Family Business (Philemon 1:2)

Who, in addition to Philemon, was that letter written to? Apphia and Archippus (Philemon 1:2)

Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is the shortest of the apostle’s letters preserved in the Bible. It is comprised of just one chapter which spans 25 verses. Written from a prison in Rome, it broaches a very sensitive subject: the delicate case of Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus (Philemon 1:10-21).

Despite the epistle’s title, Paul addresses the letter not only to Philemon but to three individuals and their church (Philemon 1:1-2).

Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved brother and fellow worker, and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house. (Philemon 1:1-2 NASB)

This marks the last reference to a house church in the New Testament.

Philemon’s co-recipients, Apphia and Archippus, are obscure (Philemon 1:2). Mitzi J. Smith (b. 1957) speculates:

Archippus and Apphia may function as two witnesses (as freed or freeborn persons) to the reconciliation that Paul proposes and signs (Philemon 1:19). Slaves could function as witnesses only under torture. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 606)

Though it is not stated in the text, traditionally Apphia and Archippus are thought of as Philemon’s wife and son respectively. Paul’s silence on the matter has led to much speculation. As countless situations comedies have demonstrated, the number of possible connections between two guys and a girl is virtually limitless.

Carolyn Osiek (b. 1940) surveys:

It is possible that Apphia is Philemon’s wife and Archippus his brother, or that all three are unmarried siblings in the same household, or if married, their spouses do not share the faith. It is less likely that Apphia is the wife of Archippus, since wives would not normally be named before their husbands (but see Prisca and Aquila in Acts 18:26; Romans 16:23; II Timothy 4:19 in contrast to I Corinthians 16:19). Of course, it is also possible that only one of the three hosts the house-church and the other two are the only other members of it that Paul knows. If Onesimus is Philemon’s brother as Allen Dwight Callahan [b. 1957]...argues, the addressees would be aware that his name is conspicuously missing from the list. Perhaps the two men, Philemon and Archippus, have a history of apostolic work known to Paul that Apphia does not share for Paul is not reluctant to name women who have worked in ministerial roles (e.g., Romans 16:3, 6, 12; Philippians 4:2-3), and his title for her is the simple way he would address any female believer. What we can say for certain is that the house is in the name of one person, most likely Philemon, since the house is referred to in Philemon 1:2 as “your (singular) house.” (Osiek, Philippians & Philemon (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 134)

The tradition that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife has persisted for centuries. In his first homily on Philemon, John Chrysostom (347-407) preaches:

It seems to me that she [Apphia] was his [Philemon’s] partner in life. Observe the humility of Paul; he both joins Timothy with him in his request, and asks not only the husband, but the wife also, and some one else, perhaps a friend. (Chysostom, “Homily I”, Saint Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume 13), 547)

The traditional explanation that Philemon and Apphia are married is unsubstantiated but is a natural reading of the text. As such, the majority of contemporary commentators accept it and none can refute it. If this interpretation is correct, like Aquila and Priscilla, Philemon and Apphia are co-hosts of a house church (Romans 16:3-5; I Corinthians 16:19).

Apphia appears only here in the Bible (Philemon 1:2) making her one of only two women to be directly addressed in a New Testament epistle (Philemon 1:2; II John 1:1).

Richard R. Melick, Jr. (b. 1944) introduces:

The second addressee is Apphia, “our sister.” The name occurs often in extra-biblical sources and was a distinctively Phrygian name. She obviously had a Christian commitment since Paul called her a “sister.” From the way he addressed her, apparently she was well-known to him also. Could she have served with Philemon and Paul? Apphia was probably Philemon’s wife. Two factors suggest that: the warm, personal tone of the letter, which addresses house matters, and the close contextual connection with Philemon. (Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (The New American Commentary), 350)

The name Apphia is Phrygian (present-day Turkey) in origin and is found frequently in western Asia Minor, including Colossae, where tradition holds that Philemon resided.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) reviews:

The name Apphia (not to be confused with the Roman Appia) is well attested in Phrygia and elsewhere in Western Anatolia: one Apphia of Colossae is commemorated on a tombstone set up by her husband Hermas. (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 206)

Paul distinguishes Apphia as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) analyzes:

She is called literally “the sister” (as Timothy was called “the brother”). This presumably means that she also was a Christian, “our sister”...In contrast to the masculine ἀδελφος [“brother”]...the feminine is rarely used for members of religious associations. This is surprising, since women were active in religious cults of the time, particularly that of Isis. Nevertheless, the designation of a woman who also believed in Christ as “sister” seems to have been particularly characteristic of Christianity (Romans 16:1; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; James 2:15; Ignatius, Polycarp 5:1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 2.2.3, 2.3.1). Although the masculine still predominates in the New Testament and is often used in the plural when a congregation made up of both sexes is addressed (as in Colossians 1:2), the fact that the feminine is used, as here, does suggest that a serious attempt was made (and not least within the Pauline circle) to treat women as individuals and Christians in their own right. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 311-12)

Bonnie B. Thurston (b. 1952) and Judith M. Ryan (1952-2010) add:

She, like “the brother” Timothy (Philemon 1:1) is similarly introduced as tē adelphē, best translated as “our sister” as it is modified by the possessive pronoun hēmōn (“our”) that also modifies “our fellow soldier.”...Even if Apphia had been Philemon’s wife with management over the household, the use of tē adelphē could serve to focus attention on Apphia’s role as a Christian of influence within the local church that is to welcome Onesimus back home. Deliberate placement of “the sister” in tandem with “the brother” for Timothy could suggest some parity with respect to the importance and/or influence within the community. Like Phoebe, who is also described as adelphē (Romans 16:1), Apphia is thought to be among Paul’s coworkers...A few manuscripts such as D, and a number of miniscules either replace “sister” with “beloved” or, like manuscript 629, add beloved to sister adelphē tē agapētē. Such changes could reflect assimilation to “beloved” in the previous verse...“Brother” and “sister” are the forms of expressions Paul normally employs to describe both his own coworkers and Christians in general (e.g, Romans 8:29; I Corinthians 3:1). With already existing roots in the Old Testament tradition (Deuteronomy 15:3) and especially given Jesus’ own emphasis (Mark 3:34)...such familial terms are likely to be the earliest ones used by Christians in distinguishing themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. This is certainly a traditional understanding Paul builds upon in forming such close-knit communities (Romans 8:14-16; Galatians 4:5-7). (Thurston and Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (Sacra Pagina), 212)

As Thurston and Ryan allude, some manuscripts identify Apphia as “beloved sister” which would parallel “beloved brother” Philemon (Philemon 1:1, 2).

Conjecture has derived from Apphia’s designation as “our sister” (Philemon 1:2). Ross S. Kraemer (b. 1948) shares:

Mary Rose D’Angelo [b. 1946] has suggested that “sister” may sometimes designate the female partner of a female-male missionary team. Read from this perspective, Apphia might have been part of such a team, perhaps with Philemon, affiliated with the church in Archippus’s house. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Kraemer, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, 53)

The one conclusive fact that can be drawn from Paul’s use of “sister” is that Apphia is a believer.

The most common status given Apphia is the traditional belief that she is Philemon’s wife. As the epistle speaks to a domestic matter, if Apphia is indeed Philemon’s wife, Paul addresses her not only as a matter of courtesy but also practicality.

David E. Garland (b. 1947) construes:

As the paterfamilias, the male head of the family, Philemon had absolute authority over all others in the household, and Paul need only deal with him. But since wives were charged with running the affairs of the household, Apphia would have a stake in the disposition of the case concerning their slave. Apphia must also be convinced that this is the right thing to do. (Garland, Colossians, Philemon (NIV Application Commentary), 317)

Sabine Bieberstein (b. 1962) finds the inference that Apphia is Philemon’s wife to be biased:

It is true that the text does not completely rule out this interpretation, but, on the other hand, neither does it give the interpretation any sign of support...The text...has no interest in identifying Apphia as Philemon’s wife. This interpretation is more in keeping with an androcentric way of characterizing women. It involves the danger of reducing women to the functions they perform in a patriarchal household, underestimating their independent role in the early churches and construing their significance as merely derivative. (Luise Schottroff [b. 1934] and Marie-Theres Wacker [b. 1952], “Philemon: A Reading under Apphia’s Critical Eyes”, Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, 849-50)

Archippus’ relationship to his fellow addressees is even more tenuous than is Apphia’s. In lieu of the presumed family context, some have assigned him the role of Philemon’s son.

Archippus’ name means “commander (or master) of the horse” and he is deemed a “fellow soldier” (Philemon 1:2). Isobel A.H. Combes prefaces:

Archippus is mentioned again in Colossians 4:17. Here he appears as a follower of Epaphras and some ancient authorities hold that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop—he is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 as the bishop of Laodicea. The designation fellow soldier is unusual for Paul and only used by him in one other place (cf. Philippians 2:25). (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Acts-Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 693)

The appellation “fellow soldier” is unique. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) inspects:

We must assume at least that he [Archippus] is mentioned here either because he was a member of Philemon’s household or because he was the only other member of the church currently in Colossae to be active in ministry, at least so as to warrant the title “fellow soldier”...The designation “our [Paul’s and Timothy’s] fellow soldier” is applied only to Ephraphoditus elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (Philippians 2:25). Paul does not use military metaphors for Christian service as much as is sometimes assumed: only, strictly speaking, in II Corinthians 10:1-6, itself not particularly typical of Paul’s concept of mission (Otto Bauernfeind [1889-1972], TDNT 5.710-11). The image evoked by the use of συνστρατιώτης (“comrade-in-arms,” NEB/REB) here and in Philippians 2:15, therefore, is probably more that of dedication and discipline than of fierceness and warlike behavior. It probably indicates not that Archippus had been one of Paul’s mission team as such (“fellow worker”), but that he had, like Epaphroditus, served under the banner of the gospel in a more independent commission, perhaps in Laodicea...though in a cooperative and mutually supportive role with Paul. (Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 312-13)

Robert McLachlan Wilson (1916-2010) supplements:

Archippus is addressed in Philemon 1:2 as συνστρατιώτης [“fellow soldier”], and in Colossians 4:17 is charged to look to the διακονία [“ministry”] which he has received. This would seem to imply some degree of seniority, which in turn would mean, if he was Philemon’s son, that Philemon himself would be fairly well on in years. J.B. Lightfoot [1828-1899]...suggests that Archippus was a presbyter, or perhaps ‘belonged to the order of “evangelists”’, and locates his ministry at Laodicea; but this is inference, and...not explicitly stated in the text. (Wilson, Colossians and Philemon (International Critical Commentary), 319-20)

There are many traditions concerning Archippus’ identity. Marianne Meye Thompson (b. 1954) relays:

On the assumption that Philemon and Apphia are husband and wife, Archippus is sometimes identified as their son, an assumption wryly characterized by J.L. Houlden [b. 1929] as “an instance of legend active when history fails.” Other early commentators thought of Archippus as “one of the clergy” (Chrystostom [347-407])...the bishop of the church at Colossae (Jerome [347-420]) and a deacon of the church (Pelagius [354-420]). Archippus is surely the one to whom is given the cryptic instruction “See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord” (Colossians 4:17). Paul’s further reference to him as “our fellow soldier,” a term used of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25, suggests a joint effort in the service of the gospel. So Archippus was apparently a coworker of Paul with some responsibility in the affairs of the house church in view here. (Thompson, Colossians and Philemon (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary), 209)

John Knox (1900-1990) provocatively propagated a theory that Archippus, not Philemon was the intended recipient of the Epistle to Philemon, which Knox argues is the lost letter from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). Knox posits that Archippus leads the church in Colossae and is Onesimus’ master and that Paul is soliciting funds from Philemon and Apphia to influence Archippus. The theory has become widely known but largely discredited.

Markus Barth (1915-1994) and Helmut Blanke (b. 1955) summarily reject:

In the middle of the nineteenth century, and most vigorously since 1927, it has been proposed that Archippus rather than Philemon was the owner of Onesimus, and that Philemon lived in Laodicea, a major center with which the tiny and insignificant Colossae never could compare. Bold and interlocking reasons are proffered by John Knox in his book Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 1935...in favor of these two theories...It would be completely unusual to mention in Philemon 1:1-2 the real addressee only at the third place, after Philemon and Apphia. There is no solid evidence to demonstrate that Archippus was the main person addressed by Paul. (Barth, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 127-28)

Those seeking to find family links between the three recipients of the Epistle to Philemon may be barking up the wrong family tree. The relationship that Paul accents is not their connection to each other but rather to the church. The broader Christian family is the family being emphasized.

