Paul Departs Silas Over John Mark

^{Acts 15:36} Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. ³⁸ But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. ³⁹ Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. ⁴¹ And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

It seems as though Paul didn't like John Mark at this time. He felt betrayed by him, as he bailed on a previous missionary journey (Acts 13:13). How could Paul trust John Mark to come with them to visit those they shared the gospel with when he proved unreliable? I can imagine emotions were dictating a lot of the decisions. So there a two positions: Barnabas looked past weakness and included John Mark; Paul wouldn't have any of that and went off just with Silas. Is one more proper than the other?

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not sure the text tells explicitly. We know in Colossians 4:10, that Paul was reconciled to John Mark, as he instructed the church to welcome him upon his arrival. I imagine Paul valued the unity of the Body more than holding grudges. John Mark could well have been in the wrong, leaving for selfish or fearful reasons. This well may have set back the mission. His frustration with John Mark is not unmerited.

So where does that leave us?

For sure, the unity of the faith and "one accord"-ness is most difficult considering the influences of ego (flesh), world and enemy.