사도행전 16:3 주석

It is some rebuke to Barnabas that after he left Paul we hear no more of him, of what he did or suffered for Christ. But Paul, as he was recommended by the brethren to the grace of God, so his services for Christ after this are largely recorded; we are to attend him in this chapter from place to place, wherever he came doing good, either watering or planting, beginning new work or improving what was done. Here is, I. The beginning of his acquaintance with Timothy, and taking him to be his assistant (Act 16:1-3). II. The visit he made to the churches for their establishment (Act 16:4, Act 16:5). III. His call to Macedonia (after a restraint he had been under from going to some other places), and his coming to Philippi, the chief city of Macedonia, with his entertainment there (Act 16:6-13). IV. The conversion of Lydia there (Act 16:14, Act 16:15). V. The casing of an evil spirit out of a damsel (Act 16:16-18). VI. The accusing and abusing of Paul and Silas for it, their imprisonment, and the indignities done them (Act 16:19-24). VII. The miraculous conversion of the jailer to the faith of Christ (Act 16:25-34). VIII. The honourable discharge of Paul and Silas by the magistrates (Act 16:35-40).

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra,.... Which were cities of Lycaonia, Act 14:6 after Paul had gone through Syria and Cilicia; in the last of these places, he had been stoned, and yet goes thither again; none of these things moved him from the preaching of the Gospel, and from the care of the churches, such zeal, courage, and intrepidity was he possessed of: and behold a certain disciple was there: a converted person, a believer in Christ, one that had learned to know and deny himself, and understood the way of salvation by Christ, and was a follower of him; whether the apostle was an instrument of his conversion, when he was before in these parts, is not certain, though probable, since he often calls him his son; nor is it so evident whether he was at Derbe or at Lystra, though the latter seems most likely, since a report was given of him by the brethren there, and at Iconium, when no mention is made of Derbe, in the following verse: named Timotheus; or Timothy, the same person to whom afterwards the apostle wrote two epistles: it is a name much used among the Greeks, and his father was a Greek; one of this name, who was an historian among the Greeks, is frequently mentioned by Laertius (r); and there was another of this name, the son of Conon, an Athenian general (s); and another that was a captain or general of Antiochus, "Afterward he passed over to the children of Ammon, where he found a mighty power, and much people, with Timotheus their captain.'' (1 Maccabees 5:6) "Now Timotheus, whom the Jews had overcome before, when he had gathered a great multitude of foreign forces, and horses out of Asia not a few, came as though he would take Jewry by force of arms.'' (2 Maccabees 10:24) the name signifies one that honoured God, or was honoured by God; both were true in this disciple of Christ: the son of a certain woman which was a Jewess, and believed; his mother was a Jewish woman, but a believer in Christ, her name was Eunice, Ti2 1:5 but his father was a Greek; a Gentile, an uncircumcised one, and so he seems to have remained, by his sons not being circumcised. (r) De Vit. Philosoph. l. 3. in Vit. Platon. & l. 4. Vit. Speusippi, & l. 5. Vit. Aristotel. (s) Aelian. Hist. Var. l. 2. c. 10, 18. & l. 3. c. 16, 47.

Him would Paul have to go forth with him,.... 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: and took and circumcised him; 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 because of the Jews which were in those quarters; 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, Co1 9:20 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). (t) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 27. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilchot. Mila, c. 2. sect. 1.

Whatever … [the gnostic] has in his mind, he bears on his tongue, to those who are worthy to hear, speaking as well as living from assent and inclination. For he both thinks and speaks the truth; unless at any time, medicinally, as a physician for the safety of the sick, he may deceive or tell an untruth, according to the Sophists. To illustrate: the noble apostle circumcised Timothy, though loudly declaring and writing that circumcision made with hands profits nothing. But that he might not, by dragging all at once away from the law to the circumcision of the heart through faith those of the Hebrews who were reluctant listeners, compel them to break away from the synagogue, he, "accommodating himself to the Jews, became a Jew that he might gain all." He, then, who submits to accommodate himself merely for the benefit of his neighbors, for the salvation of those for whose sake he accommodates himself, not partaking in any dissimulation through the peril impending over the just from those who envy them, such a one by no means acts with compulsion. But for the benefit of his neighbors alone, he will do things that would not have been done by him primarily, if he did not do them on their account. Such a one gives himself: for the church; for the disciples whom he has begotten in faith; for an example to those who are capable of receiving the supreme economy of the philanthropic and God-loving instructor, for confirmation of the truth of his words, for the exercise of love to the Lord. Such a one is unenslaved by fear, true in word, enduring in labor, never willing to lie by uttered word and in it always securing sinlessness; since falsehood, being spoken with a certain deceit, is not an inert word but operates to mischief.

