“And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.” (Acts 15:39–40)

Every seasoned pastor and organizational leader experiences significant conflicts and disagreements with fellow staff members, elders, or ministry colleagues. There are various reasons for such disputes: theological convictions, ministry strategies and priorities, leadership styles, communication gaps, perspectives about partnerships, and more. While many conflicts can be resolved to preserve and strengthen ministry partnerships, disagreements often prompt coworkers to part ways.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott, the most prominent evangelical pastors in London in the 1960s, famously clashed at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966.1 The older Lloyd-Jones addressed the assembly (chaired by the younger Stott) with a provocative call for evangelicals to show “evangelical ecumenicity” and separate from doctrinally mixed denominations. Stott then took the stage and sharply criticized Lloyd-Jones before the assembly, warning attendees not to “make a precipitate decision” in response to the Doctor’s moving message.2 Their public dispute opened a rift in the evangelical movement of the day. This parting of the ways was followed a few years later by the difficult split in July 1970 between Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer over the latter’s decision to co-author Growing into Union with another Anglican evangelical and two Anglo-Catholics. This separation brought an end to the Puritan Studies Conference that Lloyd-Jones and Packer had co-founded.3 Three decades after Lloyd-Jones’s death, Packer reflected irenically on the legacy of his longtime friend and mentor:

To be sure, our ways parted abruptly when he realized that on the question of local church alignment I, a would-be reforming Anglican, was not with him nor was ever likely to be. But I have never ceased to regard him as a great man … a man whom God used powerfully to recall British evangelicals, both individually and corporately, to their true roots in the Bible, in the gospel and in theology—in other words, in Christ—at a time when such a recall was badly needed.4

Acts 15:36–41 recounts the end of the early church’s most important and fruitful missionary partnership between Barnabas and Paul.5 This article reflects on the history of their partnership, the nature of their “sharp disagreement,” and their reasons for separating, in order to glean lessons for leaders today who face challenging conflicts in ministry.

1. Paul and Barnabas’s Ministry Partnership

The stunning transformation of Saul (Paul) from violent persecutor to bold preacher was repeatedly met with suspicion and resistance by disciples. When the Lord instructed Ananias in a vision to go and minister to Saul, the disciple voiced strong reservations: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13). Further revelations about Saul’s future suffering and ministry finally moved Ananias to embrace this formidable opponent as “brother Saul” and baptize him (9:17–18).6 Several years later (Gal 1:18) when Saul traveled to Jerusalem and attempted to join the church, he again faced questions and apprehension: “they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26). But for the Jerusalem saints, it was not a heavenly vision but a courageous mediator that helped them to overcome their fears about Saul: “Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus” (9:27). He vouched for Saul’s genuine encounter with Christ and his fearless preaching in Christ’s name. Barnabas’s efforts led the apostles and Jerusalem saints to welcome Saul as a fellow believer and trusted minister partner, as “he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord” (9:28). This new relationship between Barnabas and Saul soon developed into a remarkably fruitful ministry partnership.

Later, Barnabas traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch to visit the many new converts from among the Greeks. Observing God’s genuine work among these people, Barnabas (whose name means “son of encouragement” [υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, 4:36]), then “encouraged [παρεκάλει] all of them to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts” (11:23). He also wisely recognized that he needed help to shepherd the burgeoning church. So he went to considerable effort to locate Saul, traveling 130 miles to Saul’s hometown of Tarsus (22:3)—an eight-day journey by land.7 Barnabas returned to Antioch with Saul, and “for a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people (11:25–26).

In response to a severe famine, the believers in Antioch sent Barnabas and Saul with a financial gift for the afflicted saints in Judea (11:29–30).8 They undertook this lengthy journey during a time of danger and hardship and evidently experienced “the help that comes from God” (26:22) as they completed their service. After successfully delivering relief funds to the Jerusalem church, Barnabas and Saul returned to Antioch. Luke notes that John (whose other name was Mark) accompanied them on their return journey (12:25), an important detail that sets up their later dispute about Mark’s involvement in their mission (15:37–39).

