3rd Missionary Trip - Lorin

Paphos. 86 Given previous patterns of re-visiting already established churches, Paul would have utilized the opportunity
for a variety of objectives ranging from evangelization to strengthening the churches.
Fourth, in what Paul verbally expressed as another ultimate objective was a trip to Rome: εἰπὼν ὅτι μετὰ
τὸ γενέσθαι με ἐκεῖ δεῖ με καὶ Ῥώμην ἰδεῖν, having said that it was necessary for me to go there and to see Rome. Luke’s
language here makes it clear that Paul felt this conviction to travel first to Jerusalem and then to Rome had come
from God and was a divine mandate placed upon him. By using the circumstantial participle εἰπὼν in connection
to the verb ἔθετο, Luke specifies that Paul had openly talked about making this trip for quite some time. The
more he talked about it, the deeper the conviction became to make the trip. Very possibility we gain insight here
into the process Paul used to determine God’s leadership over his ministry. For most of us, discerning God’s will
becomes easier when we verbalize our thoughts to fellow believers.
This is the first time that plans for a trip to Rome surface, but it will not be the last time. In Acts 23:11 when
Paul was arrested in Jerusalem the Lord confirmed the trip to Rome in a dream to the apostle. The most detailed
expression of his travel plans to Rome and beyond are found in his words from Corinth after he left Ephesus in
Rom. 15:13-33. Here we learn that his vision was for Rome to become a launch pad for a projected ministry in
the western Mediterranean as far as Spain, much as Antioch had been for the three missionary journeys in Acts.
Indeed Paul would travel to Rome, even as God promised him, but not in the way that Paul envisioned. 87
In anticipation of the visit to Macedonia, two assistants are sent ahead into Macedonia in order to help
prepare for Paul’s trip: ἀποστείλας δὲ εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν δύο τῶν διακονούντων αὐτῷ, Τιμόθεον καὶ Ἔραστον,
αὐτὸς ἐπέσχεν χρόνον εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, So he sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he himself
stayed for some time longer in Asia. Here some intriguing tangles need to be unraveled in comparison to references
to Paul’s assistants in First and Second Corinthians. Here in Acts, Timothy and Erastus are sent to Macedonia
toward the end of Paul’s lengthy stay in Ephesus. In First Corinthians 4:17, Paul mentions having sent Timothy
to Corinth in Achaia, but not to Macedonia, and he mentions this again in 16:10. Much later when Paul is under
house arrest in Rome he mentions sending Timothy to Macedonia in Phil. 2:19-23, but this is clearly much later
in time. What Luke completely ignores is the traveling of Titus from Ephesus to Macedonia and then to Corinth
and back to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18) where he met up with Paul after the apostle
left Ephesus. Also in 2 Cor. 12:18 an unnamed ‘brother’ was sent to Corinth along with Titus. After taking a look
at the glimpses into Paul’s Ephesian ministry found in First and Second Corinthians below, we will seek to make
sense of all this in a reconstruction of Paul’s relationship with the church at Corinth from both Acts and Paul’s
writings. There was a huge amount of interaction between Paul and the church at Corinth during this time that
Paul was in Ephesus. Acts touches only on a small portion of it.
The mentioning of Timothy being with Paul at Ephesus is the first time any traveling companion is mentioned
specifically on the third missionary journey in Acts, unlike with the first two trips of Paul. Although possibly
strange to modern readers, it simply underscores the single minded focus on Paul’s ministry that dominates
Luke’s depiction of the third missionary journey. It would be a mistake to assume that Silas, Timothy, and possibly
others were not traveling with Paul on this trip. Acts 20:4 will name seven different people traveling with Paul, not
including Luke with his ‘we’ section narrative shift.
Timothy had become a part of the traveling missionaries with Paul when the apostle came through Lystra
in Galatia on the second missionary journey (Acts 16:1-3). On that previous trip he and Silas had stayed behind
when Paul left Beroea in Macedonia for Athens (Acts 17:15). Timothy caught up with Paul in Athens -- probably
Silas also -- and returned to Macedonia to deliver the First Thessalonians letter to the church at Thessalonica (
1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6). He and Silas then rejoined Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:5), but subsequently returned to Macedonia
carrying Second Thessalonians (2 Thess. 1:1) to the church at Thessalonica. Now on the third trip Timothy
86 “For διέρχεσθαι as meaning not merely a journey but a preaching tour see on 13:6; this is a probable meaning here, since Paul
could hardly have avoided work in the familiar mission field even if he had wished to do so.” [C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 919.]
87 “γενέσθαι με ἐκεῖ looks on the visit to Jerusalem as a unit but it could do so either with reference to arrival (when I have got
there) or to the stay (when I have been there). The difference is real but does not affect the sense. Jerusalem must be visited first, but the
more remote objective, Rome, was beginning to fill Paul’s mind, according to Acts, and according to Paul himself (Rom. 15:22–29). For
Paul, Rome was to be a staging post on the way to Spain. This Luke does not mention (possibly because he knows that Paul did not get
so far); Rome is the goal of his story, and if he can show the faith planted, and its great teacher at work, in the capital he will have accomplished
his task. If the mission can reach Rome, and within a generation, there is nowhere it cannot go. Rome was probably alluded
to at 1:8; Aquila and Priscilla had come from Rome, which probably had already been evangelized (18:2). Acts shows nothing of Paul’s
diffidence in writing to a church that he himself had not founded.” [C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of
the Apostles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 920.]
Page 403