David W. Pao (b. 1966) notes:

While the household setting may point to the possibility of a family relationship among these three persons, the way they are introduced focuses on their standing within the church...“Our sister”...highlights her [Apphia’s] independent standing as a Christian and possibly as a leader of the church. The fact that she is specifically mentioned may even point to her status as a patron of this Christian community (cf. Romans 16:1)...In this context...“fellow soldier” highlights Archippus’s involvement in the work of ministry...Moreover, the presence of the singular pronoun (“your house”, οἰκον σου) may argue against seeing Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus as family members since one would have expected a plural pronoun as is found in a papyrus letter: “Apollonios to Hippalos and Sarapion and Berenike and Pyrrhos and to all in their house, greetings.” (Pao, Colossians and Philemon (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 364-65)

Sandra Hack Polaski (b. 1964) concurs:

Apphia may...be related by marriage or blood to either Philemon or Archippus...but her familial or marital relationship is not what is of primary importance to Paul. Nor is there any indication that Onesimus was specifically a house-servant, such that her involvement as “lady of the house” would be necessary in determining Onesimus’s disposition. Rather, Paul addresses her as “our sister,” a title that strongly suggests...that she is being addressed as a member of the Christian community. Her leadership within that community, then, would be logically deduced from two facts. She is named along with one or two male leaders of the community (depending on whether the slaveowner is also church leader), and the rest of the church is mentioned without singling out individuals...Apphia’s inclusion in the salutation, then, indicates that she is a person of influence in that community, or, to put it briefly, a leader of the church. (Polaski, A Feminist Introduction to Paul, 44)

In this instance, a person’s inclusion in the Christian community is as significant as membership in her biological family.

Does it matter if Philemon, Apphia and Archippus are related; would it alter the interpretation of the epistle in any way? Do you consider your fellow church members to be family? Do you identify yourself most as a Christian or as a member of your family? Why does Paul include Apphia, Archippus and the church in a letter that is addressing a personal matter?

While the Epistle to Philemon is personal in nature, it is certainly not private as it is addressed not only to Philemon, Apphia and Archippus but also to their church (Philemon 1:2). Philip L. Tite (b. 1969) sees their inclusion as reflecting status:

The inclusion of Apphia and Archippus suggests that these two individuals were also prominent members of the community; but even they are secondary to Philemon. With the individuals included in the adscriptio, this letter takes on a more than private letter function; Philemon represents the community under his leadership, and is a person of authority worthy of Paul’s respect. This broader social dynamic for the letter (even though the letter is likely written for a single recipient) certainly suggests that Paul places Philemon in a position of high regard as a fellow Christian leader. (Stanley E. Porter [b. 1956] and Sean A. Adams, “How to Begin, and Why?: Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript Within a Greco-Roman Context”, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 71-72)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) asserts:

All the audience is addressed in Christian terms and Paul stresses the co-laborer aspect of his relationship with Philemon. As G.B. Caird [1917-1984] and others have rightly stressed, this is most certainly not a private letter, even though its message is directed at Philemon. Nor is it written simply to a family...The reference to the church at or in Philemon’s house rules out the notion that this is a letter written just to a family, and as Sara C. Winter [b. 1945] remarks this reference cannot be reduced to the idea of the household at worship. Non-household members are among the addressees of this letter. (Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 54)

There are advantages to broaching the subject publicly. Jeffrey A.D. Weima (b. 1960) poses that Paul is exerting social pressure:

While Apphia may well have been Philemon’s wife, there is no conclusive evidence that Archippus was his son and it can hardly be the case that everyone in the church that met in his house was related to him such that “courtesy demanded” their inclusion among the letter recipients. The more plausible explanation for Paul including all these people in the recipient formula is that he deliberately makes the letter’s request a public matter, thereby giving his correspondence greater persuasive power. As any recruiter or fundraiser today knows full well: A request made in public is harder to turn down that one made in private. (D. Francois Tolmie, “Paul’s Persuasive Prose: An Epistolary Analysis of the Letter to Philemon”, Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, 38)

For Paul, Philemon’s treatment of Onesimus is a matter that concerns the entire church. Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) evaluates:

