‘Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.'
It was the normal Jewish position that a son would take on the religion of his mother (it certainly became so later), so that Paul would be inclined to see Timothy as a Jew, especially if his father was dead, which the verb might suggest. Recognising that by being circumcised Timothy's usefulness in evangelising Jews would be greatly increased, he had no hesitation in suggesting that he be so. This would then give him full acceptability with both Jew and Gentile. Uncircumcised there would be a tendency for Jews to frown on his position even more than they would on a Gentile for they would see him as an apostate Jew.
This bring out Paul's eagerness to maintain connection with the Jews, and to keep them open to the Good News. It demonstrated his own flexibility of mind. While he had firmly rejected the idea that circumcision become binding on Gentiles, and would equally firmly have resisted any suggestion that Timothy could not be a full Christian without being circumcised, he was flexible enough to be willing for a half-Jew like Timothy to be circumcised if it would mean that it would help in the ministry among Jews. In Timothy's case no principle was at stake. Timothy's circumcision would be accepted by the Gentiles as being because he was a Jew, and therefore as not affecting their position, and would make the Jews see him as a fellow-Jew. It was a reflection of Paul's determination to be all things to all men if thereby he could win them to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20), and of his deep concern still to reach the Jews, for whom he had a burning passion (Romans 9:2-3).
We may probably also see it as signifying that Timothy in general, because of the influence of his mother and grandmother, followed Jewish customs and was not averse to the idea, indeed probably welcomed it, wishing to align himself with the Jews so that he could win them for Christ. There is no reason to doubt that the ceremony was carried through with due solemnity and with genuine religious emotion. Not only was Timothy's mother a Jewess, but also his grandmother Lois. And they had both become genuine believers (2 Timothy 1:5), who would both have brought him up to observe Jewish customs. We may also assume that Paul had recognised that Timothy's not being circumcised had somewhat hindered his ministry among Jews.
The contrast between Acts 16:3-4 must be seen as deliberate, even emphatic. Even while the decrees not requiring circumcision of Gentiles were being openly declared in the churches, Paul arranged for the circumcision of one who was in Jewish eyes recognised as a Jew. It was a gesture that would quieten many Jewish Christian fears. Paul supported both sides.
EXCURSUS on Circumcision.
The question with which we are faced when we consider circumcision is made very much apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul's statements, and two of his actions. In 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 Paul says, "Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." Yet in Galatians 5:2 he writes: "Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing." What then is the difference between the two statements? The answer lies in asking the question as to whom they are addressed. The first is addressed to both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, clearly differentiating the two, the one being circumcised and the other not, the second is addressed to Christian Gentiles warning them not to cross over the line by being circumcised and making themselves Jews. The first is saying that circumcision cannot improve anyone. It is merely a sign of who is a Jew physically. What matters for all is keeping the commandments of God. The second is saying that if a Gentile considers circumcision is necessary, because it is necessary for him to become a Jew in order to be saved, he is bypassing Christ, and Christ will not profit him. He is looking for the wrong thing to save him. He is using circumcision in a way for which it was not intended.
This is also illustrated by Paul's actions. When he was in Jerusalem in respect of the appeal of the Antioch Church, some Jewish brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, a Gentile who was with him. But he sternly refused. Indeed he says, "I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour" (Galatians 2:5). And his reason was so that the truth of the Gospel might remain with them. In other words the truth of the Gospel excluded the requirement for the circumcision of a Gentile in order to make him complete as a Christian. On the other hand in the case of the circumcision of Timothy he circumcised Timothy with his own hand, and this "on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters." But this was because he was born of a Jewish mother and was therefore in the eyes of Judaism a Jew, and as uncircumcised was in their eyes as an apostate. Circumcision was therefore neither frowned on, or required,
This therefore brings us back to the question of the significance of circumcision. We may observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision "is not of Moses, but is of the fathers" (John 7:22). This distinction is important. The obligation which the Jews were under to observe circumcision did not therefore originate in the Law of Moses, or in the covenant of Mount Sinai. It existed independently of that covenant and the Law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the Law, and encompassed many who never submitted to the Law.
In fact it is quite surprising how little reference there is in the Law as given at Sinai to circumcision. It was assumed in it, almost incidentally, that once they were in the land, any male child would be circumcised on the eighth day once the impurities of childbirth had been dealt with (Leviticus 12:3). Otherwise it is simply assumed as lying in the background and is only mentioned three times. In Leviticus 19:23 the impression is given that not having been circumcised was seen as a sign of something being not yet ready to fulfil its purpose, as something still not yet available to the community because reserved to God. In Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6 it is used as an illustration of a change of heart towards obedience and loving God. Thus it contains within it the idea of dedication and membership in the community. Earlier it was required of those who would eat the Passover once they were in the land (Exodus 12:44; Exodus 12:48). It was thus the outward sign of membership in the redeemed community, and not directly associated with the giving of the Law.
So the connection of the law with circumcision is not found in the initial setting up of the institution, which occurred hundreds of years before the giving of the Law, and only occurred because the law was later given to one section, and only one section, of the circumcised descendants of Abraham, who eventually, long after the Law was first given, related the two together in their own case. The connection is therefore secondary. We say one section of his descendants, because circumcision was also enjoined on his descendants through Ishmael, and through Esau, as well as on the Jews. Since, therefore, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, or include it specifically as part of its ordinances (although assuming it in the background as a recognised custom), the abrogation of the law could not be seen as annulling that obligation in its original significance. As long therefore as it was not connected with the idea of salvation circumcision could be allowed if it was seen as serving another purpose.
Indeed its perpetuity is enjoined at the time of its institution. Then God said to Abraham, "He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must necessarily be circumcised, and my covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13). An everlasting covenant is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. This covenant was to be ‘everlasting', because it was to continue as long as the descendants of Abraham and their households continued physically to exist. In the same way the covenant of Aaron's priestly dignity was everlasting, because it continued in Aaron's family as long as such a priesthood had an existence. Circumcision therefore did not depict the people of the Law, it depicted the physical descendants of Abraham, and those who been bought or adopted in, whether through Ishmael, Esau or Jacob. It was the sign for the future that they still existed and had not died out.
The covenant of circumcision must therefore be everlasting, because it was to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham was perpetuated, and that would be till the end of time, and thus circumcision will not cease, and cannot cease, until that time comes. We could argue, and Christian Jews did argue, that this conclusion that it indicated the physical descendants of Abraham cannot be set aside, unless we can find something in the nature of the Gospel which is inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised physical descendants of Abraham from obligation to it.
It is true that Paul says that, "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while yet uncircumcised" (Romans 4:11). But what it was to Abraham, it never was to any other, for from the time that circumcision was instituted it was carried out on a male child of eight days old who could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircumcised, of which circumcision could be the seal. The sign of circumcision, as applied to all his descendants, was rather Abraham's reward for being righteous, in the indicating of the fact that his seed would never die out, whether Israelite, Edomite or Arab. It had nothing to do with the application of righteousness or the process of being accounted righteous, or of law-keeping.
That is why in Romans 4:10 Paul emphasises that Abraham was reckoned as righteous before he was circumcised. The two were not directly associated. Circumcision was not given at the time as a sign that he was accounted righteous, it was an evidence given long afterwards that he was seen as already approved, as accounted righteous. But that that was not its main significance, except in so far as his imputed righteousness had obtained the benefit of the promises for all generations, comes out in that it was applied to babes and that it was in future to be seen as indicating those who were physically descended from Abraham, or who were adopted permanently into the household of Abraham, and were thus included in the promise of becoming numerous and being permanent.
His righteousness arose because he believed God (Genesis 15:6). He was enjoying that, and the certainty of the promises that went with it, long before he was circumcised. And in fact circumcision was introduced for a different reason, it was introduced precisely so as to include Ishmael within the promises of continued physical descent. Thus his point in Romans is that we who become the children of Abraham by faith, enjoying the righteousness of God which is by faith which Abraham enjoyed, and entering into the promises to Abraham of worldwide blessing, do so without being circumcised, just as Abraham did, because we are not declaring our physical descent from Abraham.
He then goes on to add that it was by submitting themselves to the law as a way of obtaining righteousness that men put themselves under the wrath of God (Acts 4:15). But this submitting of themselves to the law as a way of righteousness did not take place at Sinai. At Sinai they submitted themselves to be obedient to God and keep His commandments as a response to a covenant that resulted from the grace of God. They responded to the grace of God their Saviour as revealed through the redemption of the Passover and the Red Sea, both gifts of God's grace. They entered into grace. It was centuries after this that they would submit themselves to the law as a way of righteousness, when theologically they began to see the keeping of the law as the way by which they could obtain eternal life, and as the way by which they could become restored to the favour of God. This was when they invented Judaism.
We may thus see a number of steps in the progress of God's people:
1) Those who believe within physical Israel enjoy from the beginning the promises given to Abraham, which were to bless all who believe among all the nations of the world whether in physical Israel or not (Genesis 12-15).
2) Circumcision was given as a guarantee of the perpetuity of Abraham's physical descendants whether from Ishmael, Edom or Israel and was very much linked with physical descent (Genesis 17). It could thus be applied to all his descendants whether believers or not. Indeed not to receive it was to be cut off from that physical descent. (Later gross sin would have the same effect).
