Acts 16:3

Act_16:3-5

Him would Paul have to go forth with him.

Using new converts

It is good for young converts to be set at work; it is good for them. It is good for every Church to set its young converts at work; it is good for the Church. All at it, and always at it, was the old Wesleyan cry. And it was in that way that the Methodist Church gained and grew so wonderfully. It was long ago said of the Waldensian Church, that its peculiar vitality was accounted for by the fact that as soon as a new convert had been seven days a believer, he was set to teach someone who was not so far along as he was. And that is the way for a Church to have greatest activity and widest efficiency on the part of its membership. Of course, when it comes to assigning special duties to young converts, there must be wisdom shown in their selection. If a man is to be sent into another field, he ought to be one who has a good reputation in his own field. He who lacks the confidence of those who know him, ought not to be helped to new acquaintances by a local church or by a foreign missionary society. (H. C. Trumbull.)

Paul and Timothy colleagues

I. The ideal ministry is that of partnership. Two are better than one, either as pastors or missionaries.

1. No one man is fully equipped for all the duties of his office, though two may be. The one often supplies what is lacking in the other; and common interests are promoted by the interchange of thought and affection, and by the division of labour. What one may have no adaptability for the other may have in abundance. Able preachers are not always good pastors. Happy the Church which has two ministers: one who can visit, another who can preach.

2. Partnership was the plan of the Master who sent His disciples out two by two. It was the plan of the apostles. How often we find Peter and John in conjunction. It was Pauls plan, who never laboured alone if he could help it.

II. This partnership must be based on harmonious qualities. Not necessarily identical qualities. Persons of similar ideas and temperaments have not always been good colleagues. Opposites are not necessarily antagonistic: they are often complementary. The most angular persons have often worked well together, because the angles have been made to fit laterally instead of pressing on the points. Paul could not, under existing circumstances, have worked with Mark, and so far he was wise in refusing his companionship; and it is doubtful if he could have permanently worked with Barnabas. We may see a wise Providence in their separation if not in the means by which it was brought about. Paul could get on better with Timothy, whom he could train in his own methods and aims.

III. This partnership was realised in the case of Paul and Timothy. What one lacked the other possessed--inexperience and experience; the desire to learn and the ability to teach; sedateness and energy; evangelistic genius, and pastoral and governmental gifts. (J. W. Burn.)

And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep.

The decrees of the Church at Jerusalem

I. The messengers who delivered these decrees.

II. To whom they were delivered.

III. The end for which they were delivered.

IV. The results of this delivery.

1. Confirmation.

2. Augmentation. (W. Burkitt.)

And so were the Churches established.--

The establishment and increase of the Church

The ultimate success of any system must depend upon its truth. A lie may partially succeed; but its final doom is certain. It carries in itself the elements of its own destruction. Truth, on the contrary, is imperishable. However persecuted and misrepresented, it will infallibly vindicate its birth and greatness. It is, therefore, a matter of the utmost importance that the truths of the gospel should be maintained in their entireness and purity. For, in proportion as error mingles with truth, its influence will be counteracted. And when antiquated rites or modern conceits are substituted for evangelical doctrine, the pernicious results of error become still more apparent. The facts on which these observations are based may be found in this and the preceding chapter. Note here:--

I. The establishment of Christians in the faith. The term faith is often employed to signify Christianity as a religious system; doubtless, because by believing we become partakers of its blessings (Act_6:7; Gal_1:23; 1Ti_5:8; Tit_1:13). This establishment of Christians in the faith includes--

1. Their confirmation in doctrinal truth. The evangelical writers constantly assume that there is such a thing as an authoritative standard of truth, to which reason and opinion are obliged to bow (Rom_6:17; 2Ti_1:13; 1Ti_6:3; Tit_1:9; 1Jn_2:21; 1Jn_2:24). And it is assumed throughout the Scriptures that these truths are capable of being understood by every order of mind so as to exercise their influence over the whole man (Joh_8:32; 1Ti_2:4). Now that the apostles are no longer on earth to explain their own meaning, it becomes us to be the more careful in the use of the means we possess, that we may avoid error, and arrive at the knowledge of the truth. We must search the Scriptures, asking for the Spirit of truth to guide us into all truth.

2. Their establishment in piety to God, and love to one another. The faith to which they were pledged, and of whose truth they were now reassured, was a faith which embraced in its regards the entire economy of the human spirit, and exerted a sovereign influence over all its faculties. When evangelical truth is received with humble faith, certain saving results immediately ensue. All spiritual graces followed in due succession, sustained by faith, animated with love, and crowned by the hope of immortal life. Now this connection between the doctrines to be believed, and blessings to be enjoyed, is illustrated and confirmed by the passage under consideration. An unsettled creed is always unfavourable to a settled piety. The dissension and disputation (Act_15:2) must have been detrimental to their spiritual welfare. They were troubled, and their souls subverted (verse 24). Accordingly, when the disturbing force was removed they rejoiced for the consolation (verse 31).

