- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Shalom 
Concerning this, I was noticing the extent of how often it seems many don't seem to think that Paul had it right on many points----and though I don't go as far as to support what can come off as "Paul Bashing", I think it can sometimes be appropriate to sometimes question what Paul and any other Apostolic figure/Biblical character since it does serve as opportunity for discussing the reality of what we all deal with...and that's flaws. Flaws in personality, as well as simple struggles and things (as it concerns personality differences) that can cause people to do as they do.
People can easily react to what others do/assume "THey just do that because they want to upset others..."---or they can read scripture where they see something and say, "Man, if I was there in their position, I'd do it differently!!!!"....but as the Word doesn't always give all the details behind every situation, what we often have is a mere snapshot of an event....and sometimes, that snapshot only shows actions rather than showing the real mindsets behind what occurred. In realizing this, IMHO, we can better have grace for things in the Word and better relate to characters.
In example, Acts 15-16 came to mind recently (in light of discusison elsewhere which brings up Paul and Barnabas)..as the Apostle Paul did not want to take John Mark on his missionary journey's because the man was "not profitable." Later at the end of Pauls ministry the Apostle said to bring John Mark saying he was "now" profitable.
Some say that Paul was correct for blasting Mark as he did in Acts--and assuming that Barnabas was the weaker of the two. However, with .Acts 15:35-37., there is a context which others may not see clearly. Prior to that, John Mark was Barnabas Cousin (Colossians 4:9-11/Colossians 4 ), whose mother often opened his home the apostles (Acts 12:11-13 / Acts 12 (). Later, he joined them (Acts 12:25 )... But later abandoned them halfway (Acts 13:12-14 /Acts 13 ). No reason is given for this.
THere are some Suggestions other scholars have brought up that make John Mark's situation seem to be more sympathetic rather than condeming him as a coward:
Of course John Mark was REMEMBERED by Paul/criticisized. For taking him along would've possibly been a mistake if he hadn't of PROVED HIMSELF first---and this is something Paul seems to have learned a lesson from in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person who hasn't proven themselves ( 1 Timothy 3:9-11 / 1 Timothy 3 ,1 Timothy 5:21-23/ 1 Timothy 5).
But nowhere in the text does it say WHY John Mark left...and reading into it something negative simply because Paul is often deemed to only be "positive"/above struggle himself may not be reasonable.
Moreover, TAKING NOTE of PAUL not taking John Mark as a sign of it being good seems to assume that it was COMMENDABLE. That can be an argument from silence that can be argued BOTH WAYS, especially seeing that Paul was Human and showed signs of MATURITY. Seeing the myriad of possibilities that John Mark may've left, it seems possible that Paul was in error for implicitly accusing John Mark of lacking courage and commitment.
Despite John's depature, Barnabas overlooked it/again suggested Mark. Though Paul disagreed, Barnabas took Mark with him in patience, and the young man repaid his investment---with Paul himself changing his mind about Mark (Colossians 4:9-11) & coming to later realize how vital Mark was to the growth of the early church ...even seeing him as a good friend/trusted leader (2 Timothy 4:10-12 / 2 Timothy 4, Philemon 1:24Philemon 1:23-25 / Philemon 1 ).
Could it not be possible that Paul, alongside the believers w ho said nothing, could've been wrong in spurrning John as a deserter? God was Sovereign in the entire ordeal/works even through conflict/disagreement, as the issue caused the two preachers to form two teams, opening up two missionary endeavors instead of one (Acts 15:39-40/Acts 15 ).
But it can be also be said that it perhaps BARNABAS who was the more commendable one in the story-----whose encouragement made all the difference, just as it did when Barnabas first came alongside Paul at a time when he was a newly born believer, and when none of the apostles would associate with him, fearing him and REMEMBERNG ALL OF HIS OLD FAULTS THAT HE REPENTED OF. Though underst andably reluctant to welcome him, only Barnabas proved willing to risk his life to meet with Paul and then convince the others that he was no longer a former enemy..and just as it was when Barnabas sought Paul to ministry with him in Antioch, too, and was an example of ministering with kindness/encouragement (Acts 11:22-24 / Acts 11 , Acts 9:27-15:39, 1 Corinthians 9:5-7/ 1 Corinthians 9, Galatians 2:1-3 Galatians 2.
If you were in the situation that Paul and Barnabas were in, what do you feel you would do with any possible scenarios that were in place with why John Mark left? Would you relate more so with Paul if you felt someone wasn'nt trustworthy? Even for those who DON'T like Paul, would you feel that you would have done differently if someone seemed to be inconsistent in ministry? Or would you do as Barnabas and stay? Things can differ depending on the person...and it gets even more crazy when considering the family dynamic--in light of how Barnabas was John Mark's cousin and its generally the case that many cultures often give positions to people based upon FAMILY relationships rather than CHARACTER alone....especially within Middle-Eastern contexts.
Concerning this, I was noticing the extent of how often it seems many don't seem to think that Paul had it right on many points----and though I don't go as far as to support what can come off as "Paul Bashing", I think it can sometimes be appropriate to sometimes question what Paul and any other Apostolic figure/Biblical character since it does serve as opportunity for discussing the reality of what we all deal with...and that's flaws. Flaws in personality, as well as simple struggles and things (as it concerns personality differences) that can cause people to do as they do.
People can easily react to what others do/assume "THey just do that because they want to upset others..."---or they can read scripture where they see something and say, "Man, if I was there in their position, I'd do it differently!!!!"....but as the Word doesn't always give all the details behind every situation, what we often have is a mere snapshot of an event....and sometimes, that snapshot only shows actions rather than showing the real mindsets behind what occurred. In realizing this, IMHO, we can better have grace for things in the Word and better relate to characters.
In example, Acts 15-16 came to mind recently (in light of discusison elsewhere which brings up Paul and Barnabas)..as the Apostle Paul did not want to take John Mark on his missionary journey's because the man was "not profitable." Later at the end of Pauls ministry the Apostle said to bring John Mark saying he was "now" profitable.
Some say that Paul was correct for blasting Mark as he did in Acts--and assuming that Barnabas was the weaker of the two. However, with .Acts 15:35-37., there is a context which others may not see clearly. Prior to that, John Mark was Barnabas Cousin (Colossians 4:9-11/Colossians 4 ), whose mother often opened his home the apostles (Acts 12:11-13 / Acts 12 (). Later, he joined them (Acts 12:25 )... But later abandoned them halfway (Acts 13:12-14 /Acts 13 ). No reason is given for this.
THere are some Suggestions other scholars have brought up that make John Mark's situation seem to be more sympathetic rather than condeming him as a coward:
- (1). He was homesickl
- (2) he resented the change in leadership from Barnabas (his cousin) to Paul;
- (3) he became ill (an illness that may've affected all of them---see Galatians 4:13);
- (4) he was unable to withstand the rigors and dangers of the missionary journey;
- (5) he may have planned to go only that far but had not communicated this to Paul and Barnabas.
Of course John Mark was REMEMBERED by Paul/criticisized. For taking him along would've possibly been a mistake if he hadn't of PROVED HIMSELF first---and this is something Paul seems to have learned a lesson from in choosing to lay hands too quickly on a person who hasn't proven themselves ( 1 Timothy 3:9-11 / 1 Timothy 3 ,1 Timothy 5:21-23/ 1 Timothy 5).
But nowhere in the text does it say WHY John Mark left...and reading into it something negative simply because Paul is often deemed to only be "positive"/above struggle himself may not be reasonable.
Moreover, TAKING NOTE of PAUL not taking John Mark as a sign of it being good seems to assume that it was COMMENDABLE. That can be an argument from silence that can be argued BOTH WAYS, especially seeing that Paul was Human and showed signs of MATURITY. Seeing the myriad of possibilities that John Mark may've left, it seems possible that Paul was in error for implicitly accusing John Mark of lacking courage and commitment.
Despite John's depature, Barnabas overlooked it/again suggested Mark. Though Paul disagreed, Barnabas took Mark with him in patience, and the young man repaid his investment---with Paul himself changing his mind about Mark (Colossians 4:9-11) & coming to later realize how vital Mark was to the growth of the early church ...even seeing him as a good friend/trusted leader (2 Timothy 4:10-12 / 2 Timothy 4, Philemon 1:24Philemon 1:23-25 / Philemon 1 ).
Could it not be possible that Paul, alongside the believers w ho said nothing, could've been wrong in spurrning John as a deserter? God was Sovereign in the entire ordeal/works even through conflict/disagreement, as the issue caused the two preachers to form two teams, opening up two missionary endeavors instead of one (Acts 15:39-40/Acts 15 ).
But it can be also be said that it perhaps BARNABAS who was the more commendable one in the story-----whose encouragement made all the difference, just as it did when Barnabas first came alongside Paul at a time when he was a newly born believer, and when none of the apostles would associate with him, fearing him and REMEMBERNG ALL OF HIS OLD FAULTS THAT HE REPENTED OF. Though underst andably reluctant to welcome him, only Barnabas proved willing to risk his life to meet with Paul and then convince the others that he was no longer a former enemy..and just as it was when Barnabas sought Paul to ministry with him in Antioch, too, and was an example of ministering with kindness/encouragement (Acts 11:22-24 / Acts 11 , Acts 9:27-15:39, 1 Corinthians 9:5-7/ 1 Corinthians 9, Galatians 2:1-3 Galatians 2.
If you were in the situation that Paul and Barnabas were in, what do you feel you would do with any possible scenarios that were in place with why John Mark left? Would you relate more so with Paul if you felt someone wasn'nt trustworthy? Even for those who DON'T like Paul, would you feel that you would have done differently if someone seemed to be inconsistent in ministry? Or would you do as Barnabas and stay? Things can differ depending on the person...and it gets even more crazy when considering the family dynamic--in light of how Barnabas was John Mark's cousin and its generally the case that many cultures often give positions to people based upon FAMILY relationships rather than CHARACTER alone....especially within Middle-Eastern contexts.
Last edited:
