When churches disagree among themselves, how should this be handled? Sometimes open hostility occurs over what should or should not be done. How should believers react? It seems Paul (then Saul) and company left Antioch with a certain agenda. Barnabas was from Cyprus and used to own land there (Acts 4:36-37). He was probably known by many Jews on the island, and it may have been assumed they might be open to the Gospel, because they knew him. However, by the time the group met the island’s governor, Sergius Paulus, who was a leading resident of Antioch of Pesidia, the plan changed. The governor asked Paul and Barnabas to visit his chosen residence on the continent in Pesidia and preach the Gospel there. However, John (Mark) was opposed to the idea. After all, hadn’t the whole church prayed and the Spirit separated them for this work (Acts 13:1-3)? The dispute was so strong that Mark eventually left the party[1] and returned to Jerusalem (not Antioch of Syria, from where the group departed). Long-story-short, his actions probably provoked the killing of James, the Apostle (Acts 12:1-2),[2] and brought on the subversive activities of the Jerusalem authorities (Galatians 2:4, 12-13) that resulted in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-2).
James asks the question: from where do wars (G4171) and quarrels (G3163) arise? Then he points to the (sinful) passions (G22:37) in our bodies that react similarly within us. In other words, just as we have strivings (G4754) within, which act contrary to our inner peace, so, too, these same inner conflicts are as seeds that bear their fruit in outer conflicts in the form of wars and quarrels (James 4:1).
However, we need to understand what James means by wars (G4171) and fights (G3163). The Greek word (palemos – G4171) is usually used in the Bible for warfare, the actual shedding of blood etc.[3] Nevertheless, the Greek word does have a secondary meaning: contention, which may or may not develop into actual violence (beating and the shedding of blood). The ancient Jews were a very tumultuous nation, and Josephus records that they were in many conflicts, both within and without. Paul, himself, takes advantage of this character flaw in Acts 23:6-10. A similar event took place a day or two earlier in the Temple compound, when the men from Asia assumed he had brought gentiles into the Temple, beyond the gentile quarter (Acts 21:27-36). In the earlier event, the Roman soldiers alerted the centurion that the whole city was in an uproar (Acts 21:31), meaning there was an insurrection in the making. I believe these are examples of the secondary meaning of the Greek word, palemos (G4171), and something similar to this is what James had in mind in his letter to believers. They weren’t actually going to battle, but their actions were so contrary that physical violence may have developed among the believing communities that James addressed.
What the KJV refers to as fights comes from the Greek mache (G3163). This word appears in the New Covenant text in only three other places besides James 4:1 (2Corinthians 7:5; 2Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9), and in each of those occurrences the word refers to quarrels. They were quarrels, as we shall see in later studies in this chapter, that were about how the will of God was perceived for their local believing communities. So, we need to take a moment and just think about this. Believers were actually concerned about doing the Lord’s will, but their points-of-view differed so drastically, or they contended with one another so drastically over minor differences that violence and separation threatened the local bodies of believers! How does such a thing express the will of God or his commandment to his people to love one another as he has loved us (James 2:8)? From where do conflicts and quarrels among you arise? Do they not arise from within us, from the conflicting desires within our own selves?
____________________________________________________
[1] See my earlier studies in the Book of Acts: Sergius Paulus, Proconsul of Cyprus and Why Did Mark Leave Paul?
[2] When ancient works were written, and, if those works recorded an extended period of time, and were compiled together in two or more parts, the idea was to put the parts together seamlessly, without it appearing that a work was pieced together with multiple parts. When this is done, there is often an overlap of time, so that it appears some acts at the beginning of the addition appear as though they occurred before the last acts of the prior record to which the addition is pieced. This is unavoidable, if one desired a seamless work, which was preferable in ancient times over chronological accuracy. See my earlier studies in Acts: The Structure of the Book of Acts – Part 1: Part 2; and Part 3.
[3] See: Luke 14:31; 1Corinthians 14:8; and Hebrews 11:34. In the Septuagint see: Genesis 14:2, 8; Exodus 1:10 etc.
Smoodock's Blog 
2 responses to “Hostility, Disputes and the Lord’s Will”
Hey Eddie! We all want to be ‘right’ on all issues. Most of us are convinced that our beliefs are the correct ones. But you are right, these issues do not have to be polemic. Church bodies that do not subscribe to a balanced doctrine are particularly susceptible to this. For example within the Pentecostal tradition many folks believe you must speak in tongues to be a true believer.
Thanks Dave. The problem of pedigree over truth has been with us since the Jews returned from Babylon, and that is where we get pedigree — Babylon. Jesus was in constant conflict with folks who sought to make the ‘traditions of the elders’ the truth rather than what the scriptures actually claimed. In our day, the ‘traditions of the elders’ are not Jewish but gentiles whom we honor as the ‘fathers’ of our pedigree.