Paul's moment of weakness?

Ps104_33 · Nov 17, 2002

While reading through the book of Acts, I came to chapter 15 where the Council at Jerusalem was held to discuss the issue of circumcision. It was settled that believers were not obligated to be circumcised ( 15:19-20).
Then in the very next chapter Paul meets Timothy and took him to be circumcised for fear of the Jews. This just doesnt seem like Paul compromise like this, especially after what transpired in the preceding chapter. What are your thoughts?

[ November 17, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

Aaron · Nov 17, 2002

The issue at the Apostolic council, in my view, was whether circumcision was required to be saved. Paul's circumcision of Timothy was so that the common Jews, in their weak and superstitious thinking, would not be offended.

However, when the Judaizers, who creep into to churches seeking to re-establish the Law, demanded that Titus be circumcised, Paul did not cave, Gal. 2:3-5.

rsr · Nov 17, 2002

Timothy's mother was Jewish, his father Greek. In order to minister to the synagogues, apparently Paul felt it important that Timothy submit to Jewish custom. As Paul reminded the churches, there was no more observant Jew than himself.

Titus, on the other hand, was a Gentile, and Paul had no problem defending his freedom from the Law.

[ November 17, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

donnA · Nov 17, 2002

Some taught that circumcision was needed for thr gentile to become a christian, alnog with following other jewish laws(aren't we the same way today), and Paul said no, you do not hav to be a jew first to be a chrsitan( no you do not have to be circumcised first), but Timothy was circumcised so that when he ministered to the jews(being jewish himself) they would accept him and what he had to say.
It ties into what Paul said, (to me it does anyway), I ahve become all things to all people, as long as it does not violate the word of God.

mountainrun · Nov 18, 2002

Timothy's mother was Eunice, a Jewish believer.
His father was Greek. Timothy was not circumcised by Paul for salvation, but for expediency's sake.
If he were not a circumcised Jew, he would be of little help in evangelizing the Jews.
He would have restricted access to the synogogues.
It would have been a stumbling block to the Jews, thinking that Timothy may have renounced his Jewish heritage.
Remember that becoming a Christian didn't mean that you were no longer Jewish.
The key is that Paul did not do this for salvation, which is what he condemned in the Judaizers.

MR

Dr. Bob · Nov 18, 2002

Don't we still tend to do things to accomodate our ministry either to weaker Christians or to the unsaved? We're not so far removed from the same thinking.

And it is not bad. Why cause a weaker Christian to stumble? Why "turn off" the unsaved (by our clothes, hair, mannerism)?

Not talking about us compromising our testimony, but not offending.

Ransom · Nov 18, 2002

From a Sunday school lesson I gave on this very subject (specifically, Galatians 2:1-10, which deals with the same subject matter) a few months ago:

The simple answer is that Timothy is not Titus, and the situation is not the same.

First of all, Timothy was Jewish on his mother’s side; that meant he was effectively Jewish, too. Paul’s argument was that Gentiles need not be circumcised to be accepted by God; he was not arguing that Christian Jews were to give up their Jewish identity as well. On the other hand, Titus was not Jewish at all, but a Greek. He had no Jewish identity.

Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews in the area. They knew Timothy’s family, and they also knew that he was half Greek. Paul had Timothy circumcised to identify him with the Jewish side of his heritage rather than the Gentile. In effect, Paul was carrying out his policy of “[t]o the Jews” becoming “as a Jew, so that I might win Jews.” Timothy’s circumcision had nothing to do with the truth of the Gospel itself, but it did get rid of that one excuse those Jews might have used to reject the Gospel because of who was preaching it.

In Titus’ case, on the other hand, it was not just a matter of respecting a tradition. Paul flatly rejected Titus’ circumcision because in this case, the very content of the Gospel was at stake. He admits as much to the Galatians, saying, “we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you” (Gal. 2:5). Paul would concede a point of tradition for the sake of the Jews, but he would not concede a point of truth for the sake of false Christians. It defies all logic that Paul would submit to the very concession he was opposing, then announce to the Galatians that, nonetheless, the integrity of his Gospel was intact!
Click to expand...

Paul's moment of weakness?

Ps104_33 New Member

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

donnA Active Member

mountainrun New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Ransom Active Member

Useful Searches

Paul's moment of weakness?

Ps104_33 New Member

Aaron Member Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b> Moderator

donnA Active Member

mountainrun New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

Ransom Active Member

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator