And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
And the contention was so sharp between them. The single word here rendered 'sharp contention' х paroxusmos (G3948)] is a strong one, expressing 'irritation,' 'exacerbation.'
That they departed asunder one from the other. Said they not truly to the Lystrians (Acts 14:15) that they were men of like passions with themselves? But which of these two servants of Christ was to blame in this case? First, that John Mark had either tired of the work, or shrunk from the dangers and fatigues that yet lay before them, was undeniable; and Paul concluded that what he had done he might, and probably would, do again. Was he wrong in this? See Proverbs 25:19. But, secondly, to this Barnabas might reply that no rule was without exception; that one failure, in a young Christian, was not enough to condemn him for life; that if near relationship might be thought to warp his judgment, it also gave him opportunities of knowing the man better than others; and that as he was himself anxious to be allowed another trial-and the result makes this next to certain-in order that he might wipe out the effect of his former failure, and show what "hardness he could now endure as a good soldier of Jesus Christ," his petition ought not to be rejected.
Now, since John Mark did retrieve his character in these respects, and a reconciliation took place between Paul and him-a reconciliation so cordial that the apostle expresses more than once the confidence he had in him, and the value he set upon his services (Colossians 4:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:11) - it may seem that events showed Barnabas to be in the right, and Paul too harsh and hasty in his judgment. But, in behalf of Paul, it may well be answered, that, not being able to see into the future, he had only the unfavourable past to judge by; that the gentleness of Barnabas (Acts 4:36; Acts 11:24) had already laid him open to imposition (see the note at Galatians 2:13), to which near relationship would in this case make him more liable; and that, in refusing to take John Mark on this missionary journey, Paul was not judging his Christian character or pronouncing on his fitness for future service, but merely providing in tile meantime against being again put to serious inconvenience, and having their hands weakened by a possible second desertion.
On the whole, then, it seems clear that each of these great servants of Christ had something to say for himself in defense of the position which they respectively took up; that while Barnabas was quite able to appreciate the grounds on which Paul proceeded, Paul was not so competent to judge of the considerations which Barnabas probably urged; that while Paul had but one object in view-to see that the companion of their arduous work was one of thoroughly congenial spirit and sufficient nerve-Barnabas, over and above the same desire, might not unreasonably be afraid for the soul of his nephew, lest the refusal to allow him to accompany them on their journey might injure Iris Christian character, and deprive the Church of a true servant of Jesus Christ; and that while both sought only the glory of their common Master, each looked at the question at issue to some extent through the medium of his own temperament, which grace sanctifies and refines, but does not destroy-Paul, through the medium of absolute devotion to the Cause and Kingdom of Christ, which, warm and womanly as his affections were, gave a tinge of lofty sternness to his resolves where that seemed to be affected; Barnabas, through the medium of the same singleness of heart in Christ's service, though probably not in equal strength (Galatians 2:13), but also of a certain natural gentleness which, where a Christian relative was concerned, led him to attach mere weight to what seemed for his spiritual good than Paul could be supposed to do.
In these circumstances, it seems quite possible that they might have amicably 'agreed to differ,' each taking his own companion, as they actually did. But the 'paroxysm' (as the word is) - the 'exacerbation,' which is expressly given as the cause of their parting-shows but too plainly that human infirmity at length sundered those who had sweetly aria lovingly borne together the heat and burden of the day during a protracted tour in the service of Christ. "Therefore let no man glory in men" (1 Corinthians 3:21). As for John Mark, although, through his uncle's warm advocacy of his cause, he was put in a condition to dissipate the cloud that hung over him, how bitter to him must have ever afterward been the reflection that it was his culpable conduct which gave occasion to whatever was sinful in the strife between Paul and Barnabas, and to a separation in action, though no doubt with mutual Christian regard, between those who had until then worked nobly together! But this sore evil was overruled to the furtherance of the cause that was dear to both, in a way and to an extent which in all aftertime would fill themselves with wonder. Two missionary journeys come out of this dispute, instead of one; and whatever route Barnabas may have taken after going to Cyprus, and whatever the result of his tour, Paul-instead of his course being limited, as at first intended, to the places where he had before preached the word of the Lord-was divinely led into Europe, to break new and far more important ground than before.
And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;