3. Out of our establishment in faith and holiness will arise a settled practice and a steady devotion to the service of Christ. Where the principles of Christianity are loosely held, and its blessings are only known by report, there you may anticipate laxity of morals, or open violation of the Divine law.

II. The connection between the establishment of Christians in the faith and the prosperity of the work of God.

1. The establishment of Christians in the faith disposes them to overlook minor points of controversy, and to devote themselves to the propagation of vital truth. It was on this principle that the Apostle Paul refused to dispute on points non-essential to salvation, and exhorted Christians to liberality of sentiment. So the true Christian says, If we are to debate, let it be on matters worthy our character and intellect. If we are to labour, let it be in a field where our toil shall not be wasted.

2. A settled piety permits our attention to be drawn off from our personal anxieties, and to be fixed on the conversion of others. We cannot be content with our own happiness; we want to make others happy also.

3. Consistency and harmony in the Church have their influence on the minds of the undecided, and induce them to join themselves to the disciples. If the religion of Christ were properly represented in the spirit and conduct of the professing Church, the world could hardly withstand its attraction.

4. God has established the connection between piety and usefulness, and therefore confers His special blessing on the labours of established Christians, and the enterprises of pure and devoted Churches. He is not dependent upon any particular set of instruments. But there is one rule which He never violates--He never employs unholy men or fallen Churches to represent Him in the world, or to fulfil the saving objects of His redeeming scheme. (W. Williams.)

The establishment and increase of the Church

I. The Churches were established in the faith. The phrase is used as a comprehensive description of Christianity.

1. Primitive Christian Churches were composed exclusively of such as professed to believe in Christ, and to conform their lives to the holy requirements of the gospel. Their members were consequently Christians, not in that loose sense of the term in which it is now so commonly used, but as disciples of Christ who had been born of water and of the Spirit, and upon whom the unction of the Holy One rested. Hence they are variously denominated by the apostles as the beloved of God--saints--faithful brethren--those who are sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Christ Jesus and called; and are always addressed as persons who could understand the sentiments and the language of doctrinal, vital, and experimental religion. And their piety being thus sincere and vital it was capable of increase. Accordingly, under the instructions of these inspired men, they made a very observable progress in the Divine life. There was a manifest growth in grace.

2. Christianity as a system is eminently social. Hence its converts have from the first been formed into Churches. This was done by collecting them together, and uniting them in the joint observance of the laws and ordinances of Jesus Christ. Such societies have continued to exist from that time to the present, and seem to be the destined means, under the Holy Spirit, of perpetuating and extending the kingdom of the Redeemer.

II. They increased in number daily; either, that is, these several Churches already established increased in the number of their members, or the Churches themselves were multiplied, or both. The increase, whether of members or of Churches, is said to have been daily. The expression seems to indicate both the rapidity and the constancy of the increase. It was not such an increase as we are accustomed to witness, when at distant intervals a few individuals enter the fellowship of the Church. The evangelists seem never to have preached but souls were converted; and the Churches never to have come together, but they had the high privilege of receiving many new disciples into the communion of saints. Nor did this last for a few days merely. As the increase was rapid, so it was constant.

III. The cause from which this prosperous state of things resulted. The Holy Spirit most manifestly attended upon the labours of the apostles. Apart from His gracious influence, apostolic eloquence and zeal would have accomplished nothing. Not less necessary then than now was that life-giving energy which proceeds alone from Him. There were, however, certain subordinate and subsidiary causes to which, in the order of means, this prosperity may be traced.

1. The apostolic settlement of the question, that converts from among the Gentiles were not to be subject to the institutions of Moses (chap. 15:31). Being delivered from a yoke of bondage which would have fatally depressed their rising zeal, they were free to throw all their newly awakened energies into the cause of the Redeemer. The preachers, also liberated from all trammels, might now come forward simply with the doctrine of the cross. Nothing is so calculated to produce either a vigorous state of personal piety, or a prosperous state of Church fellowship, as a simple, clear, and Scriptural exhibition of the truth as it is in Jesus.

2. The devotional spirit of the early Christians, combined with their fervent zeal.

3. There was none of that timid neutrality respecting the profession of the gospel among the first Christians by which modern Christianity is so lamentably distinguished. When a man was converted, the next thing was to join the Church. There was consequently a line of demarcation, broad and deep, between the Church and the world. None were ashamed of Christ, or ashamed to avow their attachment to His followers, and His cause.

