A common question concerns why Paul allowed the circumcision of Timothy. Not only did he allow it, he is the one who oversaw it. He is the one who did it.
“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” (Acts 16:3).
But Paul had flatly refused to have Titus circumcised.
“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised” (Gal. 2:3).
And Paul had thrown down over the Galatians thinking about submitting to circumcision
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Gal. 5:2).
The controversy was big enough to bring about the first great church council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), where the viewpoint maintained by Paul prevailed. Why then, did he agree to have Timothy circumcised? This happened in Acts 16, immediately after the church council decided in Paul’s favor. Was this like Elijah winning a great victory on Mt. Carmel, and then wavering immediately after because Jezebel threatened him? Was this an example of the stalwart Paul wavering? I don’t think so, not at all.
We need to remember that Timothy had a Jewish mother
“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” (Acts 16:1).
Not only was his mother a Jewess, but she was a pious one. She had a sincere faith, one that was shared by her mother.
“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also” (2 Tim. 1:5).
Timothy had been brought up in this pious (Jewish) household.
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 3:15).
His father was a Greek, but Timothy apparently carried himself as a Jew. My supposition is that he walked, talked, dressed, and acted as a cultural Jew. But it was known that his father was a Greek.
Paul was adamantly opposed to forcing Gentiles to become Jews, because then they would have to submit to the rest of the Mosaic yoke. But here was someone who had been brought up under that manner of life, and that “yoke” wouldn’t be a burden to him at all. Circumcision was the only thing missing.
Circumcising Timothy would place no unnecessary burden on the Gentiles, and it would remove an unnecessary burden from the Jews, who would be troubled by the Jew who wasn’t really one.
1 Corinthians.
To the Jew I became a Jew.
Paul circumcised Timothy to remove a stumbling block.
But if the demand was that Timothy must be circumcised to be saved then Paul would haves refused.
Not quite sure that I’m picking up what you’re laying down here. If Paul was opposing the teaching brought to the Galatians because ‘then they would have to submit to the rest of the Mosaic yoke’, then I have a hard time understanding some of Paul’s other statements in Galatians like 1:6-7 where Paul calls it another Gospel. Especially if this teaching (keeping the full Mosaic law) is then true for other Christians (Jewish Christians).
In both cases it is faith in Jesus which saves. For those under Mosaic law, they obey that law as having been taught from their first days. It is their culture. But if, beholding the Christ whom their culture and the Mosaic law point to, they reject Him, the Mosaic law profits them nothing. Gentiles, on the other hand, also have culture and laws they are beholden to, though all of these must become subject to the law of God. Where there is no conflict between a gentile’s culture and the law, that culture must have sway. And even the… Read more »
” … Paul calls it another Gospel.” Oh boy. I left this saloon (comments section) a while back, but have continued to merrily drink down the offerings of the brewmaster here (otherwise known as the General). AeroBob, my eyes also LIT upon the General’s statement … “Paul was adamantly opposed to forcing Gentiles to become Jews, because then they would have to submit to the rest of the Mosaic yoke.” Now, far be it from me to sit in judgment on the General’s learning, but I AM going to sit in judgment on this one. He is EXACTLY right. The… Read more »
Kevin,
None of what you said explains why Paul would permit, much less perform, the circumcision of Timothy.
Paul vehemently opposed Gentile circumcision, as that would bring them under the entirety of the Old Covenant, the ministration of Death. The Gentiles were never party to the Old Covenant, never under the Mosaic Law, and Paul insists that his converts remain that way. The Gospel places Gentile believers in Christ, totally apart from the “works of the Law,” the Old Covenant. The Jews, on the other hand, were completely beholden to the works of the Law. They were bound to God by the Old Covenant, going all the way back to Sinai, and condemned as transgressors of the Mosaic… Read more »
Thanks for this take — though in no way buy the 70AD thing, could you say again what you understand is the position of those evangelical / reformed folk that is off base? I hear you saying it is the “faith alone” mantra that gets you riled. IF I were saying that line (and in context, I could), I’d mean that Spirit imparted baptism aka new life = the nut. You get that action at conception, at whatever time — but the Spirit has to do that operation. Once He does that operation, I take it that it is &… Read more »
” … could you say again what you understand is the position of those evangelical / reformed folk that is off base?” Romans 3:28 “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Reformed and Evangelicals draw their doctrine of Sola Fide, justification by the faith alone, from verses such as this one. Paul employs a variation of this statement, the essence unchanged, at several points in his letters to the Romans and Galatians. Paul is obviously negating something in his formulation of justification. What is he ruling out? Answer: works of the… Read more »
Kev — superb. I buy that. I find this helpful. And it reminds me of the bit of weirdness I feel about all my anglo gentile friends joining messianic jewish worship-fellowship communities. As though, to be really saved, or rather, to have all the best goodies of the faith, jewdom is the real ticket. Now I do think jewish historical culture IS the cat’s meow — for them. I can be a bit jeoulous actually, in a good way. Like I am about how exuberant some black churches can be. Or how those mormons can sing. I wish I were… Read more »
” … though in no way buy the 70AD thing ….” Sorry, but you simply cannot understand what is going on in the New Testament, *ESPECIALLY* in the Gospels, if you don’t grasp what occurred in 70AD. Can’t do it. CANNOT. Impossible. No way. “But God’s wrath has come upon them at last.” 1 Thess 2:16 RSV ” … but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” NKJV “But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.” NASB ‘Alas, I fear they are completing the full tale of their sins and the wrath of God is over their heads.”… Read more »
Kevin — given my agreement with the previous stand you take on the law, I’d like to win you over to my side on this one. (i especially like your tone & writability, BTW.) Or, if I can’t win you over, I also wouldn’t mind being converted myself. Would you be willing to engage on this specific topic? I’m not sure this is the format. If you’re willing, would you suggest here, or in private email, or ? Might take me some time to read what you say and digest then respond. Drips & drabs over time. Suggestion fore communication… Read more »
“Would you be willing to engage on this specific topic?”
Sure, Eric. Just roll out your position on the 70AD matter and I’ll respond (Lw).
I don’t think the General will mind if we hash it out in this space.
okay — but should you even be willing to touch base privately I’d like to get to know you.
I’m in Denver, BTW.
How ’bout you?
Wife? Kids?
How old are you?
Denominational flavor?
Background?
Experiences?
How did you come to your understandings?
I know, these are all more on the private side(againemail is estampher@gmail, not entirely hitting the nail maybe on what the argument is here ref 70.
I’ll put that here in the following …
My position re 70-ish In no particular order, I think … (1) Didn’t all this foreign invasion & destruction of temple, nation, etc, happen many times over? Seems like the 70AD thing is putting a lot of eggs in that one basket. And I’m feeling those eggs got boiled before that event, so this crack doesn’t mean much to me. I.e., Who cares? I agree, there are Bible references (many of them prophecies) that can be pinned on previous destructions & takeovers, some of which may be applicable to multiple invasions etc — so they have significance. Actually, the significance… Read more »
“For me, my first point is, … “What difference does it make?!” For the little kid dying at 8 of typhoid in India, what does this do?” I don’t like this question, Eric. Don’t like it at all. Premise: All of the Word of God is worthy of our most diligent, careful, exacting, painstaking and devout study. Period. “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15 No minister can obey Paul’s instruction without diving headlong into the 70AD issue… Read more »
Kevin — the word we should be all about is not the Bible per se, but the Word = Jesus. I agree that what God breathed out deserves our eager examination, because it takes us back to Him. But let’s not get bibliolotrous, either. That said, the reason we get all Berean is because what God says does matter to all. Please share what’s so important about 70ad. You could fairly ask me what was so important about the first temple destruction occurrence. I wonder if we’d agree there. There are 5 universal events directly affecting all humans in all… Read more »
” … or all if you’re a universalist ….”