While Barnabas and Saul were worshiping with other church leaders in Antioch, the Holy Spirit called them to a new work (13:2), which recalls the Lord’s earlier choice of Saul as his “chosen instrument” (9:15). The church then commissioned the missionaries and they set off for Barnabas’s homeland of Cyprus (13:4; cf. 4:36).

Mark initially accompanied them from Antioch, but he “left them [ἀποχωρήσας ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] and returned to Jerusalem” (13:13). After Mark’s departure, Paul and Barnabas continued together to Antioch in Pisidia (13:14), Iconium (13:51), Lystra and Derbe (14:6), eventually returning to Antioch to report “all that God had done with them” (14:26–27). Throughout their journeys, the missionaries boldly proclaimed the word of the Lord, encountered stiff opposition and persecution, made many disciples, and appointed local church leaders (14:21–23).

Paul and Barnabas then “had no small dissension and debate” with traveling teachers who insisted on circumcision for salvation (15:1–2), and they returned to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders about the matter (15:6). The Jerusalem leaders selected Paul and Barnabas, along with other delegates, to deliver the letter with their decision to the church in Antioch (15:22). Their letter glowingly commends “our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given over their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:26).9 After delivering the letter, the missionaries remained in Antioch and resumed their teaching and preaching work that had been interrupted by the earlier theological controversy (15:35; cf. 15:1–2).

Thus, the son of encouragement and the persecutor-turned-preacher effectively partnered to evangelize new regions, establish and strengthen local churches, and promote the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers. Barnabas’s advocacy helped to legitimize Saul before the afflicted saints in Jerusalem, Saul provided essential reinforcement for Barnabas’s ministry in Antioch, and the Holy Spirit directed the church to set apart these two men for a new assignment leading to gospel advance “unto the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47).10

2. Paul and Barnabas’s Disagreement and Separation

This dynamic missionary partnership comes to a surprising end in Acts 15:36–41.11 After their extended time of teaching, preaching, and fellowship in Antioch, Paul suggested to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are” (15:36). This follows their earlier pattern of return visits to believers in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, in which they strengthened the disciples, encouraged them in the faith, and appointed elders for the congregations (14:21–23).

While they evidently shared a desire to see and strengthen the churches they had established, Paul and Barnabas differed significantly in their approach to a potential traveling companion. Luke explains, “Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work” (15:37–38).12

The narrative does not elaborate on the reasons for Mark’s departure in 13:13, though commentators have proposed various suggestions.13 The Greek term ἀποχωρέω, rendered “left” in most modern translations, sometimes carries a stronger connotation of desertion (3 Macc 2:33) or falling back in fear (Jer 26:5 LXX).14 Evidently Paul counted on Mark continuing with them in this work (Acts 15:38), and ancient writers expected disciples to remain faithful to their teachers and true friends to be loyal even through hardship.15

Barnabas may have desired to bring along Mark because they were relatives— Colossians 4:10 refers to “Mark the cousin [ἀνεψιός] of Barnabas.” This intention may have reflected Barnabas’s generous disposition “to give those who failed a second chance.”16 Alternatively, some interpreters have suggested theological and missiological differences underlying the conflict between Paul and Barnabas, based on Paul’s assessment in Galatians 2:13 that “even Barnabas was led astray” by the Jews in Antioch.17 This latter view is implausible for several reasons, particularly Luke’s presentation of Paul and Barnabas’s united opposition to the teachers calling for Gentiles to be circumcised (Acts 15:1–2, 12) and their partnership in delivering the council’s letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch (15:22–35). Further, as Fitzmyer notes, “What happened in Antioch is never related in Galatians 2 to a split between Paul and Barnabas.18

Does Paul’s hardline stance towards Mark in Acts 15:38 reflect his “zeal for the mission” that lacks maturity and proper perspective, while “Barnabas was mature enough to see Mark through the eyes of hope”?19 There’s little basis in the text for such assertions, as Luke immediately records that the believers commended Paul and Silas and they went about strengthening the churches, leading to their continued growth (15:40–41; 16:5).

