Dennis Tuuri

We like to, I like to, as we’re going to read a psalm or as we’re going to sing a psalm rather, to hopefully be able to read the whole psalm in context of the song we sing. And this last psalm we read or read responsibly and then sang a portion of is a good reason why. This last song is a great blessing to us. It’s a psalm that brings a lot of joy to our hearts as we look upon the people blessed by God’s hand.

But if we put it in the context, the rest of the psalm in Psalm 144, we see that psalm begins by the acknowledgement that God trains our hands for war. And in the context of that psalm, we read about deceitful people and liars, etc. that David has to be delivered from. And it’s only as he goes through all of that he gets to the last stanzas of the psalm, which is the song we sang about the people will be blessed.

Well, we’re turning now in the book of Acts for our sermon scripture to Acts chapter 15 once more. We’ll finish up Acts chapter 15 today and we’re going to read an account of joy in Antioch after the decision of the Jerusalem council. But then we’re also going to see contention arise as the second missionary journey begins in contention.

There is a semicolon in the announcements between the two sections of the title of this sermon: “Joy in Antioch; Second Missionary Journey Begins in Controversy.” There’s not joy because of the controversy is what I’m trying to say. And yet we see the controversy is in the context of the joy that’s spoken of in the context of Antioch.

So please stand. We’ll read Acts 15 beginning at verse 30. We’ll read through verse 41, the end of the chapter. Acts 15 beginning at verse 30.

So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch. And when he had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them. And after they had carried their pace, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding, it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord with many others also. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they do.” And Barnabas determined to take with him John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with him, who had departed from them from Pamphilia, and went not with them to the work.

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 Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren under the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches.

We thank God for his word and pray now that he would illuminate our understanding. You may be seated.

I think in the book of Acts, we see kind of an unfolding of the acts of the Lord Jesus Christ as he moves through his apostles and the church to establish gospel life in the context of the world to turn the world from darkness to light to bring those sanctifying lights to all the nations.

And so we see a progressive unfolding of certain basic truths and I think in some sense there’s an unwinding approach. What I mean by that is we’ll see that the second missionary journey as we go through the weeks to come has correlations back to the first missionary journey. There is a continuity between the two and yet a development and expansion as well. And we’ve tried to talk about Acts 15 in the context of this development and expansion pictured for us in the first opening chapters of the book of Acts.

Remember how the book of Acts opens with the restoration of the kingdom being promised by Christ and he says just follow me obediently and we’ll do this, it will work its way out. And so we saw on the very day of Pentecost, really what all the book of Acts is about: all the nations being brought and discipled to the Lord Jesus Christ by way of these various countries represented by the people at the day of Pentecost and coming to salvation.

We saw that a picture after that of the stability of the church and then we saw the restoration of the lame man at the temple, persecution on the basis of that and then a picture again of the stability and steadfastness and joy and fellowship of the early church. We saw increased persecution develop and again we saw a statement about God’s bringing them through that and the stability and peace of the church.

Then we saw the restoration of discipline in the context of the restoration of all things being worked out through the preaching of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira brought the restoration of discipline to the church—God’s supernatural acts. As we go through the same cycle after the first missionary journey, we see these things happening again: persecution, rest and peace, contention, a restoration of church discipline.

And so Acts 15 has a lot of correlations back to Ananias and Sapphira. Now this is a maturing process. God, as we just read in Psalm 144, trains our hands for war. And in the context of this, the passage we just read, we read about Paul and Barnabas in Antioch and Paul then telling to Barnabas, “Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city.” This is very similar, of course, to the beginning of the first missionary journey.

But there is a significant difference. Do you see what it is? The first missionary journey—how did that begin? The spirit moved and he revealed that he wanted to send these men out for missionary work. In the context, I think of worship, the Spirit moves supernaturally in a powerful way. Here we see not the spirit doing these things, but men making these decisions. Paul initiates the second missionary journey by saying, “Let us go visit our brethren.” This should be a pattern that we’re familiar with by now, hopefully, if you’ve been here through the preaching of the book of Joshua.

And since then, I like to always refer to it in context of Jericho and Ai. Jericho—God’s supernatural victory. All they do is walk around the city. God brings the walls down. Ai—they have to plan strategy. There’s faint involved, deception in terms of warfare. There’s an elaborate strategy set to conquer Ai after its first defeat because of sin in the camp. This is the progression of our lives as well.