4. The spirit of union and Christian love. Believers were of one heart and one way. Separate Churches there were, as now, but separate denominations there were none. The communion of saints was not then what it has since become--a cold article in a formal creed, but the practical and sweet experience of every day. The uniting bond was not an exact coincidence of opinion in every point of doctrine, or a perfect uniformity of practice in matters of government and discipline; but it was love. Let Christians of all parties forget their differences, and approximate among themselves to something like the union subsisting between Christ and His Father; let them be one, as they are one, and the influence will be irresistible. (E. Steane, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16:3 Paul had Timothy circumcised to enhance Timothy’s acceptance and effectiveness as a Jew in Jewish circles (contrast Titus, who was a full Gentile, Gal 2:3). Elsewhere Paul clarified that it makes no difference to God whether one is circumcised or not circumcised (Rom 2:25-29; Gal 5:6; 6:15). Paul was prepared to use any legitimate means to communicate the Good News (1 Cor 9:20-21) to various audiences.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 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]: Act 16:4.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_16:3. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a pious education (2Ti_1:5; 2Ti_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 Luk_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 (1Co_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 (Gal_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 Timothys own salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree (Act_15:29) or with Gal_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. Gal_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 apostles 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 Timothyeven laying aside the fact that Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception only of the seven Canaanitish nations (Exo_34:16; Deu_7:1 ff.). The circumstance: υἱὸς γυναικὸς κ.τ.λ., Act_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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 16:3 . περιέτεμεν αὐτὸν : the act might be performed by any Israelite; cf. Gen 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, 1Co 9:20 ( cf. 1Co 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 , Gal 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 , Gal 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, 1Co 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Timothy is circumcised, not simply for any necessity, but in respect of the time only to win the Jews.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Him would Paul have to go forth with him--This is in harmony with all we read in the Acts and Epistles of Paul's affectionate and confiding disposition. He had no relative ties which were of service to him in his work; his companions were few and changing; and though Silas would supply the place of Barnabas, it was no weakness to yearn for the society of one who might become, what Mark once appeared to be, a son in the Gospel [HOWSON]. And such he indeed proved to be, the most attached and serviceable of his associates (Phi 2:19-23; Co1 4:17; Co1 16:10-11; Th1 3:1-6). His double connection, with the Jews by the mother's side and the Gentiles by the father's, would strike the apostle as a peculiar qualification for his own sphere of labor. "So far as appears, Timothy is the first Gentile who after his conversion comes before us as a regular missionary; for what is said of Titus (Gal 2:3) refers to a later period" [WIES]. But before his departure, Paul

took and circumcised him--a rite which every Israelite might perform.

because of the Jews . . . for they knew all that his father was a Greek--This seems to imply that the father was no proselyte. Against the wishes of a Gentile father no Jewish mother was, as the Jews themselves say, permitted to circumcise her son. We thus see why all the religion of Timothy is traced to the female side of the family (Ti2 1:5). "Had Timothy not been circumcised, a storm would have gathered round the apostle in his farther progress. His fixed line of procedure was to act on the cities through the synagogues; and to preach the Gospel to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. But such a course would have been impossible had not Timothy been circumcised. He must necessarily have been repelled by that people who endeavored once to murder Paul because they imagined he had taken a Greek into the temple (Act 21:29). The very intercourse of social life would have been almost impossible, for it was still "an abomination" for the circumcised to eat with the uncircumcised" [HOWSON]. In refusing to compel Titus afterwards to be circumcised (Gal 2:3) at the bidding of Judaizing Christians, as necessary to salvation, he only vindicated "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:5); in circumcising Timothy, "to the Jews he became as a Jew that he might gain the Jews." Probably Timothy's ordination took place now (Ti1 4:14; Ti2 1:6); and it was a service, apparently, of much solemnity--"before many witnesses" (Ti1 6:12).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Took and circumcised him] For this simple reason, that the Jews would neither have heard him preach, nor would have any connection with him, had he been otherwise. Besides, St. Paul himself could have had no access to the Jews in any place, had they known that he associated with a person who was uncircumcised: they would have considered both to be unclean. The circumcision of Timothy was a merely prudential regulation; one rendered imperiously necessary by the circumstances in which they were then placed; and, as it was done merely in reference to this, Timothy was lain under no necessity to observe the Mosaic ritual, nor could it prejudice his spiritual state, because he did not do it in order to seek justification by the law, for this he had before, through the faith of Christ. In Ga 2:3-5, we read that Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles, notwithstanding the entreaties of some zealous Judaizing Christians, as their object was to bring him under the yoke of the law: here, the case was widely different, and the necessity of the measure indisputable.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. He circumcised him, because of the Jews. Luke doth plainly express that Timothy was not circumcised, because it was necessary it should be so, or because the religion of that sign did continue as yet, but that Paul might avoid an offense. Therefore there was respect had of men, whereas the matter was free before God. Wherefore, the circumcising of Timothy was no sacrament, as was that which was given to Abraham and his posterity, (Genesis 17:13;) but an indifferent ceremony which served only for nourishing of love, and not for any exercise of godliness.

