YP0534
08-03-2008, 04:49 PM
Barnabas was used by the Lord to bring Saul, who became Paul, into the ministry (Acts 9:26-27; 11:22-26). Furthermore, in Acts 13 Barnabas’s name was mentioned first when the list of prophets and teachers in Antioch was recorded and when the Spirit set Barnabas and Saul apart for the work. Shortly after they went out, the matter of capacity arose. At the beginning of the journey, Barnabas was always mentioned first (vv. 2, 7); then Paul’s name began to be mentioned first (vv. 9, 13, 16, 46, 50). Paul’s name was mentioned first because his capacity to meet the need at that time was greater than Barnabas’s, and he eventually became the leading speaker (14:12). Paul began to take the lead on their journey because he had a greater capacity. Barnabas did not have the capacity that Paul had. Later, Paul wrote fourteen Epistles. Who could speak as much, as deeply, or as high as Paul spoke? Of all the writers of the New Testament, Paul was the only one to use the term the Body of Christ. The other writers did not use this term or the term economy, because they did not have as great a capacity as Paul.
When Paul and Barnabas returned from their trip to Antioch, a big problem arose concerning circumcision, and the church in Antioch sent them to Jerusalem to fellowship so that the problem could be solved (Acts 15:1-3). After the problem of circumcision was solved and they returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, they wanted to make another journey (v. 36). At this juncture Barnabas wanted to bring his cousin, John Mark (v. 37; Col. 4:10), on the journey. But Paul would not agree to bring Mark along, because Mark had left Barnabas and Paul in a negative way on their first ministry journey (Acts 13:13 and note 1). Barnabas’s desire that Mark go with them was simply according to his own feeling. As a result, Barnabas and Paul separated from each other (15:39). From that point on, even though Barnabas might have gone out to visit the churches, his ministry was finished as far as the holy record in Acts is concerned.
According to my understanding, the problem between Paul and Barnabas consisted mainly of two points. First, Barnabas might have had some hidden unhappiness within him, because he took the lead at the beginning and later Paul began to take the lead since Barnabas had a smaller capacity. This was not an easy matter to overcome. If Barnabas had been happy about this development, that would have been a great mercy to Barnabas. Second, according to the record in Acts 15, Barnabas did not keep a proper principle in taking John Mark with him. Apparently, he did this only because of his own personal feeling concerning his cousin. This violated the spiritual principle. Barnabas should have submitted to Paul’s way of not taking John Mark in order to allow Mark to learn the lesson. Instead of submitting to Paul, Barnabas took his own way, and this resulted in a separation between him and Paul. Paul had a greater capacity than Barnabas, and because of this, he eventually was the one to take the lead in the ministry.
Witness Lee - The Present Turmoil in the Lord’s Recovery and the Direction of the Lord’s Move Today
I've been studying Witness Lee's concept of New Testament rebellion quite much recently but it is hard to find even a verse to support such a concept. However, my study has opened my eyes to at least one thing that I was previously misinformed about, which is even cited in the above excerpt.
Witness Lee frequently made the assertion that since Barnabas isn't mentioned again after Acts 15, this is proof that Barnabas was someone who had made a mistake before the Lord in his ministry. Lee, always uplifting Paul above all the other New Testament authors, blames Barnabas for the contention about John-Mark in Acts 15. Lee does this by imagining that Barnabas is plagued by secret unhappiness that Paul had a greater "capacity." Lee also imagines that since Paul was moving to the lead in the effort to the Gentiles, he also therefore had the authority to command that Barnabas do this or that as an underling.
Only, these things are not in the Bible. These are just Witness Lee's own religious considerations superimposed onto the text. Paul, as it turns out, while clearly a great and essential gift to the Body, was still only a brother in the Lord. I'm not sure where the consideration ever came from that he never made any mistakes, as if he were a pope.
The better reading is that Paul, the once-top Pharisee who circumcised Timothy, freely distributed to all the localities copies of Jerusalem's edict against eating strangled things, and who would still submit to take the Nazarite vow, was himself too religious in a number of ways. According to his unwillingness to forgive John-Mark's lack of boldness at one point in the past, Paul in fact is the one who instigated the "sharp contention" between himself and Barnabas when Barnabas was willing to take John-Mark with them on their journey to visit the assemblies. How could it be a "sharp contention" unless Paul were strongly insisting to forbid John-Mark to come along? Where is there a verse to support Lee's concept of Paul's authority to command Barnabas not to bring him? Where could we get a hint in the Bible itself of Barnabas' supposed unhappiness with Paul? Lee theorized that Barnabas was unhappy, but the Bible, to the contrary, actually indicates that Paul was unhappy about Barnabas.