And if you’ve been a Christian very long, you know that in the beginning, things were fairly easy and things fell out very nicely for you and very in many cases supernaturally the spirit would accomplish things in your life. But as you grow up and mature, you’re to go on and to obey the spirit not now by his supernatural works in your life so much, but now through applying the word of God to your life in individual situations, you mature.

You go from eating manna to having to grow your own crops. That’s the way the progression goes here. Well, the same thing is true in church discipline with Ananias and Sapphira. We saw miraculous work. The word was spoken by Peter and they fell dead. In the context of the Jerusalem council, much more deliberation by men involved, no obvious assertion by the Holy Spirit of who is right and wrong. They have to take the word of God and apply it to the people of God.

And they did that and they did it very well and successfully. And in the context now of the second missionary journey and then following that, we see the end result of that contention and them applying God’s word, the Holy Spirit. We read of the peace and the joy, the confirmation, the consolation and exhortation at the context of the church at Antioch. This is one of those passages—the first four or five verses—that we have seen many of in the book of Acts where you go through controversy, you come to a time of rest, more controversy ensues, you come to a time of rest.

The Jerusalem council is preceded by the return, the successful return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and them dwelling there with the brethren a long time, peace and joy after the persecution and yet the work of the first missionary journey. After that peace and joy though, then came the contention again of the Judaizers and so they had their peace disturbed. But now at the end of all of that, as men apply the word of God again and the power of the spirit to the case again, the scriptures give us this picture of peace and joy in the context of the church at Antioch. That’s real important for us to know. It’s real important for us to point out to our children that throughout the scriptures trials and tribulations are going to happen but that is not the end of the story. God brings you through those times and sometimes those times can be protracted in your life.

But he brings you through those times to places of peace, rest, and joy and confirmation. Just as Psalm 144 begins with warfare, moves on then to the beauty of the people whose land is blessed with lots of oxen and lots of sheep and the daughters of the similitude of the cornerstones of a palace, gracing the palaces of a palace of a king—the great King of Kings. So that progression in our lives is pictured for us in the book of Acts.

It’s real important for us to remember that. It’s important because we get depressed, we get discouraged with all the troubles and tribulations. It’s important to recognize as you persevere, God will bring you to a resting point once more. You know, in Ecclesiastes, it says, “When you ask, why were the former times better than these times?” it doesn’t really answer the question. In Ecclesiastes, we’re told that such a question does not come from wisdom.

You don’t look back. You look forward to what God is doing and what he’s accomplishing in your life now. And you move forward knowing surely that he’ll bring you to a place of joy and rest once more as he did at the church of Antioch.

We’ll talk about that just briefly and then after we talk about that for a couple minutes, I’m going to talk about pancakes and constitutions. I’m going to talk about church discipline and how in this text we see an adjunct, an appendix, I think as it were. If you want to look at the discipline of the church being restored through the Jerusalem Council, we’re going to see an aspect of church discipline and the conflict between Barnabas and Paul that is absolutely essential for a mature church to understand.

And what I will be talking about is that discipline is corporate, but discipline is also personal. Discipline in its most obvious meaning of the term is to disciple. We think of discipline in the context of discipling in the context of formal church court. That isn’t always the case. And we’ll see in the case of Barnabas and Paul where the discipline of the church being in terms of church courts restored and matured to the Jerusalem council, we’ll see an application of it at the personal level as well—between conflict between Barnabas and Paul and in terms of this unwinding pattern of the book of Acts.

Then you know this pattern that’s unwinding now we keep going around the same circle. We’ll go around it again. We went through the first missionary journey. We saw various groups of people evangelized. Second missionary journey—we’ll see those same groups but with some additions put on as well. We saw the cycle, the restoration of discipline at Ananias and Sapphira spirals out into a much longer account of the Jerusalem council and I think also this conflict between Barnabas and Paul.