He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, which incidents are described in the Acts.

Now, if the apostle had even absolutely permitted marriage when one's partner has been lost subsequently to (conversion to) the faith, he would have done (it), just as (he did) the other (actions) which he did adversely to the (strict) letter of his own rule, to suit the circumstances. of the times: circumcising Timotheus on account of "supposititious false brethren; "and leading certain "shaven men" into the temple on account of the observant watchfulness of the Jews-he who chastises the Galatians when they desire to live in (observance of) the law.

[But] perhaps it has been recorded at some time or other with good reason that even the true worshiper who worships in spirit and truth performs certain symbolic acts so that, by acting in a most accommodating manner, he might free those who are enslaved to the symbol and bring them to the truth that the symbols represent. Paul appears to have done this in the case of Timothy, and perhaps also in Cenchrea and Jerusalem, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles.

There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of people’s lives, which are also called two Testaments, or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two earthquakes; the one from idols to the law, the other from the law to the gospel. And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved. Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden or at the first movement of the endeavor. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees that are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Therefore God did not think it behooved him to benefit the unwilling but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a tutor or physician he partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as doctors do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits that custom and use have made honorable. For instance, the first cut off the idol but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them; in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time administered circumcision and submitted to legal purification, he advanced till he could say, and I, brothers, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.

Before blessed Paul, who himself had received circumcision, sent Timothy to teach the Jews, he first circumcised him in order that Timothy, as teacher, might be more acceptable to his audience. So Paul [actually] engaged in circumcision in order to abolish it. He knew why he had circumcised Timothy but chose not to disclose his reasons to the disciples. In fact, if they had known that he had circumcised him with the intention of abolishing circumcision, they would have not listened to anything Timothy had to say, and all the progress he had achieved would have been lost. Indeed, their ignorance was quite useful. As long as they believed that he circumcised Timothy in order to preserve the law, they generously received him and his doctrine. Therefore, by receiving [that doctrine] little by little, and by being taught, they abandoned their old customs. However, this would never have happened if they had known the reason from the beginning. In fact, if they had known, they would have opposed the circumcision and by opposing it they would have remained in their previous error.

It is indeed amazing, the wisdom of Paul! He that has had so many battles about circumcision, he that moved all things to this end, and did not give over until he had carried his point, now that the decree is made sure, circumcises the disciple. He not only does not forbid others, but himself does this thing. "Him," it says, "he would have to go forth with him." And the wonder is this, that he even took him unto him. "Because of the Jews," it says, "which were in those parts": for they would not endure to hear the word from one uncircumcised. Nothing could be wiser. So that in all things he looked to what was profitable: he did nothing upon his own preference.

And what (then)? Mark the success: he circumcised, that he might take away circumcision: for he preached the decrees of the Apostles. He was about to make him a bishop, and it was not meet that he should be uncircumcised. Since therefore he was about to preach, that he might not smite the Jews a double blow, he circumcised Timothy. And yet he was but half (a Jew by birth), his father being a Greek: but yet, because that was a great point carried in the cause of the Gentiles, he did not care for this: for the Word must needs be disseminated: therefore also he with his own hands circumcised him.

As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, performing a vow at Cenchrea and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, it is manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation. [His intent was] to prevent people from believing that he condemned, as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites that God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it and as shadows of things to come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught people “to forsake Moses.” This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, “If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” LETTER 82.

He circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places. Not that he believed the figures of the law would bring any utility with the truth of the Gospel shining forth, but so that the Jews would not fall away from the faith because of the Gentiles. Though these old shadows were to be gradually taken away, as was the moral depravity of the Gentiles, as said above. For those legal shadows, sometimes established by the Lord, were sometimes used by the Apostles in those times to avoid the infidelity of the Jews. But the Gentile institution, truly found by Satan, was never touched by the saints.

And taking him, he circumcised him because of the Jews. It is rightly asked why the Apostle, who circumcised Timothy, refused to circumcise Titus, as he himself writes to the Galatians. But it must be understood that he circumcised Timothy to avoid scandal among the Jews, to show through him that he does not condemn the sacraments of the Mosaic law, but does not impose them on the Gentiles as necessary for salvation. But after he circumcised Timothy, certain Jews, who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised because they said that without those sacraments they could not be saved, began to boast and say: "Because Paul also holds this view, which we say, that without these sacraments there is no salvation. For if he does not believe this, why did he circumcise Timothy?" When Paul heard this, who did it out of freedom, not necessity, to avoid scandal among the Jews, not for Timothy's salvation, he saw that they had taken the occasion to preach something else and to cause a bad suspicion towards Paul, and he did not want to circumcise Titus. It is therefore apparent why he wanted to circumcise one and not the other: he wanted to circumcise the first to avoid scandal among the Jews, and did not want to circumcise the latter because of the opportunity for misbelief.

"Taking him, he circumcised him for the sake of the Jews." The wisdom of Paul is worthy of great admiration. He who so championed against the circumcision of the Gentiles and who drove everything forward until the question was resolved, circumcised his own disciple. He not only did not forbid this to others, but even did it himself. In every matter he had benefit in mind and did nothing without purpose. And one must also marvel at how Paul disposed him toward circumcision. "On account of the Jews who were in those places." Because they would never have dared to listen to the word of God from an uncircumcised person. And what then? Pay attention to the justification of this act. Paul circumcised Timothy in order to abolish circumcision; he was not supporting circumcision, but wanted to fulfill a most important task pleasing to all the apostles, because if Timothy had not been circumcised and at the same time were a teacher of the Jews, then everyone would have turned away from him. If the Jews already so strongly accused Paul on account of Trophimus the Ephesian, since they thought that Paul had brought him into the temple (and he was one of the Greeks), then what would Paul himself have had to endure if an uncircumcised man were with him as a teacher? But look: he is justified both in the opinion of the apostles, and he speaks in the temple about the fulfillment of this justification. He did everything for the salvation of the Jews. One could perhaps point out that Peter too concealed himself under the guise of Judaism... And this in no way harmed the apostles; on the contrary, the fact that the Jews had such teachers who, in their opinion, observed the law, served as an occasion for their conversion and the beginning of their faith in Christ.

Paul, coming to Derbe and Lystra, meets with Timothy, the son of a Jewess by a Greek father, whom he circumcises and takes with him into his work, Act 16:1-3. As they pass through the different cities, they deliver the apostles' decrees to the Churches; and they are established in the faith, and daily increase in numbers, Act 16:4, Act 16:5. They travel through Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, and to Troas, Act 16:6-8. Where Paul has a vision, relative to his preaching in Macedonia, Act 16:9, Act 16:10. Leaving Troas, he sails to Samothracia and Neapolis, and comes to Philippi in Macedonia, Act 16:11, Act 16:12. Lydia, a seller of purple, receives the apostles teaching; and she and her family are baptized, Act 16:13-16. A young woman, with a spirit of divination, dispossessed by St. Paul, Act 16:16-18. Her masters, finding their gain by her soothsaying gone, make an attack upon Paul and Silas, drag them before the magistrates, who command them to be beaten, thrust into the closest prison, and their feet made fast in the stocks, Act 16:19-24. Paul and Silas singing praises at midnight, the prison doors are miraculously opened, and all the bonds of the prisoners loosed, Act 16:25, Act 16:26. The keeper being alarmed, supposing that the prisoners were fled, is about to kill himself, but is prevented by Paul, Act 16:27-28. He inquires the way of salvation, believes, and he and his whole family are baptized, Act 16:29-34. The next morning the magistrates order the apostles to be dismissed, Act 16:35, Act 16:36. Paul pleads his privilege as a Roman, and accuses the magistrates of injustice, who, being alarmed, come themselves to the prison, deliver them, and beg them to depart from the city, Act 16:37-39. They leave the prison, enter into the house of Lydia, comfort the brethren, and depart, Act 16:40.