The mention of Apphia and Archippus may have been little more than a courteous gesture, but the mention of the entire church cannot function in quite this way. Moreover, Paul gives indications in the letter that he has a larger audience in view. For while the bulk of the letter is addressed to the individual, with second-person singular forms, Paul also uses second-person plural forms [Philemon 1:3, 22, 25]...These references seem to imply that the whole community would have been present as the letter was publicly read. By making the issue of Onesimus a public one, Paul increases pressure on Philemon to respond as he wishes. But we should not view the public nature of the letter as simply a lawyer’s tactic to win his case; it rather reflects the corporate nature of early Christianity, in which no matter was “private” but inevitably affected, and was affected by, one’s brothers and sisters in the new family of God. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary), 383-84)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) argues:

Paul is concerned that the whole community that gathers in prayer at Philemon’s house be involved in the way Onesimus is to be welcomed back by Philemon. This concern thus gives to the Letter to Philemon a dimension that transcends that of private correspondence...This has to be recognized even if, once the prescript comes to an end, one hears no more in the letter about the household church. For Paul is trying to get Philemon to recognize the symbolic integrity of that congregation, which is made up of brothers and sisters who go beyond the intimate family or household of Philemon. (Fitzmyer, The Letter to Philemon (Anchor Bible), 81)

Richard B. Hays (b. 1948) cites:

The letter to Philemon, confronting an issue that might have been considered a private personal matter, is addressed not just to Philemon but also to Apphia and Archippus and to “the church in your house” (Philemon 1:2). Paul insists on laying the decision-making process open to the community’s scrutiny. (Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics , 57)

Paul’s inclusion of Apphia, Archippus and their church implies that there are at least times when what a church member does in private is the entire congregation’s business.

Why does Paul take the case of Onesimus before the church? Does he triangulate? What makes Onesimus’ predicament a church issue? Do you think that Paul treats Philemon fairly or is the apostle airing dirty laundry in public? How does Paul’s handling of Philemon compare to Jesus’ strategy for church conflict resolution (Matthew 18:15-20)? When should a personal matter become a community issue?

“No man should advocate a course in private that he’s ashamed to admit in public.” - George McGovern, 1922-2012

John Mark’s Exit (Acts 13:13)

Who dropped out of the missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas and went back home? John Mark

Paul typically worked as part of what today might be called a “ministry team”. Aside from an excursion to Athens (Acts 17:16-34), Paul is never seen working alone. On his first “missionary journey”, he is accompanied by Barnabas (Acts 13:2). A man named John, also called Mark, accompanies the duo on the first leg of their travels (Acts 12:12, 25, 13:13, 15:37, 39). Tradition equates John with the Mark referenced in the New Testament epistles (Colossians 4:10; II Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24; I Peter 5:13), a relative of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). He is commonly referred to as John Mark.

John Mark is described as a huperetes (Acts 13:5), a word with a broad definition most commonly translated as “assistant” (ESV, HCSB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “helper” (CEV, MSG, NASB, NIV). Just what role John Mark plays is unclear.

Ajith Fernando (b. 1948) examines:

Some have suggested that the word “helper” here (hyperetes) has a restricted meaning similar to synagogue attendant (cf. Luke 4:20), so that Mark’s responsibility was to care for the scrolls of the Scriptures along with a “sayings of Jesus” collection. But Luke uses this word in the broader sense elsewhere (Luke 1:2; Acts 5:22, 25, 26:16), which seems to be the meaning here. As a resident of Jerusalem Mark may have had an eyewitness knowledge of events in the gospel story, especially relating to the Passion narrative, of which Paul would have availed himself. (Fernando, Acts (The NIV Application Commentary), 375)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) speculates that John Mark was more than a mere gofer:

John Mark...served as a υπηρετης. This term can have a variety of senses but its general sense is of a servant or helper, any subordinate assistant. Probably, in view of the use of the term in Luke 1:2 and Acts 26:16, it means more than just someone who helped with material aid or practical arrangements (though cf. Acts 5:22, 26, 20:34, 24:23). Presumably Mark helped in preaching and teaching in some way, but Luke does not care to be more specific. He is in any case not portrayed as a major figure in this venture. (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 395)

While in Perga in Pamphylia, something unusual occurs. Though no missional activity is recorded, the text informs that John Mark leaves the team.

Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 13:13 NASB)

John Mark’s desertion is evidence that Christians were free to leave the mission field at any time. Though Paul writes of deserters (I Timothy 1:20), this abandonment is an anomaly in Acts.