The restoration of discipline involves not just the restoration of church courts. It involves the restoration of a sense of discipline and discernment in the minds of the congregation, the minds of the individual people. Without that sense of discernment and discrimination, godly discrimination, all church discipline will fail because you know you can never have a situation where leaders direct the flow of a society. A church ends up with a government, a country ends up with the leader—leaders that reflect it—and if the government tries to lead in a particular direction, the direction the people are not willing to go, it’s not going to work.

It may work short term, it won’t work long term. So we’ll be talking about that. But it’s very important in the context of all of this that we understand that God gives us an eschatology of hope to encourage us to proceed on in the right path. That eschatology of hope is pointed out in the Jerusalem decree’s effect at Antioch in verses 30 through 33. Particularly verse 30, the decree is read to the people and delivered to them.

Verse 31, when they had read, they rejoiced for their consolation. And so the first response, the first effect of the Jerusalem decree, came from the Jerusalem council, is this restoration of joy to the congregation at Antioch. Their joy had been somewhat diminished by the controversy and they respond to the instructions that they receive with joy.

Now it’s important to remember here what the Jerusalem decree was saying and what it wasn’t saying because otherwise we misplace what should be our sense of joy as well. If the Jerusalem decree is interpreted as some do to be kind of an antinomian assertion that there is no law that’s applicable to the New Testament believer, then joy will come about as we ignore God’s law. But if you believe, as I spoke of a couple of weeks ago, that what we have here is the reassertion of God’s law, then joy is seen in the context of a proper response of God’s people to the clear divisions and distinctions which God’s law brings to our hearts.

In other words, the psalmist frequently talks about delighting in the statutes of God. And it is a horrible thing that in the church in America in the twentieth century so often the law is seen as somehow a bad thing for us and the clear moral distinctions that God’s commandments give to us are seen as burdensome somehow. The response of the Antiochian Christians to the assertion that indeed even elements of the book of Leviticus spoke to them and had binding effect upon them, their response to that was one of joy and not one of sorrow or depression or even of duty as much as it was a joy in God’s law.

Our response to the reassertion of God’s law in the context of our lives over the last decade or so hopefully is that same joy. If not, then somehow we’ve got a bad perception of the law. Somehow we don’t realize the law is given to a redeemed people. Somehow we think of the law as a way to earn favor with God which it was never meant to be.

Various mistakes, errors or sins might be creeping into your heart if your response to the law of God is one of depression, simple duty as opposed to the joy that the Antiochian church felt.

Now we’re told here that their joy was for the consolation. And then we read that Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves exhorted the brethren. Those two words—consolation in verse 31 and exhorted in verse 32—are essentially the same term. And this is the same term that frequently is translated in scripture as exhortation or exhort. Other places, comfort or consolation. And that’s because it really has both aspects to it.

In some context it is clearly more of an exhorting, exhorting people that they might use their volition, their will to walk in obedience to God’s word. In other places that very same exhortation is seen as a comfort or consolation to us. We have these double elements as it were in this term that’s used in the scripture and that double element is seen in our own lives as well.

God’s law is an exhortation to us but it’s also a comfort to us. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is a gift. It is a tremendous blessing to us to know that our sins are forgiven through the work of Jesus Christ alone. That there is nothing you can add to the righteousness of Christ that makes you somehow more acceptable to God.

There is no penance you can make that will add to the atonement finalized and completed in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for sinners. The gospel is a tremendous gift and blessing from God. But the gospel also brings with it a duty to respond in loving obedience to the savior who gave his life to us.

So the gospel is gift but the gospel is also requirement or obligation in our heart to respond to the Savior who did such a tremendous thing for us with acts of loving obedience. And so exhortation and comfort really go along together.

And the church at Antioch was comforted and confirmed. But they were also then exhorted by Judas and Silas who were prophets also themselves. Just by way of summary, I don’t want to dwell on this point, but I did want to mention a couple of things here. In 1 Thessalonians 2:11, Paul says, “You know how he exhorted and comforted and cheered every one of you as a father doth his children, that you would walk worthy of God who hath called you into his kingdom and glory.”

Now there these concepts are more split apart for us that are many times brought all together in one term in terms of exhortation or comforting God’s people. In 1 Thessalonians we’re told that he exhorted them, he comforted them and he charged them. He exhorted or admonished them to act freely—in other words, we are to act in free response to the gift of grace of Christ in obedience to that grace.