Sorry for the delay in getting to 70AD, but I’ve choked on what you’re serving here. You’ve set Universalism on the table as if it’s a legitimate Christian option! You can’t be serious. The stench coming from that plate is too much. Now my stomach is turning over. Oh my, that dish is foul!!! Why would you even bring that rancid piece of garbage to the picnic???
Excuse me, I’m going to be sick ….
hmmm — you’re having too much fun.
So much so that you’re taking side comments and running with them like they are the main game — feels like you may be avoiding the main game?
I’d really like to dally with your thoughts on 70, because your anti-Reformed take earlier was compelling & I think accurate.
Can we not take this to email where we don’t need to search back here on this (now) old blog post that nobody else is reading anyway?
estampher@gmail
“I’d really like to dally with your thoughts on 70 ….” OK; here we go. But you’re not going to like this. Let me state it upfront. All cards on the table from the outset. I am a Preterist. Now, I don’t like being a preterist. It’s not something I was raised to believe nor is it something I have chosen to believe. In fact, I deeply wish that I wasn’t a preterist; but there is nowhere else to turn, no other viable option to confess. So I’m a preterist through coercion, the coercion of the Word of God. The… Read more »
So, zero? No difference did your 70 make?
With that 70 we got a temple destroyed, Black Death, Hiroshima, my boy’s burial.
Could you fill us in on the up side?
… you know that summer is near …
Isn’t summer great!
But wait, you’re saying those pesky wasps on the picnic plate is what we should always expect in the Kingdom-of-God summer?
Wasps, and prophylactic shock, and Limes disease, and nuclear waste poisons seeping up in fetid ponds around us …
What a Kingdom!
Will there be no end?
” … you’re saying those pesky wasps on the picnic plate is what we should always expect in the Kingdom-of-God summer?”
On this side of the veil, we get the Spiritual realities of the Kingdom which we may feast upon to our hearts’ content, while shooing away those pesky wasps.
On the other side, we get all the Spiritual AND VISIBLE realities of Crown, and we WILL feast to our hearts’ content, while the wasps play violin with their stingers.
“So, zero? No difference did your 70 make?” Let the Author of Luke 21 speak for Himself: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! For great distress shall be upon the… Read more »
Thanks
You profess to enjoy spiritual realities this side the veil — realities coerced upon you by your reading of Bible.
I’m reading that youre rather like those Christian Scientists with their own private vocabulary that has no correlation to nature.
Your reading forces this position on you, you say.
Your observation of reality does not.
I can only leave you to enjoy your corner.
“Your reading forces this position on you, you say.”
Yes, the Text compels me to Preterism.
“Your observation of reality does not.”
My observation (by faith) of Spiritual realities (defined by Text) most certainly DOES!
“I can only leave you to enjoy your corner.”
Pressing forward in the Kingdom of God.
Kevin : “Luther tore down the walls of Rome. ”
So is Kevin trying to restore those walls?
The answer may be found in Hebrews: How does a first century Jew fit into the new (actually old, misunderstood) paradigm?
“How does a first century Jew fit into the new (actually old, misunderstood) paradigm?” I like your question because it implies both discontinuity and continuity in the progress of redemptive-history, which finds its fulfillment in Christ our Lord and the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Dispensationalism infamously majors on the Discontinuity. And the Reformed, deserving of equal infamy, major on the Continuity. After all, is being in a ditch on one side of the road any better than being in a ditch on the other side of the road? The Reformed say, “The law and the prophets bear witness… Read more »
I’m hoping to do this type of exchange separately & more extensively — as per that above response — but …
instead of calling him Saul, let’s call him Apollos.
The problem I’m thinking with Saul is that he, like a lot of his fellow zealots, were dispensationalists — thinking that God had shiften into Jew mode back with Abe.