The text does not skirt their substantial conflict over Mark’s involvement in the ministry: “And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other” (Acts 15:39). The Greek noun παροξυσμός, typically rendered “a sharp disagreement,” conveys “a state of irritation expressed in argument” (BDAG) or “irritation, exasperation” (LSJ).20 The cognate verb παροξύνω occurs in Acts 17:16 as Paul is “provoked” (ESV) or “greatly distressed” (NIV) by the idols of Athens. Evidently, Barnabas felt very strongly about welcoming back his cousin as a traveling companion, while Paul felt at least as strongly that they should not bring along Mark because he had deserted them earlier. This impassioned, principled disagreement reached an impasse, and the missionaries ended their long, fruitful partnership and went their own ways.

The book of Acts does not mention Barnabas again after he took Mark and set sail for Cyprus (15:39), focusing instead on Paul’s journeys with other coworkers such as Silas (15:40), Timothy (16:3), and presumably Luke as well beginning in 16:10 (“we”). Yet Paul’s letters mention both Barnabas and Mark. First Corinthians 9:6 references Paul and Barnabas’s pattern of working to support themselves in ministry. This may suggest that the two were once again ministry colleagues,21 though “there are no other indications that Paul and Barnabas were working together at the time Paul wrote this letter.”22 Regardless, Paul commends Barnabas’s integrity and ministry practices to the church. He also lists Mark among his “fellow workers” who send greetings in Philemon 24 and instructed the church to welcome Barnabas’s cousin in Colossians 4:10. Most remarkably, at the close of his final letter Paul, he instructs Timothy, “Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry [εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν]” (2 Tim 4:11). Mark’s usefulness to Paul closely parallels the apostle’s description of Onesimus: “Formerly he was useless [ἄχρηστον] to you, but now he is indeed useful [εὔχρηστον] to you and to me” (Philem 11). That Paul came to regard Mark, the unreliable deserter, as useful for gospel work “amounts to a restoration of Mark to service.”23

Thus, Paul and Barnabas’s lengthy and fruitful partnership ended abruptly over a sharp disagreement over Mark’s involvement in their ministry. They agreed on the strategic priority of visiting the believers in each city where they had preached the gospel, but they reached an impasse over what to do with Barnabas’s cousin who had previously deserted them in Pamphylia. “Luke does not hide their sharp disagreement or the sadness of their parting company. At the same time, however, he shows that good actually came out of this situation, with two mission teams being formed, and both teams being ‘commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord’” (Acts 15:39–40).24

3. Lessons about Partnerships and Disagreements

What lessons might readers today glean from the famous conflict between Paul and Barnabas?

3.1. Ministry partnerships are vital for the advance of the gospel and the growth of the church.

The Lord Jesus called twelve apostles to be with him and sent out his disciples two by two (Mark 3:13–15; Luke 10:1). Barnabas and Paul enjoyed a long and fruitful partnership in ministry, and when it concluded they joined with coworkers. Barnabas set sail with Mark to Cyprus, while Paul partnered with Silas, then Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla, and many others (15:39–40; 16:3; 18:2–3; cf. Rom 16:1–15). Barnabas and Paul characteristically appointed multiple elders or overseers in each church they visited (κατʼ ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους, Acts 14:23; cf. 20:17, 28).25