And so we’re admonished, we’re exhorted to act freely. We’re encouraged that we might act gladly. So the Antiochian Christians, for instance, were exhorted to obey the word of God freely and they acted their own volition. But they were also comforted that they might act gladly.

As I said, a proper response to the law is not some sort of dull, dreary obedience to the spirit as he writes the word upon our hearts. Rather, it’s to act gladly as well as volitionally in response to God’s word.

Now Paul in 1 Thessalonians added the third criteria that he charged them. And this reminds us that our response to God and his word is that we might act not simply freely, willfully obeying our savior, not simply gladly, but also we might act reverently. That our response to the preaching of God’s word, the instruction of the spirit as he writes his word upon our hearts would be a free response.

It would be a glad, comforted response, but it would also be a reverent response knowing that we are to walk in obedience to the very God of all creation and the God of our redemption as well. And so these Antiochian Christians are a picture of the peace and rest of men who understand their obligations to give their will, to give their emotions, and also to give their worship to the great King of Kings.

And so although they’re pictured in that regard for us here, this is a frequent pattern throughout the scriptures, of course—this exhortation which we’ve already seen in the book of Acts to a certain degree. Additionally into this exhortation, the prophets are also said to have confirmed them. The double response of the Antiochian church is joy and consolation. The twofold message of the prophets Judas and Silas to them is exhortation and also confirmation.

They exhort them to give themselves freely, gladly, and reverently to God. And in so doing, they confirm or strengthen the church at Antioch. So this is a very important and often repeated statement throughout the New Testament that God confirms his people. He strengthens them—what the word really means here is to strengthen something again.

And indeed in the book of Acts we’ve seen this already many times. This is really the purpose for which Paul goes back to these churches that he had already established. He goes back and we’ll see it in the next chapter, in chapter 16, to confirm the churches where the word had been planted, to restrengthen them, to exhort them to faithfulness.

You remember as he did with the believers in the first missionary journey, he exhorted them and confirmed them reminding them that it is through much tribulation and trial that we must enter the kingdom of God. So the idea of strengthening has the idea of bringing alongside God’s law. That’s what they’re there to deliver—the decrees of the Jerusalem council—to cause them to rejoice that their salvation is not their works. But also the idea of confirming or strengthening has to do with reminding them that indeed trials and tribulations are part of the Christian life.

This is an abiding obligation of God’s people to confirm, exhort, and comfort one another. We see this throughout the scriptures. Isaiah 35:3: “Strengthen ye the weak hands. Confirm the feeble knees.” Acts 14:23: “When he had seen the grace of God, was glad, and he exhorted them all that with purpose of heart, they would cleave unto the Lord.”

It’s necessary to do that again and again. Acts 14:22: “Confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.”

Indeed, 1 Corinthians 14:3 says, “He that prophesieth speaks unto men to edification, to exhortation, and to comfort.” Ephesians 4:12: “God has given officers to the church for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 2:11: “You know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you as a father doth his children.”

1 Thessalonians 3:2: “He had sent Timothy to them to establish you, to confirm you concerning your faith. Now we exhort you, brethren.” 1 Thessalonians 5:14: “Warn the unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.”

Indeed, this is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Because in 1 Peter 5:10, we read that Jesus Christ will indeed after they have suffered a while make you perfect, establish, strengthen and settle you.

Edification, exhortation, comfort. This is the abiding obligation of God’s people one to the other in the context of the church and in the context of the family as well. You’re all teaching your children things from the scriptures. You may be catechizing them. You may be going through the scriptures with them. You may be going over Bible stories with them in your family worship times. Whatever it is, you’re instructing your children, but please remember the task doesn’t end there.

Your task includes also the exhortation of those children to righteousness. Just as Reverend Bahnsen told us that the difference between teaching and preaching is beseeching. Teaching, instructing; preaching involves the beseeching of people as well to follow the Lord. And so as part of our family worship patterns, it should be certainly the edification of the children, the instruction to them. It should also involve an exhortation to them, a beseeching of them and yourself—as I beseech you today and I beseech myself to cleave to the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of tribulations and trials.