Now, the question is, whether it were lawful for Paul to use a vain sign, whose signification and force was abolished; for it seemeth a vain thing when there is a departure made from the institution of God. But circumcision was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ. To this question I answer, that circumcision did so cease at the coming of Christ, that, notwithstanding the use thereof was not quite abolished by and by; but it continued free, until all men might know that Christ was the end of the law, by the more manifest revelation of the light of the gospel.

And here we must note three degrees. The first is, that the ceremonies of the law were so abolished by the coming of Christ, that they did neither any longer appertain unto the worship of God, neither were they figures of spiritual things, neither was there any necessity to use them. The second is, that the use thereof was free, until the truth of the gospel might more plainly appear. The third, that it was not lawful for the faithful to retain them, save only so far forth as the use thereof served for edification, neither was there any superstition thereby fostered; though that free power to use them, whereof I have spoken, be not without exception, because there was a divers respect to be had of ceremonies. For circumcision was not in the same place wherein the sacrifices were, which were ordained for the purging [expiating] of sins. Wherefore it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timotheus; it had not been lawful for him to offer a sacrifice for sin. This is, indeed, a general thing, that all the worship of the law did cease at the coming of Christ, (because it was to continue but for a time,) as touching faith and conscience; but concerning the use we must know this, that it is indifferent, and left in the liberty of the godly for a short time, so far as it was not contrary to the confession of faith. We must note the shortness of time whereof I speak, to wit, until the plain manifestation of the Gospel; because some learned men are grossly deceived in this point, who think that circumcision doth yet take place among the Jews; whereas Paul teacheth, that it is superfluous when we are buried with Christ by baptism, (Colossians 2:11,12.) It was better and more truly said in the old proverb, That the synagogue was to be buried with honor.

Now it resteth that we declare how far forth the use of circumcision was indifferent. That shall easily appear by the manner of the liberty. Because the calling of the Gentiles was not as yet generally known, it was meet that the Jews should have some prerogative granted them. Therefore, until it might be better known that the adoption was deducted from the lineage and kindred of Abraham unto all the Gentiles, it was lawful, so far as edification did require, to retain the sign of difference. For seeing that Paul would not circumcise Titus, and doth avouch that the same was well done, (Galatians 2:3,) it followeth that it was not lawful to use this ceremony always and without choice. Therefore they were to have respect unto edification, and unto the public commodity of the Church. Because he could not circumcise Titus, unless he would betray the doctrine of the Gospel, and lay himself open to the slanders of the adversaries, he abstained from the free use of the ceremony, which he did use in Timotheus, when he saw that it was profitable for the Church. Hereby it doth easily appear what horrible confusion doth reign in Popery. There is there a huge heap of ceremonies, and to what end but that they may have instead of one veil of the old temple an hundred. God did abrogate those ceremonies which he had commanded, that the truth of the Gospel might shine more clearly. Men durst take upon them to bring in new, and that without keeping any measure. After this came in a wicked surmise, that all these serve for the worship of God. At length followed the devilish confidence of merit. Now, forasmuch as it is evident enough that such ceremonies are neither veils nor sepulchres wherewith Christ is covered, but rather stinking dunghills wherein faith and religion are choked, those who make the use thereof generally free do ascribe more to the Pope than the Lord granteth to his law. It is to no end to speak of the mass and of such filthiness which contain in themselves manifest idolatry.

