Acts 16:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

But what then? Look at the deed itself. He circumcised in order to bring circumcision to an end, because he preached the decrees of the apostles.

Do you see the struggle, and through the struggle, the building up? Not only when urged by others, but even while doing the opposite themselves, they thus ordered the Church.

They brought in the decree not to circumcise, and he circumcises. “And taking him,” says the writer, “he circumcised him.”

For what reason, he shows by adding: “because of the Jews who were in those places.” Therefore Timothy is circumcised for this reason, or also because of his father, who was a Greek and therefore uncircumcised.

See how the Law was already being loosened. Some think that he was born after his father had been instructed by the preaching. But perhaps this is not correct, since Paul says, “from childhood you have known the sacred writings”; 2 Tim 3:15.

Therefore the first explanation must be accepted. If not, then it was because Paul intended to make him a bishop, and it was not fitting for him to remain uncircumcised.

The Gentiles, however, had no need to observe any such thing. This was not insignificant, because for so long they had been scandalized by it.

The beginning of the abolition of the Law was laid in this, that the Gentiles did not observe it, suffered no harm, and lost nothing regarding the faith. Therefore they willingly abandoned it.

Since Timothy was to preach, Paul circumcised him so as not to strike the Jews doubly, although he was of twofold origin, from a Greek father and a believing mother.

And although the matter concerning the Gentiles was important, nevertheless he himself circumcised him, because the preaching had to spread.

He was not supporting circumcision, but wished to accomplish a very great task, pleasing to all the apostles. If Timothy had not been circumcised and was at the same time a teacher of the Jews, all would have recoiled from him.

If the Jews already accused Paul so strongly concerning Trophimus the Ephesian, Acts 21:29, because they thought that Paul had brought him into the temple, and he was from the Greeks, what would Paul himself have had to endure if an uncircumcised man were with him as a teacher?

But see: he is justified in the judgment of the apostles, and in the temple he speaks of the fulfillment of this justification. He did everything for the salvation of the Jews.

Perhaps one may also point out that Peter hid himself under the appearance of Judaism. This did no harm to the apostles.

On the contrary, the fact that the Jews had such teachers, who in their opinion observed the Law, became an occasion for their conversion and the beginning of their faith in Christ.

What is voluntary is firmer and more secure. The former belongs to one who uses force, but the latter is properly our own.

The former belongs to violent power, but the latter to God’s righteousness. Therefore God determined that good should not be done for those unwilling, but that benefaction should be given to those who desire it.

Therefore, as a tutor and physician, He abolishes some ancestral customs and permits others. He allows some things even for our delight, as physicians give the sick a remedy skillfully seasoned with something pleasant, so that it may be received.

For it is not easy to change what has entered into custom and has long been honored.

What do I mean? The first covenant, having forbidden idols, allowed sacrifices. The second, having abolished sacrifices, did not forbid circumcision.

Then those who once agreed to the abolition yielded also what had been conceded: some, sacrifices, and others, circumcision.

They became Jews from Gentiles and Christians from Jews, being drawn toward the Gospel by gradual changes.

Let Paul persuade you of this. From circumcision and purifications he had already advanced to saying, “But if I still preach circumcision, brethren, why am I still persecuted?” Gal 5:11.

The former was necessary for the divine economy, but the latter for perfection.

For the Jews he became as a Jew, in order to gain Jews; 1 Cor 9:20.

The man who agrees to something for the sake of his neighbors, taking this labor upon himself for their salvation, keeps himself from every hypocrisy.

He knows the danger of such conduct for righteous people, a danger that threatens from those who envy them. Therefore he compels no one.

Only for the good of his neighbors does he act so. If all this concerned only himself, he would never have done it.

Such a man is wholly devoted to the Church, for the sake of the disciples whom he himself has begotten in the faith.

He is an example for those able to receive the exalted instructions of a man-loving and God-loving teacher. He is a living confirmation of the truth of the word and an experience of love for the Lord.

He is not subject to fear, is faithful to his word, tireless in labors, and never experiences a desire to utter a deceitful word. He remains fully without sin.

For a deceitful word uttered with evil intent is not simply a word, but an action that brings harm.

As is clear from this passage, Clement of Alexandria considered the Apostle Paul a “gnostic,” that is, in Clement’s terminology, one who truly knows God.

Timothy had received a pious upbringing from his mother Eunice, a devout Hebrew woman, though married to a Gentile. This upbringing did not remain fruitless in him.

