Acts 16:3. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a pious education (2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:15), Timothy was also well adapted to be the coadjutor of the apostle from the peculiar external relation in which he stood as belonging by parentage both to the Jewish and to the Gentile Christians.

λαβὼν περιέτεμεν] he took and circumcised. There is no reason whatever to suppose that Paul should not have himself performed this act, which might in fact be done by any Israelite (comp. on Luke 1:59).

διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους] namely, to avoid the offence which the Jews in the region of Lystra and Iconium would have taken, had Paul associated with himself one who was uncircumcised to go forth (ἐξελθεῖν) as his colleague in proclaiming the Messianic salvation. Paul acted thus according to the principle of wise and conciliatory accommodation (1 Corinthians 9:19), and not out of concession to the Judaistic dogma of the necessity of circumcision for obtaining the Messianic salvation.[47] He acted thus in order to leave no cause of offence at his work among the yet unconverted Jews of that region, and not to please Christian Judaists, to whom, if they had demanded the circumcision of Timothy, as they did that of Titus at Jerusalem (Galatians 2:3 f.), he would as little have yielded as he did in the case of Titus. This entirely non-dogmatic motive for the measure, which was neither demanded by others nor yet took place with a view to Timothy’s own salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree (Acts 15:29) or with Galatians 2:3; for in the case of Titus circumcision was demanded by others against his will, and that on the ground of dogmatic assertion, and so Paul could not allow that to be done on Titus (comp. Galatians 5:2) which he himself performed on Timothy. This we remark in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who attack our narrative as unhistorical, because it stands radically at variance with the apostle’s principles and character, so that it belongs “to the absolutely incredible element in the Book of Acts” (Baur, I. p. 147, ed. 2). See, on the other hand, Lechler in the Wurtemb. Stud. xix. 2, p. 130 ff., and apost. und nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 419; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 136 f.; Lekebusch, p. 272 ff.; Baumgarten, I. p. 483 ff. Chrysostom has hit in the main on the correct interpretation: οὐδὲν Παύλου συνετώτερον· ὥστε πάντα πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον ἑώρα … περιέτεμεν ἵνα περιτομὴν καθέλῃ. But the canon insisted on in the Talmud: partus sequitur ventrem (see Wetstein), can hardly have been taken into consideration by the apostle (in opposition to Thiersch and Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 102 f.), because Timothy was already a Christian, and thus beyond the stage of Judaism; and therefore it is not to be assumed, with Ewald, p. 482, that Paul had wished merely to remove the reproach of illegitimacy from Timothy—even laying aside the fact that Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception only of the seven Canaanitish nations (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:1 ff.). The circumstance: υἱὸς γυναικὸς κ.τ.λ., Acts 16:1, serves only to explain whence it happens that Timothy, whose Christian mother was known to be a Jewess; was yet uncircumcised; the father was a Gentile, and had in his paternal authority left him uncircumcised.

Observe, according to the correct reading ὅτι Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν (see the critical remarks), the suitable emphasis with which the predicate is placed first: that a Greek his father was. ὑπάρχειν in the sense of ΕἾΝΑΙ is used most frequently in the N.T. by Luke. An antithesis to ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ is arbitrarily and unsuitably imported by Otto.

[47] Erasmus in his Paraphrase (dedicated to Pope Clement VII.) observes: “Non quod crederet circumcisionem conferre salutem, quam sola fides adferebat, sed ne quid tumultus oriretur a Judaeis.” Observe this distinctively Lutheran sola fides.

