3<\/strong>. and circumcised him<\/em> ] 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<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n Him would Paul have … – <\/B>This was an instance of Pauls selecting young men of piety for the holy ministry. It shows:<\/P> (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.<\/P> (2) That Paul sought proper qualifications, and valued them. Those were:<\/P> <\/p>\n And took and circumcised him – <\/B>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<\/span>, Act 15:28-29<\/span>), 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 Pauls uniform and avowed principle of conduct, 1Co 9:20<\/span>, And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. Compare Act 21:23-26<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Act 16:3-5<\/span><\/p>\n Him would Paul have to go forth with him.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Using new converts<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Paul and Timothy colleagues<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The decrees of the Church at Jerusalem<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Confirmation.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Augmentation. (W. Burkitt.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And so were the Churches established<\/strong>.—<\/em><\/p>\n The establishment and increase of the Church<\/strong><\/p>\n 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:–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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<\/span>; 2Ti 1:13; 1Ti 6:3<\/span>; Tit 1:9<\/span>; 1Jn 2:21<\/span>; 1Jn 2:24<\/span>). 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<\/span>; 1Ti 2:4<\/span>). 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.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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<\/span>) 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).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The establishment and increase of the Church<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The devotional spirit of the early Christians, combined with their fervent zeal.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 3<\/span>. Took and circumcised him<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I>. The circumcision of Timothy was a merely prudential<\/I> 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<\/I>, for this he had before, through the faith of Christ. In Ga 2:3-5<\/span>, we read that Paul refuses to circumcise Titus<\/I>, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles<\/I>, notwithstanding the entreaties of some zealous Judaizing Christians, as their object was to bring him under the<\/I> yoke of the law<\/I>: here, the case was widely different, and the necessity of the measure indisputable.<\/P><\/p>\n 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<\/span>, but would not circumcise Titus, Gal 2:3<\/span>, 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. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. Him would Paul have to go forthwith him<\/B>This is in harmony with all we read in the Acts andEpistles of Paul’s affectionate and confiding disposition. He had norelative ties which were of service to him in his work; hiscompanions were few and changing; and though Silas would supply theplace of Barnabas, it was no weakness to yearn for the society of onewho might become, what Mark once appeared to be, a son<\/I> in theGospel [HOWSON]. And suchhe indeed proved to be, the most attached and serviceable of hisassociates (Phi 2:19-23<\/span>;1Co 4:17<\/span>; 1Co 16:10<\/span>;1Co 16:11<\/span>; 1Th 3:1-6<\/span>).His double connection, with the Jews by the mother’s side and theGentiles by the father’s, would strike the apostle as a peculiarqualification for his own sphere of labor. “So far as appears,Timothy is the first Gentile who after his conversion comes before usas a regular missionary; for what is said of Titus (Ga2:3<\/span>) refers to a later period” [WIES].But before his departure, Paul <\/P> took and circumcised him<\/B>arite which every Israelite might perform. <\/P> because of the Jews . . . forthey knew all that his father was a Greek<\/B>This seems to implythat the father was no proselyte. Against the wishes of a Gentilefather no Jewish mother was, as the Jews themselves say, permitted tocircumcise her son. We thus see why all the religion of Timothy istraced to the female side of the family (2Ti1:5<\/span>). “Had Timothy not been circumcised, a storm would havegathered round the apostle in his farther progress. His fixed line ofprocedure was to act on the cities through the synagogues; and topreach the Gospel to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. But sucha course would have been impossible had not Timothy been circumcised.He must necessarily have been repelled by that people who endeavoredonce to murder Paul because they imagined he had taken a Greek intothe temple (Ac 21:29<\/span>). Thevery intercourse of social life would have been almost impossible,for it was still “an abomination” for the circumcised toeat with the uncircumcised” [HOWSON].In refusing to compel Titus afterwards to be circumcised (Ga2:3<\/span>) at the bidding of Judaizing Christians, as necessary tosalvation, he only vindicated “the truth of the Gospel” (Ga2:5<\/span>); in circumcising Timothy, “to the Jews he became as aJew that he might gain the Jews.” Probably Timothy’s ordinationtook place now (1Ti 4:14<\/span>;2Ti 1:6<\/span>); and it was a service,apparently, of much solemnity”before many witnesses”(1Ti 6:12<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Him would Paul have to go forth with him<\/strong>,…. 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:<\/p>\n and took and circumcised him<\/strong>; 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<\/p>\n because of the Jews which were in those quarters<\/strong>; 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, 1Co 9:20<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n t T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 27. 1. u Maimon. Hilchot. Mila, c. 2. sect. 1.