While the differences between Paul and Barnabas were more a personal issue than a doctrinal one, I think it at least evokes the possibility of working separately on different "ministerial projects" so as not to waste precious time and resources if one fails to reach a common decision on something, while continuing to treat the other party as a brother in Christ and as a full member of the Body of Christ. In this passage Paul binds Barnabas very closely. He and Barnabas present themselves as examples of the Corinthians. But Barnabas was not with Paul when Paul came to Corinth. Paul`s disagreement with Barnabas - and their separation - took place about two years before Paul went to Corinth, and the disagreement ends 4-5 years before Paul writes the letter we call 1 Corinthians. If there had been a disagreement, it immediately disappeared with this misadventure. Most commentators point out that Paul mentioned John Mark in later writings (i.e. after this disagreement) as Colossians 4:10, Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11. They conclude that Paul and Jean-Marc end between the time of disagreement and the time When Paul mentioned it in these letters. It is interesting to note that the word translated "acute disagreement" in Acts 15:39 is the same word that was translated into Hebrews 10:24.

The main issues were the root causes. And a few days later, Paul said to Barnabas: Let us return to see the brethren in every city where we have announced the word of the Lord, and let us see what they are. Barnabas wanted to take Johannes, Markus. But the best thing for Paul was not to take someone who had withdrawn from them to Pamphylien and who had not gone to work with them. And there was an acute disagreement, so they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and went away after being congratulated by the brothers for the Lord`s grace. And he crossed Syria and Cilicia, and he strengthened the churches. (Ac 15:36-41 ESV) I think it should also be noted that the disagreement was not a kessie, but again, the disagreement is much weaker than one might assume. Acts 15:36-41 reports a disagreement that formed between Paul and Barnabas. Paul asked Barnabas to join him in recording the churches planted in Acts 13-14 (Acts 15, 36).

Barnabas proposed to John Mark (Acts 15,37), who had "abandoned her and returned her to Jerusalem" (Acts 13:13). Since John Mark had "retired" and had not gone to work with them, "Paul thinks better not to take someone who had done such a thing" (Acts 15,38).1 In any event, we see a case in the early Church, where two chiefs were divided over a personnel issue. In God`s grace, disagreement did not prevent anyone from serving and, indeed, more people served as a consequence. Even if both sides aspire to the lord`s honor, good things can happen in the end. After all, maybe it`s nothing essential, it`s just a disagreement between the girls. This is how Luke describes what is happening because of his disagreement: but, as she was looking for, the real subject of disagreements eluded him. I also notice that the words "acute disagreements" in Greek are not there, but rather the idea of confrontation or controversy. We will always have them, if only because we all see and know in part.

We must protect our thoughts and actions and never let them become a kind of "acute disagreement" that leads to determination. I have some close brothers in the Lord, we are divided on many theological/doctrinal points, but we have chosen to increase the majors and forget the miners... we can agree on the fundamental principles of the Christian faith, and the rest really doesn`t matter. Paul said to the Corinthians: For I have decided to know only Jesus Christ and crucified him.