Articles
Timothy Was Circumcised - Acts 16
Timothy was circumcised Acts 16
Timothy was circumcised. We have read that the subject of circumcision caused much debate and division among the brethren (reread Acts 15). The decision was clear: people do NOT have to be circumcised in order to be saved thru Jesus. When such was demanded of Titus, Paul resolutely refused to allow it to be done: “to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” (Gal. 2:5).
Yet here in Acts 16 Paul had Timothy be circumcised. At least for Timothy this was no little decision. This action by Paul is exemplary of Paul’s mindset about the gospel and men’s salvation. Notice:
- Paul could affirm that the eating of meat was a right that God has given to us (1 Tim 4:4), and yet could say that “... if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” (1Cor. 8:13).
- While having the RIGHT to receive wages for work that he was doing, Paul wrote: "we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1Cor. 9:12).
- Paul stated this principle in writing: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law” (1 Cor. 9:20–21).
So, Timothy was circumcised. Such circumcision of Timothy was not about being saved, but about being able to reach other people with the gospel.
What ‘rights’ would you be willing to forego and give up if it meant that someone would be saved? Would give up eating meat if it made a brother stumble in his faith? Would you give up being paid if it caused people to speak evil of your teaching? Would you be circumcised if it gave you a greater audience for the gospel?
It is hard to see this being true of us when we cannot even be inconvenienced for our brethren. Yes, we have rights. One of those rights is to consider other’s needs more important than my rights. Are we more concerned about our ‘rights or about men’s salvation? Hugh DeLong
