Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Saturday, July 20, 2013 Read – Acts 15:36-41 When we return to Luke’s story in the book of Acts we discover that all might not have been quite as harmonious is Luke presents the situation at the conclusion of the Jerusalem conference. Luke is very aware that Barnabas and Paul stopped working together after the Jerusalem conference. Why did that happen? From Luke’s point of view, the fly in the ointment is John Mark – the cousin of Barnabas (Acts 15:37). Luke had told us, without any explanation, that John Mark had left Paul and Barnabas to return home to Jerusalem when they arrived on the mainland of Asia Minor. Luke’s implication is that Paul held a grudge against John Mark because he had “deserted” them (Acts 15:38). Luke describes the disagreement as being “sharp” so sharp that these two friends part ways – never to reconcile as far as the scripture tells. It does seem rather strange that such an issue could cause such a split. Readers of Paul’s letter to Galatians may well wonder if the split between Barnabas and Paul was not much more significant and theologically motivated. Paul tells us that “even Barnabas was led astray by the hypocrisy” of Peter and the others (Galatians 2:13). More likely the cause of the rift between Paul and Barnabas was the same theological difference that came between Paul and Peter. Luke does not mention any of this – perhaps because he knows nothing of it – or because he still wants to “smooth” over the controversy that precipitated the Jerusalem conference in the first place. It is interesting that Paul will not speak about a relationship with Barnabas again in any of his letters. And it is more interesting that he does speak fondly of Mark – the same John Mark spoken of in our text. Paul says, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions – if he comes to you, welcome him” (Colossians 4:10)! And he also says in his letter to Timothy, “Do your best to come to me soon, for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry” (2 Timothy 4:9-11). It is rather easy to suppose that Paul and Mark “made up” somewhere along the line and that is the usual explanation for the positive words in these texts. That may be exactly true – but it may also be true that there never was a rift between Paul and Mark – Paul never speaks of such a rift even though he does speak of the rift between him and Barnabas. Of course this is all speculation and we cannot be sure what is historically correct. The point is, once again, that Luke and Paul do not agree about the story. And incidentally we should be careful not to automatically think that the Luke Paul refers to in his letter to Timothy is the author of the book of Acts. I’ll say more about that later but for now we need to know that the author is almost certainly not this Luke. There is one more interesting thing to contemplate. Luke tells us that Paul chose to take Silas with him in place of Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 15:40). Luke tells us that Silas was one of the Jewish Christians who brought the letter documenting the decisions made at the Jerusalem conference. Part of that decision according to Luke was the injunctions we have spoken of earlier. Certainly we have every reason to think that Silas would have been a supporter of James in the story that Luke tells us. Yet, Paul has spoken of the stark conflict that resulted from the visit of “certain people from James.” Was Silas one of them? If he was it is doubtful that Paul would have selected him to accompany him in his mission work. Are there two Silases? We do know that a Silas, known in Paul’s letters as Silvanus, did accompany Paul as a co-worker and even co-author of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians (1Thessalonians 1:1). Of course it is possible that Paul won Silas over to his point of view even though he could not do so with Barnabas. Again we are left simply to speculate and to wonder. Luke concludes by telling us that Paul revisited the churches in Cilicia that he apparently had founded prior to Barnabas coming in bringing him to Antioch and also the churches in Galatia he and Barnabas had established. For his part, Barnabas along with John Mark revisit the churches on the island of Cyprus. Perhaps the split had a silver lining – there are now two missionary ventures in place of one. We will not hear of Barnabas again – neither in Luke’s Acts nor in Paul’s letters.