The book of Acts presents ministry partnerships as normative in local church and mission contexts to promote the church’s health and the gospel’s spread. When “a great many people were added to the Lord” in Antioch, Barnabas recognized that he needed a trusted coworker to teach these new disciples, so he went searching for Saul to join him in teaching “a great many people” (Acts 11:24–26). The biblical account presents Barnabas’s decision to partner with Saul in a favorable light, highlighting Barnabas’s godly character and the longevity and fruitfulness of their ministry in Antioch. The Antiochian church sent multiple leaders to bring relief to the saints in Judea (11:29–30), and the apostles and elders in Jerusalem carefully selected a delegation to deliver an important letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (15:22–29). The plan to send Judas and Silas from the Jerusalem church alongside Paul and Barnabas signaled the church’s consensus in the decision at the Jerusalem council (“having come to one accord,” 15:25) and promoted the church’s encouragement, strengthening, and peace (15:30–34). Later, Paul was willing to set sail for Athens while leaving behind Timothy and Silas on urgent ministry business in Macedonia, with the expectation that his trusted colleagues would join him as soon as possible (Acts 17:14–15; 18:5; 1 Thess 3:1–10). Beyond these examples in Acts, Paul refers to Prisca and Aquila, Urbanus, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Clement, Justus, Philemon, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke as his “fellow workers” (συνεργοί).26 The dozens of believers mentioned in Paul’s letters show that “Paul was living in a web of relationships with people he loved” and “was actively ministering within and from these friendships.”27

Many pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and other ministers would testify to the crucial importance of partnership with others involved in gospel work. Robust friendships are often forged as believers labor side by side in the fires of ministry, and such relationships regularly provide needed encouragement and promote greater effectiveness than solo ministry efforts.

Historical examples abound of deep friendships among fellow ministers. For example, the great fourth-century Cappadocian theologian Gregory of Nazianzus once wrote to his longtime friend, Basil the Great, “From the first I have taken you, and I take you still, for my guide of life and my teacher of the faith, and for every thing honourable that can be said.… And if I get any profit in life it is from your friendship and company.”28 In 1549, John Calvin dedicated his commentary on Titus “to two eminent servants of Christ, William Farell and Peter Viret.” He wrote,

When you had made some progress in rearing this church with vast exertions, and at great risk, after some time had elapsed I came, first as your assistant, and afterwards was left as your successor, that I might endeavour to carry forward, to the best of my ability, that work which you had so well and so successfully begun…. I think that there has never been, in ordinary life, a circle of friends so sincerely bound to each other as we have been in our ministry.29

3.2. Disagreements and disappointments are inevitable in ministry partnerships.

Paul and Barnabas parted ways after a sharp disagreement, and many other notable ministry partnerships throughout history have ended in similar fashion. There are various reasons that ministry partnerships end in separation. Disagreements about doctrinal convictions, theological vision, or ministry strategy may lead coworkers to part ways. Alternatively, a health crisis, personal crisis, moral failing, or changed sense of calling may prompt someone to resign from a ministry role. And ministry partnerships are by no means immune to the various challenges affecting relationships between family, friends, coworkers, or neighbors—personality conflicts, unmet expectations, hurt feelings, differences of opinion on a range of matters, and so on.

It needs to be stated clearly that Christian workers are sometimes morally obligated to separate when matters of essential biblical doctrine and practice are at stake. Some separations and divisions between professing believers are necessary to distinguish true faith and morality from counterfeit Christianity. For example, Paul exhorts, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor 6:14), and he explains that “there must [δεῖ] be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:19). Likewise, John asserts, “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:19), and he warns against partnering with or receiving any teacher who “does not abide in the teaching of Christ … for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 9–11). It takes biblical wisdom, humility, and courage to practice “theological triage” and discern between those hills that are worth dying on, on the one hand, and matters where fellow believers may agree to disagree, on the other.30

Some theologians have helpfully distinguished between “straight-line” issues and “jagged-line” issues of ethical decision making. In “straight-line” judgments, individuals and churches directly apply clear theological or ethical principles from Scripture to a particular situation, while “jagged-line” judgments are matters of Christian freedom and conscience in which one cannot directly apply a clear theological or ethical principle from Scripture.31 Of course, individuals or groups may disagree about whether a particular situation is a straight-line matter of clear biblical teaching—“What fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14)—or a jagged-line matter of Christian freedom requiring prudential wisdom—“Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5).

