Paul gathers his companions for the journey in some unexpected ways. His recruitment begins logically enough when he asks Barnabas to accompany him (v. 36). But Barnabas's intention to take John Mark leads to such a sharp disagreement, literally "a heated disagreement" (compare Deut 29:27 LXX; Jer 39:37 LXX), that Paul and Barnabas decide they can no longer work together. So they separate.

Luke does not explain why Barnabas wants to take John Mark along. Is it that this encourager's sympathy reaches out to restore the deserter (compare Acts 4:36; 9:27)? Is it Barnabas's sympathy with the viewpoint of the strict Jewish Christians, which he may share with Mark, and which may have occasioned Mark's earlier defection (Gal 2:13)? Is it simply the family tie between them (Col 4:10)? What we do know is that from Paul's perspective, John Mark's desertion in the midst of the first missionary journey rendered him unfit for the second (Acts 13:13; compare Lk 8:13; 1 Tim 4:1). Luke has not told us why John Mark deserted. Paul does say that Mark had not continued with them in the work, and earlier that work was defined as "the door of faith" being opened to the Gentiles (14:26-27). It may be that on a journey to communicate the Jerusalem church's affirmation of the Gentile mission, this defector would have proved more of a liability than an asset.

In any case, the separation doubles the church's mission, for Barnabas takes John Mark and goes to his home area, Cyprus (4:36), and Paul chooses a new partner, Silas. Silas is well suited to the task. He is spiritually gifted, a prophet (15:32). He embodies the church's commitment to a Gentile mission with the law-free gospel, for he was one of the envoys bearing the council's letter (15:22, 27). As a Roman citizen, he can move about easily within the Empire (16:37).

Given Luke's emphasis on unity as the mark of the Holy Spirit within the church, he can hardly approve of the divisiveness that led to the separation (2:44-46; 4:32; 5:12). Yet he does approve of Paul's team and notes that it is commended [having been handed over to] by the brothers to the grace of the Lord (compare 14:26).

This incident shows us that past performance reveals character and properly serves as a basis for judging suitability for future service. Further, even though differences in judgment may produce schism, God can so rule and overrule that there is no permanent barrier to the advance of his mission.

The other "right person" for Paul's mission is Timothy (16:1-3). Though he obviously fills the gap created by Paul's refusal to take John Mark, there is also an element of providential surprise in his selection (compare the introductory kai idou, "and behold," untranslated in the NIV). Timothy will be very useful for the mission. He is a disciple, a man of good character (Phil 2:20-22; compare Acts 6:3; 1 Tim 3:7) whose reputation has extended even to Iconium, a day's journey away. He is a person of mixed parentage.

Timothy's one defect is a lack of circumcision. If the Jews at this time traced Jewish descent of mixed marriages matrilineally (m. Qiddusin 3:12; m. Yebamot 7:5; Cohen [1986:267] questions whether the principle was applied this early), uncircumcised Timothy is a Jew by birth but apostate. The small Jewish community at Lystra was either too weak or too lax to enforce circumcision in a culture that determined ethnic and religious heritage patrilineally. Still, Timothy has a good spiritual heritage from his mother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). With his father now possibly deceased (the verb tense seems to indicate this), there is no impediment to circumcision. And there is every reason. If Paul condones Timothy's uncircumcised, apostate status, he will not have access to synagogues, his strategic point of contact in most cities. Further, the decree's underlying principle of respect for cultural identity will be compromised by the presence of a Jewish Christian who has "gentilized." So by circumcising Timothy, Paul clarifies his status for Jewish believer and unbeliever alike.

This is not inconsistent with the circumcision-free gospel to Jew and Gentile so recently affirmed at the council. Rather, it reflects Paul's higher consistency. For Paul never denied his religious heritage or its practices as an appropriate way to live out his Christian commitment (Acts 21:21-24), yet he could treat circumcision as a matter of indifference and use it as a means of cultural adaptation to further the gospel (1 Cor 9:19-23; Gal 5:6).

The "right people," then, to promote the advance of the church's mission are spiritually fruitful, morally faithful and culturally flexible. Today such men and women are God's gift to the church for the cutting edge of mission advance.