before. Thus, the disagreement had the character not of injustice but of righteousness, and it arose from a misunderstanding. Paul demanded justice; Barnabas demanded compassion. Differing in opinions, they were united in their feeling of piety and were divided not by faith and convictions but by human misunderstanding. This happened, however, by God's arrangement, because as soon as they parted, Barnabas took Mark with him and went his own separate way. But Paul's strict exactness also brought its benefit to Mark, since through his zeal he strove to make amends for his former negligence. Paul advised the churches not to receive Mark not in order to grieve him, but in order to make him more zealous, and when he saw that Mark had shown signs of zeal and justified himself by his subsequent actions, he begins to commend him and say: "Greetings to you from… Mark, the nephew of Barnabas (concerning whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, receive him)" (Col. 4:10).
We observe a difference in opinions and temperaments among the prophets as well. Thus, Elijah is stern, Moses is meek. In the same way here too: Paul is more insistent than Mark. But look: he is at the same time also forbearing. He did not grow heated, but insisted firmly on not taking Mark. So then, what? Did Paul and Barnabas part as enemies? God forbid! In Paul's epistles you find that Barnabas received much praise from Paul after this. It even seems to me that they parted by mutual agreement, saying to each other: "Since you do not want what I want, and vice versa, let us, so as not to argue, choose different regions for preaching." And so they did, fully yielding to one another. And this was written for our instruction, to warn us against falling, because we, being human, cannot avoid disputes, but in disputes we should make mutual concessions. But for Mark this dispute was as beneficial as possible. Paul's strictness corrected him, and Barnabas's leniency encouraged him not to abandon his calling. Thus Paul and Barnabas argue; but from the argument comes one result — benefit. Looking at Paul, who resolved to part with Barnabas, Mark was greatly frightened and blamed himself; and looking at Barnabas, who so defended him, Mark grew to love him deeply. And the disciple is corrected by the dispute of his teachers — so far was this dispute from serving as a cause of scandal.
แปลด้วย Google