Today we begin the first of a three-week mini-series about this project we are calling Hot Springs Reformed Church, answering some of the basic questions that should probably come to mind. Specifically, I want to answer three obvious questions as they relate to starting a new church.
First: why are we doing this? That is the topic for today. Second: what are some of our distinguishing doctrines and practices? That will be next week. And then, where are we going — what is the vision for Hot Springs Reformed Church? There are certainly other questions we could answer, but I think that will cover the basics and make sure we are all on the same page.
So today we cover the why. Why a new church? Why did we feel this was a good and indeed a needful thing to do?
For that, let’s turn to Acts chapter 15, starting in verse 35.
“Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder from one another, and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed into Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by their brethren. And he went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches.”
Now this might seem like a strange passage. After all, we are not really involved in any fights with anybody, and we have no particular conflict with other churches here. In some ways this may not seem directly applicable. But I do believe this passage has implications for us as well, even if the situation is not exactly the same.
At the most basic level, this passage is about Paul and Barnabas parting ways in their ministry. And as we look at starting a new church — what is starting a new church, if not in some way parting ways with brothers from other churches?
Background
Paul and Barnabas had returned from Paul’s first missionary journey, and they were back in Antioch here in chapter 15. The Jerusalem Council had taken place earlier in chapter 15, running through about verse 34 or 35, and that would have been about AD 49.
Some have suggested that between verses 35 and 36, the events of Galatians 2 may have played out — where Paul confronted Peter to his face over the Judaizing that was going on. Barnabas is actually mentioned in that passage as well, having gone along with Peter. Some have suggested that this recent background between Paul and Barnabas had created an underlying tension that lead to the situation we read about today. Galatians was written around AD 50, so the timeline fits. However, the text doesn’t mention this, and whatever rift existed from that incident had clearly been mended by verse 36, or Paul wouldn’t have suggested they begin another journey together.
Paul says to Barnabas, “Let’s go back and visit all these churches where we have ministered and see how they are doing.” Barnabas was apparently on board — except for one major point of disagreement: who to bring with them.
Barnabas wanted to take John Mark. Paul most definitely did not.
1. The Cause of Their Parting
The cause was this disagreement over John Mark. Going back to Acts 13:13, we see where it originated: “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia, and John departed from them, returning to Jerusalem.” On the first journey, John Mark had bailed on them. We do not know exactly why, but he went back while Paul and Barnabas continued on. Paul, perhaps in wisdom, did not want a repeat. Barnabas — who was John Mark’s cousin, or possibly his uncle — perhaps wanted to give him the opportunity to redeem himself. But there was a disagreement, and whether it was due to principle, pride, or simply a difference of opinion, this was something they could not resolve. The Greek word used here denotes a very strong disagreement — this was not a simple matter of preference.
The obvious question, at least for me, is: who was actually in the right? Should John Mark have gone or not? Matthew Henry sides with Paul. G. Campbell Morgan says his sympathies are firmly with Barnabas. Other commentators point out that Luke, the author of Acts, seems very intentionally not to be casting either man as clearly right or clearly wrong. It seems that Luke portrays it as even-handedly as possible, and I think that ambiguity is part of the point. The passage is not really about whether John Mark was a good prospect for another trip. The point seems to be in how the conflict played out, how it was handled, and how that led to the work going forward.
I do not think we even have to say that either man was in sin. While this is certainly possible — they are but men and sin during a sharp disagreement is the norm for men — we do not know their hearts or their attitudes. It is also possible that two men could disagree sharply and yet righteously, with no need for repentance afterward. Either way, they were clearly on good terms afterward.
In 1 Corinthians 9:6, written in the mid-50s — about five years after these events — Paul speaks of Barnabas in a way that clearly implies no hard feelings. Colossians 4:10, written in the early 60s, says: “and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark, about whom you received instructions — if he comes to you, welcome him.” That is Paul writing warmly of both men. And by 2 Timothy 4:11, written in the mid-60s — roughly fifteen years after the parting — Paul says: “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” His opinion of Mark has completely turned around. Over the ensuing fifteen years, Paul clearly maintained a positive view of both Barnabas and Mark.
