Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>]

Has anyone considered the criteria by which Paul selected his companions for
his missionary tours? He rejected Mark and chose Silas and Timothy. Why? I
propose that Paul wanted companions who were:

a) willing to take a stand against opponents.
Paul rejected Mark (Acts 15:37-39), who had travelled with him during the
peaceful tour of Cyprus, but deserted just before the inevitable persecution
by Jews in Pisidian Antioch and Iconium. Paul also seems to have decided not
to select any of the Antiochian Christian Jews, presumably because they had
sided with Peter and had not stood up to the men from James (Gal 2:13).

b) Jews.
Jews would generally have a better understanding of the faith than gentiles
and, importantly, they would be able to work more effectively among Jews.
The fact that Paul took the remarkable step of circumcising Timothy shows
that it was important for his missionary partners to be Jews (Acts 16:1-3).

c) experienced in the Christian faith.
The recipients of 1 Thess. or Gal., for example, were not mature in the
faith and Paul would not have appointed a missionary partner from among
them.

What does all this tell us about Timothy and Titus? It shows that Timothy
was not from Lystra (Acts does not say that he was). A Lystran Timothy would
have been untested, non-Jewish, and too new to the faith. If the south
Galatian believers were mature enough in the faith, Paul would have selected
a Jew rather than a gentile who needed to be circumcised. It is much more
likely that Timothy was from Antioch. The Christian Jews of Antioch had
discredited themselves in Paul's eyes, so when Paul needed an envoy to go to
south Galatia he chose Timothy who was not a Jew but was the next best
thing.  He had a Jewish mother and was the most Jewish of Gentiles. He was
experienced in the Christian and Jewish faith. By travelling from Antioch to
south Galatia Timothy did what Mark had failed to do and was promptly
promoted to the role of missionary partner.

What about Titus? Timothy's role required that he be circumcised, and
Titus's role was identical (see the Corinthian correspondence), so why did
Paul not choose a Jew for Titus's role? How do we explain the anomaly of
Titus, a Greek? The problem disappears when we realise that Titus was
Timothy. Paul gave Titus the name "Timothy" and sent him ahead of himself to
south Galatia, where he appears in Acts 16:1-3.

It is interesting how Acts and Galatians illuminate each other. Paul's
disagreement with the Antiochian Christian Jews in Gal. 2:13 explains why he
did not chose a Jew to be his envoy to south Galatia, but chose the most
Jewish gentile (Timothy), whom he later circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). This
circumcision was misunderstood by the Galatians and this led to the writing
of the letter.


Richard F.