<\/p>\n Him would Paul have to go forth with him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). This one (note emphatic position) Paul wanted (first aorist active indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span> with temporal augment as if from <\/SPAN><\/span> the old form). Here was a gifted young man who was both Jew and Greek.<\/P> He took and circumcised him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Any one could perform this rite. Paul had stoutly resisted circumcision in the case of Titus, a pure Greek (Gal 2:3<\/span>; Gal 2:5<\/span>), because the whole principle of Gentile liberty was at stake. But Timothy was both Jew and Greek and would continually give offence to the Jews with no advantage to the cause of Gentile freedom. So here for the sake of expediency, “because of the Jews” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>), Paul voluntarily removed this stumbling-block to the ministry of Timothy. Otherwise Timothy could not have been allowed to preach ln the synagogues. Idem non est semper idem<\/I>. But Timothy’s case was not the case of Titus. Here it was a question of efficient service, not an essential of salvation. Hovey notes that Timothy was circumcised because of Jewish unbelievers, not because of Jewish believers.<\/P> Was a Greek <\/B> (H <\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect active in indirect assertion where ordinarily the present <\/SPAN><\/span> would be retained, possibly indicating that his father was no longer living. <\/P> <\/p>\n To go forth [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The word is used of going forth as a missionary in Luk 9:6<\/span>; 3Jo 1:7<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Him would Paul have to go forth with him;<\/strong> (touton ethelesen ho Paulos sun auto ekselthein) “This one (Timothy) Paul desired to go forth in colleague mission service with him,” as a minister and missionary helper, on the moral, ethical, legal, and spiritual premise that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses” every word should be established, Deu 17:6<\/span>; Luk 10:1-2<\/span>; Mat 18:20<\/span>; Joh 8:15-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And took him and circumcised him,”<\/strong> (kai labon perietemen auton) “And taking him (or embracing him) he circumcised him,” that without offence to the Jews he and Timothy might enter into Jewish Synagogues, 1Co 9:19-20<\/span>; Gal 2:3<\/span>; Gal 5:6<\/span>; Gal 6:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Because of the Jews which were in those quarters:”-<\/strong> (dia tous loudaious tous ontas en tois topois ekeinois) “On account of (because of) the Jews existing in those localities,” of Asia Minor, who were prejudiced against both the Gentiles and the church of Jesus Christ, Act 21:20-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “For they knew all that his father was a Greek.”<\/strong> (edeisan gar hapantes hoti Hellen ho pater autou huparchen) “For they all knew (were aware) that his father was a Greek,” a Gentile or heathen in their estimation, though the law age had passed, Luk 16:16<\/span>; Gal 3:19-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 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, ( Gen 17:13<\/span>\ud83d\ude09 but an indifferent ceremony which served only for nourishing of love, and not for any exercise of godliness. − <\/p>\n 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. − <\/p>\n 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 − (173) among the Jews; whereas Paul teacheth, that it is superfluous when we are buried with Christ by baptism, ( Col 2:11<\/span>.) It was better and more truly said in the old proverb, That the synagogue was to be buried with honor. − <\/p>\n 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, ( Gal 2:3<\/span>,) 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 − (174) 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 hey 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 − (175) 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. − <\/p>\n 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. − <\/p>\n (173) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Locum adhuc habere apud Judaeos,” is still binding on the Jews. <\/p>\n (174) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Puram doctrinam,” the pure doctrine. <\/p>\n (175) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Sincera fides,” sincere faith. <\/p>\n (3) And took and circumcised him.<\/strong>The act seems at first inconsistent with St. Pauls conduct as to Titus (Gal. 2:3<\/span>), and with his general teaching as to circumcision (Gal. 5:2-6<\/span>). 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<\/span>); 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<\/span>; 1Co. 9:20<\/span>), 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<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> Would<\/strong> Willed or determined to have. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Took<\/strong> Implying the perfect mastery of the apostle in matters, yet not excluding the free consent of Timothy. <\/p>\n Circumcised him<\/strong> 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<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n His father was a Greek<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n 3<\/em>. Man of Macedonia, and Crossing to Europe<\/em> , Act 16:9-12<\/em><\/span><\/em> .<\/p>\n ‘Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.’<\/p>\n It was the normal Jewish position that a son would take on the religion of his mother (it certainly became so later), so that Paul would be inclined to see Timothy as a Jew, especially if his father was dead, which the verb might suggest. Recognising that by being circumcised Timothy’s usefulness in evangelising Jews would be greatly increased, he had no hesitation in suggesting that he be so. This would then give him full acceptability with both Jew and Gentile. Uncircumcised there would be a tendency for Jews to frown on his position even more than they would on a Gentile for they would see him as an apostate Jew.