Paul's Hypocrisy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ICXCNIKA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ICXCNIKA

Guest
In Galatians Paul writes:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

However, in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 16, St. Luke records this:

He [Paul] came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Isn’t Paul also being a hypocrite when he has Timothy circumiced? I understand the expediency of it, but hadn’t the Church already decided that circumcision was not necessary. Shouldn’t Paul have just taken Timothy and not had him circumcised? Was he giving in to the Jews?
 
I think the only thing that comes to my mind is:

“When I was with Greeks, I became like a Greek. When I was among the Jews, I became like the Jews”. (Paraphrasing).

If Paul wanted Timothy to teach with authority to those Jews, maybe he felt it was necessary.
 
ICXCNIKA said:
In Galatians Paul writes:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

However, in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 16, St. Luke records this:

He [Paul] came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Isn’t Paul also being a hypocrite when he has Timothy circumiced? I understand the expediency of it, but hadn’t the Church already decided that circumcision was not necessary. Shouldn’t Paul have just taken Timothy and not had him circumcised? Was he giving in to the Jews?
Click to expand...
Interesting point.

I guess God is the judge. But if it was a case of hypocrisy on Paul’s part it just goes to show that, like Peter and the rest of us, Paul also is a sinner. Perhaps that is why the Holy Spirit guided Luke to include both incidents in the Book of Acts - to let all subsequent generations realize that becoming a leader in Our Lord’s Church does not confer perfection/sinlessness.

Nita
 
I have heard it suggested that Timothy might have preferred it the other way around - obey the dietary laws and skip the circumcision. 😃
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I have heard it suggested that Timothy might have preferred it the other way around - obey the dietary laws and skip the circumcision. 😃
Click to expand...
You think?!?! 😉

“You want me to what?!?! Hey, Paul, weren’t you listening at the council of Jerusalem???”
 
Technically Timothy was a Jew, not a gentile, before he became a Christian. Jewishness passes from the mother no matter what the father is. It was the gentiles who were excused from the requirements of becoming Jews before becoming Christians. I am led to believe that at least for a time Jews who converted were expected to continue following the Mosaic law when with other Jews.
 
I asked this question of a vernerable gentleman at my parish. He told me that his understandnig was that Timothy was going to preach in the synogogues (since Paul’s ministry was to the Jews) and therefore needed to be circumcised. It was a matter of expediencey rather than concern for how the Jews felt about it.

He also pointed out that Timothy was a Jew, since his mother was.
 
Paul was a hypocrite because look what the text says so “he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area,”
He was doing it for the Jewish establishment not because he wanted to please Timothy’s Jewish mother who obviously didn’t care that much that she never circumcised him prior. Timothy was a grown man for crying out loud at this point it really shoudn’t matter who his mother was the Jews wanted everyone in the Christian circles to be circumcised not just Jews but they coudl plead their case a bid more loudly perhaps because Timothy was Jewish but on the otherhand we was not a practicing Jews but a Christian convert and this was not something Peter or Paul or the Jerusalem Council found necessary only the Jews whom Paul was trying to impress were mandating this so you have to say Paul is a hypcorite here. Paul was a very humble man and said he was the lowest rank of apostle and not worthy of the title in other passages he does not pull Rank with Peter but goes to him for teaching and ruling requiring authority the oppostion to Peter’s face is so shocking because of what everyone in the early church including Paul knew that Peter was the leader of the church but Paul was a striaight shooter and called it like it is but he never put himself as an authority over Peter as protestants have misinterpreted he merely calls into question Peter’s actions which contradicted his own teachings. It would be like a bishop calling out a Pope for teaching one thing and doing another of course that was not unusual in the middle ages. But it was not to question his authority nor his teaching or authority of office.
 
ICXCNIKA said:
I asked this question of a vernerable gentleman at my parish. He told me that his understandnig was that Timothy was going to preach in the synogogues (since Paul’s ministry was to the Jews) and therefore needed to be circumcised. It was a matter of expediencey rather than concern for how the Jews felt about it.

He also pointed out that Timothy was a Jew, since his mother was.
Click to expand...
You’ve got to wonder how they could possibly have found out if he wasn’t - did they have spot checks at the synagogue doors or something? :hmmm:
 
LilyM said:
You’ve got to wonder how they could possibly have found out if he wasn’t - did they have spot checks at the synagogue doors or something? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Oh, thank goodness I put down my morning coffee before reading this!!! 😛
 
I just have to ask this question concerning Timothy and any others like him, and I don’t mean this to be a “sick” question or disrespectful in any way. But when those who entered the synagogues to teach, were they asked to “Prove” circumcision first?