So we should do as our children as well. But then remember that third aspect that verse spoke of and these verses speak of as well: confirmation, confirming them, strengthening them, consoling them. Exhortation and instruction without confirmation and consolation produces children frequently who will despair at the demands being put upon them. And so it’s very important that we not only teach our children but that we beseech our children as well to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and that we comfort them and console them thus strengthening them in their faith, to reward them for the things that God has built into their lives and to make mention of those facts that they are progressing in the Christian faith and so confirm them.

Several Bible studies and prayer group meetings that I’m involved with—a couple of them now—we have talked about the need to remind ourselves in the prayer meeting to give thanks to God for the growth in our children’s life. You know, we’ll get together at these prayer meetings once a month and all the kids will ever hear about is what they’re doing wrong. We need prayer for this, this, and this, intercession.

It’d be a real good thing as a model for us in our homes to thank God at least one prayer meeting—maybe just give thanks for the things that he’s done in the context of the lives of your family and your children—but to have them hear that as well, confirming and comforting them of the growth that God is causing in their life.

Well, the church at Antioch then is—we have this little snapshot. We’ll return to this next week as well. We’ll see another glimpse of the comfort of the church. It’s interspersed throughout the book of Acts. And that is certainly important to point out here. It gives us, as I said, an eschatology of hope.

And if there’s nothing else that our children really require a lot of, and we do as well in the context of our day and age—and there’s so much judgment, so much rebellion, so much humanism and such a slide away from the faith—we need to remember that this is for a season, that God will be with us through this season of judgment in our country and that there will come a time again when the people will rest in the peace and assurance of the joy of Christ.

And there are times like that throughout our lives as well. We had such a time last week, many of us, when we got together at family camp, reaffirmed our relationships, heard instruction from God’s word, repented of sins, reconsecrated ourselves to Christ, all in the context of a joyous time of rejoicing in our salvation in Christ, recreating together, singing songs together, praying together, eating together, and having the picture of joy, consolation, confirmation, and exhortation, and then peace that we see described for us at the Antiochian church.

But it doesn’t last long there, and frequently it won’t last long in the context of our lives either, because immediately after this is recorded, we then see a tremendous controversy come to the church at Antioch. The second missionary journey begins not with all peace, joy, and lightness, but rather it begins with controversy. Once again, Paul initiates the second missionary journey, showing the development from Jericho to Ai.

God trains our hands to war. God matures his people. The Holy Spirit moves not just in miraculous, extraordinary ways, but now through the application of his word in terms of needing to confirm the churches that Paul understood his mission to include. And so Paul begins the second missionary journey. But we’re told in the context of that, first of all, that Barnabas determines to take John Mark along with them.

Verse 36: “After some days Paul said unto Barnabas, ‘Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they do.’ And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.”

So we have Barnabas determined, taking counsel of himself, so to speak, and determining to take along John Mark with them on this trip. Now I remind you that John Mark was related to Barnabas. I don’t know exactly how. Colossians 4:10 seems to indicate that they were either cousins or nephews. In the terminology, the Greek that’s used in Colossians 4:10, we cannot point down exactly the familial relationship between the two of them but it may have been that Barnabas was John Mark’s uncle, may have been that he was his cousin—so one of those two. They were close relations in other words.

And some people have talked about how this probably enters into this particular matter. Barnabas is looking upon John Mark and trying to help him out. Remember he had failed them and had deserted them in Pamphilia. So Barnabas is determined to take along John Mark on the second missionary journey.

But in verse 38 we see Paul with a different point of view. “Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphilia and went not with them to the work.”

There are two participles here that describe why Paul had made his evaluation of John Mark in terms of this ministry and found him wanting. When we read that Paul thought not good to take him with them, what that means is the root word there has to do with worthiness. And Paul is making a determination that John Mark is not worthy to take on the second missionary journey.

It is a statement of evaluation of where John Mark is at. Not so obvious in the English translation, very obvious in the Greek text. So Paul makes a determination. It’s in other words not just that he kind of thought it wasn’t a good idea. He made a studied evaluation of John Mark in reference to past actions and made a determination that he would not take John Mark with him.

And the reason for that, as I said, is involved in these two participles. First of all, he departed from them. And secondly, he went not with them to the work. He didn’t convocate together with them in the work in Pamphilia, but rather he departed from them. He deserted them.

