ACTS 16:1-3

Q:Why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:1-3, when in Acts 15:13-29 they had agreed at the Jerusalem Council not to burden Gentiles with circumcision?

I will rely mainly on T. R. Schreiner for my answer here (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 139).

The standard interpretation given for Paul's seemingly inconsistent action is that according to Jewish law Timothy would have been considered a Jew since one's “Jewishness” was solely determined through the mother. Therefore Paul was not circumcising a Gentile at all.

The reality is a little more complicated. In fact, even though Jews today do use this criterion to determine whether one is a Jew, that ruling is only evidenced by writings much later than the time of Luke. It may or may not have been in effect during the first century AD.

In any case, Timothy's status was ambiguous. “Paul wanted to show that he did not forbid circumcision if there was any connection with the Jewish people...But when circumcision was required for salvation, then Paul resisted it adamantly.”

However, the main motivation behind Paul's actions is implied in the verses under question. “Paul circumcised Timothy for cultural reasons so that he could bring his Jewish brother with him into the synagogues when he preached the gospel.”

This is an extension of Paul's overriding principle: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 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...I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel...” (I Corinthians 9:19-23)