A Study of Acts: A Return to Lystra, Timothy is Introduced
Acts 16:1-5 - Out of love for our fellow believers, we must sometimes adhere to customs that ensure we reach out to others with our faith and respect.
“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe. So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.”
Acts 16:1-5 NASB1995
The Second Missionary journey is underway. Paul (and Silas) came to Derbe and Lystra, two towns that were visited on the first journey with Barnabas. Here is a map from bibleatlas.org showing this region again:
In Lystra, Paul meets a man named Timothy, who was well-spoken of by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Nowhere in this passage does it say that Timothy is young, but the relationship that develops between him and Paul is like that of a father and a son, so most scholars assume he was a young man probably in his early twenties but already having an influence on believers. Timothy is the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer and had a Greek father. Paul decides that he wants Timothy to accompany them, so he does something very startling and perhaps inconsistent in Paul’s thinking in light of the recent conflict about circumcision, the law and believers: He had Timothy circumcised (it looks like he did this himself)!
Is Paul reneging on his absolute conviction that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus alone? Why would he do this act, which was unnecessary for Titus later on? Well, let’s consult some scholars on the question. First, here is the opinion of the late Walter Kaiser (evangelist and Old Testament scholar ) quoted on Precept Austin (forgive the length, but I think this quite good!):
Inconsistency confuses us, and arguing for one point of view and then turning around and acting contrary to that point of view appears inconsistent. Of course, we sometimes misunderstand the actions of others, and an inner consistency can exist behind apparently contradictory deeds. Yet when we see truly inconsistent actions we at best call the doer fickle, at worst hypocritical, even deceiving.
This is the issue that appears to face us in Acts 16:3. No sooner does Acts report the Jerusalem council’s decision that it is not necessary for one to be circumcised or keep the Mosaic law to be saved (Acts 15) than it mentions Paul’s circumcising Timothy in order to take him along as a coworker. Doesn’t this contradict Paul’s principles in Acts 15? And doesn’t Galatians 2:3 state, “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek”? How could the Paul who in Galatians 2:5 writes, “We did not give in to [those who wanted to circumcise Titus] for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you,” have Timothy circumcised? Was Paul himself two-faced, or is one of the accounts historically inaccurate?
The resolution of this issue turns on a very important point. In Jewish eyes Titus was clearly a Gentile, for his parentage was Gentile, but Timothy was considered a Jew, because his mother was a Jew. The Mishnah, the Jewish legal tradition, makes it clear that children of Jewish mothers are really Jews, regardless of the race of their fathers. Acts states that Timothy’s father was a Gentile. It is also clear from the verb tense used that his father was dead by the time Paul selected Timothy as a coworker. Timothy’s mother and grandmother (according to 2 Tim 1:5) were Jews, which fits with what we know about the laxity in the Jewish community in Asia Minor, for allowing a Jewish woman to marry a Gentile was not orthodox Jewish practice.
Paul presumably converted the family during his first missionary journey, but even before that Timothy was probably steeped in Scripture and observed the religion of his mother, although she may have practiced it in secret. When his father died and what his father had felt about his religious practice is not known. He may have been a God-fearer, on the fringes of the synagogue. But neither the father himself nor his son had been circumcised. The father had not allowed his son to be fully Jewish (circumcision in the days of public baths was a public mark that would have identified Timothy as a member of a different race, the Jews).
Normally, Paul’s missionary practice was to go to the local synagogue first. How could he do so with Timothy, who would have been viewed as a type of renegade Jew? And how could Timothy participate fully in the mission while being only half-Jew? With Titus a principle was involved: Gentiles do not need to become Jews. But with Timothy the question was whether a half-Jew could or should fully actualize his Jewish heritage. Paul’s decision is to regularize Timothy’s status, perhaps to facilitate mission (“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews,” 1 Cor 9:20) or perhaps to allay suspicions (“They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs,” Acts 21:21). For Paul, Gentiles had no need to become Jews to improve their spiritual status, but it was not wrong for a Jew to live his Jewish culture to the fullest.
It might have appeared more consistent if Paul had not taken this step, especially in light of the issues discussed in Galatians and the fact that Timothy lived in the Galatian area. Some have suggested that troubles stemming from this action led to the writing of Galatians and the citing of the counterexample of Titus. However, it is more likely that Galatians was written before the second missionary journey and that this incident clarified Paul’s stance. When seen as a cultural rather than a religious issue, circumcision was an indifferent practice. Where it could be used for the advantage of the gospel, it was good. Where it hindered the gospel, it was to be avoided. In no case did it make the person more or less spiritual. Analogous cultural practices can be found today. Likewise today slavish consistency may hinder mission, while apparent inconsistency may point to a deeper underlying consistency and meet the requirements of a nuanced cultural situation. Until this is understood, it is unwise to criticize the apparent surface vacillation. (Hard Sayings of the Bible).
I think this is a very good explanation. Enduring Word has a similar stance:
And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews in that region: Paul had Timothy circumcised, not for the sake of his salvation (Paul would never do so) but so there would be less to hinder ministry among the Jews.
In Acts 15, Paul argued strongly that it was not necessary for Gentile converts to come under the Law of Moses for salvation (Acts 15:2 and 15:12). At the time Paul met Timothy, he was delivering the news of this decree that came out of the Acts 15 council (as they went through the cities, the delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem).
Yet, Paul did not contradict his belief or the findings of the council when he had Timothy circumcised. Paul did this not for Timothy’s salvation or right standing with God, but so that Timothy’s status as a non-circumcised man from a Jewish mother would not hinder their work among the Jews and in synagogues. Paul did things for the sake of love that he would not do for the sake of trying to please God through legalism. Paul insisted that Titus, a Gentile co-worker, did not have to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3-5).
“By Jewish law Timothy was a Jew, because he was the son of a Jewish mother, but because he was uncircumcised he was technically an apostate Jew. If Paul wished to maintain his links with the synagogue, he could not be seen to countenance apostasy.” (F.F. Bruce)
“As Paul saw it, being a good Christian did not mean being a bad Jew.” (Richard Longenecker) The wording of Acts 16:3 implies that Paul himself performed the circumcision (he took him and circumcised him).
Just like the proscriptions in the letter that Paul and Silas carried to the congregations that were ways for Gentiles to show love and respect for the Jewish believers, Paul wants Timothy to be a strong believer AND honor the Jewish heritage that he had. Timothy’s salvation was already airtight, but Paul still wanted to be able to reach Jews in the towns that they traveled through. Timothy would have been rejected (and likely Paul and Silas) without this adherence to Jewish law and customs. Paul is not going to give up trying to convert Jews AND Gentiles and not concentrate on one group or the other.
Russian Orthodox Church, Murmansk, Russia Copyright ©2013 Barbara Sande
I think the equivalent in our time would be to show respect for customs in other houses of Christian belief. In 2013, we were on a cruise that visited Murmansk, Russia. On our tour, we had the opportunity to visit a new Russian Orthodox Church. I was wearing a baseball cap and that was passable but not quite to the letter of the customs of the church that required a scarf on the heads of women. I apologized profusely and left the area of worship (I don’t even own any scarves and we wasn’t aware we were going to visit this church on the tour).
In Catholic Churches we have visited, Steve has always removed his hat (if he was wearing one) as that is the custom and we have participated in the minor rituals (like the sign of the cross) if we were in a Catholic church during a service; we also would never presume to take part in the Eucharist (or even do that in a Protestant church that has closed communion). Also, if we knew we were visiting a basilica or church, we would ensure that we had our knees and shoulders covered (no tank tops and shorts in St. Peter’s, please!*). When we had an opportunity to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the men and women were separated and Steve was given a paper kippah (or yarmulke) to wear and I removed my hat. This didn’t make him or me Jewish, but it did mean that we were showing respect to God.
* A little aside - In spite of plentiful information available to people doing tours that included churches about proper clothing, there were still many who rudely wore (or barely wore) clothing that could be called disrespectful even on the streets of some European countries. It appears that there are many who would rather mock others and their faith customs than abide by a few simple requests. The Vatican is ready with paper gowns for tourists to cover shoulders and knees, but I was saddened to see this rude behavior in other smaller churches. By the way, we also abided by the conservative dress code when visiting the Blue Mosque in Istanbul.
So, back to our passage. The group then passed through various towns and villages and shared with them the decree from the Council and helping the groups grow in their faith. The numbers of believers were growing daily!
My next devotional examines Acts 16:6-13 - The Holy Spirit prohibits preaching in Asia; He also brings a vision of a man from Macedonia pleading for them to come there and the missionary journey continues to Europe. And Luke joins the group!
Heaven on Wheels Daily Prayer:
Dear Lord - I thank You for the opportunities we have had to see other churches and the customs of those who call You Lord. Respect for others as a believer helps others see that Christians are not arrogant and judgmental but are hoping to shine Your light! Amen.
Scripture quotations taken from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved. lockman.org
Precept Austin was accessed on 11/21/2024 to review commentary for Acts 16:1-5.
Bibleatlas.org was accessed on 11/21/2024 to review maps for the Second Missionary Journey.
Enduring Word commentary by David Guzik is used with written permission.