BRUCE C WEARNE, in his examination of Acts, looks at how and why Timothy came to join with Paul and, in particular, why he had circumcised Timothy…
And that was when he came down to Derbe [on his way to Lystra]. And, of note, a disciple was there named Timothy, who was son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father, well respected by the brothers [and sisters] of Lystra and Iconium. Paul thought that he was the person to go on with him, and on account of the Jewish communities in those places, he took him and circumcised him, for they all knew him and his Greek father. Now, as they travelled through the cities [of that region] they passed on to them the policy that had been developed by the apostles and elders [back] in Jerusalem. And that was how the [seedling] churches were sustained in the faith and increased day after day in their numbers [of their harvest]. – Acts 16:1-5/transliteration by Bruce C Wearne
CIRCUMCISION: Bruce C Wearne says he believes Paul’s decision to circumcise Timothy was a decision “in which concern for Timothy’s relationships with his fellows was uppermost”. PICTURE: Raven3K/www.freeimages.com
IN A NUTSHELL
Luke tells us how Timothy had been a part of Paul’s forward planning.
Luke knew that the split with Barnabas over Mark was serious. Thereafter, Paul travelled with Silas who, like Paul, was a Roman citizen (16:47). Silas had been sent to Antioch with Barsabbas who, it seems, was the other nominee when Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas (15:22-23 see also 1:23). Silas accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their return to Syrian Antioch after the council in Jerusalem. The work continued and, after conveying the apostolic message, Silas had not accompanied them, presumably staying in Antioch.
After Barnabas returned to Cyprus with Mark, the church at Antioch did not let Paul and Silas go to the work without giving their prayerful blessing. The blessing was renewed. And so, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the next stage of the work began. They visited the region between Syrian Antioch and Tarsus. Luke tells us that Paul was keen to renew the contacts he had made beyond there in Derbe and Lystra. Previously, he and Barnabas had been forced to flee from murderous plots in Iconium. In pagan Lystra Paul had been stoned. We recall there was no mention of Barnabas being stoned. Despite the danger, churches were set up at Iconium, Lystra and Derbe and elders appointed to look after the small groups of believers.
This is another place in Luke’s story where we would like to know the sequence of events. It would help us to understand a few things. For instance, how did the tragic split relate to Paul’s relationship with Timothy? This might also help us clarify aspects of Paul’s message – clearly there was a significant group among the company of Jesus’ disciples who wanted strict Jewish rules for all Christians. We note that Paul was working hard to resolve the “Jewish problem” (from the Gentile believer’s point of view) and the “Gentile problem” (from the Jewish believer’s point of view).
Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia is his complaint that the churches are under the spell of false teaching. The idea that circumcision must be enforced upon believers is to misunderstand the Gospel. The circumcision party had come to Antioch from Jerusalem, he says, and even Barnabas was carried away by Peter’s insincere dealings with Gentile believers. Paul would have none of that. But, I think, Luke is telling us that Peter and Paul were in complete agreement after Peter repented of this duplicity. Still the working relationship of Paul and Barnabas may have been under strain.
When Luke says there was “sharp contention” over Mark, he may be trying to tell us that Mark had not yet understood how he could be a member of a team that involved contact with Gentiles. So was this the point at which Mark’s own learning curve diverged from what he had previously understood? If the Gospel of Mark was written to provide Peter’s reminiscences of Jesus’ ministry, does it therefore include Peter’s corrections of his own previous misunderstandings about how Old Testament food laws related to the Gospel? And how does this relate to Mark being taken along with Barnabas, a Levite, in the first place? And later, after the split, Mark went with Barnabas to revisit Cyprus. So it is hard for us to figure out precisely what was going on. Could it have been that Mark was with Barnabas for safekeeping because he had become a “prime suspect” in the eyes of those seeking to destroy “the way”?
I suspect that many of our misunderstandings may come from how we read stories. We try to find the “hero”. In this instance we think of Peter, Paul, Barnabas and Mark and all the other actors all competing with each other in some way to capture our story’s line of heroism. But, in fact, Luke is telling us that they are struggling humans who have to learn that it is through many tribulations that we must enter the Kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). That was also what Paul and Barnabas taught at Derbe on their previous visit. And so it is rather ironic that they could not revisit together because of the tribulation of a strained friendship. The issue may have been resolved in principle by the council declaration, but day-to-day habits remained and this seems to have taken a toll.
“Just when did Paul take Timothy and circumcise him? Why was it necessary to do so? Doesn’t Paul go to great lengths to say that those who choose circumcision are bound to obey the whole law? Could Paul have been circumcising Timothy for appearances, just to avoid difficult Jewish accusations? Surely Luke appreciated that this seems to have been a dodgy decision?”