Took and circumcised him - 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. The circumcision of Timothy was a merely prudential 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, for this he had before, through the faith of Christ. In Gal 2:3-5, we read that Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles, notwithstanding the entreaties of some zealous Judaizing Christians, as their object was to bring him under the yoke of the law: here, the case was widely different, and the necessity of the measure indisputable.

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra; and, behold, a certain disciple was there--that is, at Lystra (not Derbe, as some conclude from Act 20:4). named Timotheus--(See on Act 14:20). As Paul styles him "his own son in the faith" (Ti1 1:2), he must have been gained to Christ at the apostle's first visit; and as Paul says he "had fully known his persecutions which came on him at Lystra" (Ti2 3:10-11), he may have been in that group of disciples that surrounded the apparently lifeless body of the apostle outside the walls of Lystra, and that at a time of life when the mind receives its deepest impressions from the spectacle of innocent suffering and undaunted courage [HOWSON]. His would be one of "the souls of the disciples confirmed" at the apostle's second visit, "exhorted to continue in the faith, and" warned "that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Act 14:21-22). the son of a certain . . . Jewess--"The unfeigned faith which dwelt first in his grandmother Lois" descended to "his mother Eunice," and thence it passed to this youth (Ti2 1:5), who "from a child knew the Holy Scriptures" (Ti2 3:15). His gifts and destination to the ministry of Christ had already been attested (Ti1 1:18; Ti1 4:14); and though some ten years after this Paul speaks of him as still young (Ti1 4:12), "he was already well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium" (Act 16:2), and consequently must have been well known through all that quarter. but his father was a Greek--Such mixed marriages, though little practiced, and disliked by the stricter Jews in Palestine, must have been very frequent among the Jews of the dispersion, especially in remote districts, where but few of the scattered people were settled [HOWSON].

Him would Paul have to go forth with him--This is in harmony with all we read in the Acts and Epistles of Paul's affectionate and confiding disposition. He had no relative ties which were of service to him in his work; his companions were few and changing; and though Silas would supply the place of Barnabas, it was no weakness to yearn for the society of one who might become, what Mark once appeared to be, a son in the Gospel [HOWSON]. And such he indeed proved to be, the most attached and serviceable of his associates (Phi 2:19-23; Co1 4:17; Co1 16:10-11; Th1 3:1-6). His double connection, with the Jews by the mother's side and the Gentiles by the father's, would strike the apostle as a peculiar qualification for his own sphere of labor. "So far as appears, Timothy is the first Gentile who after his conversion comes before us as a regular missionary; for what is said of Titus (Gal 2:3) refers to a later period" [WIES]. But before his departure, Paul took and circumcised him--a rite which every Israelite might perform. because of the Jews . . . for they knew all that his father was a Greek--This seems to imply that the father was no proselyte. Against the wishes of a Gentile father no Jewish mother was, as the Jews themselves say, permitted to circumcise her son. We thus see why all the religion of Timothy is traced to the female side of the family (Ti2 1:5). "Had Timothy not been circumcised, a storm would have gathered round the apostle in his farther progress. His fixed line of procedure was to act on the cities through the synagogues; and to preach the Gospel to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. But such a course would have been impossible had not Timothy been circumcised. He must necessarily have been repelled by that people who endeavored once to murder Paul because they imagined he had taken a Greek into the temple (Act 21:29). The very intercourse of social life would have been almost impossible, for it was still "an abomination" for the circumcised to eat with the uncircumcised" [HOWSON]. In refusing to compel Titus afterwards to be circumcised (Gal 2:3) at the bidding of Judaizing Christians, as necessary to salvation, he only vindicated "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:5); in circumcising Timothy, "to the Jews he became as a Jew that he might gain the Jews." Probably Timothy's ordination took place now (Ti1 4:14; Ti2 1:6); and it was a service, apparently, of much solemnity--"before many witnesses" (Ti1 6:12).