2. The Need for Their Parting
The need for the parting is not explicit in the text, but it does seem implicit. Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” Here, the two could not really walk together because they were not agreed. Regardless of who was right, neither man was able or willing to compromise. Both had drawn a line in the sand. And yet both still had a calling from God — God still had much for each of them to do. The only option remaining was to part ways as peacefully as possible and continue to minister on parallel tracks, not at cross purposes, but no longer side by side.
We see a parallel in Genesis 13, the account of Abraham and Lot. Starting in verse 5:
“And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks and herds and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together, for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land. And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.”
Abraham simply said: you decide where you want to go, and we will go the other way. You do your thing, we will do ours. There was no way to continue in the current arrangement. And just as with Paul and Barnabas, there wasn’t obvious ill will from this parting — rather it was intended to eliminate the source of their strife. In fact, just a few chapters later, Abraham is interceding passionately on Lot’s behalf when God is about to judge Sodom — pleading for fifty righteous, then twenty, then ten, and so on. He still had genuine affection for Lot despite the separation.
Going back to Acts: the two men part because there is simply no other option. Neither was disqualified from serving, and as we have already seen, both continued to serve the church for decades afterward.
3. The Effect of Their Parting
Verse 39: “And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from the other, and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed unto Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed.”
The effect was that God sent out two teams rather than one. Instead of just Paul and Barnabas, He sent out Paul and Silas, and He sent out Barnabas and John Mark. Matthew Henry said: “Even the quarrels of the apostles should tend to the furtherance of the gospel of Christ.” And that is exactly what we have here. Because of this conflict, God sent them each out separately to proclaim His gospel.
(One line in verse 40 is worth a brief comment. It says Paul departed “being recommended by the brethren.” Some have argued this shows Paul was in the right — that the church endorsed him. But what we really have here is Luke picking up the story of Paul and following it through to the end of the book. Paul is the main actor through the second half of Acts, and this is simply Luke saying, “That happened — now back to Paul.”)
Application: How Does This Apply to Hot Springs Reformed Church?
Our catalyzing cause may not seem as dramatic as a sharp argument between an apostle and a disciple. But similarly, many of us reached a point where disagreements over doctrine and practice — in spite of every effort to live at peace — have made it difficult to serve in our previous church contexts.
This raises the obvious question: what exactly are those disagreements? What are the things where we go in a different direction? Next week we will address that question directly, and discuss the key areas of doctrine and practice that distinguish us from many other local churches.
Here’s a quick peek at what we’ll be covering next week:
The primacy of the church and her worship — the Christian life is much more than what we do on Sunday morning, but it is certainly not less.
Sexed piety — the idea that the characteristics of a godly Christian man and those of a godly Christian woman are not exactly the same. There is certainly overlap in living a godly life, but there are also distinct things required of men and distinct things required of women. We are not interchangeable.
Christ’s victory through the church — 1 Corinthians 15:25–26 tells us that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. We believe the church, though slowly and over a long time, will ultimately be victorious — that Christ will defeat His enemies through the church in this age.
And closely related to this: A proper understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church — the Israel of God. Some may question whether this belongs on the list, but as I read the New Testament, a huge portion of the New Testament is devoted to precisely this question. It is a major theme of Galatians, of Ephesians, of much of Acts, of several chapters in Romans, and countless other places. It is good for us to understand it rightly.
For many of us, because of these convictions, it was difficult if not impossible to fully participate and serve in many other churches — and this is not a criticism of those churches. They are responsible to God for ensuring their understanding of Scripture is taught in their church. But this led us to the need for something new — a place we could worship according to our conscience, to serve freely, and to see our children taught in accordance with our beliefs.
Lord willing, the effect will be not a divided church in Hot Springs, but a multiplying one. Our goal is to maintain peace, worship according to our conscience, and teach right doctrine and practice as we understand it. And then, Lord willing, He will use even our disagreements to advance His kingdom.
Sermon by Jeremy Isaac at Hot Springs Reformed Church: May 10, 2026
(Editor’s note: This transcript may have been lightly edited for clarity and/or condensed for internet attention spans.)