Just when did Paul take Timothy and circumcise him? Why was it necessary to do so? Doesn’t Paul go to great lengths to say that those who choose circumcision are bound to obey the whole law? Could Paul have been circumcising Timothy for appearances, just to avoid difficult Jewish accusations? Surely Luke appreciated that this seems to have been a dodgy decision?
Well, lets consider it slowly in the context of the responsibilities we know these people to have held. Consider Timothy’s parents – a Jewish woman named Eunice and an un-named Gentile father. We read about Timothy’s mother and grandmother in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (II Timothy 1:3-7). Later in that letter, Paul made a request: “Get Mark and bring him with you.” So Paul and Mark were reconciled, eventually. We might even sense that Mark was able to smooth the relationship between his uncle and Paul. We also note that Timothy and Mark were able to work together. The older generation may have had their frictions but this did not prevent the co-operation between these younger fellows. The writer of The Gospel of Mark encouraged everyone – believers, apostles and elders, Jews and Gentiles, men and women, boys and girls – with an encouragement he learned from his uncle Barnabas (Acts 4:36).
So, what is Luke telling us about Paul, here? Why does he tell us that Paul had taken Timothy and circumcised him? Was this after the split with Barnabas? Or was it before? Was it when he and Barnabas had visited that town, or was the family converted to Christ earlier, perhaps in the time when Saul had been smuggled off to Caesarea and sent off to Tarsus years before Barnabas had come to fetch him for the work he had been called to do in the Antioch church?
This is what Paul wrote to Timothy (II Timothy 1:4-7): “As I remember your tears, I long night and day to see you, that I may be filled with joy. I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you. Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands, for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.”
This is such an intimate communication. When we take into account that this letter is from the one who had personally circumcised Timothy, we feel just how close this bond was. Even today we will rarely confront intimacy of this sort between a believer and the one who administered the baptism. It is almost like we are caught prying into something that is not our business. But why did Paul circumcise Timothy?
There is a clue to all this. It is found in the “but” word that Luke uses here. “But his father was a Greek.” The relationship between Jews and Gentiles came to a peculiar focus in that family. Luke does not say that Timothy’s father did not believe. He says that Timothy’s father was Greek. There is a big difference. Timothy’s Jewish mother was a believer. Our English Bibles say that it was Timothy who was the disciple well spoken of by the brothers and sisters in that region. If the uncircumcised son was spoken well of by the Jewish brothers and sisters in that region, it seems Timothy’s Greek father derived a degree of Jewish respect as well – after all he had married a Jewish woman.
In his letter, Paul tells Timothy that he should be thankful to God for his grandmother Lois. She was the first to have faith in Jesus in that family. She was Jewish and so was her daughter. But the daughter had married a Greek. Had she “floated” around in neutral spiritual gear until she accepted the Christ? The reason I ask this is that it seems possible that the prayers of Lois were not only answered in Timothy but also in Timothy’s mother and father. That would suggest that Paul’s circumcising of Timothy is told to us by Luke because he wants us to see it in the context of the conversion of that Christian family. It would have been quite unfair to the young man, a son of a Jewish mother, if, having embraced Christ, and deciding to go with Paul, he could not then enter into contact with other sons of Jewish mothers and therefore would have exposed himself unnecessarily to attack from the “circumcision party”.
“This line of reflection leads us to conclude that Timothy’s circumcision was a Christian act performed by Paul concerned with helping Timothy to form Christian relationships with fellow Jews. It was a decision in which concern for Timothy’s relationships with his fellows was uppermost. Is it not likely, therefore, that Timothy’s Greek father would have understood and approved of this?”
Let’s try and think about what Timothy’s point of view could have been. It seems it was not only a matter of “What am I able to do from my side of my relationships with fellow Jews?” but also “Will my fellow Jews be able to relate to me in a synagogue context if I, a Jew, remain uncircumcised like a Gentile.” This line of reflection leads us to conclude that Timothy’s circumcision was a Christian act performed by Paul concerned with helping Timothy to form Christian relationships with fellow Jews. It was a decision in which concern for Timothy’s relationships with his fellows was uppermost. Is it not likely, therefore, that Timothy’s Greek father would have understood and approved of this?
That is the best I can do to make sense of the circumstances that Luke has put before us. There are often apparent ambiguities that cannot be fully resolved. We should not let them confuse us or distract us from belief in Jesus. But then we shouldn’t pretend they are not there, or that we have resolved some issues more definitively than we have been able to explain. We can say that Jesus’ disciples are always called to come to terms with complex and confusing social situations. From within our lives the power of the Holy Spirit shines forth as we learn patience, as we realise that God’s love is not hindered by the complex problems that beset us.
This discussion, a hint, has been a long one. Paul’s teaming up with Silas and Timothy is a crucial turning point in Luke’s story. But from now we will return to briefer discussions.
