English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...when he himself spoke strongly against it?
ACTS 16: 1-3-

2006-07-04 18:04:01 · 8 answers · asked by SeeTheLight 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Paul's action in having Timothy circumcised is not necessary unconsistent with what he taught in Galatians, since the two incidents are different.

Paul was violently opposed to any who made circucision necessary for salvation. But he never opposed it as helpful for evangelism.

Indeed, Paul said elsewhere, "to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews " 1 Cor 9:20 )

However, when Judaizers insistead that "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" ( Acts 15:1 ), then Paul took an intractable stand against circumcision.

2006-07-07 20:03:20 · update #1

8 answers

So that Timothy would be accepted by the Jews he wasgoing to work with.

2006-07-04 18:09:48 · answer #1 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 1 0

Timothy's mother was Jewish, therefore Timothy was Jewish, therefore according to the Bible Timothy should have been circumcised on the 8th day. Since he wasn't, it was like Joshua chapter 5 when those who had not been circumcised all got circumcised.

Paul didn't speak strongly against circumcision. The accusation that he was telling Jewish parents not to circumcise their sons was completely false. Instead he was just telling Gentiles that they didn't have to become circumcised in order to live a righteous life. (Which is exactly what Judaism still tells Gentiles.) In fact Paul told the Romans "What value is there in circumcision? Much in EVERY way!" (Romans 3:1-2)

2006-07-05 03:27:26 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel 6 · 0 0

This is an excellent question. And yes, Paul was very much against Gentiles needing to be circumcised.

However, the situation with Titus appears to be a special situation brought on by some conflicts within the community.

You are asking a question which even Bible scholars have questions about. I thought you might want to have a look at the website here where a discussion of the translation issues is taking place --you can read of several points of view:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20050227/005339.html

2006-07-05 01:13:45 · answer #3 · answered by Ponderingwisdom 4 · 0 0

Maybe because Paul was teaching his young protege this principle about doing God's Kingdom work and reaching the lost.

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

2006-07-08 02:43:02 · answer #4 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0 0

All jewish men are circumcised. If Timothy was to follow the teachings of paul, he had to become a jew, fully.

2006-07-05 01:10:00 · answer #5 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0 0

"So that Timothy would be accepted by the Jews he was going to work with."

Talk about the hypocrisy!
You don't need to follow someone else's faith just so you can get them, especially when you are preaching the truth.

Did the Jews pulled down the pants of other person before they started the conversation?

2006-07-05 02:10:32 · answer #6 · answered by Mesum 4 · 0 0

Because Paul was a nutbag who hated women and feared sexuality.

2006-07-05 06:49:10 · answer #7 · answered by belladona317 2 · 0 0

Paul was insane.

2006-07-05 01:09:33 · answer #8 · answered by lenny 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers