What do we learn from Paul's having Timothy circumcised? Acts 16: 1-4

[Vengle]

Acts 15:22 "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."


So we see from Acts chapter 15 that Paul already knew that circumcision and keeping the Old Law were not a requirement of God any longer. Why then did Paul later have Timothy circumcised?


Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

 

[veteran]

1 Cor 9:18-23
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
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;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
(KJV)

 

[Vengle]

Yes indeed Veteran!!!

What we see in that account concerning Paul's having Timothy to be circumcised is an evident demonstration of the love that is Christ's (love that is Christ-like).

Therein we also see clearly the difference between living by the law of the love of Christ wherein is freedom as opposed to living by a law which has been rigidly detailed to us in explicit codes upon paper (such as that Old Law Covenant).

When we look condescendingly at our brothers and scream that they are doing bad and being bad and telling them that if they do not get a handle on it they are going to burn forever in hell, we are at that moment committing worse sin than that we condemn. James points out to us that this is where we most need to humble ourselves:

James 4:10 "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
11 ¶Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law, and judges the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judges another?"

I have to say that at least in my own experience (and I see it all around me in others) it seems that this is the most difficult tendency of our flesh to break. It seems that our carnal mind (our flesh tendency) tries to live in that mode whereby the Old Law was served.

This sheds light upon why Paul says of that Old Law: Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ..."

Can we see that the way that Old Law was ministered it was written against the carnal mind and therefore served to expose and condemn not only sin but also us as the vessels containing that sin? And this then is as the law of God (when only centered on justice) partnering with sin to destroy us? Does that then make the Law bad? No, for we are deserving of death and the law is just and righteous of God. This is what Paul is focusing on in Romans chapter 7.

All of this has to do with mind-set. And it is a complicated discussion precisely because the words are ones that lend well to word play. It is, however, for our benefit to understand it.

 

[us2are1]

For those who can receive it "we learn that the book of Luke and Luke's, 160 AD, account of the book of acts should be taken with a grain of true gospel salt" until they have become absorbed of the eye witnesses account of the gospel first asking God for His Spirit. Then and only then will they know what has been given by God and what has crept in unaware.

2 Timothy 2
5 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.











.

 

[Insight]

So we see from Acts chapter 15 that Paul already knew that circumcision and keeping the Old Law were not a requirement of God any longer. Why then did Paul later have Timothy circumcised?

Vengle, you do know why Timothy was circumcised...don’t you?

Insight

 

[Vengle]

Vengle, you do know why Timothy was circumcised...don’t you?

Insight

Paul rather plainly states why.

Acts 16:3 "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."

It was both a protection (which is a display of love) for Timothy and an act of love toward the Jews in that area they were coming into for the sake of not unnecessarily stumbling the Jews there.

Those in that vicinity already knowing Timothy's father was a Greek and his mother a Jewess such an act would appease their hard feelings over Timothy's mother marrying a Greek.

By doing that their attention would be more easily aimed at Paul's message instead of being focused upon their hard feelings about Timothy's mother's unlawful relationship with a Greek.

No matter how one looks at it Paul did it for the sake of love.

 

[Prentis]

Ahh.... Wisdom. :)

All things are lawful, not all things edify. Thanks for sharing this Vengle, interesting stuff!

 

[us2are1]

Paul rather plainly states why.

Acts 16:3 "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."

It was both a protection (which is a display of love) for Timothy and an act of love toward the Jews in that area they were coming into for the sake of not unnecessarily stumbling the Jews there.

Those in that vicinity already knowing Timothy's father was a Greek and his mother a Jewess such an act would appease their hard feelings over Timothy's mother marrying a Greek.

By doing that their attention would be more easily aimed at Paul's message instead of being focused upon their hard feelings about Timothy's mother's unlawful relationship with a Greek.

No matter how one looks at it Paul did it for the sake of love.

Was what Paul did necessary or was it faltering in faith?

 

[Vengle]

Was what Paul did necessary or was it faltering in faith?

It was absolutely necessary and one that understands God's love which gracefully meets the needs of his children, they know that.

We are now getting to the reason behind the reason that I began this thread.

There are other things that Paul wrote about in which we find this same flexibility allowed of love.

My patience in not blurting it all out at once is beginning to pay off.

 

[Prentis]

It was absolutely necessary and one that understands God's love which gracefully meets the needs of his children, they know that.

We are now getting to the reason behind the reason that I began this thread.

There are other things that Paul wrote about in which we find this same flexibility allowed of love.

My patience in not blurting it all out at once is beginning to pay off.

This is an interesting thread indeed. :)

Paul is wise in this, because he doesn't go according to law, but becomes all things to all men. Once we mature, we can look back and understand why a person did this, that it was not because it is what they had to do, but because WE thought so, they did it that we would not stumble, in hopes that we would learn.

 

[brionne]

So we see from Acts chapter 15 that Paul already knew that circumcision and keeping the Old Law were not a requirement of God any longer. Why then did Paul later have Timothy circumcised?


Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

i dont see anywhere in that account that Timothy was circumsized.

