BARNABAS - "LET'S STOP BEING SO CRITICAL" (PART 5 OF 6)

San Barnaba by Anonimo Lombardo

What? Am I saying that people are being critical of the "Son of Encouragement?" Are they opposed to people encouraging others?

Take a deep breath. No, it isn't about his being encouraging, though it does affect one's thinking of his encouragement. And I can think of only one person who mentioned this criticism, and I won't mention his name because it might take away deserved respect from that pastor.

The root issue is similar to Matthias. How many apostles are there? If one limits it to 12, then that would either be the eleven and Paul or the eleven and Matthias. No place would exist for Barnabas being an apostle, and that is the basis of the criticism. 

Remember when Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement on taking Mark for the second missionary journey, resulting in the two going different directions? I have always thought (and I have the impression that I'm in the majority) that both sides have a point. Also, looking ahead, Paul mentions Mark in one place as someone to receive and in another as being profitable for the ministry (Colossians 4:10, 2 Timothy 4:11). 

Nevertheless, the critic believes that Barnabas was wrong for not going along with Paul because Paul was an apostle and he wasn't. But even if that was true, didn't Barnabas' encouragement and loyalty help move Mark from being a cowardly liability when he left Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey to being valuable for the ministry? The critic doesn't give him any credit, instead saying that working with Peter was what what made the difference (most people consider the Gospel of Mark to be more accurately the Gospel of Peter as told to Mark). 

Back to the issue of apostleship: are there portions that include others as apostles other than the twelve and Paul? We dealt with Matthias and why he should be considered part of the Twelve last week. James the brother of Jesus is also referred to as an apostle by Paul in Galatians 1. And there are portions that state that Barnabas also was an apostle.

• Barnabas brought Paul into the fellowship of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 9:26-28).
• Barnabas was chosen by the apostles to see what was happening in Antioch (Acts 11:22); in contrast, they sent Peter and John to the earlier revival in Samaria (Acts 8:14-15).
• When it listed the five leaders in Antioch (Acts 13:1), Barnabas was first, and Saul (i.e. Paul) was fifth. Lists often are mentioned in order of importance. Likewise, when they went to Cyprus, they were referred to as "Barnabas and Saul," and when they left Cyprus, they were called "Paul and Barnabas."
• When Paul healed the lame man in Lystra, and the people tried to worship to them, Acts 14:14 says, "But when the apostles Paul and Barnabas..." This should by itself end the theory that Barnabas was not an apostle, but the critic responds by saying they're two different types of apostles, a concept that might have shown up in Fifth Timothy or some book following Revelation.
• In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul implies that Barnabas was on the same level. Similar in his defense of his apostleship, putting himself and Barnabas on the same level in not using privileges other Apostles used (1 Corinthinans 9:3-6).

True, history follows Paul after he and Barnabas parted ways. But keep in mind - Paul and Barnabas both agreed to go visit the believers from the first missionary trip. When Paul went to Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe with Silas, Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus. Yes, Barnabas' home country, but also the first place of work, including the salvation of the procounsul. I heard one person say that the result of Paul and Barnabas' division meant there were twice as many mission teams going out.