Apollos didn’t read his bible that way.
More reformed he was. (joke)
He saw direct continuite from Abel to Abraham to Justinian (ok, he was looking ahead).
Kevin,
Lots to cover in that last post, but I do see there are ditches on both sides of the road, but I posit the ditches are Dispensationalism on one side and Romanism on the other. Reformed Presbyterians land pretty close to the center.
I cannot go along with your Sabbath reasonings. Pascal’s wager would say that I’d have nothing to lose, but you have a lot to lose!
“I cannot go along with your Sabbath reasonings. Pascal’s wager would say that I’d have nothing to lose, but you have a lot to lose!” You don’t think the infiltrators in Galatia used that same rationale on Paul’s Gentile converts? “Beloved Galatians, pay no attention to that man-pleaser Paul, the self-appointed apostle! He would have you abandon Moses and the Sabbath. It’s the 4th commandment, for crying out loud, written by the finger of God Himself.” “And what have you got to lose anyway, Galatians? The Sabbath is written in Stone. Just add it to your faith in Jesus for… Read more »
“Kevin : “Luther tore down the walls of Rome.” So is Kevin trying to restore those walls?”
It’s a pretty hard sell that I’m trying to restore the walls of Rome when the original statement read like this:
Luther tore down the walls of Rome. And Hallelujah for that!
:-D
“Luther tore down the walls of Rome…. But he didn’t get the Gospel right … because he didn’t get the Law right.” The following quote from Dr. Luther was brought to my attention this evening. Whatever his errors on the “works of the Law” actually were, he certainly got a whole heck of a lot more right than he did wrong. And I’m a literal featherweight by comparison, lighter than even his shadow. I salute you, Doctor Martin Luther. “This life therefore is not righteousness, but growth in righteousness, not health, but healing, not being but becoming, not rest but… Read more »
Thank you, Pastor!
Paul and Timothy’s example from scripture has always stood out to me as it pertains to ministry and cultural contextualization. Is it possible to use this as a sort of guide to (Hiebert’s) critical contextualization? I think I’ve brought this up before here – can’t say for sure.
For instance, (assuming none of the blanks are filled in with explicit sinful behavior) could we say, “Timothy was circumcised in order to reach the Jews so I can be ________ in order to reach the ________”?
Greetings carandc! I like how you put that last sentence… I’ve always equated Paul and Timothy’s behavior to Rahab. I’ve been remotely curious how the circumcision inspection process worked in the temple, but this suggests that clearly they weren’t just going to take Timothy’s word for it.
Also I’ve thought of Paul as Timothy’s ‘spiritual father’ so this action symbolized that in some way…but I’m certain that’s reading in too deeply. Pastor Wilson’s last sentence nails it for me. Be Blessed!
Is it as simple as, “Timothy should have been circumcised on the 8th day of his life according to the law he was born under, so it is being corrected.”
For anyone for whom this is not the case, then circumcision would be laying on a yoke that did not belong. For anyone for whom this is the case, then it is merely a pre-existing obligation of obedience.
Or am I all wet with that?
Hi Jane, it’s the obligation of obedience part that Paul refutes it seems (to the Galatians). But if it’s the only piece missing (pun not intended) for him to witness with Paul everywhere he goes, it’s worth the snip.
I like how Pastor Wilson relates that Timothy has been Jewish in every other way his whole life, but I still think his circumcision was more for his access as a witness of Christ than his completion as a Jew.
I am not sure that Timothy’s case applies to what was going on in Galatians, is my point.
Timothy should have been circumcised shortly after birth. That is not true of the Gentiles with whom the Galatian controversy is concerned.
As I said I might be all wrong about this but I don’t think Galatians is talking about the same thing.