According to Luke’s account, the dispute between Paul and Barnabas was not over first-order doctrinal or ethical matters or even over their ministry aims or strategies. Rather, they clashed over Mark’s fitness as a traveling companion for their mission given his past conduct (Acts 15:37–39; cf. 13:13). Like Paul and Barnabas, ministry coworkers today may disagree over decisions about what people or organizations to partner with. For example:

• Should our church continue participating in this denomination given recent leadership challenges or doctrinal disputes?
• Should we host this controversial outside speaker at our organization’s event?
• Should we sponsor this group that is doing good work in our community but does not fully align with our organization’s beliefs and values?
• Should our church continue to support this long-term missionary whose ministry strategies raise questions among some in our community?

Christian ministers should not be surprised by conflicts and disappointments, painful though they may be. Disagreements are inevitable in this life and provide opportunities to trust God and apply biblical exhortations to trust God, love one another earnestly from the heart, and pursue peace and wisdom from above.32 Certainly with fellow believers our goal is to “agree in the Lord,” in keeping with our common salvation in Christ, our common cause in the gospel, and our common hope of eternal life (Phil 4:2–3). Yet the apostle’s summons to “live peaceably with all” is qualified—“if possible, so far as it depends on you”—recognizing that there are the limits to our ability to secure such peace in times of conflict with fellow believers and even gospel coworkers (Rom 12:18). James 3:13–18 offers profound yet practical guidance for those needing timely wisdom when facing disagreements and disappointments in ministry partnerships (and other relationships):

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom…. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

3.3. As ministry partnerships come and go, Christ’s commission to make disciples and his commitment to build his church endure.

All ministry partnerships will eventually end due to retirement, death, or separation. Some ministers enjoy decades of service alongside trusted co-workers. For example, two of my mentors and former pastors, John Piper and Tom Steller, met at Bethel College in the 1970s and labored together faithfully for nearly four decades at Bethlehem Baptist Church and Bethlehem College and Seminary.33 The shorter yet remarkable partnership between the famed missionaries Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian ended on January 8, 1956 when they were speared by tribal warriors in an Ecuadorian jungle.34

There are various commendable and lamentable reasons that ministry partners choose to separate. Positively, an associate minister may sense a call to serve in a lead pastor position at another congregation or to plant or revitalize a church in a different community. Likewise, a longtime lead pastor may decide, for one reason or another, that it is time to resign to pursue another venue of service—teaching at a seminary, encouraging other pastors, engaging in itinerant ministry, etc.35 I can think of various examples like this that have honored the Lord, strengthened the church, and preserved deep Christian relationships. In such situations, believers should commend each other to God and say, “Let the will of the Lord be done” (Acts 20:32; 21:14).

There are also separations such as those of Paul and Barnabas, Whitefield and Wesley,36 or Lloyd-Jones and Stott, in which ministry coworkers park ways due to their deep divides over matters of doctrine, ministry strategies and priorities, or personal convictions. When colleagues recognize that they have reached an impasse and that it is time to part ways, they must speak to and about one another with candor and grace as fellow believers in Christ, guard against all bitterness and divisiveness to preserve the church’s health and unity, and seek to separate in a way that honors one another and reflects confidence in the Lord’s promise to build his church (Matt 16:18). As Bengel comments, the painful separation of Paul and Barnabas “was also directed (overruled) by the Lord for good. For so out of one pair, two were made.”37 Stott rightly cautions that “this example of God’s providence may not be used as an excuse for Christian quarrelling.”38

Nevertheless, Luke’s narrative recounts the continued progress of the word of the Lord and the strengthening of the churches as a mighty missionary partnership abruptly ended and new partnerships were formed. Christ’s promise in Acts 1:8, “You will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth,” preceded Saul’s miraculous conversion and has endured for generations long after the ministries of the apostles and their associates. The book of Acts does not record what happened with Barnabas and Mark after they set sail for Cyprus (15:39) or even what became of Paul after his two years in Rome (28:30–31) because the focus of the biblical text is not on these individuals but on their Lord and his mission that continues until the end of this age (Matt 28:20).