Now these are very strong terms that Paul uses here. It isn’t just that he left. The word has the concept of desertion from a post. The word, actually, back in earlier in the book of Acts we read about John Mark’s leaving of them in Pamphilia. That was a strong word for leaving with that frequently is involved in the New Testament with negative connotations. This word is even stronger. This word could be translated deserted. It’s a very strong word and it’s a condemnatory word of Paul toward John Mark.

And then secondly, he didn’t associate. He did not convocate with them so to speak. He did not go with them to the work.

Now just a passing comment here: Paul is making an official determination relative to a public ministry of the church. And some commentators have commented that Barnabas may well be making a personal evaluation of John Mark and desiring to assist him, which of course is a good thing. However, Matthew Henry reminds us that we should suspect ourselves of partiality and guard against it in preferring our relations.

In other words, some have—you know, we don’t know—but some have commented upon the fact that what can happen is that close familial relationships can prove to be a source of partiality with us. And what I think is why, that is because we give them more the benefit of the doubt.

And so Barnabas is looking more for the good that he can see in John Mark apparently than for the obvious factual demonstration of his unworthiness through his service during the previous missionary journey. And that would be a good reminder to us as well.

You know, the Puritans used to have a practice, I understand, at least early on in this country, where they would take their children at a certain age and farm them out for a year or two. They’d give them to another family in the church to raise or to instruct. And the reason for that has to do with this warning by Matthew Henry. We can show partiality to our own family, particularly our own children. They can deceive us better. It’s more difficult to discern the obvious sin in their lives on the part of parents, etc.

Puritans understood that and so took means to try to avoid that in the context of the upbringing of their children.

Well, in any event, Paul is determined that this will not happen. He says that Mark is not worthy. He says that Mark had fallen away or departed from them. This word is actually used in the context of other scriptures of a departing from the faith. A man, Jay Alexander, refers to this term in Acts 15. He says that Paul evaluated John Mark’s conduct as a species of apostasy.

Apostasy is to fall away from the faith. While John Mark didn’t completely apostasize, he fell away from the duties that were required of him that he had taken upon himself as he went on that first missionary journey. He had withdrawn in time of trouble. We don’t know what the trouble was. All we know is that there was time of trouble. Something happened and he bailed out.

And so Paul says, “We’re not taking him with us.” The end result of this is a very sharp clash between Barnabas and Paul.

Verse 39: “The contention was so sharp between them, they departed asunder, one from the other.”

This is a strong disagreement. And the terminology used here in the Greek is very strong. They’re not common words. The term contention here has the same root meaning as being warned against provoking people to anger in 1 Corinthians 13:5. It’s a strong emotional disagreement that occurs here.

Now this contention—in other words, what I’m trying to say—is this is no small matter. It’s not like they had a little disagreement about John Mark and decided to part peaceably. That’s not the picture here. The picture here is that there was very sharp disagreement, very sharp contention and disorder between them. The contention was extremely sharp.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5 we read that love does not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked. That is akin to this word. There was much provoking that went on in the context of this difference of opinion between Barnabas and Paul and whether or not John Mark should go with them.

On the other hand, Hebrews 10:24 tells us to consider one another to provoke unto love. And that’s the same basic word too. So just as strong as this disagreement is, it’s also a reminder to us that we’re supposed to strongly provoke one another to good, to love based upon Hebrews 10:24.

But again, the thing that’s important here to remember is that this was a very strong dissension between the two of them. And this strong disagreement had a resultant division.

The text reads in verse 39 that the contention was sharp and the contention—well, I won’t get into the grammatical construction but it’s real obvious that in the Greek, particularly obvious that the contention was the cause of the departing asunder from one another. So it wasn’t if they had the contention, they thought about it, then calmly considered it and then decided to part. The sharp disagreement that occurred was the precipitating cause, the immediate cause of them coming asunder from each other and going in two different directions.

And so there was a resultant division in the context of two men who up to now had been close friends, close collaborators in the context of the church.

This term for split asunder, the only other place it is used in the New Testament is in the book of Revelation in chapter 6:14 when the heavens depart or split asunder as a scroll when it is rolled together and every mountain and island are moved out of their place.

So it’s not your typical term just for leaving each other. It’s only used in one other place when the heavens themselves part and the hills and mountains are moved out of their place. Big rend is what’s going on here between Paul and Barnabas. This is a big deal. This is not a small thing. It’s a big deal.