3) At Sinai, having been delivered from bondage by the gracious acts of God their Saviour through the Passover and the Red Sea (compare 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 10:2), Israel received the ten words which revealed the righteousness now required of them because they were accepted as His redeemed people, as His holy people. They responded to His grace and love by entering into covenant to obey them, not as a means of salvation but because they had been gloriously saved (Exodus 19:5-6; Exodus 20:1-17).
4) From Moses they then received (a) the temporary ordinances which would enable them to remain in a right relationship with God through the grace of God; (b) the temporary laws of cleansing which indicated the higher life, free from all taint of death, to which He had called them; and (c) an expansion on, and more detailed application of, the permanent morality that God required of them (Exodus to Deuteronomy).
5) In later centuries they developed their own doctrine of attaining righteousness by obedience to the Law, applying to it both circumcision and all the ordinances of Moses.
6) In the coming of Christ, the true vine (John 15:1-6), God has provided the means by which all men can enter the Israel of God through Christ, becoming branches of the vine (John 15:1-6), true sons of Abraham through believing (Galatians 3:7-8; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 3:25-26; Galatians 3:28-29), being grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11:17-26) and being united with Christ, thus becoming one with His true people (Ephesians 2:11-22), and thus enjoying the Abrahamic promises. From this new Israel, which is the true Israel, all who do not believe have been cut off, while all who do come to believe are grafted in.
The Good News is that through Christ only 1, 3, 4c and 6 apply to the new Israel of God, because through His death and resurrection Christ has replaced 4a and b and demonstrated that 5 is invalid. Meanwhile 2 remains for those who are physical descendants of Abraham and his household. In so far as there are any benefits in the idea of circumcision, ideas which are not physical (the circumcision of tongue, eyes and heart), these apply to God's people because they are circumcised in the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11).
That circumcision was never seen as an initiatory rite comes out in that the refusal to be circumcised resulted in being cut off from among the people, precisely because that was an indication that the covenant had been broken. But someone who has not been initiated cannot be cut off. The point was rather that they were initiated into the covenant by birth, and circumcision was simply the outward sign to all men of the fact. Those therefore who refused to accept the outward sign were to be cut off from being seen as physical descendants of Abraham.
Furthermore had it been seen as an initiatory rite it would not have remained unperformed during the whole period in the wilderness. Many who died in the wilderness had never been circumcised. But this did not exclude them from Israel. It simply indicated that they did not carry the sign that they were Abraham's ‘descendants'. This helps to bring out that the purpose of circumcision was in order to mark off Abraham's ‘descendants' (including those who were adopted) so as to keep them as distinct earthly peoples, and to enable the world to identify that they had not ceased, thus confirming that God had maintained His promise of continual seed to Abraham. While they were in the wilderness, so that circumcision could not be a sign to anyone, circumcision had not been required. But, as soon as they entered the populated land of Canaan, where there was a danger of intermingling, the separating mark was to be put on them, and that separating mark was circumcision on the eighth day'. It distinguished those who were in the physical community of Abraham.
Thus circumcision on the eighth day was continually to be seen as the outward sign of the continuation of Abraham's physical seed, and not as a commitment to keep the Law. For the descendants of Ishmael and Edom made no such commitment. It was later Judaism that introduced this idea that circumcision was the sign of a commitment to keep the Law. Israel were not circumcised at Sinai at the time when they committed themselves to keeping the Law, because that covenant arose from the fact that they had been saved by the grace of God. Being saved by grace, keeping the law in response and circumcision were three separate issues.
When therefore we come to the New Testament this principle is maintained. Those who claim physical descent from Abraham (including descent through those who have been adopted by the tribes) are to be circumcised so as to indicate that God's promises of seed to Abraham continue to be fulfilled. But his spiritual seed do not need to be circumcised. To them Paul says, "If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." Why? Because they are being circumcised for the wrong reason. They are being circumcised so as to bind themselves to become Jews so as to keep the Law. They are not accepting their own freedom as portrayed in the vision of Peter with respect to Cornelius. They are rejecting God's way of grace. And that leads to disillusionment and not salvation.
It was right that the Apostles were circumcised. It was right that Paul was circumcised. And it was right that any of them should circumcise their children. It was thus right to circumcise Timothy, born of a Jewish mother. These circumcisions were all evidence of physical descendants of Abraham. But it would have been wrong to circumcise Titus. For him it would not have indicated physical descent from Abraham. The only purpose of it would have been so that it could be seen by Judaisers as requiring him to keep the whole Law, as signifying that he had become a proselyte. It would be giving circumcision the wrong significance.