Throughout the highest joys of laboring alongside fellow believers in gospel work and the deepest pains of relational strain and conflict, the Lord preserves his people and accomplishes his sovereign purposes. The Lord may bring resolution to disagreements and restored relationships in this life—as with Paul and Mark—or he may wait until the life to come to right every wrong, dry every tear, heal every pain, and mend every heart, when we will be forever with the Lord who makes all things new (Rev 21:3–5). Until then we pursue “partnership in the gospel” with those who share in the grace of Christ (Phil 1:5, 7) and seek to “agree in the Lord” (4:2) and carry out his work in the world.

---

[1] The definitive account is Andrew Atherstone, “Lloyd-Jones and the Anglican Secession Crisis,” in Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Life and Legacy of “the Doctor,” ed. Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones (London: Apollos, 2011), 261–92.

[2] Cited in Atherstone, “Lloyd-Jones and the Anglican Secession Crisis,” 271.

[3] Atherstone, “Lloyd-Jones and the Anglican Secession Crisis,” 291. Cf. Iain H. Murray, “The End of the Puritan Conference,” Banner of Truth, 12 March 2010, https://tinyurl.com/mwvwaye5. Lloyd-Jones’s formative influence on Packer is discussed by Kenneth J. Stewart, “The Young J. I. Packer as a ‘New Warfield’? A Chapter in the Post-1930 Revival of Reformed Theology,” Themelios 37.3 (2022): 516–17.

[4] J. I. Packer, “Foreword,” in Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Life and Legacy of “the Doctor,” ed. Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones (London: Apollos, 2011), 10.

[5] Luke uses the Hebrew name “Saul” until Acts 13:9 and his Roman name “Paul” thereafter when recounting his missionary outreach in various Greco-Roman cities. See Colin J. Hemer, “The Name of Paul,” TynBul 36 (1985): 179–83; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 559.

[6] I discuss this “double conversion” of Saul and the church more fully in Suffering in Ancient Worldview: Luke, Seneca, and 4 Maccabees in Dialogue, LNTS 569 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 143–49.

[7] For this time and distance calculation, see Schnabel, Acts, 523.523. Schnabel posits that Saul was not actually in Tarsus but was engaged elsewhere in ministry, since Barnabas need to “look for” him.

[8] Scholars debate the chronological relationship of events in Acts 11–12. Herod’s death precedes the famine and subsequent relief visit by at least three years, according to C. K. Barrett, Acts 1–14, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1994), 594. Alternatively, Schnabel (Acts, 535) plausibly understands “at that time” in 12:1 as a general reference to Agrippa’s rule from AD 41 to 44, while Barnabas and Saul travel to Jerusalem in AD 44.

[9] While English versions customarily render παραδεδωκόσιν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν (15:26) as “risked their lives,” the phrase more likely conveys their decisive consecration or devotion, not repeated exposure to danger. Cf. Alexander N. Kirk, The Departure of an Apostle: Paul’s Death Anticipated and Remembered, WUNT 2/406 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 43.

[10] For further discussion of this passage and its biblical-theological significance, see Brian J. Tabb, “Sharing the Servant’s Mission: Isaiah 49:6 in Luke-Acts,” JETS 65.3 (2022): 509–22.

[11] Some commentators (e.g., Schnabel, Acts, 661) view Acts 15:35 as the start of a new literary unit; more likely, the conjunction δέ and the fronted prepositional phrase Μετὰ τινας ἡμέρας (“after some days”) in 15:36 introduce a scene change and supply a temporal frame of reference for what follows. Cf. Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 216–20. Luke elsewhere similar constructions to introduce new sections in Acts 21:15 (Μετὰ δὲ τὰς ἡμέρας), 24:1 (Μετὰ δὲ πέντε ἡμέρας), 24:24 (Μετὰ δὲ ἡμέρας τινάς), 28:11 (Μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς μῆνας), and 28:17 (Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς).

[12] Codex Bezae (D) expands on Paul’s rationale in 15:38: “But Paul was not willing, saying that one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work for which they had been sent, should not be with them,” as noted by Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 388.

[13] See the survey of interpretations summarized by Barrett, Acts, 626–27.

[14] “‘Deserted’ (apostanta) is strong language, but clearly the meaning here,” according to Carl R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 2016), 312.

[15] For primary sources, see Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015), 2:2030–31.

[16] David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 447. “Barnabas was willing to take a chance on risky people—he saw potential when the proven track record was failure,” according to S. Jonathan Murphy, “The Role of Barnabas in the Book of Acts,” BSac 167 (2010): 340.

[17] For an overview of scholarship and a proposal that the events of Galatians 2:13 follow the missionaries’ separation in Acts 15:39, see Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Barnabas: The Anatomy and Chronology of a Parting of the Ways,” in Fair Play Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, ed. I. Dunderberg, C. M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni, NovTSup 103 (Leiden Brill, 2002). Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, “Acts,” in Luke–Acts, ed. David E. Garland, EBC 10, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 956.

[18] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, reprint ed., AB 31 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 572. For further rationale, see Schnabel, Acts, 662.

[19] As argued by Justin R. Craun and Joshua D. Henson, “How Servant Leaders Navigate Conflict: An Analysis of Acts 15:36–41,” HTS Teologiese Studies 78 (2022): 5–6.

[20] The two occurrences of παροξυσμός in the LXX refer to the Lord’s “great irritation” (παροξυσμῷ μεγάλῳ) against Israel (Deut 29:27 LXX [29:28 ET]; Jer 39:37 LXX [32:37 ET]). Hebrews 10:24, the other NT use of παροξυσμός, positively conveys provoking others to love and good works.

[21] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 448.

[22] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 402.

[23] Andreas J. Köstenberger, 1–2 Timothy and Titus, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 282. Peter Orr relates Mark, the second evangelist, to both Peter (his historical source) and Paul (his theological partner) in The Beginning of the Gospel: A Theology of Mark, New Testament Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 18.

[24] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 447.

[25] There is longstanding debate over how to relate the various descriptions of early church leadership in the NT. For arguments supporting congregational leadership by a plurality of elders or overseers, see Benjamin L. Merkle, “The Pattern of Leadership in Acts and Paul’s Letters to Churches,” in Shepherding God’s Flock: Biblical Leadership in the New Testament and Beyond, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle and Thomas R. Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), 59–87.

[26] See Rom 16:3, 9, 21; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; 4:3; Col 4:10–11; 1 Thess 3:2; Philem 1, 24; cf. 3 John 8.

[27] Stephen Witmer, “Loneliness Limits Ministry: Why Pastors Need Good Friends,” Desiring God, 15 July 2021, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/loneliness-limits-ministry.

[28] Gregory, Epistle 58 to Basil (NPNF² 7:454–55). On the challenges in the friendship between Basil and Gregory, see Carolinne White, Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 65–70.

[29] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle, reprint ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 275–76.

[30] See Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).

[31] See, for example, Jonathan Leeman and Andrew David Naselli, “Politics, Conscience, and the Church: Why Christians Passionately Disagree with One Another over Politics, Why They Must Agree to Disagree over Jagged-Line Political Issues, and How,” Themelios 45.1 (2020): 13–31.

[32] See, for example, Robert D. Jones, “Resolving Conflict Christ’s Way,” Journal of Biblical Counseling 19.1 (2000): 13–17.

[33] Tom Steller, “The Vision and History of The Bethlehem Institute,” in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. C. Samuel Storms and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 508–15.

[34] See Elisabeth Elliot, Through the Gates of Splendor (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956).

[35] See D. A. Carson, “On Knowing When to Resign,” Themelios 42.2 (2017): 255–58.

[36] Thomas Kidd explains that their doctrinal differences over “free grace” led to a rift between George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers. Nevertheless, at the evangelist’s funeral John Wesley “identified Whitefield’s generous friendship as ‘the distinguishing part of his character’” and urged Christians who share foundational convictions about justification and the new birth to “love one another and promote the common cause of the gospel.” Thomas S. Kidd, George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 34, 251–52.

[37] John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ed. Andrew R. Fausset, revised ed. (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1858), 2:654

[38] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church, and the World, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 253.