During Paul’s first stay in that city, his mother had turned to Christianity. Even the young Timothy became a zealous confessor of the Gospel.

In the churches of Lystra and the neighboring city of Iconium, he was known to all for his zeal in the faith.

In the public assemblies of the believers, there were testimonies of prophets who proclaimed that Timothy had been appointed by God Himself for great works on behalf of the Gospel; 1 Tim 1:18.

It pleased Paul to have with him such a zealous young man. Timothy could help him in the labors of preaching, and under his guidance could himself be formed into a great preacher.

The young man himself was ready, out of love for their common Lord and for Paul himself, to follow him everywhere.

Since Timothy by origin belonged on one side to the Jews and on the other to the Gentiles, he was all the more fit to accompany the apostle among both Gentiles and Jews.

To bring him still closer to the latter, Paul had him circumcised. In this there was no violation of the universally recognized rights of Christians from the Gentiles.

As the son of a Jewish woman, brought up in Judaism, he could be claimed by the Jews more than by the Gentiles.

Every Israelite could perform this rite. Paul performed it, of course, with Timothy’s own consent, and by no means against his will.

Why did the apostle decide on such an unusual action with a Christian youth, apparently contrary to the decree of the Apostolic Council, Acts 15:29?

The writer of Acts explains this with the words, “because of the Jews,” since all knew that Timothy’s father was a Gentile.

That is, he did it for the sake of Jews not yet converted to Christ who lived in those places. It could seem a scandal to them that the apostle’s helper in preaching was uncircumcised and descended from a Gentile.

This circumstance could place obstacles before the conversion of the local Jews to Christianity.

This was all the more so because, although marriages between Jewish women and Gentiles were customary, strict Jews always looked unfavorably on them. They considered children from such marriages not legitimate, but children of a secondary union.

Thus in this action Paul followed his own most wise rule: to be all things to all men, that he might save all; to be a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews; 1 Cor 9:20-22.

Therefore this action of Paul was not done from dogmatic motives. It was not because in this case he submitted to the opinion of the Judaizers concerning the necessity of circumcision in Christianity.

Consequently the apostle’s action does not in the least contradict the decree of the Apostolic Council. This is especially true since the action was voluntary on the part of both Paul and Timothy.

“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing,” according to the words of the Apostle Paul; 1 Cor 7:19.

If he circumcised Timothy so as not to place an obstacle before the conversion of the local Jews to Christ, then this action can hardly be seen as a concession to the Judaizers’ opinion.

Nor can it be seen as a violation of Christian freedom, for which the holy Apostle Paul constantly contended.

In this action the high practical wisdom of the great apostle was expressed.

“Worthy of great wonder is the wisdom of Paul! He had fought so strongly against the circumcision of Gentiles and set everything in motion until the question was settled, yet he circumcised his own disciple.

“In every matter he had profit in view, and did nothing without purpose. Because of the Jews: because they would in no way have resolved to hear the word of God from one uncircumcised”; Theophylact, cf. Chrysostom.

It was for their sake, properly speaking, that the circumcision under the Law was performed upon Timothy. In the days of grace it has no significance; see 1 Cor 7:19.

“Worthy of wonder is the wisdom of Paul,” exclaims Saint John Chrysostom. “He had so strongly opposed circumcision. He had used every measure and did not rest until he reached his goal.

“Yet when this teaching had been confirmed, he circumcised his disciple. He not only did not forbid others, but did it himself.

“No one is wiser than Paul: in everything he looked to what was profitable. ‘Because of the Jews.’ This was the reason for the circumcision, for they would not have listened to the word from one uncircumcised.

“He circumcised in order to bring circumcision to an end.”

Blessed Theophylact adds to this: “If the Jews accused Paul so vehemently concerning Trophimus the Ephesian, because they thought that Paul had brought him into the temple, and he was from the Greeks, what would Paul himself have had to endure if an uncircumcised man were with him as a teacher?

“He did everything for the salvation of the Jews.”

Thus, if he circumcised Timothy so as not to place an obstacle before the conversion of the local Jews to Christ, this action can hardly be seen as yielding to the opinion of the Judaizers.

Nor can it be seen as a violation of Christian freedom, for which the holy Apostle Paul constantly contended. “In this action,” says Bishop Michael, “the great apostle’s high practical wisdom was expressed.”