Acts 16:3-4 (ESV Strong's)
Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.
Subject: Sacrifice for Service/Evangelism
In the above passage we see how Paul handles difficult situations in the world of a missionary. Paul wants to impact others for Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). He is willing to become what he needs to become to reach them for Christ and he does not want a stumbling block in the way. Because Timothy had a Greek father, he was undoubtably not circumcised. Paul had just argued, in Acts 15, to keep faith in Christ away from the requirement of circumcision. If Paul thought it not necessary to circumcise Timothy, most would not argue and understand why. It was NOT a requirement for our relationship with Christ. However, if Paul wanted to go into synagogues and open up the Old Testament to explain Christ's gift of grace, Timothy would not be allowed to do so, without being circumcised. Paul has Timothy go through the pain of circumcision so that he could have the delight of evangelism. This act was not legalism (doing some to earn God's grace) but an act of sacrifice (in order to convey God's grace). Note what John MacArthur writes in his commentary about this passage:
(MacArthur NT) With Timothy’s father likely dead, and having been a Gentile in any case, Paul assumed the role of a father and took Timothy and circumcised him. Some have sharply criticized Paul for doing so, accusing him of falling into the same heresy he fought at the Jerusalem Council. But such criticism could not be further from the truth. Nowhere is it stated or implied that Paul circumcised Timothy so that he could be saved. The text clearly says that Paul circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. Circumcision was the sine qua non of Judaism. Had Timothy not been circumcised, the Jews would have assumed he was renouncing his Jewish heritage and choosing to live as a Gentile. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy had nothing to do with salvation; he did it for expediency’s sake, to avoid placing an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of Jewish evangelism. Timothy’s circumcision granted him full access to the synagogues he would visit with Paul and Silas.
Far from lapsing into legalism, Paul was being consistent with a principle he would later express in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
Significantly, Paul refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3). Titus, unlike Timothy, was a full-blooded Gentile. To have circumcised him would have been to capitulate to legalism.
From Paul’s actions concerning his two companions an important principle becomes evident. Missionaries must be sensitive to the unique characteristics of the cultures in which they work. As Paul did in circumcising Timothy, they should avoid giving any unnecessary offense. But like Paul in refusing to circumcise Titus, they must not compromise any of the timeless truths of Scripture.
We all have the obligation to do what we can to reach the loss. Sacrifice is part of that reaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment