|
SUBJECT: Acts 16:3 and the circumcision of Timothy
QUESTION: Why was Timothy circumcised when there had
been a conference stating that Gentiles need not be
circumcised (Timothy was
half Jew and half Gentile). After all, Titus, a
Gentile was not required to be circumcised.
ANSWER:
First the verses in question:
Acts 16:1-3
1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain
disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a
certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his
father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at
Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those
quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
This is explained briefly in the Bible dictionary on
Timothy:
TIMOTHY
Circumcision. Those who had the deepest insight into
character and spoke with a prophetic utterance pointed to
Timothy (1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14) as specially fit for
missionary work; and Paul desired to have him as a
companion. The apostle circumcised him (Acts 16:3), and
Timothy was set apart as an evangelist by the laying on of
hands (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:5).
"He took him and circumcised him" (Acts 16:1,3). Paul's
conduct in circumcising Timothy has been considered
inconsistent with his principle and conduct in refusing to
circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3-4). "The two cases are,
however, entirely different. In the latter there was an
attempt to enforce circumcision as necessary to salvation;
in the former it was performed as a voluntary act, and
simply on prudential grounds" (Haley,
Alleged Discrepancies, p. 260).
~from The New Unger's Bible
Dictionary
Note: It was a
voluntary act on Timothy's part probably because of
upbringing and personal belief. Remember that just because
it was determined that Gentiles did not have to be
circumcised did not mean that none were or that any Gentile
could do so if he wanted. Both Timothy and clearly Paul saw
this as a possible problem in that he was not fully Gentile
but half Jew and half Gentile.
Notice this from the commentary:
Acts 16:3
[And took and circumcised him]
This was evidently done to avoid the opposition and
reproaches of the Jews. It was a measure not binding in
itself (compare Acts 15:1,28-29), but the neglect of which
would expose to contention and opposition among the Jews,
and greatly retard or destroy his usefulness. It was an act
of expediency for the sake of peace, and was in accordance
with Paul's uniform and avowed principle of conduct, 1
Corinthians 9:20, "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that
I might gain the Jews." Compare Acts 21:23-26.
~from Barnes' Notes
Here is another commentary:
Acts 16:3-5
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those
quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Because Timothy was half Jew, to make him acceptable as a
traveling companion to the Jews to whom they would minister,
Paul circumcised him. Although the young man had been
brought up by his mother in the faith of the OT (2 Timothy
3:15), the Jews looked upon him as the uncircumcised son of
a Greek. On the other hand, Gentiles would have regarded him
as a Jew because of his religion. As a man professing
adherence to the Jewish religion but who remained an
uncircumcised Gentile, Timothy would have been offensive to
the Jews Paul met in city after city and to whom he first
preached the Gospel. Paul circumcised him as an act of
expediency and not of religious principle. No conflict
exists in the fact that Paul steadfastly refused to
circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3); for Titus was altogether a
Gentile, and there was no cultural reason to circumcise him.
Timothy was circumcised therefore not as a Christian but as
a Jew. This is an application of the principle that Paul
expressed in 1 Corinthians 9:20: "And unto the Jews I became
as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under
the law, as under the law that I might gain them that are
under the law." Where no essential principle was involved,
Paul applied the principle of expediency and of conciliation
in a way that many later Christians cannot understand or
appreciate. It was probably at this time that Timothy was
set aside for his mission by the elders in Lystra (1 Tim
4:14). ~from The Wycliffe
Bible Commentary
back to the top |