"...even
Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation."
(Galatians 2:13.)
What a
pity that such painful and unhappy incidents should have
been placed on record for all time! What a still greater
pity that they should ever have happened at all, and that
right at the heart of the Apostolic circle in those most
vital and crucial of all days! The Holy Spirit, as
Custodian of the Divine records, must have had some very
justifying reason for causing or allowing such things to
be in the Bible. And there are - sad to say - not a few
of such things.
When
Paul wrote this in his letter there must have been a
distinct change in his tone at these words - "even
Barnabas".
This is,
perhaps, the most vehement of all his letters. He is
truly on the war-path in white-hot jealousy for the truth
and purity of the Gospel, and he says some very strong
things.
But at
this point we can discern the mingled tones of surprise,
grief, disappointment. "Even Barnabas" -
Barnabas: the one who had befriended him when, being
under suspicion, he stood alone, the other Apostles
fearing him and "not believing that he was a
disciple"! The one who had sought him out at Tarsus
as the man needed for the hour! The one who had been
committed with him to the work and had laboured and
travelled far with him! The one who had seen and shared
and gloried in his ministry to the Gentiles! Barnabas,
the "good man" (Acts 11:24)! Can it be true?
When
certain from James came to Antioch Peter withdrew and
others also. Paul does not emit surprise over Peter, only
condemnation (Gal. 2:11). But for race-prejudice and
discrimination to approach in his dear friend Barnabas,
that shocks him, and he says in astonishment, "Even
Barnabas"! Was this the betrayal of something in
Barnabas, which, although for some time it was covered
over and they worked on together for a while, yet
eventually came out again in another connection and
resulted in their permanent separation in the work?
What are
we to make of it? Can we, without wrongly judging
Barnabas, put our finger on that flaw, that something
which so painfully spoiled a relationship? What is it
that we are intended to learn from this being put into
the glorious story of the first years? What did Paul call
it? - dissimulation. What is dissimulation? It is
hypocrisy, play-acting; literally it means 'from behind a
mask': pretence, unreality, falsehood.
There is
a Scripture that touches this very directly - "the
fear of man bringeth a snare" (Prov. 29:25). Perhaps
in other ways Barnabas was not afraid of men, but the
weakness - the fatal weakness - that shows itself here is
allowing his natural temperament to govern him when most
serious issues were in the balances. Barnabas was
evidently a very sociable man: that was his temperament.
The feature of that temperament is that it does not like
to be unpopular; out of standing with people whom it
wants to please or who can affect its interests. This,
therefore, is the tragedy of compromise for the sake of
pleasantness and popularity. This is the disastrous
leaning to policy instead of standing firm on principle
when serious matters are on hand.
Yes, we
know that it was no simple matter for Barnabas. This very
incident brings out into clear definition the terrible
strength of a system and tradition. All the holy
vehemence of the greatest Apostle is drawn out in wrath
by the strength of this system. This judaising element
was going to die hard. It had taken the devastating power
of a personal appearing in glory on the part of the Lord
to break Paul clear of it. It was going to be the
everything-or-nothing question from then onward. If a
mask of insincerity, prevarication, equivocation, and
disguise was being put on, then Paul tore it off with no
light hand. He saw too clearly the disaster of both the
old system, and of trying to be two contrary things.
In this
same chapter verse 20 occurs. Everybody knows Galatians
2:20. There it is shown that the Cross of Christ puts
'Finish' to this kind of thing. Later in the letter,
reference will be made to "the offence of the
cross". That offence in this context is in relation
to compromise in order to save our face, our standing our
advantage, and so on.
It is a
sad revelation, and fact, that a "good man";
one who has seen great service for God; and has had
association at close quarters with so much of God's work,
can fall into the snare of 'safety first' rather than
stand by truth and principle at all costs. This has much
to teach us, but it is all summed up in the cry - 'Be
true!' 'Be honest!' ' Be transparent!' Do not walk with
men first, but walk before God. May it never be that all
that may be so good and creditable eventually falls under
this verdict - "...even Barnabas was carried
away."
So, a
great friendship and a vital colleagueship was threatened
and then disrupted by - what? Was it a secret jealousy of
the outworking of the sovereign choice and using of that
'vessel', the vessel over which Barnabas rejoiced until
some personal interest or temperamental weakness was
touched? Paul may have been a rather strong and sometimes
overbearing man in the utterness of his abandon to what
had come to him "by revelation of Jesus
Christ". What he had to be AGAINST, still
marked him as FOR Christ. One thing Paul could not
countenance on any account was compromise. He was capable
of being both very forceful and forbearing, but he was
not capable of being double.
Barnabas
may have wanted peace, and would do ANYTHING for
it. But that ANYTHING might lead him into 'sitting
on the fence' or trying to agree with two irreconcilable
positions, and the end be that for all time a "good
man" made a terrible mistake, so that the
potentialities of a great friendship and partnership were
lost.
But the
work must go on. Barnabas had an overwhelming amount of
evidence as to where his friend stood, and how utterly he
stood on this, the greatest dispensational, issue, and he
allowed himself to be influenced by James and his strong
leaning to the Jewish complexion. So, in the transition,
which was making distinctions very clear and putting men
on this side or on that, Barnabas EVENTUALLY fades
out. Silas (Silvanus) fills the gap, and even John Mark
who brought the relationship to a crisis becomes - at
length - 'profitable' to both Peter and Paul.
Turning
corners is always a perilous time, and in the turning of
the dispensations, in which these early saints were
involved, there were not a few casualties.
The Lord
help us to be true to all the light available.
First published in
"A Witness and A Testimony" January 1962,
Volume 40-1.