John Mark returns home to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13), presumably to the home of his pious mother, Mary (Acts 12:12). Though Acts offers no rationale for John Mark’s exit many have hazarded guesses. Some have examined the verbs for clues.

C. Clifton Black (b. 1955) analyzes:

In both classical and Hellenistic Greek, the verb ἀποχωρειν means generally “to go away from” or “to depart,” though it can carry the connotation of retirement or withdrawal after a defeat (such as an army might do in battle: Thucydides [460-395 BCE}, Peloponnesian War 2.89). Beyond Acts 13:13 this verb appears only twice in the New Testament. At Luke 9:39, with reference to a demonic spirit, it may, though need not, carry this nuance of capitulation (and probably does not do so in Matthew 7:23). The other verb in Acts 13:13b, ὑποστρέφειν, may simply be translated as “to return,” its most common connotation in Luke-Acts (see, e.g., Luke 1:56; Acts 1:12), or it can convey the more negative nuance of retreat under fire. (Richard P. Thompson [b. 1958] and Thomas E. Phillips, “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles”, Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [b. 1928], 108-109)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) adds:

The two verbs used by Luke suggest something more than a simple return home: apochōreō can be used in the sense of “removing oneself from” someone’s opinions (Epictetus [55-135], Discourse 4, 1, 53); the use in LXX Jeremiah 46:5 implies a turning back in fear or cowardice, and in III Maccabees 2:33, it means something like apostasy. It is striking that Luke will use another form of the verb (apochōrizomai) for the later separation of Barnabas and Paul. (Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (Sacra Pagina), 229)

Many reasons have been suggested for John Mark’s departure. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) recounts the usual suspects:

Did he resent the fact that Paul was now the leader, while his cousin Barnabas was relegated to second place? Or did he not want to go further than Cyrprus? Or did he lose courage? Or was there some other reason? We simply are not told, but it is clear from Acts 15:38 that Paul regarded his defection as a serious matter, while Barnabas was prepared to make allowances for him. (Marshall, Acts (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 222)

Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) narrows the list, writing, “Acts 15:37-39 makes it clear that a genuine falling out occurred on the team. This would seem to eliminate speculation that illness or fear of danger alone created the problem (Gangel, Acts (Holman New Testament Commentary ), 214).”

The timing of the incident fits a dissatisfaction with a shift in leadership. The verse that recounts John Mark’s withdrawal also marks the first time the text describes Paul as the leader of the operation - “Paul and his companions” (Acts 13:13).

F.F. Bruce: (1910-1990) notes:

When the expedition sets out from Syria, Luke speaks of “Barnabas and Saul”; by the time they leave Cyrpus, it is “Paul and his company.” It is unlikely that this change of expression is due purely to a change of source. (Bruce, The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 251)

Most think the issue runs deeper than petty jealousy. William H. Willimon (b. 1946) suggests that the personal row masks a deeper issue:

The reason that Luke gives for the breakup of the Paul and Barnabas team does not square with Paul’s version in Galatians 2:11-13. Paul’s own assertion that he had doctrinal differences with Barnabas does not fit into Luke’s purposes, so he transformed a theological dispute between Barnabas and Paul into a personal quarrel concerning the quitter, John Mark, who had withdrawn during the first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). (Willimon, Acts: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 133)

Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) theorizes that the theological issue at stake is Paul’s mission to the Gentiles:

Mark may have been concerned about the effect news of a direct Christian mission to Gentiles would have in Jerusalem and on the church there and may have wanted no part in it. It was his return to the Christian community in Jerusalem that may originally have stirred the “Judaizers” in the church to action. (Longenecker, Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 217)

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) dissects:

The hypothesis that he was not willing to participate in Paul’s mission to the Gentiles has much to commend it: (1) Mark made his decision soon after their encounter with the gentile proconsul. (2) Luke uses Mark’s Hebrew name, John in Acts 13:13. (3) John Mark returned not to Antioch, but to Jerusalem...(4) In Acts 15:38 Paul refuses to take Mark along because he had not “...gone with them to the work.” The occurrence of to ergon in Acts 13:2...and in Acts 14:26...clearly indicate that “the work” in which Mark refused to participate was the mission to the Gentiles. (5) That the gentile question was the issue is further suggested by the observation that Paul reports in Galatians 2:13 that even Barnabas was carried into hypocrisy over the question of the table-fellowship with Gentiles...The convergence of these considerations strongly suggests that John Mark withdrew from the mission because he could not in good conscience participate in the offering of the Gospel to the Gentiles. After the Jerusalem conference he apparently changed his mind (Acts 15:37-38). (Culpepper, “Paul’s mission to the Gentile World: Acts 13-19,” Review and Expositor 71 (1974): 488)

