THE TRAGIC LOSS OF A FRUITFUL SERVANT OF GOD
BY DR PETER MASTERS
FROM SWORD & TROWEL 2006 No 3
‘And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed
asunder one from the other’ (Acts 15.39).
This week, numerous messengers of the Cross serving around the
world may be placed under strong temptations to quit their posts. It may be the result
of hurt pride, or it may be due to battle fatigue and despondency. Many office bearers
in live churches may be tempted to take offence at something or other, and to sink
back into complacency and indifference. Many key workers in Sunday Schools and
other church departments may become enmeshed in futile and unnecessary
personality tensions, leading to the forfeiture of spiritual power and blessing.
The devil’s determination to tear the Lord’s servants away from their work
is expressed in a range of subtle strategies, and no believer is sufficiently sanctified or
experienced to be out of reach of his wiles.
It was to prepare us for such temptations that the Spirit of God recorded
a tragic event which took place in the city of Antioch around AD49. It was an event
which separated two dear friends, Paul and Barnabas, breaking a wonderful
partnership which had been mightily blessed by God to the salvation of many souls
and the planting of numerous churches.
Theirs had been a Gospel partnership refined in the furnace of affliction,
and sealed through the giving of signs and wonders by their hands. Yet the day came
when that great union was severed, and Barnabas - even the gentle Barnabas - fell
from the privilege of special instrumentality. Who was to blame? How did it come
about?
It is quite extraordinary how many writers have decided that Paul was to
blame. This view is usually found in books written by non-evangelicals, but sadly,
many who should know better copy them. With a flurry of homespun psychology they
assess the situation along these lines:
‘Oh - we can explain this. The apostle Paul was a great man who possessed
tremendous zeal and strength of personality. And sometimes such powerful people
are apt to trust their judgement, want their own way too much, and steamroller over
others. Barnabas merely wanted to show understanding and gentleness to that young
man John Mark, who had failed in his loyalty. But Paul was wounded, angry and
therefore intolerant.’
The anti-Paul writers go on - ‘The lessons to learn from this are: (1) That
a strong personality can soon spill over into unchristian tyranny if unchecked. (2)
That divisions between churches usually occur over trivial things; therefore we
should all learn to be less dogmatic and more ecumenically minded. (3) That in the
end Paul managed to salvage his character by setting us a good example of magnan
imity, admitting he had been wrong, and making things up to John Mark.’
However, this analysis of the situation rides roughshod over the infor
mation that Luke gives us (with all the care and precision of a physician describing a
case). The fact that after some twelve years Paul strongly commended Mark
(Colossians 4.10 and 2 Timothy 4.11) is hardly to be seen as
an admission that he had been in the wrong. Indeed, it proves that Paul’s action of
standing Mark down had been the very discipline he needed, and that he had mended
his ways later, and gone back into Christian service with far greater tenacity and
usefulness.
There are five powerful reasons, drawn from Luke’s very precise account
of this dispute, which show that Barnabas was entirely (though uncharacteristically)
in the wrong. We must consider these, and then ask - Why did Barnabas throw away
his ministry? The answer will surely help us all to challenge and review our attitude to
the Lord’s service.
1 The first reason why Paul was right
and Barnabas wrong is stated by Luke in these words: ‘And Paul chose Silas, and
departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God’ (Acts
15.40). The members of the church at Antioch were evidently behind Paul in
this matter. They approved of what he had done, and agreed that a person who was
not yet strong enough to stand loyally in the face of pressure should not be trusted
again with heavy responsibility in the Lord’s service. They prayed for Paul and
committed him to the work with his new fellow-labourer.
2 The second reason why Barnabas
was at fault is to be seen in the way that his departure is recorded: ‘Barnabas took
Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus’ (Acts 15.39). Surely this brevity is
eloquent! There is no mention of the church approving or sending these two men on
their way. Doubtless there was much love and concern for them both, but they were
not sent or commended as missionaries in the service of the church at Antioch.
Therefore, as far as Luke’s ‘clinical’ record is concerned, Paul had the support of the
church and Barnabas did not.
3 The third piece of evidence for the
soundness of Paul’s decision arises from the ongoing record of Luke in the pages of Acts, for Paul continues to be an outstanding messenger of God,
endorsed by the amazing results of two further missionary journeys, and many other
powerful tokens of God’s continuing approval of his apostolic ministry.
4 The fourth reason for Paul being in
the right, and Barnabas in the wrong, is derived from the contrasting experience of
Barnabas in the Lord’s programme of blessing. Poor Barnabas, once so greatly used,
proceeded to take a much less significant place, and so far as the pages of Scripture are
concerned, he disappears from view. We do not read of him again as a great
instrument.
This is not to say that he was discarded by the Lord. Such a man would
undoubtedly have been restored to spiritual service, but at Antioch he stepped out of
the ‘apostolic band’ and away from the very front line of usefulness to which he had
originally been called.
5 The fifth reason why Paul’s judge
ment is to be regarded as wholly right is the fact that Paul’s recorded actions and
decisions are intended to be a source of guidance to the Lord’s people. Paul (speaking
under inspiration) repeatedly tells us to watch him and to regard his conduct and policy as an authoritative example, just as his words are authoritative. In all he did he was guided and safeguarded by the Spirit of
God, and any errors he made were not recorded in Scripture, so that he would be a
normative pattern for us. We are exhorted to be imitators of
him.[1]
Now Luke, in his narrative of what occurred at Antioch, gives no indica
tion whatsoever that Paul may have been at fault. Surely, therefore, as the Holy Spirit
tells us to observe Paul’s example and to follow it, He would not allow a grave error to
be recorded without some indication that in this case the apostle was in the wrong,
and not to be imitated.
Paul’s example is clearly right in this case, and we learn respecting John
Mark that a believer who has recently deserted the cause cannot be immediately re-
utilised in a position of significant responsibility and prominence. Paul did not
regard Mark as a total write-off, nor did he quarrel with him at a personal level. He
would certainly have been in favour of Mark being nursed back to full spiritual health
and used again some future day.
Once we are clear on the fact that the blame for this contention lay with
Barnabas, then the correct lesson and challenge can be drawn from it. Where did the
trouble start? Luke with characteristic precision tells us in Acts 15.37:
‘And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was
Mark.’
The trouble was that Barnabas made up his mind that
something would be done in a certain way. The Greek word translated
determined in the AV means that he willed or
wanted or resolved that John Mark would be with them. His
mind was made up and he was not prepared to be guided by the apostle, nor was he
willing to take account of the fact that Mark had previously deserted his calling. He
was so absolutely set on having his way that even if it led to a severance of a
marvellous partnership, he was not going to give in.
At this point it is good to be reminded of the fact that Barnabas was a
man of outstanding sensitivity, humility and kindness. An early convert of the
apostles in Jerusalem, his real name was Joseph, but the apostles had dubbed him
Barnabas, which meant Son of Encouragement. He was a landowner
who had sold the whole of his land and given the proceeds to the apostles (Acts
4.36-37).
It was Barnabas who befriended Paul when he sought to join the
church at Jerusalem. Later, Barnabas was the man chosen by the apostles to go to
Antioch to care for the Gentile converts there. The hallmark of his ministry was
‘encouragement’, the approval of Scripture upon his work being expressed in the
words of Acts 11.24 - ‘For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost
and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.’
Being sensitive to the leading of the Spirit, Barnabas sent for Paul to
be his fellow-labourer at Antioch, and when the Holy Spirit sent them forth on the
first missionary journey, he humbly accepted the supporting role as Paul’s apostolic
office became increasingly apparent.
Like Paul, he was loved not only by his people at Antioch, but by the
believers at Jerusalem, who regarded them both as - ‘men that have
hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 15.26).
Without doubt, Barnabas was a man of unquestionable commitment,
sacrifice and courage, blended with humility, unselfishness and gentleness. He stood
shoulder to shoulder with Paul, who must have been the most tenderhearted man
who ever lived, apart from the all-transcending, perfect Son of God.
Yet this dear and proven brother in the Lord, messenger of Calvary, and
companion of Paul, fell one day to a surge of self-will. Barnabas, of all people,
succumbed to the whisperings of Satan. Suddenly, the self-effacing Barnabas became
touchy, prickly, resentful, obstinate and perhaps even pompous. Suddenly he could
not bear to be contradicted or corrected. What stream of thoughts had Satan whis
pered to him in order to bring this about?
Once this new attitude took root in his mind, he became blind to his privi
leges and opportunities in the Lord’s service. He came to the point where he did not
even care about fulfilling his commission for the Lord. Over a personal whim he was
ready to throw away all that meant most to him.
Even so, what happened at Antioch should not detract from the memory
of Barnabas as a model servant of the Lord for most of the time. It should just lead us
to exclaim - ‘Even Barnabas!’ - and then we should consider how we will respond to
similar temptations when they come our way.
How many of the Lord’s messengers will be tempted this very week to
become self-important or over-sensitive to criticism? How many people in full-time
service for the Lord will be tempted to think nothing of their privileges and
opportunities because they feel frustrated, thwarted or despondent? How many will
allow Satan to feed their minds with the idea that the grass is greener somewhere else,
or that another flock will appreciate their talents and experience more? How many
officers or department leaders in churches will let personal pique steal away their
dedication to the task?
One wonders if Barnabas wished that he could have relived that day in
Antioch, when he left the side of his best friend and fellow-labourer. Many have
proved that hindsight is a painful emotion.
As servants of Christ we quickly lose our sense of commission
and privilege when we grow important in our own eyes, or when
we begin to resent the hardness of the task, or when we become envious of the high
incomes and possessions of those not in the Lord’s service. As soon as we lose the
servant spirit, and forget that we are called to please our Saviour and not ourselves,
then we quickly fall to discontent.
Dare we suggest a ‘stance’ which might have helped Barnabas in that time
of intense Satanic attack? It would be the motto text of 1 Corinthi
ans 15.58 - ‘Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord ’ It is, of course, easy for us
to say it, but without the express guidance of the Lord, Barnabas should never have
contemplated for a moment the idea of leaving his post and place at the apostle’s side.
If a minister even so much as thinks of quitting his post, then Satan will
help him to repeat that thought again and again. The more he thinks it, the less his
desertion will seem wrong, and the more unreasonable his problems will seem to be.
What is true of the privileged full-time servant, is certainly true of lay officers and
other key Christian workers.
The incident at Antioch is a sad lesson, but it shows us ourselves. Some
thoughts must never be allowed a second’s hospitality in the mind, for if God has
called us, who are we to decide when or how we will terminate our service? The
servant’s own will never comes before the work or the will of the Lord.
If even Barnabas could stumble and forfeit his special place in the service
of the Lord, how likely it is that we shall fall to the wiles of Satan! ‘But I keep under
my body,’ says Paul, ‘and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’ (1 Corinthians 9.27).
We must be afraid of the power of pride, self-will, discontent or
prickliness to cause us to slight the commission of our Lord, for we are potentially
our own worst enemies. We must ‘keep under’ any base thoughts of giving up or
looking for greener pastures, because we are in the hands of the Lord; under the
authority of the One Who has placed us where we serve, unless and until His
command shall come in an unmistakable way.
It has often been pointed out that the only ‘quit’ in the New Testament is in
1 Corinthians 16.13: ‘Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit
you like men, be strong.’ And this we must do - ‘Lest Satan should get an advantage
of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices’ (2 Corinthians 2.11).
Footnote [1] In the following texts, the AV rendering ‘followers’ is from the Greek word
‘imitators’ (or ‘mimics’): 1 Corinthians 4.16; 11.1; Philippians 3.17; 1 Thessalonians 1.6. See also Philippians 4.9
and 2 Thessalonians 3.9.
|