I think it's clear that Lee was simply just too religious himself to understand how Paul's religious background became a damage which eventually even led to all the assemblies in Asia leaving him. Not to say that Asia was correct in leaving Paul entirely, but Lee was simply mentally unable to comprehend that such a thing might have justifiably occurred. For years, in so many printed publications, Lee publicly decried the fact that his teachings on "The New Way" weren't working out the way he expected, yet he somehow never got any insight that it was at least in part a consequence of those teachings themselves. Rather than ever considering that a simultaneous worldwide negative response to his teaching had anything to do with his teaching, Lee simply concludes that all the world is wrong and he is the victim of the lies and opposition of co-conspirators. To justify himself, Lee imagines scenarios about rebellions and defections and conspiracies in the New Testament and then applies the lessons which he himself wrote to his own situation. A perfect fit!
Paul just should have never picked this fight with Barnabas over John-Mark. There really was no benefit to that contention whatsoever and the testimony of the book of Acts was that Paul had not forgiven John-Mark for previous behavior and caused a division with Barnabas over it. Admittedly, none of us was there to see all the details but it seems clear enough based upon the testimony of Scripture that Paul's failure to maintain the oneness with Barnabas, over something that was obviously not an essential point of the faith, was Paul's error.
Lee's interpretation of Paul's behavior here, not coincidentally, allowed him to repeatedly discard dissenting co-workers with impunity throughout the years whenever he felt the need, and we have learned that there were many examples of this sort of behavior in Lee's background. Lee's departure from the fellowship with T. Austin Sparks, according to his own testimony about what happened there, is one of the saddest and clearest examples of this error being repeated, which had frankly been repeated endlessly among the Brethren before them. Eventually, at the start of "The New Way" teachings in 1984, Lee blamed a visit from T. Austin Sparks for the entire situation of deadness and decay in Taiwan for all of the previous 30 years!
I praise the Lord that I am not in the Local Church today. For freedom Christ has set me free! Based upon what you can read in Lee's published ministry, the situation among them continued to decline after the initiation of "The New Way" and the denomination which has risen up in the wake of Lee's death has taken some additional disturbing turns since then. As Lee did before, the LSM leadership today is always trying to find a scapegoat for their own shortcomings and inadequacies.
It's really kind of pathetic.
Or what was the word Lee always used?
Pitiful.
When Paul and Barnabas returned from their trip to Antioch, a big problem arose concerning circumcision, and the church in Antioch sent them to Jerusalem to fellowship so that the problem could be solved (Acts 15:1-3). After the problem of circumcision was solved and they returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, they wanted to make another journey (v. 36). At this juncture Barnabas wanted to bring his cousin, John Mark (v. 37; Col. 4:10), on the journey. But Paul would not agree to bring Mark along, because Mark had left Barnabas and Paul in a negative way on their first ministry journey (Acts 13:13 and note 1). Barnabas’s desire that Mark go with them was simply according to his own feeling. As a result, Barnabas and Paul separated from each other (15:39). From that point on, even though Barnabas might have gone out to visit the churches, his ministry was finished as far as the holy record in Acts is concerned.
According to my understanding, the problem between Paul and Barnabas consisted mainly of two points. First, Barnabas might have had some hidden unhappiness within him, because he took the lead at the beginning and later Paul began to take the lead since Barnabas had a smaller capacity. This was not an easy matter to overcome. If Barnabas had been happy about this development, that would have been a great mercy to Barnabas. Second, according to the record in Acts 15, Barnabas did not keep a proper principle in taking John Mark with him. Apparently, he did this only because of his own personal feeling concerning his cousin. This violated the spiritual principle. Barnabas should have submitted to Paul’s way of not taking John Mark in order to allow Mark to learn the lesson. Instead of submitting to Paul, Barnabas took his own way, and this resulted in a separation between him and Paul. Paul had a greater capacity than Barnabas, and because of this, he eventually was the one to take the lead in the ministry.
Witness Lee - The Present Turmoil in the Lord’s Recovery and the Direction of the Lord’s Move Today
I've been studying Witness Lee's concept of New Testament rebellion quite much recently but it is hard to find even a verse to support such a concept. However, my study has opened my eyes to at least one thing that I was previously misinformed about, which is even cited in the above excerpt.
Witness Lee frequently made the assertion that since Barnabas isn't mentioned again after Acts 15, this is proof that Barnabas was someone who had made a mistake before the Lord in his ministry. Lee, always uplifting Paul above all the other New Testament authors, blames Barnabas for the contention about John-Mark in Acts 15. Lee does this by imagining that Barnabas is plagued by secret unhappiness that Paul had a greater "capacity." Lee also imagines that since Paul was moving to the lead in the effort to the Gentiles, he also therefore had the authority to command that Barnabas do this or that as an underling.
Only, these things are not in the Bible. These are just Witness Lee's own religious considerations superimposed onto the text. Paul, as it turns out, while clearly a great and essential gift to the Body, was still only a brother in the Lord. I'm not sure where the consideration ever came from that he never made any mistakes, as if he were a pope.
The better reading is that Paul, the once-top Pharisee who circumcised Timothy, freely distributed to all the localities copies of Jerusalem's edict against eating strangled things, and who would still submit to take the Nazarite vow, was himself too religious in a number of ways. According to his unwillingness to forgive John-Mark's lack of boldness at one point in the past, Paul in fact is the one who instigated the "sharp contention" between himself and Barnabas when Barnabas was willing to take John-Mark with them on their journey to visit the assemblies. How could it be a "sharp contention" unless Paul were strongly insisting to forbid John-Mark to come along? Where is there a verse to support Lee's concept of Paul's authority to command Barnabas not to bring him? Where could we get a hint in the Bible itself of Barnabas' supposed unhappiness with Paul? Lee theorized that Barnabas was unhappy, but the Bible, to the contrary, actually indicates that Paul was unhappy about Barnabas.
I think it's clear that Lee was simply just too religious himself to understand how Paul's religious background became a damage which eventually even led to all the assemblies in Asia leaving him. Not to say that Asia was correct in leaving Paul entirely, but Lee was simply mentally unable to comprehend that such a thing might have justifiably occurred. For years, in so many printed publications, Lee publicly decried the fact that his teachings on "The New Way" weren't working out the way he expected, yet he somehow never got any insight that it was at least in part a consequence of those teachings themselves. Rather than ever considering that a simultaneous worldwide negative response to his teaching had anything to do with his teaching, Lee simply concludes that all the world is wrong and he is the victim of the lies and opposition of co-conspirators. To justify himself, Lee imagines scenarios about rebellions and defections and conspiracies in the New Testament and then applies the lessons which he himself wrote to his own situation. A perfect fit!
Paul just should have never picked this fight with Barnabas over John-Mark. There really was no benefit to that contention whatsoever and the testimony of the book of Acts was that Paul had not forgiven John-Mark for previous behavior and caused a division with Barnabas over it. Admittedly, none of us was there to see all the details but it seems clear enough based upon the testimony of Scripture that Paul's failure to maintain the oneness with Barnabas, over something that was obviously not an essential point of the faith, was Paul's error.
Lee's interpretation of Paul's behavior here, not coincidentally, allowed him to repeatedly discard dissenting co-workers with impunity throughout the years whenever he felt the need, and we have learned that there were many examples of this sort of behavior in Lee's background. Lee's departure from the fellowship with T. Austin Sparks, according to his own testimony about what happened there, is one of the saddest and clearest examples of this error being repeated, which had frankly been repeated endlessly among the Brethren before them. Eventually, at the start of "The New Way" teachings in 1984, Lee blamed a visit from T. Austin Sparks for the entire situation of deadness and decay in Taiwan for all of the previous 30 years!
I praise the Lord that I am not in the Local Church today. For freedom Christ has set me free! Based upon what you can read in Lee's published ministry, the situation among them continued to decline after the initiation of "The New Way" and the denomination which has risen up in the wake of Lee's death has taken some additional disturbing turns since then. As Lee did before, the LSM leadership today is always trying to find a scapegoat for their own shortcomings and inadequacies.
It's really kind of pathetic.
Or what was the word Lee always used?
Pitiful.