Barnabas then leaves and he goes to his hometown essentially. He goes to the part of the world where he had come from and he takes John Mark with them. Paul also leaves and goes a different direction and Paul selects Silas to replace him.

Verse 39: “Barnabas took Mark sailed unto Cyprus. That’s where Barnabas came from.”

Verse 40: “Paul chose Silas.”

The word chose here again isn’t just choosing something. It is to choose in replacement of another. So the text makes it very clear that Barnabas is replaced as Paul’s collaborator by Silas. Okay? It isn’t just I’ll take Silas this time. He chose—he replaced Barnabas with Silas. There is a substitution going on.

And while I don’t want to stress it beyond what the scriptures say, remember that we have the substitution of, for instance, Matthias for Judas. Now we’re not saying here that Barnabas is completely apostate. I want you to understand that the word chose here doesn’t just mean I decide to take Silas this time. It has within the very term itself the idea of replacement for Barnabas.

Some theorize that Silas may have been back at Jerusalem and that Paul actually had to send for him to come back as the replacement. But in any event, we know that Paul replaced Barnabas with Silas and they depart.

And very importantly here we read that they were recommended by the brethren under the grace of God. This is very important. There is no commendation. There is no recommendation. There’s no sanction by which Barnabas and Mark going to Cyprus are confirmed by the church.

No, the church puts its imprimatur, so to speak, upon Paul and Silas. This is the same phrase used back in chapter 14. Remember when they returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were from which they had been recommended to God, to the grace of God by the church. Same term here.

And so we have a second recommendation, a second sanctioning of the church for the second missionary journey and that sanctioning does not go upon Barnabas and Mark. It goes upon Paul along with Silas. Very important thing to consider here.

And then they go through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches. And it’s interesting that in verse 41, he went through Syria and Cilicia. Up until now when Paul and Barnabas were out walking around, it was always they—they even though there’s been a replacement for Barnabas, Silas. Paul is now seen as definitely the leader.

He singularly—Silas is with him but the text wants us to understand he singularly, Paul, went through these churches confirming them. That’s the same word we talked about earlier: strengthening the churches again.

So Paul is commended to the church, or by the church rather, to the grace of God. Now the way of accounting here—and I apologize for some of this wording I’ve got in this outline. Perhaps I didn’t know how to title this last point. So I’ve got several things listed there: Nice guys finish last. That’s probably a bit flippant, but you see the direction I’m going.

We could call this the crying need for biblical discernment mixed with humility and grace. Or we could call this how to be unpopular like Paul.

Now what I want to get at here, and this is where we talk—I think these last four or five verses give us an illustration of personal discipline, personal discernment and personal discrimination on the part of Paul apart from official church action.

Some people look at this story and they say well isn’t this a great thing? This division led to two different laborers in different fields. You know, we know of, for instance, the contention in the Christian Reconstruction movement about a decade ago and the end result of that was the establishment of several centers around the country and we can see in that God’s providence working through these things to bring about more laborers for the field and more work being done.

The only problem with that is we don’t exactly know—at least I don’t know—that Barnabas ever accomplished work from here on out in terms of the field. There’s no record. There’s no indication. This is the end of Barnabas in terms of the scriptures essentially. We’ll see no more of Barnabas in the book of Acts. We’ll see no record of any work that he has accomplished. We’ll see no reference to him in the book of Acts.

And in the epistles we see a few references to Barnabas, very few. Those could be either related to what happened before this split occurred. And there is another place where Paul in writing to the Corinthians talks about how Barnabas and I could have taken a wife. It’s a recognition of past labors. But there’s no indication in the scriptures that Barnabas goes on to any fruitfulness at all.

Now there is about John Mark. There are many verses and we’ll talk about that in a little while. John Mark is reconciled back to Paul. They become close again so that Paul actually refers to him as a son later on. But there is no mention, there is no evidence in scripture of any kind of reconciliation between Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas essentially is gone from the record of the acts of Christ through his church in the book of Acts and in the epistles as well.