Furthermore, John Mark was not only associated with Jerusalem in general but with Peter in particular as Peter stays at his home (Acts 12:12) and John Mark is even called his “son” in the Petrine epistles (I Peter 5:13). John Mark might have been the first person to feel he was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The early missionaries certainly did not have an easy task and any or all of these reasons could have contributed to John Mark’s early exit. Though the reason for John Mark’s departure must remain conjecture, it is certain that Paul is extremely displeased with the young man’s lack of commitment. In Paul’s view, he is fighting a war and John Mark is a deserter. Paul might have even perceived the slight as inexcusable as he refuses to allow John Mark to rejoin the team and even splits with Barnabas over the issue (Acts 15:37-38).

Have you ever quit anything? Why did you? Why do you think John Mark returns home? Do you think that any rationale would have been justifiable in Paul’s eyes? Was John Mark not supposed to be on this journey?

Paul may not be merely holding a grudge against his former ministry partner. John C. Maxwell (b. 1947) rationalizes:

Everywhere he [Paul] went, he took companions. He considered the time he spent with them an investment. And if he didn’t see a return, for example, in the case of John Mark who didn’t accompany him to Antioch (Acts 13:13), Paul was reluctant to keep investing in him (Acts 15:37-40). (Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes in a Leader’s Day: Revitalize Your Spirit and Empower Your Leadership, 348)

Though we do not know the specifics, John Mark is redeemed. Tradition asserts that he is the author of the Gospel of Mark. Given his presence in later Pauline epistles, it can also be assumed that John Mark and Paul eventually patch up their relationship. C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) affirms, “Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; II Timothy 4:11...give a good hint of later reconciliation (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary, 200).”

Guy Greenfield (1931-2007) relates Paul’s reaction to parental disappointment, including (in these terms) a predictable reconciliation:

Paul...expressed his sense of disappointment, even resentment, over Mark’s cowardly behavior (Acts 15:36-41), so much so that Paul and Barnabas chose to go their separate ways on the next journey. Years later, Paul and Mark reconciled their differences, and Paul, in his last letter, instructed Timothy to “get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me” (II Timothy 4:11; cf. Colossians 4:10). (Greenfeld, The Wounded Parent: Hope for Discouraged Parents, 102)

Has anyone ever lost confidence in you? With whom do you need to be reconciled? Who has given you a second chance? To whom do you need to extend an opportunity for redemption?

“You mustn’t confuse single failure with a final defeat.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940), Tender is the Night, p. 157

Don’t Grab a Dog By the Ears (Prov. 26:17)

Complete: “He who meddles in a quarrel not his own _____________________________________________.” Is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears (Proverbs 26:17)

Conflict has seemingly always been part of the human experience. Proverbs 26:17-22 marks the chapter’s third series of sayings and speaks to the general topic of strife. In advising readers not to meddle in someone else’s quarrel, the sage returns to the familiar imagery of a dog for the second time in the chapter (Proverbs 26:11, 17). Proverbs equates meddling into another’s affairs to yanking a dog by its ears. This practice ensures pain and injury. And the dog will not like it either. (President Lyndon Johnson [1908-1973] learned after grabbing his beagle “Him” by his ears [pictured with his sister “Her”, in this May 4, 1964 photo op] that animal lovers do not like it either.)

Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (Proverbs 26:17 NASB)

Dave L. Bland (b. 1953) paraphrases, “According to Proverbs 26:17, those who get involved in quarrels that are none of their business provoke retaliation and will suffer injury (Bland, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon (College Press NIV Commentary), 239).”

Alyce M. McKenzie (b. 1955) assumes:

The sages of Israel, observing recurring stories of individuals in verbal combat with one another, devised the proverbs...These proverbs have obviously arisen out of anonymous sages’ observation of narrative patterns in life around them. Far from being static statements of universal truth, proverbs make themselves available as wisdom tools for interpreting present and future stories. (McKenzie, Preaching Proverbs: Wisdom for the Pulpit, xv-xvi)

Like many modern aphorisms that incorporate canine imagery, the sage draws upon a dog’s life. Proverbs 26:17 paints a humorous word picture to remind the reader to mind her own business. Unlike many proverbs, the analogy is timeless, holding true as much today as it did at the time it was written.