@Jane I have always found Carson helpful on this Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus. To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll… Read more »
But Titus was never a Jew; Timothy was born a Jew and remained one. Of course, given the argument in Galatians it would have been wrong to circumcise Titus. But I think comparing Timothy and Titus is apples and oranges because the Old Covenant was still in force when Timothy was born and he was legitimately under it. The reasons for not circumcising Titus the Gentile don’t apply, and don’t need to be argued away, when it comes to circumcising Timothy the Jew, and vice versa.
Tim was “a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith…”?
So Tim was saved at or before childhood?
Since he was already saved — what does it then mean to (after the big C = conversion), BE MADE WISE unto this salvation vis-a-vis the Bible?
Should we take a page from “useful for teaching, rebuking, & training in righteousness”?
I.e., “wise unto salvation” = “training in righteousness” = character building?
If so, is this passage not applicable as a proof text for gaining salvation through exposure to Scripture?
Hi Eric, I think your question of salvation is answered if you don’t cut of 2nd Timothy 3:15 the way you do.
Hi John,
Are you saying that because faith is in Jesus, the now known historical entity, it had to have been the Scriptures that alerted Tim to this news and so salvation could thereby engaged on his heart by some means of propositional content that included reference to a historical account?
Greetings Eric, I’ve read your question a couple of times, and quite frankly I’m not sure that an answer of yes or no by me makes my position any clearer. You have a position on the matter (when and how salvation occurs) that though I don’t understand it, I thought was intentionally leaving out “through faith in Jesus Christ” in the original comment I responded to. Since I believe Ephesians 1:3-14, then in the sense that matters I was chosen before time existed (I’ll call that saved), but didn’t know I was saved until I heard the word of truth… Read more »
Thanks John, I hear you distinguishing between knowing that you’re saved (pegging this to a time & place subsequent to hearing “the word of truth” — however you define that), and having that salvation be ontologically surrounding you. I also feel like I didn’t know I was saved until I was exposed to good teaching (most of which was probably preaching). I believe this is what the Bible means when it says how useful the Bible is, and how helpful in grounding the Truth in us. That of course is not an argument proving it takes Scripture to get one… Read more »
“That of course is not an argument proving it takes Scripture to get one saved.” Do you object to teaching the following as Christian doctrine? “But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has… Read more »
Scripture displays exceptions to rules?
Splits in its seams?
Holes in the fabric?
Not in my book!
“Since I believe Ephesians 1:3-14, then in the sense that matters I was chosen before time existed (I’ll call that saved), but didn’t know I was saved until I heard the word of truth and believed (v. 13).” If I may add my two cents here …. Based on the text of Ephesians 1, I think you’re better off considering yourself saved in time, not eternity, by the blood of Jesus and through your belief in His truth. Chosen in eternity; redeemed in time. In other words, you WEREN’T saved until you heard the word of truth and believed. Chosen… Read more »
Thanks much Kevin. Saved in time makes sense to me because I live in time, but I’m excited to find out how eternity really looks to God. I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis in ‘Mere Christianity’; “Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of moments one following another…Ten-thirty– and every other moment from the beginning of the world–is always Present for Him. If you like to put it this way, He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames.” I… Read more »
” … but I’m excited to find out how eternity really looks to God.”
Presently, that would involve a whole lot of speculation, would it not?
You’re in much safer hands with Paul than with Lewis. Whoa … that almost makes me a reprobate in these quarters :-D
Christianity appeals to history and to history it must go, as I’ve heard it.
I could be wrong but I tend think that the way Paul looks at circumscision is act of commitment of the male loins in fidelity and purity. The arguments in Romans and Galatians suggest that the devoted male needs an internal change and the outward act is actually meaningless unless inwardly the machismo ladies man mentality of a man hasn’t changed. That’s why he’s hostile to it in the letters. Converted Gentiles already in devoted marriages wouldn’t need it. With Timothy it’s done in the right attitude and devotion. Also it’s aids in health of the wife. Also Jewish mothers… Read more »