Some people say that Barnabas was a nicer guy here than Paul. Paul is always, you know, kind of picture—people picture him as kind of cranky and hard to get along with and unforgiving. And people say, well, maybe Paul should have been a lot more nice here. And Barnabas was just trying to give a guy a second chance who had problems. And after all, we know that John Mark later on is a pretty good guy. So Barnabas was right, right?

Some people say that Paul should have been more forgiving, more gracious, more compassionate with John Mark. But there is nothing in the text to indicate that. There are things in the text to indicate that Paul was correct in this.

The first indication is the seriousness of John Mark’s sin. We’ve touched upon that already both in the early account in the book of Acts as well as in this account. John Mark’s sin is described in very strong terms.

Secondly, even if Paul was wrong, shouldn’t Barnabas have submitted to the Apostle Paul? He is now the leader. We’ve seen that transition in the first missionary journey. And if he’s the one now who God has placed his particular grace upon as the apostle to the Gentiles, shouldn’t Barnabas have submitted to Paul in this matter? I think he probably should have.

As we mentioned, Barnabas’s silence throughout the rest of the book of Acts and the epistles is an indication that Paul was the correct position on this matter.

And then very importantly, the church’s commendation of Paul. Even those who disagree, that there was fault to be found here, even commentators who don’t necessarily agree that Barnabas was wrong and Paul was right, do indeed admit that the church took that position.

Matthew Henry wrote, for instance, the following: “They thought he [that is, Paul] was in the right for refusing to take John Mark and couldn’t but blame Barnabas for insisting upon it.”

Lenski also says in his commentary that the church sided with Paul and not with Barnabas. So even those commentators then who may not agree that this split was based upon sin on Barnabas’s part still see the church’s commendation of Paul’s work.

Okay. And then of course we see the tremendous blessing to Paul’s work as well based upon this. And I would even say that we see the reconciliation of John Mark to Paul later on as well. There’s no indication on Paul’s part that he’s repented of anything. And yet they’re reconciled back together.

I think that Paul was right. I think that Paul discriminated and discerned according to biblical prescriptions and I think those prescriptions should guide us as well. And so I think this is a further maturation of the concept of church discipline.

Now I want to say this stuff kind of carefully because you know this could provide an occasion of the flesh to you to lash out at other people or to be judgmental. And that’s where I say we want to do these things that Paul did with humility and with grace.

But it’s my belief that the far greater problem in the context of the church in America today is a desire, as Dennis Peacocke has said, and I’ve quoted over and over again, to be nicer than Jesus, to not be discriminating and discerning relative to personal relationships and who is equipped or not equipped for service in a particular ministry of the church.

I think that there is indeed a need to understand that nice guys, if by nice we mean those people who ignore the biblical teaching relative to discernment and discretion in personal relationships, that nice guys do indeed finish last. Now if you mean by nice guys, Bible-believing, obedient Christians who obey the Holy Spirit and desire to be gracious and humble, yet applying the standards of God’s law, they don’t finish last, they finish first.

But if by nice we mean nicer than Jesus and a failure to apply biblical texts relative to the conducting and regulating of our relationships with others, those people finish last. And they should because if you’re going to disobey God’s scriptures for the sake of some sort of socially perceived niceness or for the sake of not offending anybody, then you’re going to offend God.

God’s standard gives us regulations relative to our relationships one to the other. And to fail to apply those regulations, we may not offend men thereby, but we will certainly offend God. And all too often we have, as Reverend Bahnsen pointed out during our talks, we’re more afraid of the IRS, for instance, relative to our money than we’re afraid of offending God by failing to tithe. And we’re more afraid of offending our brother in the Lord than offending the Lord, who tells us how to relate to different kinds of brethren in the context of our community.

The scriptures tell us that nice guys should finish last if by nice we mean a violation of God’s word.

We have a crying need, as I said, to make biblical discernments here. I’m going to talk about pancakes and constitutions. I said I would. Let me tell you a story. I have a brother who when he was young—about, I don’t know, fifteen, sixteen years old—he went to a restaurant with my parents and my father ordered buttermilk pancakes and they brought out the pancakes and they weren’t buttermilk pancakes.

And my younger brother, being always having a well-developed sense of justice and fairness and deserved ness, etc., said, “Why don’t you send those pancakes back?” My dad said, “No, it’s okay. No big deal. They made a mistake.”