Acts 15:39

And besides, the contention cannot be said to be evil, when each disputes for such objects (as here) and with just reason. I grant you, if the exasperation were in seeking his own, and contending for his own honor, this might well be (reproved): but if wishing, both the one and the other, to instruct and teach, the one took this way and the other that, what is there to find fault with? For in many things they acted upon their human judgment; for they were not stocks or stones. And observe how Paul impeaches (Mark), and gives the reason. For of his exceeding humility he reverenced Barnabas, as having been partner with him in so great works, and being with him: but still he did not so reverence him, as to overlook (what was necessary).

The point to be considered, is not that they differed in their opinions, but that they accommodated themselves the one to the other (seeing), that thus it was a greater good their being parted: and the matter took a pretext from this. What then? did they withdraw in enmity? God forbid! In fact you see after this Barnabas receiving many encomiums from Paul in the Epistles. There was "sharp contention," it says, not enmity nor quarrelling. The contention availed so far as to part them. And with reason: for what each supposed to be profitable, he did not forego thereafter, because of the fellowship with the other. Nay, it seems to me that the parting took place advisedly, and that they said one to another "As I wish not, and thou wishest, therefore that we may not fight, let us distribute the places." So that in fact they did this, altogether yielding each to the other: for Barnabas wished Paul's plan to stand, therefore withdrew; on the other hand, Paul wished the other's plan to stand, therefore he withdrew.

It seems reasonable that the separation arose from mutual understanding, and to say to one another that "Since I wish it and you do not, so that we do not quarrel, let us divide the regions." Therefore they entirely yielded to one another in this. …

There was, however, discord. Do not think this a sin. For it is not wrong to be troubled, but to be troubled irrationally, without any just cause.

And Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. For the brother he loved and who was related to him (for they are said to have been cousins), Barnabas, separated from Paul, returned to his native island, and nonetheless carried out the evangelical work commanded to …

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 …

And there was a sharp contention - Literally, a paroxysm, or fit of a fever. But nothing in the text implies that the sharpness was on both sides. It is far more probable that it was not; that St. Paul, who had the right on his side, as he undoubtedly had,) maintained it with love.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — unbalanced-parens

And the contention was so sharp between them,....

If ever there was a heaven upon earth, surely it was in the church at Antioch at this time, when there were so many excellent ministers there, and blessed Paul among them, building up that church in her most holy faith.

And the contention was so sharp - The word used here παροξυσμός paroxusmos is that from which our word “paroxysm” is derived. It may denote “any excitement of mind,” and is used in a good sense in Heb 10:24. It here means, however, “a violent altercation” that resulted in their separation for a time, and in their engaging in different spheres of labor. And sailed into Cyprus - This was the native place of Barnabas. See the notes on Act 4:36.

How watchful does all this teach Christians, and especially Christian ministers and missionaries, to be against giving way to rash judgment and hot temper towards each other, especially where on both sides the glory of Christ is the ground of difference! How possible is it that in such cases both parties may, on the question at issue, be more or less in the right!

The contention was so sharp between them - For all this sentence, there is only in the Greek text εγενετο ουν παροξυσμος; there was therefore a paroxysm, an incitement, a stirring up, from παροξυνω, compounded of παρα, intensive, and οξυνω, to whet, or sharpen: there was a sharp contention. But does this imply anger or ill-will on either side? Certainly not. Here, these two apostles differed, and were strenuous, each in support of the part he had adopted. “Paul,” as an ancient Greek commentator has it, “being influenced only with the love of righteousness; Barnabas being actuated by love to his relative.” John Mark had been tried in trying circumstances, and he failed; Paul, therefore, would not trust him again. The affection of Barnabas led him to hope the best, and was therefore desirous to give him another trial. Barnabas would not give up: Paul would not agree. They therefore agreed to depart from each other, and take different parts of the work: each had an attendant and companion at hand; so Barnabas took John Mark, and sailed to Cyprus: Paul took Silas, and went into Syria. John Mark proved faithful to his uncle Barnabas; and Silas proved faithful to his master Paul. To all human appearance it was best that they separated; as the Churches were more speedily visited, and the work of God more widely and more rapidly spread. And why is it that most men attach blame to this difference between Paul and Barnabas? And why is it that this is brought in as a proof of the sinful imperfection of these holy apostles? […]