S
Sahara_DeSert
Guest
In Acts15 the disciples and elders seem to make it clear that the Gentiles do NOT have to be circumcised, but then in Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy. ???
- Status
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
This may be helpful.
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible
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 Galatians 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.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
*To the Jew, says he, (1 Cor. 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. *
S. Aug. ep. lxxxii. ad S. Hieronymum.
po18guy
Well-known member
From the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 3. 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)
Ver. 3. 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)
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
IMHO there appears to be two considerations to the Jewish practice of circumcision - those of cultural/familial/tribal identity [which predates Abraham], and it’s later attachment to Jewish religious rites, duties and expectations. To my mind the early ‘Jewish’ Christians still wanted [naturally] to conform to cultural/familial and ‘tribal’ identity.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Are you small “C” catholic by design, or by typographical error?
A
AugustineFL
Guest
Acts xvi.1 states that Timothy’s mother was a Jewish women, whilst his father was a Greek.
Perhaps being born of a Jewish mother and not being circumcised would be overly scandalous to the Jews?
po18guy
Well-known member
At that time, when Christianity was still developing and Paul still taught in synagogues, yes, it was.
S
Sahara_DeSert
Guest
:tsktsk: are you small “R” rudeness by design
S
Sahara_DeSert
Guest
OK, thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut…well almost everyone
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Not at all. I was interested because you did take the time and trouble to put it there and so your intent must have been to communicate. It is just that I am not sure whether you were trying to communicate that you are a Roman Catholic, or that you are catholic in the broader sense. Knowing which would help me to understand where you are coming from and construct my answer to meet your particular perspective. If that is rude, I am guilty.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I assume you are just kidding. You’re welcome.OK, thanks everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut…well almost everyone
- Status