THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
Luke has portrayed for us the dispositions of the other apostles as well. He has shown that one of them was more tenderhearted and condescending, while another was sterner and stricter. There are different gifts, and this too, as is known, is a gift.
One gift is needed for people of one disposition, and another for people of another disposition. If they were changed, they would become useless. It appears that some disagreement arose between Paul and Barnabas. Yet all this happens by the divine economy, so that each of them might occupy the place suited to him.
On the other hand, it is necessary that not all should be held in equal honor, but that one should lead and another be subject. This too is by the divine economy. Besides, the Cypriots showed nothing like what those in Antioch and others showed. For some, a tenderhearted disposition was needed. For others, the opposite was needed.
Among the prophets also we see different characters and dispositions. Elijah, for example, is stern, while Moses is meek. So here also Paul is firmer. But in this very thing, see his meekness too.
First observe that no evil came from their separation from one another. In this way they became sufficient for all the Gentiles. On the contrary, great good came of it. Second, if this had not happened, they would not easily have resolved to separate from one another.
Rather, marvel that the writer did not pass over this in silence. You will say, 'If it was necessary to separate, could it not have happened without contention?' But here especially their human qualities were shown. If this had to be so in Christ, much more in them.
On the other hand, the contention would not be blameworthy when each disputed about such matters and with such justice. If one of them had been grieved while pursuing his own advantage and his own honor, that would indeed be blameworthy. But if each of them wished to teach and instruct, and one set out by one road and the other by another, what is blameworthy here?
They did many things also according to human reasoning. They were not stones or pieces of wood. See how Paul expresses displeasure with Mark, but also gives the reason. He respected Barnabas for his great humility, because Barnabas was with him and shared so many labors with him. Yet he did not respect him in such a way as to neglect duty.
Which of them gave the better counsel is not for us to investigate. At the least, it was a great divine dispensation that some of the believers should be counted worthy of a second visit from them, while others had not yet received one.
In Antioch they did not merely remain, but taught. What did they teach? What did they preach? What was needed both for believers and for those not yet believing. There were many scandals, and therefore their presence was necessary.
As for their contention, one must look not at what they disagreed about, but at what they agreed in. Their division served a great good, which came about through this occasion. What then? Did they part as enemies? Not at all.
Afterward you see Paul mentioning Barnabas in his epistles with great praise (2 Cor 8:18). The writer says, 'There was sharp disagreement,' but not enmity, not discord. The contention caused them to separate, and this was good.
What each of them afterward undertook separately for the benefit of others, he would not have done precisely because they would have been together. It even seems to me that the separation happened by their agreement. They said to one another: 'Since I do not wish this, and you do wish it, let us separate to different places, so that we may not quarrel.'
Thus they did this by yielding entirely to one another. Barnabas wanted Paul's opinion to stand, and therefore he separated. Paul likewise wanted Barnabas's opinion to stand, and therefore he did the same and separated.
O that we too would separate from one another in the same way, and for the purpose of going to preach. This man is admirable and very great. This contention also brought great benefit to Mark. Paul's severity brought him to his senses, and Barnabas's kindness prevented him from being left behind.
Thus the contention that occurred between them achieved one goal: benefit. Seeing that Paul resolved to leave him, Mark was greatly frightened and condemned himself. Seeing that Barnabas was so disposed toward him, he loved him greatly. Thus the contention of the teachers corrected the disciple. He was far from being scandalized by it.
If they had done this for their own honor, he certainly might have been scandalized. But since they disputed for his salvation, and solely to show how wise were the counsels of God, who counted him worthy of such honor, what is blameworthy here?
The same thing occurred between God and Moses. One entreats, and the other is angry. For example, when He says, 'If her father had but spit in her face' (Num 12:14). Again He says, 'Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them, and that I may consume them' (Ex 32:10). And Samuel mourned over Saul (1 Sam 15:35).
From both the one and the other came great good. So also here, one is angry and the other is not. The same happens among us. The contention was not without purpose, but so that Mark might be brought to understanding and the work of preaching might not appear a jest.
Otherwise Barnabas would have yielded even now, as he had always yielded. He loved Paul so much that earlier he had sought him out in Tarsus (Acts 11:25), brought him to the apostles, delivered alms together with him, and with him accepted what agreed with the decree.
The displeasure between them did not arise over a matter of this kind. Rather, they separated from one another so that they might teach separately and perfect those who needed their teaching. So also elsewhere Paul says, 'But you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good' (2 Thess 3:13). Though he reproves some, he commands them to do good to all.
This is how we usually act. It seems to me that others along with Paul were displeased here. He, addressing each of them separately, does everything: he exhorts and brings them to understanding.