I think you've read this incorrectly and misunderstood. Paul is saying that circumcision DOES NOT BENEFIT YOU... he did not tell timothy to go and get circumsized.

 

[Insight]

Paul rather plainly states why.

Acts 16:3 "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."

It was both a protection (which is a display of love) for Timothy and an act of love toward the Jews in that area they were coming into for the sake of not unnecessarily stumbling the Jews there.

Those in that vicinity already knowing Timothy's father was a Greek and his mother a Jewess such an act would appease their hard feelings over Timothy's mother marrying a Greek.

By doing that their attention would be more easily aimed at Paul's message instead of being focused upon their hard feelings about Timothy's mother's unlawful relationship with a Greek.

No matter how one looks at it Paul did it for the sake of love.

Great! you saved me typing a reply.

 

[brionne]

i dont see anywhere in that account that Timothy was circumsized.

I think you've read this incorrectly and misunderstood. Paul is saying that circumcision DOES NOT BENEFIT YOU... he did not tell timothy to go and get circumsized.

ooops scrap that.... i see you are referring to Acts 16 as the thread title states! :lol:

 

[Vengle]

Great! you saved me typing a reply.

Yes, and that is a beautiful demonstration for us showing us that we are not without room in God's law to bend for a greater good when circumstances call for it.

This is the point Jesus was scolding that group of Pharisees for not seeing in Matthew 23: 23.

Their failure to see how love must mitigate within God's law lead them to practice God's law as though God is a harsh and unreasonable God. And of course that then is how they would teach those who listened to them to be.

Matthew 23:15 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Falsely taught zeal amplifies through each human it passes (even as sin does) because it is carnal, and the carnal always tries to do it better than the last because the carnal is saturated in pride. Thus result is, "ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

ooops scrap that.... i see you are referring to Acts 16 as the thread title states! :lol:

Right, the actual account is Acts 16 but we see in Acts 15 that Paul and the elders at Jerusalem had discussed it previously. Therefore we know that Paul did not believe in keeping the fleshly circumcision by that Old Law when he had Timothy circumcised and that then cues us to want to know why he did it.

It turns out that there is a powerful lesson there for us to learn.

 

[Prentis]

Hmmm... So this circumcision of Timothy is similar to the account of David eating the bread from the temple! :)

It shows that it is not ultimately about the law, but about love. (The law being resumed in the two commandments of love by Jesus)

 

[Vengle]

Hmmm... So this circumcision of Timothy is similar to the account of David eating the bread from the temple! :)

It shows that it is not ultimately about the law, but about love. (The law being resumed in the two commandments of love by Jesus)

God is love. (1 John 4:8, 16) His law must be love then, also.

Love can only be exercised in the mind and heart.

That is why a law of dictates written stone like solid on paper cannot really be God's law but by mere shadow.

So we see why it was all just a shadow.

And yes, that is a good connection you made there to David.

Can you see from what has been said here that David did not break the law?

Then you can see that Christ did not break the Sabbath law.

 

[James Forthwright]

And yes, that is a good connection you made there to David.
Can you see from what has been said here that David did not break the law?

David did, in fact, 'break the law'. The shew bread was clearly only to be eaten by the priesthood. However, Jesus used this OT example to demonstrate that there can be extenuating circumstances where we should rather follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit rather than the hard fast dictates of the Law.

Then you can see that Christ did not break the Sabbath law.

Likewise, Christ's healing on the Sabbath while telling the cripple to pick up his bed and walk may well be rightly interpreted by the litigious Pharisees as a technical transgression of the Sabbath. However, Jesus demonstrated that following the sublime directions of the Holy Spirit superseded the intransigent written Law.

 

[Vengle]

David did, in fact, 'break the law'. The shew bread was clearly only to be eaten by the priesthood. However, Jesus used this OT example to demonstrate that there can be extenuating circumstances where we should rather follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit rather than the hard fast dictates of the Law.



Likewise, Christ's healing on the Sabbath while telling the cripple to pick up his bed and walk may well be rightly interpreted by the litigious Pharisees as a technical transgression of the Sabbath. However, Jesus demonstrated that following the sublime directions of the Holy Spirit superseded the intransigent written Law.

I disagree because that would undermine the Law making it as in a second place in their lives rather having the complete dominion which Paul speaks of it as having. Jesus plainly said that David remained guiltless. If he had broken that Law then that Law would have to condemn him thus charging him guilty else the Law would have no power of dominion over anyone.

So look for the right answer as that one cannot be it.

David sat upon God's throne. The Law served God's throne. Therefore David was within his right just as Jesus pointed out. And the reason Jesus said that was because he was now given the throne of David.

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

When Jesus said what he did in Matthew 12:4 "How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" he meant that it appears that way from a cold and inflexible human view of that Law. But God is not uncaring nor unmerciful. So to take Gods Laws apart from mercy and reasonableness is to pervert God's Laws.

David's need superseded that Law similar to if a sheep fell into a ditch on the Sabbath and one acted to not let that sheep die.

 

[James Forthwright]

Do you believe that circumcision is beneficial for Christians today?