They all knew this. Luke telleth us that this was Paul’s drift, to make an entrance for Timotheus unto the Jews, lest they should abhor him as a profane man. They knew all (saith he) that his father was a Grecian. Therefore, because the mothers had no power over their children, they were fully persuaded that he was uncircumcised. Let the readers not here by the way, how miserable the bondage of the people of God was then. Eunice, mother to Timotheus, was one of the small remnant which the very Jews themselves counted a monster, and yet, being married to a man which was an infidel, she durst not consecrate her children to God. No, she durst not so much as give them the external sign of grace, and yet she ceased not therefore to instruct her son of a child holily in the fear of God, and in his true worship—an example surely worthy to be followed of women, whom their husbands affray with their tyrannous government, from keeping and training up their children and families chastely in true godliness. Grecian is taken in this place for a Gentile, after the old and common custom of the Scripture.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(3) And took and circumcised him.—The act seems at first inconsistent with St. Paul’s conduct as to Titus (Gal_2:3), and with his general teaching as to circumcision (Gal_5:2-6). The circumstances of the two cases were, however, different, and there were adequate reasons here for the course which he adopted. (1) The act was spontaneous, and men may rightly concede as a favour, or as a matter of expediency, what they would be justified in resisting when demanded as a matter of necessity. (2) Titus was a Greek, pure and simple (Gal_2:3); but the mixed parentage of Timotheus, according to the received canons of Jewish law, made him inherit from the nobler side, and he was therefore by birth in the same position as an Israelite. (3) By not urging circumcision prior to baptism, or to his admission to that “breaking of bread” which was then, as afterwards, the witness of a full communion with Christ, the Apostle had shown that he did not look on it as essential to admission into the Christian Church, or continued fellowship with it, and in what he now did he was simply acting on his avowed principle of becoming to the Jews as a Jew (see Notes on Act_18:18; 1Co_9:20), and guarding against the difficulties which he would have encountered from those whom he sought to win to Christ, had they seen, as one of the travelling company, an Israelite who was ashamed of the seal of the covenant of Abraham. The acceptance of that seal by one who had grown up to manhood without it may be noted as showing that the disciple had imbibed the spirit of his Master. It seems probable, from the youth of Timotheus, that at this period he took the place which had been before filled by Mark, and acted chiefly as an attendant, the “work of an evangelist” coming later (2Ti_4:5).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Him would Paul have to go forth with him,.... Perceiving that he was a young man, that not only had the grace of God, but very considerable gifts, and abilities for ministerial service; and having a good testimony of his agreeable life and conversation, the apostle was very desirous he should go along with him, and be his companion in his travels, and be an assistant to him in the work of the ministry; and accordingly he was, and is often spoken of in his epistles, as his fellowlabourer, and one that served with him in the Gospel of Christ, and who was very dear unto him:

and took and circumcised him; which may seem strange, when there had been so lately a controversy in the church at Antioch about circumcision, from whence the apostle was just come; and when this matter had been debated and determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, where he was present, and he was now carrying about their decrees: but it is to be observed, that the apostle used circumcision not as a duty of the law, as what that required, and in obedience to it, which he knew was abrogated; much less as necessary to salvation, which the judaizing preachers urged; but as an indifferent thing, and in order to gain a point, and secure some valuable end, as follows

because of the Jews which were in those quarters; not the believing ones, for he brought along with him the decrees of the apostles and elders to satisfy them, that circumcision was not necessary; but the unbelieving ones, who he knew would not suffer an uncircumcised person to teach in their synagogues, nor would they hear him out of them; wherefore having a mind to take Timothy with him to be assisting to him in the preaching of the Gospel, in point of prudence he thought it proper to circumcise him, that he might be received by them, and be the more acceptable to them; who would otherwise have taken such an offence at him, as not to have heard him: thus the apostle to the Jews became a Jew, that he might gain and save some, Co1 9:20 for they knew all that his father was a Greek; and that therefore he was not circumcised; for a woman might not circumcise, because she was not a fit subject of circumcision herself (t); though in case of necessity circumcision by women was allowed of (u).

(t) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 27. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilchot. Mila, c. 2. sect. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Ver. 3. Took and circumcised him] Paul circumcised Timothy, as a Gentile; in that, for a Jew to be circumcised was no yieldance. And those words, "they all knew his father to be a Greek" demonstrate, he went in estimation for a Gentile. Calvin refusing to administer the communion in Geneva, and to use therein unleavened bread or wafer cakes, was compelled to depart the city; and was not received thither again until he had allowed of the same kind of bread. De quo postea restitutus, nunquam contendendum putavit; minims tamen dissimulans quid alioqui magis esset probaturus. {a} {See Trapp on "Act 15:28"}

{a} Beza in Vita Calvini.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Him would Paul have ... - This was an instance of Paul’s selecting young men of piety for the holy ministry. It shows:

(1) That he was disposed to look up and call forth the talent in the church that might be usefully employed. It is quite evident that Timothy would not have thought of this had it not been suggested by Paul. The same thing education societies are attempting now to accomplish.

(2) That Paul sought proper qualifications, and valued them. Those were:

That he had a good reputation for piety, etc., Act 16:2. This he demanded as an indispensable qualification for a minister of the gospel 1Ti 3:7, “Moreover he (a bishop) must have a good report of them which are without.” Compare Act 22:12. Paul esteemed him to be a young man of talents and prudence. His admitting him to a partnership in his labors, and his entrusting to him the affairs of the church at Ephesus, prove this. He had been carefully trained in the holy Scriptures. A foundation was thus laid for usefulness. And this qualification seems to have been deemed by Paul of indispensable value for the right discharge of his duties in this holy office.

And took and circumcised him - This was evidently done to avoid the opposition and reproaches of the Jews. It was a measure not binding in itself (compare Act 15:1, Act 15:28-29), but the neglect of which would expose to contention and opposition among the Jews, and greatly retard or destroy his usefulness. It was an act of expediency for the sake of peace, and was in accordance with Paul’s uniform and avowed principle of conduct, 1Co 9:20, “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.” Compare Act 21:23-26.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Circumcised him. Not to obstruct the conversion of the Jews; and because it was still lawful to observe the Jewish ceremonies, though the obligation of keeping the old law had ceased. (Witham) --- This St. Paul did in order to gain the Jews, and make Timothy acceptable to them. (Tirinus) --- To the Jew, says he, (1 Corinthians ix. 20.) I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. If he refused to circumcise Titus, in order to vindicate the Christian’s independence of the Mosaic ceremonies; he now submits to the observance of them, to shew there is nothing of itself bad in them, and that they might without crime be practised, till time by degrees had abolished them. (St. Augustine, ep. lxxxii. ad S. Hieronymum. [to St. Jerome.])

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Circumcised him because of the Jews, who could not yet be persuaded that the law of circumcision was abrogated. Paul, who became all things to all men, that he might save some, circumcised Timothy that he might not offend the Jewish converts, 1Co 9:22, but would not circumcise Titus, Gal 2:3, lest that he should harden them, and offend the Gentiles. These indifferent things require a single eye, to the edifying of the church, and the salvation of souls. Timothy was uncircumcised, although his mother was a Jewess; for according to their Talmudists, the mother could not cause her child to be circumcised against the mind of the father.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Would—Willed or determined to have.

Took—Implying the perfect mastery of the apostle in matters, yet not excluding the free consent of Timothy.

Circumcised him—Known to be of a Gentile father, and probably uncircumcised by that father’s authority, Timothy would not have been admitted to the synagogues of the Jews as a religious teacher had he been uncircumcised, nor Paul as his companion. As by this act Paul conceded, not the necessity of circumcision to salvation, but only removed a bodily hinderance to Timothy’s acceptance among the Jews in various localities, he transgressed no principle he ever asserted. Yet at Jerusalem, when the Judaists made the necessity of circumcision an absolute requisite in the Christian system, he refused to allow Titus to be circumcised, Gal_2:3. This circumcision of Timothy, and that demanded circumcision of Titus, involved two very different questions. So nice, and yet so accurate, a line did this wise apostle draw between the closely connected right and wrong. For peace and acceptance he would yield up to the very hairbreadth that divided right from wrong; but not all the world could compel him of that hairbreadth to sacrifice one half.

His father was a Greek—Circumcised, Judaic-Greek Timothy united in himself the conciliation of the great dispute. He bridged over, in his own person, the gulf between Jew and Gentile.

3. Man of Macedonia, and Crossing to Europe, Act_16:9-12.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 1Co_10:20)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He took and circumcised him because of the Jews - The unbelieving Jews, to whom he designed he should preach. For they would not have conversed with him at all, so long as he was uncircumcised.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

3. The discriminating and watchful eye of Paul soon discovered qualities which would render this youth a fitting companion and fellow-laborer, and it was by his request that Timothy was placed in the position which he afterward so honorably filled. (3) " Paul wished him to go forth with him, and took him, and circumcised him on account of the Jews who were in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek. "

The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remarkable event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious injury as to the consistency of his teaching and of his practice, in reference to this Abrahamic rite. It demands of us, at this place, as full consideration as our limits will admit.

The real difficulty of the case is made apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul's statements, and two of his deeds. He says to the Corinthians, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;" yet to the Galatians he writes: "Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." When he was in Jerusalem upon the appeal of the Antioch Church, brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, who was with him, but he sternly refused, and says, "I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour." Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this "on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters." In order to reconcile these apparently conflicting facts and statements, we must have all the leading facts concerning this rite before us.

We observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision "is not of Moses, but of the fathers." The obligation which the Jews were under to observe it was not originated by the law of Moses, or the covenant of Mount Sinai; but existed independent of that covenant and the law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the law. The connection between the law and circumcision originated in the fact that the law was given to a part of the circumcised descendants of Abraham. We say a part of his descendants, because circumcision was enjoined upon his descendants through Ishmael, through the sons of Keturah, and through Esau, as well as upon the Jews. Since, then, the law did not originate the obligation to be circumcised, the abrogation of the law could not possibly annul that obligation. He shall be forced, therefore, to the conclusion, that it still continues since the law, unless we find it annulled by the apostles.