Agreement can do much, and love can do much. Even if you ask for too much, even if you are unworthy, you will be heard because of a good intention. Do not fear. The writer says that he went 'through' the cities.
Knowing this, let us not merely read the Scriptures, but study them and be edified. Nothing has been written in vain. It is a great evil not to know Scripture. From the very thing from which we ought to receive benefit, we receive harm.
Medicines that by nature have healing power often bring harm and disorder when those using them do not know how to use them well. A weapon by which one can defend oneself harms the one who does not know how to handle it.
The reason is that we seek everything else more than the benefit of the soul. We look more to external things than to our true benefit. We often care about the solidity of a house, and we would not endure seeing it become old, collapse, or be damaged by storms.
But we care nothing for the soul. Though we see its foundation, its very structure, and its roof being destroyed, we show no concern. Likewise, if we have livestock, we care for its comfort. We hire grooms and veterinarians, and exert all our strength.
We care for the stables. We instruct the overseers not to drive the animals needlessly or carelessly, not to lay excessive burdens on them, not to send them out untimely in the middle of the night, and to satisfy them with food. We establish many rules for the care of irrational animals. But we have no care for the soul.
Why do I speak of animals useful to us? Many keep little birds that bring no benefit, but only amusement. Concerning them we have many rules, and nothing is omitted or forgotten. We care for everything more than for ourselves.
Thus we have become less valuable than everything. If someone insults us by calling us a dog, we are offended. But when we dishonor ourselves, not by word but by deed, and show less care for the soul than for dogs, we feel no grief.
Do you see how everything among us is covered with darkness? Many care for dogs so that they are not fed more than is proper, and so that they remain swift and fit for hunting, driven by hunger and thirst. Yet they do not care for themselves or try to bridle their own love of pleasure.
They teach irrational creatures self-command, but allow themselves to descend into the savagery of animals. This seems like a riddle. Where, you ask, are these philosophical irrational creatures? Is it not great self-command when a dog, driven by hunger, has seized prey yet abstains from the food before him?
Seeing ready food before him, tormented by hunger, he waits for his master. Be ashamed of yourselves. Teach your bellies to practice the same self-command. You have no excuse.
If you can impart such self-command to an animal that by nature can neither speak nor think, much more could you impart it to yourself. This is the work of human effort, not of nature. Otherwise all dogs would be like this.
Therefore in this case be like dogs. You yourselves compel me to draw the example from here. It would be proper to draw it from heavenly realities. But if I begin to speak about some such thing, you say that it is too high. Therefore I no longer speak about heavenly things.
If I bring forward Paul as an example, you say that he was an apostle. Therefore I no longer speak about Paul. If I bring forward some other man as an example, you say that he was able to do it. Therefore I do not point to a man, but to an animal.
I point to an animal that received these qualities not from nature, so that you may not say it does this by nature and not by good will. What is even more wonderful, it does this not by its own will, but by your effort.
It does not reason that it is tired, that it is worn out from running, or that it caught the prey by its own labors. Leaving all this aside, it fulfills the will of its master and rises above the belly.
But you say that it expects approval and hopes to receive more abundant food. Say the same to yourself: a dog despises the present in hope of future satisfaction, and you do not wish to despise present things in hope of future good things.
But you say it knows that if it eats untimely and against the master's will, it will lose not only this food, but also the food usually appointed for it, and will receive blows instead of food.
Can you not know even this? What the dog can do by habit, you do not fulfill by reason. Let us imitate even dogs. They say that hawks and eagles do the same. What dogs do with hares and gazelles, these do with birds, likewise through human training.
All these things can expose us. All these things can condemn us. I will say more. Experienced men take wild and fierce horses that kick and bite, and in a short time train them so that the rider seated on them enjoys their orderly gait.
But when the soul acts in a disorderly way, no one cares about it. It leaps, strikes, throws itself to the ground like a child, and commits many disorders. Yet no one puts a rope, fetters, or bridle upon it, or seats upon it the experienced rider, that is, Christ.
Thus everything has been overturned. If you compel dogs to master the stomach, tame the fury of a lion and the savagery of horses, and teach birds to speak, is it not strange to impart qualities of rational beings to irrational creatures, while allowing irrational passions in rational beings?
No, we have no excuse. All who do what is right will accuse us, both faithful and unbelieving, for unbelievers too do what is right. Not only men, but also beasts and dogs will accuse us. We ourselves will condemn ourselves, because we do good when we wish, but when we are careless, we are drawn into evil.
Many, even of the most wicked men, have often corrected themselves when they wished. The reason, as I said, is that we seek in every way the benefit of external things, and not our own proper benefit.