I tried to ask that question in a delicate manner as possible.:o
 
love4mary said:
I just have to ask this question concerning Timothy and any others like him, and I don’t mean this to be a “sick” question or disrespectful in any way. But when those who entered the synagogues to teach, were they asked to “Prove” circumcision first?

I tried to ask that question in a delicate manner as possible.:o
Click to expand...
Oh I was much less delicate about it 😃

Circumcision is always done by a rabbi or some other religious official. So whoever circumcised Timothy could vouch for him - I suppose they could provide a written document like our baptismal certificate if necessary.
 
Wisdom said:
Paul was a hypocrite because look what the text says so “he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area,”
He was doing it for the Jewish establishment not because he wanted to please Timothy’s Jewish mother who obviously didn’t care that much that she never circumcised him prior.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that Timothy’s Greek father forbade the circumcision? “You’re not doing THAT to MY boy!!” I don’t think it’s that she didn’t care to have him circumcised, but refrained from doing so to keep peace in the family. 😃 I can relate to that - I’m in the process of becoming Catholic, coming from a “believer’s baptism” background, so my 9 yo son is not yet baptized. As much as I’d love to talk to my priest and have him baptized Catholic ASAP, my dh is not yet “on board” with the whole conversion idea so I’m not doing anything about it just yet out of submission.
Timothy was a grown man for crying out loud at this point it really shoudn’t matter who his mother was the Jews wanted everyone in the Christian circles to be circumcised not just Jews but they coudl plead their case a bid more loudly perhaps because Timothy was Jewish but on the otherhand we was not a practicing Jews but a Christian convert and this was not something Peter or Paul or the Jerusalem Council found necessary only the Jews whom Paul was trying to impress were mandating this so you have to say Paul is a hypcorite here. Paul was a very humble man and said he was the lowest rank of apostle and not worthy of the title in other passages he does not pull Rank with Peter but goes to him for teaching and ruling requiring authority the oppostion to Peter’s face is so shocking because of what everyone in the early church including Paul knew that Peter was the leader of the church but Paul was a striaight shooter and called it like it is but he never put himself as an authority over Peter as protestants have misinterpreted he merely calls into question Peter’s actions which contradicted his own teachings. It would be like a bishop calling out a Pope for teaching one thing and doing another of course that was not unusual in the middle ages. But it was not to question his authority nor his teaching or authority of office.
Click to expand...
It’s really not surprising, from what we know of Peter, that he would behave that way without conciously realizing he was being hypocritical until Paul pointed it out to him.

If Timothy was preaching in the Temple, I doubt any Jew would give him the time of day, let alone allow him to come into the Temple and preach, had he not been circumcised. It would have been a stumblingblock for them. I think it’s an amazing testimony that Timothy was willing to do that for the sake of others’ salvation.
 
rwoehmke said:
Technically Timothy was a Jew, not a gentile, before he became a Christian. Jewishness passes from the mother no matter what the father is. It was the gentiles who were excused from the requirements of becoming Jews before becoming Christians. I am led to believe that at least for a time Jews who converted were expected to continue following the Mosaic law when with other Jews.
Click to expand...
The idea of Jewishness passing only through the mother’s line is a recent development, devised by the Rabbi’s to ensure the continuation of the Jewish race in the face of atrocities and policies of systematic rape of Jewish women by gentile soldiers in Central and Eastern Europe.

In the Old Testament, the genealogies of both mother and father are important, as in the re-establishment of the levitical service in the Book of Ezra for example.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
. . .
If Timothy was preaching in the Temple, I doubt any Jew would give him the time of day, let alone allow him to come into the Temple and preach, had he not been circumcised. It would have been a stumblingblock for them. I think it’s an amazing testimony that Timothy was willing to do that for the sake of others’ salvation.
Click to expand...
Right; they would have probably stoned him. Note Acts 21:27-29. One of the major charges against Paul was that he had brought non-Jews into the Temple.
 
members.aol.com/johnprh/gatatians.html

**

St. Jerome said:
“O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter for dissimulation, because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles through fear of the Jews who’ came from James, why art thou, notwithstanding thine own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself (for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised)? Thou wilt answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.?’ If, then, thou forgiveth thyself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, forgive Peter also, who has precedence above thee, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
Click to expand...

**
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Right; they would have probably stoned him. Note Acts 21:27-29. One of the major charges against Paul was that he had brought non-Jews into the Temple.
Click to expand...
Ah yes the tolerant Jewish relgiion for the stuff we catholics get about the Inquistion and the fake Pius XII controversy they forget about how historically intolerant their religion is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top