Reconciling Barnabas

[OBW]

I do not doubt that others before and since Lee have considered Barnabas as some sort of problem that got written out of the NT after that first journey with Paul. But since leaving the LC, I have never heard those kinds of sentiments. In fact, Barnabas is generally spoken of in a strictly positive light.

Also, while the reference is not altogether clear, Paul mentions Barnabas in 1 Cor 9:6. Unless he is talking about another Barnabas (otherwise not stated), is it not sufficient that this is written at some time after Paul’s second journey which did not include Barnabas? Since Barnabas was not on that journey (and according to Lee now written out of the NT ministry), why would Paul mention him, and in a manner that was aligned/parallel with himself, unless they (the Corinthians) had knowledge of him and also Paul was not adverse to him. Surely if there was something incorrect in the person of Barnabas, Paul would not have spoken of him as a teacher with similar constraints to himself as part of an appeal to the sensibilities of the Corinthians.

I think Lee’s teaching on this point is part of a fishing expedition for an excuse to cut off those who decide on a different direction than his “ministry” which is later described as the “ministry of the age.”

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Lee interpreted this episode in a self serving manner i.e. the implication is that he is "Paul" and anyone who disagrees with his directives and direction in the "work" will be out of the flow, the stream of God's move. Therefore his coworkers would be afraid to have disagreements and disputes with him lest they be cut out of the history of what God is doing on the earth. In short it was another instrument of control. Does anyone really believe that Paul thought this at the time? I don't.

Not to mention historically it is inaccurate. Peter and John were not mentioned in the latter part of Acts. Were they cut off from the NT ministry? Not hardly.

Who really controls God's work in the body? Christ the head does. Not Paul nor Peter nor John nor Mark nor Barnabas and...no not even Witness Lee!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Not to mention historically it is inaccurate. Peter and John were not mentioned in the latter part of Acts. Were they cut off from the NT ministry? Not hardly.

Excellent point djohnson. This exact thought I had in mind earlier today. Is there a common belief of where Paul wrote his epistles from? I considered that Peter, John, Barnabas, and among others were in different places from Paul in Asia Minor carrying out the Ministry of Christ. There were still members of the Ministry, but not the subject of Paul's epistles.

Terry

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Excellent point djohnson. This exact thought I had in mind earlier today. Is there a common belief of where Paul wrote his epistles from? I considered that Peter, John, Barnabas, and among others were in different places from Paul in Asia Minor carrying out the Ministry of Christ. There were still members of the Ministry, but not the subject of Paul's epistles.

Terry

Oh, do you mean the "succession" of ministers in the book of Acts, from Peter to Paul, is not irrefutable evidence for the concept of the "one unique minister of the age?"


What about all those messages on recovery church history which we heard about Luther ... Guyon ... Zinzendorf ... Darby ... Nee ... Lee ... We?


Not only did WL's distorted sense of church history attempt to discredit Barnabas, Apollos, and John-Mark, and all the rest of "the twelve," but also every servant of God throughout church history. I bought into his "succession" completely, that is until I read Brethren history and I learned the "dirty little secret" about the way JNDarby treated other godly men of God.

What a shock it was to me when I learned that Darby's brutal mistreatment of George Muller and BWNewton exactly paralleled WL's own mistreatment of John Ingalls and others, over all the same reasons!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not only did WL's distorted sense of church history attempt to discredit Barnabas, Apollos, and John-Mark, and all the rest of "the twelve," but also every servant of God throughout church history. I bought into his "succession" completely, that is until I read Brethren history and I learned the "dirty little secret" about the way JNDarby treated other godly men of God.

What a shock it was to me when I learned that Darby's brutal mistreatment of George Muller and BWNewton exactly paralleled WL's own mistreatment of John Ingalls and others, over all the same reasons!

You know, looking into these issues has ironically been an encouragement for me to be able realize that there's still hope for me if God could even use His problem children.

[AndPeter]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think Lee’s teaching on this point is part of a fishing expedition for an excuse to cut off those who decide on a different direction than his “ministry” which is later described as the “ministry of the age.”

In Toronto we have been covering the book of Acts on the Lord's day. The speaking on Barnabas, I cannot see it on the website http://churchintoronto.org/Video.htm (hopefully there soon, we are having technical difficulties), and probably spoken by brother Nigel was very refreshing.

In a nutshell, Barnabas had a different portion than Paul. He looked after Mark during Mark's probable hard time following the dispute with Paul. Much later Mark went on to write the gospel of Mark. If Barnabas had not taken care of the young Mark when he did, we might not have the second gospel as we know it.

It was a refreshing angle after hearing for so long that Barnabas was written out of the NT because he did not go along with Paul, who was the so called single flow that was carrying God's move at that time.

Steve

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

In a nutshell, Barnabas had a different portion than Paul. He looked after Mark during Mark's probable hard time following the dispute with Paul. Much later Mark went on to write the gospel of Mark. If Barnabas had not taken care of the young Mark when he did, we might not have the second gospel as we know it.

Great point, brother Steve. Let's not also forget the tremendous role Barnabas had in bringing "that hated and feared Saul" into the ministry, which has blessed all God's people for centuries. Barnabas also forfeited his right to marriage in order to serve the Lord well pleasingly.

Oh, how I hate narrowism!

There was a series of articles by Frank Lin a few years back about Barnabas and printed in Cleveland's Fellowship Journal. They completely refuted from the scripture the exclusive views about Barnabas which were promulgated by WL in that infamous Elders' Training of Feb 1986.

I understand that Frank Lin (full timer in Taipei) was quarantined for his beliefs.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

AndPeter I think Nigel must have plagiarized his Barnabas talk from me!

[Hope]

Dear Brothers,

I appreciate the analysis of this bogus teaching. This error is tragic. I could never except it and never repeated it in any setting. Unfortunately, I never foresaw where this error would lead until it was way way too late. I originally took it as one of the non-essentials to overlook in order to guard the oneness of the Spirit. By 1986 it had become one of the pillars of the so called "the Recovery."

It is good that we continue to discuss this line. Thank you dear brothers.

Hope - Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great point, brother Steve. Let's not also forget the tremendous role Barnabas had in bringing "that hated and feared Saul" into the ministry, which has blessed all God's people for centuries. Barnabas also forfeited his right to marriage in order to serve the Lord well pleasingly.

Exactly who was Barnabas?

"Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet." Acts 4:36-37

While known as Saul, he was the chief persecutor of Christians. Following Saul's conversion, many Christians probably that it to be a ruse. In Acts 9:26-27,
"When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. "

I have heard it suggested when Barnabas and Paul parted was due to John-Mark, since Barnabus was no longer mentioned, Barnabus was no longer used by God. Can you believe that?

I suggest this, quite possibly Barnabus and Paul did not cross paths again. Perhaps partly due to Paul's imprisonment. Rather Barnabus' time with John-Mark was to shepherd John-Mark so he might be a useful brother as we see later on in Paul's epistles.

"Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);" Colossians 4:10

"Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service." 2 Timothy 4:11

"as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow workers." Philemon 1:24

[TLFisher]

Am I going to far to suggest Barnabus being from Cyprus and Paul being from Tarsus as Hellenistic Jews were more ideal culturally to go out into Asia Minor and Greece than it was for their Hebrew brethren?

[Ohio]

Concerning Lee's teaching that Barnabas lost his usefulness in "The Work" after his dispute with Paul in Acts 15 over taking Mark, this verse in I Corinthians 9.6 completely debunked that teaching ...

Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

In that notorious elders training of Feb 1986, Lee taught that after Barnabas disagreed with Paul, that he was finished in the work, and that he was never mentioned again in the Bible.

Here Paul purposely debunks that notion, writing about Barnabas perhaps 10 years afterwards to Corinth. He also confirms a positive regard towards Barnabas. He links himself with Barnabas as being under much criticism, probably from the Judaizers. He states that Barnabas was still serving the Lord, living by faith just as he was.

Of those 400 plus brothers at the elders' training who signed that declaration of loyalty to Lee, was there not a single brother brave enough to stand up and speak this verse in rebuttal?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerning Lee's teaching that Barnabas lost his usefulness in "The Work" after his dispute with Paul in Acts 15 over taking Mark, this verse in I Corinthians 9.6 completely debunked that teaching ...In that notorious elders training of Feb 1986, Lee taught that after Barnabas disagreed with Paul, that he was finished in the work, and that he was never mentioned again in the Bible.

Here Paul purposely debunks that notion, writing about Barnabas perhaps 10 years afterwards to Corinth. He also confirms a positive regard towards Barnabas. He links himself with Barnabas as being under much criticism, probably from the Judaizers. He states that Barnabas was still serving the Lord, living by faith just as he was.

Of those 400 plus brothers at the elders' training who signed that declaration of loyalty to Lee, was there not a single brother brave enough to stand up and speak this verse in rebuttal?

Ironically I had listened to a portion of that elders conference last weekend.

In regard to Barnabas and Paul, they were distributed with different gifts. If you are speaking from the concept of a ministry going out, perhaps Barnabas was not that brother. In today's context a brother like Barnabas may not be beneficial to a work. Where a brother like Barnabas benefits the Body is laboring on one who most would consider to be unprofitable to spend time on. I consider Barnabas as a type of the shepherd in Matthew 18 who leaves the 99 to go after the one.
Barnabas' time with John Mark must have perfected him. As later on Paul considered Mark to be useful. Who is to say the Gospel of Mark doesn't happen without Barnabas ministering Christ to Mark?
As I paraphrase another brother "who is right? who is wrong? Barnabas and Paul labored together. History tries to judge Paul must be right. Barnabas must be wrong. God does not judge this way. When we come to the judgment seat, we may hold a different view of Barnabas."

[KSA]

Originally Posted by AndPeter

In a nutshell, Barnabas had a different portion than Paul. He looked after Mark during Mark's probable hard time following the dispute with Paul. Much later Mark went on to write the gospel of Mark. If Barnabas had not taken care of the young Mark when he did, we might not have the second gospel as we know it.

Yes, it was his portion, he was "the son of encouragement", as his name shows.