Naturally, dogs do not like being grabbed by their ears. Tova L. Forti (b. 1921) writes:

The proverb describes an episode of picking a quarrel: the picturesque image of someone who provokes a dog by pulling its ears (LXX: “tail”)—considered to be a very sensitive organ—represents the quarrel-monger. (Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum), 99)

The Hebrew for “dog” (keleb) does not indicate a breed. The more general term is apropos as the unpleasant condition transcends classification. Most translations reflect this by speaking simply of a “dog” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT) though some add adjectives to capture the saying’s setting: “mad dog” (CEV, MSG), “passing dog” (NRSV, RSV), and “stray dog” (NIV). Though these descriptors are not found explicitly in the original text, they capture its meaning.

Michael A. Zigarelli (b. 1965) explains:

If we read this verse in cultural context...the admonition is far more compelling. Dogs were not pets in the ancient Near East, but rather wild animals, like jackals. If we were to grab such a beast by the ears, we would be in mortal danger indeed. In this light, the warning takes on a much greater urgency than if we mentally transport Fifi to 900 B.C. Proverbs 26:17 implies that we could in fact be seriously harmed by entering the fray. (Zigarelli, Management by Proverbs: Applying Timeless Wisdom in the Workplace, xxiii)

Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) adds:

It is obviously stupid to pull the ears of a dog. To make sense of the proverb, however, the dog must be understood to be mean, so that such behavior would certainly cause it to bite. The comparison suggests that those who butt into a fight that they have no part in are asking for the same consequence. Both parties may well turn against the person who tries to step in to help or take one of the two sides. The comparison is an observation, but it certainly functions as a warning. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 469)

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) analyzes:

The least dangerous of the antisocial troublemakers is the busybody, for he hurts only himself...The confrontational and outspoken busybody unnecessarily experiences the negative emotions of becoming furious about someone or something and runs the danger of getting hurt...The dispute...is likened to a semiwild dog. Because of the Hebrews’ prejudice that dogs were unclean, most dogs in Palestine were semiwild, like the pariah dogs that sill haunt some countries. Its dynamic equivalent would be a jackal. Grabbing it by its sensitive ears connotes the inevitability of getting hurt in the needless dispute. Not even Samson grabbed the foxes by their ears. (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15-31 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 358)

Duane A. Garrett (b. 1953) summarizes: “Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 214).”

What modern proverbs have you heard which reference dogs? Have you ever interfered in someone else’s quarrel? How does yanking a dog by the ears correlate to meddling in a dispute? What examples can you think of where the sage’s advice should have been followed? For whose benefit is this proverb written, the busybody or the combatants? Why should one not intervene in a quarrel?

Michael V. Fox (b. 1940) sees the text as referencing a fight amongst strangers:

Butting into others’ quarrels is a good way to get hurt...It is seizing the ears of a passing dog—that is, a strange one—that can get one bitten. (To be sure, there were, so far as we know, no domesticated dogs in ancient Israel, but one who lives near one’s house might be less hostile.) Likewise it is the danger of interfering in strangers’ quarrels (rather than, say, the squabbling of two family members) that is the object of this particular warning. (Fox, Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible),799)

John W. Nieder (b. 1952) and Thomas M. Thompson (b. 1926) concur, advising:

In many cases confrontation may be called for, but you are not the person who should do the confronting. The most obvious case is where the problem or dispute is simply none of your business...Often it seems noble and virtuous to intervene in someone else’s quarrel. But unless you have specific authority to do so, God’s Word says your involvement is folly. (Nieder and Thompson, Forgive and Love Again: Healing Wounded Relationships, 156)

Why would someone interfere in another’s fracas? When is a quarrel your business? When would you want someone meddling in your affairs? Is it ever blessed to be the peacemaker in someone else’s argument (Matthew 5:9)? Does this advice apply to a nation’s foreign policy?

“Justice means minding one’s own business and not meddling with other men’s concerns.” - Plato (427–347 BCE), Republic 4.433a, translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford (1874-1943)