It was this distinction that made James say to Paul, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they (the Jews) ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Do this, therefore, that we say to you. We have four men which have a vow on them. Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses, in order that they may shave their heads, and all may know that the things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself walk orderly, and keep the law" (Acts 21:20-24). This speech shows that James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews among the Gentiles not to circumcise their children, and not to obey the law, and Paul's ready consent to the proposition made to him shows that he was ready to agree with James. Yet this occurred after he had written the letter to the Galatians, in which he says, "If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." There could not be clearer proof that this last remark was not intended for Jewish Christians.
Furthermore James himself, in the speech from which we have just quoted, makes a distinction, in reference to this rite, between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He says: "Concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written, having decided that they observe no such thing, save, only, that they keep themselves from idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication" (Acts 21:25). This remark refers to the decree issued by the Apostles from Jerusalem, which Paul was carrying with him at the time that he circumcised Timothy. It should be observed therefore that there never did arise among the disciples any difference of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was granted by all. The controversy had exclusive reference to the Gentiles, and the fact that the Judaisers (wrongly) based their plea for circumcising Gentiles on the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, confirms that all the disciples considered it should be continued among Jewish Christians. If Paul, in disputing with them, could have said, that, by the introduction of the Gospel, circumcision was abolished even among the Jews, he would have overturned at once the very foundation of their argument. But his argument would have found no acceptance. However, this fundamental assumption that Christian Jews should still be circumcised was admitted and acted on by Paul himself, and no one ever called it into question in the New Testament.
That certain Jews linked circumcision directly with the requirement to keep the Law, and then linked both with the requirements for salvation cannot be doubted. What can be questioned is whether any of the Apostles ever did once they had become Christians. And the answer is a clear ‘no'. They circumcised their children in order to indicate that they were physical descendants of Abraham. They followed the customs of the Jews because they were the customs of their fathers and indicated that they were Jews. But they never looked on either as a requirement for salvation. They recognised that salvation had come to them separately through Jesus Christ.
We can now therefore account for Paul's stern refusal to circumcise Titus. He had become a test case. The question being asked was not as to whether he was willing to become a recognised descendant of Abraham by adoption. The question was as to whether he could possibly be saved without it. The Judaisers were demanding of Titus what God had not demanded of Cornelius. They were demanding that all converts entered physical Israel. And indeed, had all Christians been circumcised, its distinctiveness as marking off the physical descendants of Abraham would have been lost.
Yet Paul does distinctly stress the need for Jewish Christians to continue to circumcise their children. He declares quite blatantly, "Is any man called being circumcised, let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised." And it is immediately followed by these words: "Let every man abide in the calling in which he is called." So far, then, is this text from making it indifferent whether a Christian become circumcised or not, that it positively forbids those who had been in uncircumcision before they were called, to be circumcised, while it equally forbids the other party to render themselves uncircumcised, an expression which must mean to act as if they were uncircumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to become literally uncircumcised was impossible. That circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it is indifferent to God from the point of view of salvation whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or a Gentile, but it is far from indicating that it is right for a Jew to neglect this rite, or for a Gentile to observe it.
And this is so because of the original purpose of circumcision, and that was that it would mark off all the physical descendants of Abraham, whether Ishmaelite, Edomite or Israelite, and those who physically aligned themselves with them, so as to evidence that God had not failed in His promise to Abraham of never ceasing physical seed. It was thus never intended to be an initiatory rite for all who would serve God. It was rather a mark of physical antecedents.
What then does ritual circumcision indicate? It indicates that a person is physically descended either from Abraham, or from those who were physically adopted into one of the Abrahamic tribes. It is a declaration of God's faithfulness in preserving the physical seed of Abraham and his household.
Does this then mean that Israel and the church are totally separate? The answer to that question is ‘no'. What it means is that physical Israel is separate for it includes both Christians and non-Christians. It is a declaration of the continual existence of physical descendants from Abraham and his household. But that Christians are part of the true Israel, of God's Israel, and that non-Christian Jews are not, is firmly declared in Romans 11:13-29; Ephesians 2:11-22; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; James 1:1; 1Pe 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 21:10-27. It is believers who enjoy the blessings of Abraham. It is they who enjoy the permanent benefits of God's revelation to Moses. It is they who enjoy the Messiah. But what they do not do is look to observance of the ordinances of the Law as the means by which they can become right with God or become acceptable to God. They recognise that circumcision as signifying any other than physical descent (Colossians 2:11), and the law of commandments contained in ordinances (as seen as replaced, for example, in the letter to the Hebrews), have all been fulfilled in Christ and are therefore no longer applicable. They recognise that they have entered into the grace of God. It is they therefore who are the true Israel, not Judaists.
End of EXCURSUS.