<\/p>\n This bring out Paul’s eagerness to maintain connection with the Jews, and to keep them open to the Good News. It demonstrated his own flexibility of mind. While he had firmly rejected the idea that circumcision become binding on Gentiles, and would equally firmly have resisted any suggestion that Timothy could not be a full Christian without being circumcised, he was flexible enough to be willing for a half-Jew like Timothy to be circumcised if it would mean that it would help in the ministry among Jews. In Timothy’s case no principle was at stake. Timothy’s circumcision would be accepted by the Gentiles as being because he was a Jew, and therefore as not affecting their position, and would make the Jews see him as a fellow-Jew. It was a reflection of Paul’s determination to be all things to all men if thereby he could win them to Christ (1Co 9:20<\/span>), and of his deep concern still to reach the Jews, for whom he had a burning passion (Rom 9:2-3<\/span>).<\/p>\n We may probably also see it as signifying that Timothy in general, because of the influence of his mother and grandmother, followed Jewish customs and was not averse to the idea, indeed probably welcomed it, wishing to align himself with the Jews so that he could win them for Christ. There is no reason to doubt that the ceremony was carried through with due solemnity and with genuine religious emotion. Not only was Timothy’s mother a Jewess, but also his grandmother Lois. And they had both become genuine believers (2Ti 1:5<\/span>), who would both have brought him up to observe Jewish customs. We may also assume that Paul had recognised that Timothy’s not being circumcised had somewhat hindered his ministry among Jews.<\/p>\n The contrast between Act 16:3-4<\/span> must be seen as deliberate, even emphatic. Even while the decrees not requiring circumcision of Gentiles were being openly declared in the churches, Paul arranged for the circumcision of one who was in Jewish eyes recognised as a Jew. It was a gesture that would quieten many Jewish Christian fears. Paul supported both sides.<\/p>\n EXCURSUS on Circumcision.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The question with which we are faced when we consider circumcision is made very much apparent by putting into juxtaposition two of Paul’s statements, and two of his actions. In 1Co 7:18-19<\/span> Paul says, “Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” Yet in Gal 5:2<\/span> he writes: “Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.” What then is the difference between the two statements? The answer lies in asking the question as to whom they are addressed. The first is addressed to both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, clearly differentiating the two, the one being circumcised and the other not, the second is addressed to Christian Gentiles warning them not to cross over the line by being circumcised and making themselves Jews. The first is saying that circumcision cannot improve anyone. It is merely a sign of who is a Jew physically. What matters for all is keeping the commandments of God. The second is saying that if a Gentile considers circumcision is necessary, because it is necessary for him to become a Jew in order to be saved, he is bypassing Christ, and Christ will not profit him. He is looking for the wrong thing to save him. He is using circumcision in a way for which it was not intended.<\/p>\n This is also illustrated by Paul’s actions. When he was in Jerusalem in respect of the appeal of the Antioch Church, some Jewish brethren urgently insisted that he should circumcise Titus, a Gentile who was with him. But he sternly refused. Indeed he says, “I gave place to them by subjection, no, not for an hour” (Gal 2:5<\/span>). And his reason was so that the truth of the Gospel might remain with them. In other words the truth of the Gospel excluded the requirement for the circumcision of a Gentile in order to make him complete as a Christian. On the other hand in the case of the circumcision of Timothy he circumcised Timothy with his own hand, and this “on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters.” But this was because he was born of a Jewish mother and was therefore in the eyes of Judaism a Jew, and as uncircumcised was in their eyes as an apostate. Circumcision was therefore neither frowned on, or required,<\/p>\n This therefore brings us back to the question of the significance of circumcision. We may observe, first, that in the language of Jesus, circumcision “is not of Moses, but is of the fathers” (Joh 7:22<\/span>). This distinction is important. The obligation which the Jews were under to observe circumcision did not therefore originate in the Law of Moses, or in the covenant of Mount Sinai. It existed independently of that covenant and the Law, having originated four hundred and thirty years before the Law, and encompassed many who never submitted to the Law.<\/p>\n In fact it is quite surprising how little reference there is in the Law as given at Sinai to circumcision. It was assumed in it, almost incidentally, that once they were in the land, any male child would be circumcised on the eighth day once the impurities of childbirth had been dealt with (Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\n
\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The ideal ministry is that of partnership. Two are better than one, either as pastors or missionaries.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The messengers who delivered these decrees.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>To whom they were delivered.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The end for which they were delivered.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>The results of this delivery.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>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<\/span>; Gal 1:23<\/span>; 1Ti 5:8<\/span>; Tit 1:13<\/span>). This establishment of Christians in the faith includes–<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The connection between the establishment of Christians in the faith and the prosperity of the work of God.<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The Churches were established in the faith. The phrase is used as a comprehensive description of Christianity.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n