Again: its perpetuity is enjoined in the law of its institution. God said to Abraham: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." An everlasting covenant is one which continues as long as both parties to it continue to exist. The covenant concerning Canaan was everlasting, because it continued as long as the twelve tribes continued an organized people to live in it. 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. So the covenant of circumcision must be everlasting, because it is to continue as long as the flesh of Abraham is perpetuated. This will be till the end of time; hence circumcision has not ceased, and can not cease, till the end of the world. This conclusion can not be set aside, unless we find something in the nature of gospel institutions inconsistent with it, or some express release of circumcised Christians from its continued observance.

It is, then, inconsistent with any gospel institution? Pedobaptists assume that it was a seal of righteousness, and a rite of initiation into the Church; and as baptism now occupies that position, it necessarily supplants circumcision. It is true, that Paul says: "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while yet uncircumcised;" but what it was to Abraham, it never was not any of his offspring, seeing that the child eight days old could not possibly have any righteousness of faith while yet uncircumcised, of which circumcision could be the seal. Again: it was not to the Jew an initiatory rite. For, first, the law of God prescribing to Abraham the terms of the covenant says: "The uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." Now, no man can be cut off from a people who is not previously of them. Regarding the Jewish commonwealth, therefore, as a Church, the infant of eight days was already in the Church by natural birth, and circumcision, instead of bringing him into it, was a condition of his remaining in it. In the second place, this conclusion from the terms of the covenant is made indisputable by a prominent fact in Jewish history. While the twelve tribes were in the wilderness forty years, none of the children born were circumcised. The six hundred thousand men over twenty years of age who left Egypt all died in the wilderness, and an equal number were born in the same period; for the whole number of men at the end of the journey was the same as at the beginning. When they crossed the Jordan, therefore, there were six hundred thousand male Jews, some of them forty years of age, who had not been circumcised, yet they had been entering the Jewish Church during a period of forty years. After crossing the Jordan Joshua commanded them to be circumcised, and it was done. This fact not only demonstrates that circumcision was not to the Jews an initiatory rite, but throws light upon its real design. The covenant of circumcision was ingrafted upon the promise to Abraham of an innumerable fleshly offspring, to keep them a distinct people, and to enable the world to identify them, thereby recognizing the fulfillment of the promise, and also the fulfillment of various prophesies concerning them. In accordance with this design, while they were in the wilderness, in no danger of intermingling with other nations, the institution was neglected. But, as soon as they enter the populous land of Canaan, where there is danger of such intermingling, the separating mark is put upon them.

From these two considerations, we see that there is no inconsistency between circumcision and baptism, even if the latter is admitted to be a seal of righteousness of faith, which language is nowhere applied to it in the Scriptures. Neither is there inconsistency between it and any thing in the gospel scheme; for Paul declares: "In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love." Thence, he enjoins: "Is any man called, being circumcised, let him not be uncircumcised; is any called in uncircumcision, let him not be circumcised." So far as faith in Christ, and acceptability with him are concerned, circumcision makes a man neither better nor worse, and is, of course, not inconsistent with the obedience of faith in any respect whatever.

We next inquire, Are there any apostolic precepts which release converted Jews from the original obligation to perpetuate this rite? Paul does say, "If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;" and this, certainly, is a prohibition to the parties to whom it is addressed. If it was addressed to Jewish Christians, then it is certainly wrong for the institution to be perpetuated among them. But neither Paul nor any of the apostles so understood it. That Paul did not is proved by the fact that he circumcised Timothy; and that the other apostles did not, is proved conclusively by the conference which took place in Jerusalem upon Paul's last visit to that place. James says to him, "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 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." This speech shows that James considered it slanderous to say that Paul taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; and Paul's ready consent to the proposition made to him shows that he agreed with James. Yet this occurred after he had written the epistle to the Galatians, in which he says, "If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." There could not be clearer proof that this remark was not intended for Jewish Christians.

Even James, 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." 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, that there never did arise among the disciples any difference of opinion as to the propriety of circumcising Jews. This was granted by all. But the controversy had exclusive reference to the Gentiles; and the fact that the Judaizers based their plea for circumcising Gentiles upon the continued validity of the rite among the Jews, is one of the strongest proof that all the disciples considered it perpetual. 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 subverted, at once, the very foundation of their argument. But this fundamental assumption was admitted and acted upon by Paul himself, and no inspired man ever called it in question.