Acts 16:3. περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν: the act might be performed by any Israelite; cf. Genesis 17:23 for a similar phrase which may indicate that St. Raul performed the act himself. See also Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii., 674; the marriage and the exemption of Timothy from the Mosaic law may be regarded as typical of a relaxation of the exclusive Jewish standard in Lycaonia and Phrygia, and an approximation of the Jew to the pagan population around him, confirmed as it is by the evidence of inscriptions.—διὰ τοὺς Ἰ.: the true answer to the objection raised against Paul’s conduct may be found in his own words, 1 Corinthians 9:20 (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:19). As a missionary he would have to make his way amongst the unbelieving Jews in the parts which were most hostile to him, viz., Antioch and Iconium, on his road into Asia. All along this frequented route of trade he would find colonies of Jews in close communication, and the story of Timothy’s parentage would be known (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 180). But if so, his own usefulness and that of Timothy would be impaired, since his Jewish countrymen would take offence at seeing him in close intercourse with an uncircumcised person (a reason which McGiffert admits to be conceivable, Apostolic Age, p. 232), and Timothy would have been unacceptable to them, since with a Jewish mother and with a Jewish education he would be regarded as one who refused to adhere to the Jewish rule: “partus sequitur ventrem” (see Wetstein and Nösgen), and to remedy the one fatal flaw which separated him from them: see, however, B. Weiss, Die Briefe Pauli an ., Introd., p. 2, who disagrees with this reason, whilst he lays stress on the other reason mentioned above. On the other hand, both among unbelieving and Christian Jews alike the circumcision of Timothy would not fail to produce a favourable impression. Amongst the former the fact that the convert thus submitted even in manhood to this painful rite would have afforded the clearest evidence that neither he nor his spiritual father despised the seal of the covenant for those who were Jews according to the flesh, whilst the Christian Jews would see in the act a loyal adherence to the Jerusalem decree. It was no question of enforcing circumcision upon Timothy as if it were necessary to salvation; it was simply a question of what was necessary under the special circumstances in which both he and Paul were to seek to gain a hearing for the Gospel on the lines of the Apostolic policy: “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”; “neque salutis æternæ causa Timotheus circumciditur, sed utilitatis, Blass, cf. Godet, Epître aux Romains, i., pp. 43, 44; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 85–87; Knabenbauer, in loco. “There is no time in Paul’s life when we should suppose him less likely to circumcise one of his converts,” says McGiffert, u. s., p. 233, but there were converts and converts, and none has pointed out more plainly than McGiffert that the case of Titus and that of Timothy stood on totally different grounds, and none has insisted on this more emphatically than St. Paul himself: ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος, Galatians 2:3. The case of Titus was a case of principle: Titus was a Greek, and if St. Paul had yielded, there would have been no need for the Apostle’s further attendance at the conference as the advocate of freedom for the Gentile Churches. In the words Ἕλλην ὤν, Galatians 2:3, there may have been a tacit allusion to the different position of Timothy, whose parentage was different, and not wholly Gentile as in the case of Titus. For a defence of the historical nature of the incident as against the strictures of Baur, Zeller, Overbeck, Weizsäcker, see Wendt, 1898 and 1899, who regards St. Paul’s action as falling under the Apostle’s own principle, 1 Corinthians 9:19.—ὑπῆρχεν: Blass translates fuerat, and sees in the word an intimation that the father was no longer living, otherwise we should have ὑπάρχει, cf. Salmon, Hermathena, xxi., p. 229.

3. and circumcised him] It must be remembered that the decree of the synod of Jerusalem only related to the exemption of Gentiles from circumcision. It was a very different thing for a Jew to consent to become a fellow-worshipper in the Christian churches with a Gentile who remained uncircumcised, and to tolerate, at this time, the non-observance of the rite by one who was counted for a Jew. For by the Rabbinical code the child of a Jewish mother was reckoned as a Jew (T. J. Jebamoth, ii. 6). It was because of this prejudice that Timothy was circumcised. It could be no offence to the Gentiles, and would render the labours of Timothy more acceptable to the Jews. Because he was the child of a mixed marriage the rite had been unobserved, and so long as he did not come forward as a teacher, there would be no need felt that it should be enforced, and there would be doubtless many others of a like class. But when he was to take a share in the missionary labours of St Paul all this was altered. He would at once have been met with the objection from the Jews, that he who had been but a bad Jew was not likely to guide others right as a Christian teacher. That St Paul saw no inconsistency in what was done in this matter is clear, for the narrative of St Luke tells us in the next verse that to the churches to which they went forth he delivered the decrees of the synod at Jerusalem.

Acts 16:3. Λαβὼν) This is redundant.—διὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, on account of the Jews) For there was no longer need to do so on account of believers [because of the Jerusalem ordinance]: Acts 16:4.

Verse 3. - He took for took, A.V.; that for which, A.V.; parts for quarters, A.V.; all knew for knew all, A.V. Circumcised him. The Jewish origin of Timothy on his mother's side was a sufficient reason for circumcising him, according to the maxim, Partus sequitur ventrem. And it could be done without prejudice to the rights of Gentile converts as established in the decrees of which St. Paul was bearer. Because of the Jews; not the Christian Jews, who ought to know better than trust in circumcision, but the unbelieving Jews, who would be scandalized if St. Paul had an uncircumcised man for his fellow-laborer (see 1 Corinthians 10:20). Acts 16:3To go forth (ἐξελθεῖν)

The word is used of going forth as a missionary in Luke 9:6; 3 John 1:7.

Acts 16:3 Interlinear
Acts 16:3 Parallel Texts


Acts 16:3 NIV
Acts 16:3 NLT
Acts 16:3 ESV
Acts 16:3 NASB
Acts 16:3 KJV

Acts 16:3 Bible Apps
Acts 16:3 Parallel
Acts 16:3 Biblia Paralela
Acts 16:3 Chinese Bible
Acts 16:3 French Bible
Acts 16:3 German Bible

Bible Hub