Specifically, there was an argument. Only here and Hebrews 10:24. Our word paroxysm is a transcript of παροξυσμὸς. A furious argument is insinuated. In any event, we see a case in the early Church where two leaders disagreed on 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. 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 Jean-Marc had “retired” and “had not gone to work with them,” “paul thinks better about not taking someone who had done such a thing” (Acts 15, 38).1 Barnabas was not convinced by Paul. Indeed, in Paul, Barnabas himself showed that he was a man who gave someone the opportunity to serve in service if others did not want to do so (cf.
Ac 9:26-29). Barnabas was apparently convinced that Mark had learned his lesson and that he was worthy to serve again. But as it was, “acute disagreement” separated these two great men (Act 15,39). they turned away from each other under one; they did not really tell the Lystruneurs that they were “men like them.” (Ac 14:15). But who was to blame for? (1) The fact that Jean-Marc was tired of work, or diminished by the dangers and signs of fatigue in front of them was undeniable; and Paul concluded that what he had done, he could do again and probably would. Was he wrong? (See Pr 25:19). But (2) To these Barnabas could answer that no rule was without exception; that failure in a young Christian was not enough to condemn him for life; that if it was assumed that a close relationship distorted his judgment, it also gave him opportunities to know man better than others; and that, anxious to authorize another trial (and that the result makes it safe) so that he could erase the effect of his previous failure and show the harshness he could now endure as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, his request should not be rejected. Now that John Mark has regained his character in this regard and a reconciliation has taken place between him and Paul, so cordially that the apostle expresses more than once the confidence he had in himself and the value he put on his services (Kol 4, 10, 11; 2Ti 4, 11), it would seem that the events showed Barnabas as right and Paul too hard and rushed into his judgment. But on behalf of Paul, it is quite possible to answer that, unable to look to the future, he had only the unfavourable past on which he could judge.
that the sweetness of Barnabas (Acts 4.36; 11.24) had already opened it to taxation (cf.Ga 2:13), with which, in this case, a close relationship would do so; and that by refusing to take John Mark on this missionary journey, he did not judge his Christian character and did not speak of his suitability for future service, but in the meantime he only hesitated to be exploited again with serious inconveniences and to have weakened his hands by a possible second de-detion.