That it was the Gentiles alone who were forbidden to be circumcised, is further evident from the context of this prohibition in Galatians. This epistle was addressed to Gentiles, as is evident from the remark in the fourth chapter, "Howbeit, then, when you knew not God, you did service to them who by nature are no gods?" The circumcision of the Gentiles is not, however, considered apart from the purpose for which it was done. It is often the purpose alone which gives moral character to an action; and in this case it gave to this action its chief moral turpitude. The purpose for which the Judaizers desired the Gentiles to be circumcised was that they might be brought under the law as a means of justification. Hence Paul adds to the declaration we are considering: "I testify again to every man who submits to circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You have ceased from Christ, whoever of you are being justified by the law, you have fallen away from favor." This can not refer to Jews, for it would make Paul himself and all the Jewish Christians "debtors to do the whole law;" a conclusion in direct conflict with one of the main arguments of this epistle. It must, then, refer to Gentiles who were considering the propriety of circumcision as a condition of justification by the law.

We can now account for Paul's stern refusal to circumcise Titus. He was a Gentile, and could not with propriety be circumcised unless he desired to unite himself nationally with the Jewish people. But if, with Paul's consent, he should do this, his example would be used as a precedent to justify all other Gentile disciples in doing the same; and thus, in a short time, circumcision would cease to be a distinguishing mark of the offspring of Abraham, and the original design of the rite would be subverted. Moreover, to have circumcised him under the demand that was made by the Pharisees, would have been a virtual admission that it was necessary to justification, which could not be admitted without abandoning the liberty of Christ for the bondage of the law.

The case of Timothy was quite different. He was a half-blood Jew, and therefore belonged, in part, to the family of Abraham. He could be circumcised, not on the ground of its being necessary as a part of a system of justification by law, but because he was an heir of the everlasting covenant with Abraham. This, however, was not the chief reason for which Paul circumcised him, for Luke says it was "on account of the Jews who dwelt in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek." In this reason there are two considerations combined, the latter qualifying the former. The fact that his father was known to be a Greek is given to account for the fact that Paul yielded to the prejudices of the Jews. If his father and mother both had been Jews, Paul might have acted from the binding nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Or if both had been Greeks, he would have disregarded the clamor of the Jews, as he had done in the case of Titus. But the mixed parentage of Timothy made his case a peculiar one. The marriage of his mother to a Greek was contrary to the law of Moses. Whether the offspring from such a marriage should be circumcised, or not, the law did not determine. The Jewish rabbis taught that the mother should not circumcise the child without the consent of the father, which was to admit that his circumcision was not obligatory. Paul did not, then, feel bound by the Abrahamic covenant to circumcise him, but did so to conciliate the "Jews who dwelt in those quarters," who had, doubtless, already objected to the prominent position assigned to one in Timothy's anomalous condition. It was, as all the commentators agree, a matter of expediency; but not, as they also contend, because it was indifferent whether any one were circumcised or not, but because it was indifferent whether one like Timothy were circumcised or not. It was an expediency that applied only to the case of a half-blood Jew with a Greek father; and it would, therefore, be most unwarrantable to extend it to the case of full-blooded Jews.

The remark of Paul that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God," is readily explained in the light of the above remarks, and of its own context. It is immediately preceded by these words: "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 wherein 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; which expression means to act as if they were uncircumcised by neglecting it in reference to their children. For to become uncircumcised literally is impossible. That circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, means, therefore, simply that it is indifferent whether a man had been, before he was called, a Jew or a Gentile; but it is far from indicating that it is innocent in a Jew to neglect this rite, or in a Gentile to observe it.

If we have properly collated the apostolic teaching on this subject, the conclusion of the whole matter is this: that Christian Jews, Ishmaelites, or Edomites, are under the same obligation to circumcise their children that the twelve tribes were in Egypt, and that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau were during the period of the law of Moses. This being so, the pedobaptist conceit that baptism has taken the place of circumcision is shown to be absurd, by the fact that circumcision still occupies its own place. It is undeniable that during the whole apostolic period Jewish disciples observed both baptism and circumcision, and as both these could not occupy the same place at the same time, their proper places must be different. According to apostolic precedent, both should still continue among the Jews; neither one taking the place of the other, but one serving as a token of the fleshly covenant with Abraham, the other as an institution of the new covenant, and a condition, both to Jew and Gentile, of the remission of sins.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. περιέτεμεν αὐτόν, he 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 dear, 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. λαβὼν περιέτ.] As E. V. took and circumcised him. Every Israelite might perform the rite; see Winer, Realw., art. ‘Beschneidung.’

διὰ τ. Ἰουδ.] That he might not at once, wherever he preached, throw a stumbling-block before the Jews, by having with him one by birth a Jew, but uncircumcised. There was here no concession in doctrine at all, and no reference whatever to the duty of Timotheus himself in the matter. In the case of Titus, a Greek, he dealt otherwise, no such reason existing: Gal 2:3.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To go forth [εξελθειν] . The word is used of going forth as a missionary in Luk 9:6; 3Jo 1:7.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.