Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email href=”mailto:faithquestions@catholicexchange.com”>faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I enjoyed the study on Galations very much and I am looking forward to the next study. However I was confused two weeks ago when the daily reading from Acts 16:3 said that Paul had Timothy circumcised. In Galations, Paul went to great lengths to impress upon the Galations that circumcision was not necessary to become a Christian. Why did Paul have Timothy obey the old law?
John Kearney
Dear John:
Paul's practice is actually consistent here. Paul reject categorically the notion that circumcision is salvific. He insists that grace received through faith in Christ is what saves us and that the ceremonial works of the law can therefore not be imposed on Gentiles in order to make the them “worthy” of grace.
But at the same time, Paul tells us he is all things to all, in order to win some for Christ. That is, he takes care not to introduce any unnecessary impediment to scandalize anyone. In the case of Gentiles, it is the unnecessary impediment of circumcision. In the case of Jews, it is the unnecessary impediment of making them think that their culture and tradition must be jettisoned in order to believe in Jesus. Both these impediments are false. Jews may, if they like, circumcise their children, as long as they a) do not imagine that by doing so they are earning the free grace of Christ and b) do not try impose the ceremonial law on Gentile converts as being necessary for salvation.
Why then did Paul circumcise Timothy (and Timothy agree to be circumcised)? Not because either of them believed circumcision saved, but because they were trying to not give unnecessary scandal to Jews who were highly suspicious that Timothy (who was half-Jewish) was Exhibit A in proving that the gospel was some sort of plot to undermine the law of Moses and wean Jews away from fidelity to Moses. Paul and Timothy made a concession to the weak consciences of their Jewish neighbors, just as Paul would make similar concessions concerning meat sacrificed to idols:
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess nowledge.” “Knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by Him. Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall. (1 Corinthians 8:1-13)
Hope that helps.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
