Featured How do you interpret the theology of the division of Paul & Barnabas?

That is not the case at all. The father felt his son had been poorly treated and supported him when the new church started up.
Also, I should add, the son did not start up a church at his own initiative, but joined the new one as Pastor when invited by people who had already left the old church.

I hope that clarifies. I'm not sure you do well constantly to look for sin in others. I think we all do well to look for sin in ourselves and seek to mortify it (c.f. Colossians 3:5-11).

 

I dont see how it's "theology" at all.

 

There is no explicit scripture that details a reconciliation between Paul and Barnabas. I believe, however, that there is a bit of evidence that indicates that Paul and Barnabas did not continue to be at odds with one another.

In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul makes a statement about his apostleship and his rights as an apostle. In the context of this statement, 1 Corinthians 9:3-6, Paul mentions Barnabas as a Christian laborer who also "forebears working" (v. 6). It is short and straightforward, but hard to understand in a way that Paul doesn't recognize Barnabas as a co-laborer, or that he is still angry.

Now if we follow a biblical timeline, we find that the split between Paul and Barnabas is recorded in Acts 15, and from that point Barnabas went with Mark, and Paul went with Silas. Paul's trip to Corinth is not recorded until Acts 18, and this is during the time that he was laboring with Silas. Clearly, then, when Paul wrote to the church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 9 and mentions Barnabas, this mention is after the split of Acts 15. To me that suggests or implies that they had made their peace. It is enough to satisfy me. Others mileage may vary. Other than the clear indication that Paul and Mark were reconciled, I don't think there is anything else in the NT that speaks directly to this subject.

 

God created the nation of Babylon to judge his people (read Habakkuk). God created persecution in Jerusalem to uproot his church. God created a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas to have two groups of missionaries rather than one.
The issue was a disagreement. There was no, zero, zip, naughta division on theology. God orders conflict in the church to have us accomplish his will when we are too narrow-minded to see his plans.
I have no doubt that God ordained this split in order to advance the Kingdom. I also see that Paul and Mark were working together later in time.
Perhaps you are looking for sin where there was no sin.

 

I think you are seeing something that isn’t there (anger?). The church made the decision to send Paul and Barnabas. The church gave the blessing to send Silas with Paul the second time around. It seems reasonable to believe Barnabas and Mark also received the blessing of the church to visit the churches founded in Cyprus. Both groups submitted themselves to the authority of the church in their efforts.

As mentioned earlier, the intention was to visit churches they had founded to strengthen them. Luke is focused on Paul’s ministry at this point in Acts, so he records Paul’s journey and gives only a small mention of how/why the two parted company.

As far as I’m concerned, the matter was taken before the church and reconciled, mutually agreed upon by both, and the ministry continued by separating into two groups to visit the areas where churches had been planted.

There is more evidence of this senerio than to assume these Godly men parted in anger and never reconciled.

peace to you