Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 2
David Bercot notes that when Paul calls Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater “kinsmen,” he likely means “fellow Jews,” and Timothy is excluded because he wasn’t Jewish; how does that ethnic clarity in Paul’s relationships challenge modern instincts either to erase ethnic distinctions entirely or to make them ultimate?
Another way to ask: If Paul calls Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater his “kinsmen” because they were fellow Jews, what does that say about how Paul viewed ethnic identity? How does that challenge us when we either ignore ethnic differences or treat them as most important?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests Paul could acknowledge real ethnic identity (“fellow Jews”) without making it the ultimate boundary of Christian fellowship, since Timothy is still a “fellow worker” even though he isn’t included as a “kinsman.”

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot explains “kinsmen” as ethnic, not merely relational: “he probably means they were fellow Jews.”
  • He points out the deliberate exclusion: “Timothy is not included in this designation, for he was not a Jew.”
  • Yet Timothy is warmly included in ministry: “Timothy, my fellow worker,” and Bercot notes he “worked alongside Paul” and also served on missions Paul sent him on.
  • The greetings list mixes different kinds of connections—co-laborers, “kinsmen,” and “a brother” (Quartus)—showing multiple layers of identity.
Discussion Follow-ups How can a church talk honestly about background (Jew/Gentile, etc.) without turning it into either a taboo topic or a source of pride and division?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next