Though the conversion of Cornelius and his household, with its attendant circumstances, had given the Jewish Christians clearer views of the comprehensive character of the new dispensation, yet the accession of a large number of Gentiles to the church at Antioch was an event so extraordi nary, that the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem resolved on deputing one of their number to inves tigate it. Their choice was fixed on Barnabas. After witnessing the flourishing condition of the church, and adding fresh converts by his personal exertions, he visited Tarsus to obtain the assistance of Saul, who returned with him to Antioch, where they laboured for a whole year (Acts xi. 23-26). In anticipation of the famine predicted by Agabus, the Antiochian Christians made a contribution for their poorer brethren at Jerusalem, and sent it by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 28-3o), who speedily returned, bringing with them John Mark, a nephew of the former. By divine direc tion (Acts xiii. 2) they were separated to the office of missionaries, and as such visited Cyprus and some of the principal cities in Asia Minor (Acts xiii. 14). Soon after their return to Antioch, the peace of the church was disturbed by certain zealots from Judwa, who insisted on the observance of the rite of circumcision by the Gentile converts. To settle the controversy, Paul and Barnabas were deputed to consult the apostles and elders at Jeru salem (Acts xv. 2) ; they returned to commu nicate the result of their conference (ver. 22), accompanied by Judas Barsabas and Silas, or Sil vanus. On preparing for a second missionary tour, a dispute arose between them on account of John Mark, which ended in their taking different routes ; Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cilicia, while Barnabas and his nephew revisited his native island (Acts xv. 36-41). In reference to this event, Chrysostom remarks— ; Jx0pot avexol:prio-au ; ^y&o:ro. '0 pCts yap Aera, ToilroBappciftap aroXXL2w J-yKcogicop ciroXa6ovra vapa, IhniXot: Ev ;Vas. gyeptro, oftc gxepa oMf OtXavencla :' 'What then ? Did they part as eue mies ? Far from it. For you see that after this Paul bestows in his Epistles many commendations on Barnabas. There was a sharp fit of anger' (Doddridge) he (Luke) says, not enmity, nor love of strife.' At this point Barnabas disappears from Luke's narrative, which to its close is occupied solely with the labours and sufferings of Paul.
From the Epistles of the latter a few hints (the only authentic sources of information) may be gleaned relative to his early friend and associate. From I Cor. ix. 5, 6, it would appear that Bar nabas was unmarried, and supported himself, like Paul, by some manual occupation. In Gal. ii. we have an account of the reception given to Paul and Barnabas by the apostles at Jerusalem, pro bably on the occasion mentioned in Acts xv. In the same chapter (ver. 13) we are informed that Barnabas so far yielded to the Judaizing zealots at Antioch, as to separate himself for a time from communion with the Gentile converts. The date of this occurrence has been placed by some critics soon after the apostolic convention at Jerusalem (about A.D. 52) ; by others, on the return of Paul from his second missionary journey (A. D. 55). Dr. Paley thinks that there is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the dispute at Antioch was prior to the consultation at Jerusalem, or that Peter, in consequence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer sentiments' (Norte Parslinre, ch. v.) The same view has been taken by Hug and Schneckenburger ; but (as Dr. Neander remarks) though Paul may not follow a strict chro nological order, it difficult to believe that he would not place the narrative of an event so closely connected with the conference at Jerusalem, at the beginning, instead of letting it follow as supple mentary (History of the Planting of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 248, Eng. Trans].) It has been inferred from 2 Cor. viii. IS, 19, that Barnabas was not only reconciled to Paul after their separation (Acts xv. 39) but also became again his coadjutor ; that he was `the brother whose praise was in the Gospel through all the churches.' Chrysostom says that some suppose the brother was Luke, and others Barnabas. Theodoret asserts that it was Barnabas, and appeals to Acts xiii. 3, which rather serves to disprove his assertion, for it ascribes the appointment of Paul and Barnabas to an express divine injunction, and not to an elective act of the church ; and, besides, the brother alluded to was chosen, not by a single church, but by several churches, to travel with Paul (xeLparopnOeis 67rb