Acts 16:1-5
Why did Paul circumcise Timothy yet he believed that it wasn't necessary for a person to be circumcised in order for that person to be saved?
Acts 21:17-29
Why did Paul go to the temple to perform works according to the law? Is this act not contrary to his teaching in Romans?
Hi,
thanks for the email. I used to find these passages strange
as well but the main issue we need to keep in front of us is whether someone is
doing these things (circumcision, the vow etc) because they believe that it some
kind of work necessary for salvation or whether it is done in order to gain an
entrance to the people you are trying to save. Here Timothy was circumcised not
because of any legal reason, but so that he could witness amongst the Jews. The
bible knowledge commentary says concerning Acts 16:1-2
"This
appears to contradict Paul’s thinking in Galatians 2:3-5 where he refused
to let Titus be circumcised. The situations, however, were different. In
Galatians 2 the issue was the method of justification; here it was a question of
not giving offense (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). The Jerusalem Council, of course, had
determined circumcision was not necessary for salvation (Acts 15:10-11, 19). In
Acts 16 Paul acted as he did for the sake of the ministry; it was a wise
move."
So 1 Cor 9:19-23 is the key -
"Though I am
free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as
possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the
law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as
to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not
having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under
Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I
became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all
possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel,
that I may share in its blessings. "
There is nothing wrong with
circumcision or non-circumcision per se. It becomes wrong when the Jews thought
they were righteous because of it. This is what Romans, Galatians etc is against.
As to Acts 21, apparently commentators are divided over whether this was a smart
move by Paul or not. I can't really say... All I know is that again, this
was not done for any legal reason. Paul saw it as an opportunity to get along
side the Jews for the sake of being able to witness to them. As he said in
Corinthians - "To those under the law I became like one under the law
(though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law."
Hope this helps,
All the best.