RSS

Why Was Timothy Circumcised?

03 Jun

As we say good-by to Barnabas in Acts and leave the Jerusalem council behind, we find Paul and Silas on their way in Paul’s second missionary journey to the Galatian area. Silas must have been a great asset for Paul’s ministry at this particular time, because of his leadership at Jerusalem. Any argument that Hellenistic Jewish believers may have had with Paul’s Gospel not being in agreement with that of the Apostles would have been considerably undermined with his presence with Paul. Therefore, Paul’s arguments in his most recent letter to them (The Epistle to the Galatians), would be vindicated with the coming of Silas.

We find Timothy mentioned first in Acts 16:1, this may imply he was part of Paul’s original work in the area, but I tend to agree with other scholarship who claim Timothy is from Antioch and was sent by Paul to Galatia to counter the false preaching there by those of the circumcision. He may even have been the bearer of the Epistle to the Galatians. We know from Paul’s letters that Timothy was brought up to know the Scriptures (2Timothy 3:15), and that his mother and grandmother were led to Christ before he was (2Timothy 1:5), but this may have been only a matter of a few days or weeks, because Paul does refer to him as his “son” in the faith (1Corinthians 4:17; 1Timothy 1:2; 2Timothy 1:2), so whether Timothy is from Galatia or Antioch, he probably came to know Jesus through Paul’s ministry.

Timothy’s work in the Gospel had become well known by the several house churches in both Lystra and Iconium (about a day’s travel apart, 18 miles), implying he had some authority there, and both city churches had a good report concerning him (Acts 16:2). Paul wanted Timothy to come with Silas and himself to the missionary work ahead of them (Acts 16:3). But, the text also says here that Paul circumcised Timothy! Doesn’t this sound a bit contradictory? After all, this whole business of whether or not the gentiles had to be circumcised led to the Jerusalem council and Paul’s letter to the Galatians, which renounced the doctrine taught by the party of the circumcision demanding the gentiles become Jews (circumcised) in order to be saved. Paul had even brought Titus to Jerusalem with him (Galatians 2:1) to prove the Jewish believers in Jerusalem weren’t merely going to pay him lip-service, and no one at Jerusalem demanded that Titus be circumcised (Galatians 2:3). It was against Jewish law to keep company with a gentile who had not converted to Judaism. Therefore, the fact the Apostles, and with them the church at Jerusalem, received Titus without demanding he be circumcised verified the words they wrote in their letters. They actually lived out what they taught in the letters to the gentile churches.

So, now we have Paul circumcising Timothy because of the Jews. How is this not a contradiction? Well, we need to understand the mutual considerations James and the Jerusalem church brought out in his letter to the gentile churches (Acts 15:23-29). The gentile churches were given great freedom to take advantage of their own culture in the manner in which they worship God and did not have to become circumcised (Acts 15:24-27), but in their new freedom in Christ they needed to be careful not to offend the Jewish believers in Christ who would now be permitted to fellowship with them as far as eating together and intermarrying is concerned. That part of the letter concerned such things as what was eaten (Acts 15:29a) and what kind of couples were fit to marry (Acts 15:29b; cp. 1Corinthians 5:1). How does this concern Timothy’s circumcision? Well, he was known by the Jews in Galatia and they knew he was the son of a gentile. If he were not circumcised, he would have been considered an apostate Jew—a non-practicing Jew. This would have interfered with Paul’s work among the Jews, for his message had always gone to the Jew first and then to the gentile (Romans 1:16; 2:9-10). Therefore, it was necessary for the sake of the work that Timothy, who was a Jew, be circumcised. In this way the work of Christ among the Jews would not needlessly suffer. The matter with Titus was for the sake of the work among the gentiles, to prove they did not have to become circumcised. Therefore, Timothy’s circumcision was for the sake of keeping a needless offense in the eyes of other Jews from hurting the opportunity of the Gospel of Christ to sink into the hearts of those Jews to whom Paul preached.

May the grace of God bless his word in such a manner that it brings no needless offence from the lips of those who preach it to others.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on June 3, 2011 in Paul's 2nd Missionary Journey

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Why Was Timothy Circumcised?

  1. Serano

    May 25, 2018 at 18:19

    What Paul was saying, he was not practicing. This is a compromise that was not serving the Gospel of Jesus Christ if after the letter from Jerusalem, Paul still felt it necessary to circumcise Timothy. Compromise is the biggest problem in the Body of Christ. It is the commotion that derail our own faith. We are too concerned about flesh, yet true believers are those who worship God in Spirit and in truth. Why can’t we be truthful with the Word of God?

     
    • Eddie

      May 25, 2018 at 19:00

      Greetings Serano, and thank you for reading my blog. Unless you are saying that Paul is not a disciple of Jesus, your statement is self-contradictory. If Paul was called by Jesus, and the New Testament is the word of God, then what Paul wrote down was the word of God, and what Luke wrote down about Paul was the word of God. How did Paul “compromise” his faith by having Timothy circumcised? Paul was circumcised and that didn’t compromise his faith. Peter was circumcised and so was Jesus for that matter. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing–neither one proves one’s faith or denies one’s faith.

      What the gentiles were doing, on the other hand was a different matter entirely. They were uncircumcised and thought they had to become circumcised in order to be a true Christian. That is a false argument. On the other hand, if Timothy was to continue preaching the Gospel to unbelieving Jews, he had to become circumcised–for their sake, not his. They wouldn’t listen to him, if he wasn’t a practicing Jew. This is the reason Paul circumcised him. It was for the benefit of the Gospel, not Timothy’s personal salvation.

      Hope this helps, and the Lord bless you as you seek to understand his word.

       
  2. Rory

    January 19, 2012 at 08:53

    This makes sense, but what I wonder is how anyone would actually know he hadn’t been circumcised.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      January 19, 2012 at 21:32

      To tell you the truth, I don’t know how the proof of the matter was made available. However, the folks in Galatia knew Timothy was not circumcised because his father was a Gentile, and Timothy was probably not a practicing Jew until Paul preached Christ in his hometown. By Paul making a point of circumcising him in Galatia the word would have gotten around, just like it got around that he was **not** circumcised. In any event, if a local rabbi required proof, a private room and a small company of witnesses would be all that was needed to offer the proof.

       
    • Rory

      January 21, 2012 at 13:01

      I just wondered if they actually would have checked him out in the private room. Ha, hard to imagine that conversation.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: