Saturday, August 18, 2012
Acts 16 and the Unusual Rationale For Timothy's Circumcision: Question 27
Acts 16:3 is an interesting passage because it occurs right after the Jerusalem Council decision (in which it was determined that gentiles belong to the covenant) and because the author (probably Luke) cites the reason why Paul circumcised Timothy:
"Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: (2) Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.(3) Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." (Acts 16:1-3)
What an interesting reason! What does it mean? Some people get circumcised out of a sense of being called to do it (e.g. Abraham) and some people get circumcised because they're afraid NOT to get circumcised (e.g. Esther 8:17) but who ever heard of being circumcised just because you want to preach to the Jews and someone might find out that your father is a Greek? Shouldn't Paul have circumcised Timothy out of a sense of covenantal obligation given that Timothy's mother was Jewish?
ON TO THE QUESTION:
What is your interpretation of this passage? Particularly, what do you make of the rationale behind Timothy's circumcision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Peter,
ReplyDeleteread this:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/texts/ShayeDCohenJBL.pdf
Cohen is not a believer.
This looks very interesting. I'm reading it now...
DeleteShaye Cohen is one of the leading authorities on "Who was a Jew" in the First Century. The fact that the BE and DIT folks completely miss his contributions are not accidental. He is a well-known scholar. It appears it is his conclusions that they do not appreciate, because it messes with their narrative.
DeleteInstead, they rely on Joseph Goode for such things. Not to discount Joseph Goode, but it seems that his conclusions are more agreeable to their theology. Likewise his (and their) anachronistic treatment of the Noachide Laws. They are most certainly a post-Second Temple innovation - but let's not let facts get in the way in our theological superstructure.
From Shaye Cohen:
ReplyDeleteWas Timothy Jewish? In all likelihood Luke did not think so. The vast majority of ancient and medieval exegetes did not think so. There is no evidence that Paul or the Jews of Asia Minor thought so. Ambrosiaster and his medieval followers did think so, but in all likelihood this interpretation is wrong because there is no evidence that any Jew in premishnaic times thought that the child of an intermarriage followed the status of the mother. Was Timothy Jewish? The answer must be no.
I agree, Timothy was not a Jew. Those who maintain that he was seem to be doing it for a specific reason: namely to devalue any thought of following Timothy's example for Gentiles. A serious flaw in so-called "Divine Invitation Theology" and Bilateral Ecclesiology is their anachronistic treatment of Acts 16:3.
So, why did Paul circumcise Timothy? First, one must resist contrast to the episodic mention of not circumcising Titus. We have no record of Titus' circumcision - only that he wasn't in one account.
When one considers the ancient (and modern) basic requirement of physical circumcision for partaking in certain cultural as well as Scriptural events, it should be clear that a circumcised Timothy would make travel with Paul much less a problem. Even today, if you are at a public place of prayer (eg. the Kotel), the question is not "Are you Jewish?" for making a minyan. The question is "Are you circumcised?" (many Russian-born Jews are not). In other words, to be counted toward a quorum, a full pedigree is not considered - just the basic necessity of a "snipping."
Exodus 12:44-48 bears out this simply requirement. To eat the Pesach lamb even a purchased slave must be physically circumcised. The mention of the ger toshav as distinct from the "servant bought with money" discounts the anachronistic "ritual proselyte" argument.
Rick,
DeleteI agree that he was not considered a Jew at that time and that this is the only way to reconcile Acts 16 with Acts 21. However, are we then to assume that Paul and Timothy saw no value in ritual circumcision for gentiles other than to facilitate the missionizing of Jews? Is ritual circumcision of a gentile proselyte not to be construed as performance of a mitzvah in and of itself? The answer would have to be that Paul saw no value in the ritual circumcision of gentiles in that it was not a mitzvah for them. But then if it was done for appearance only and not for inherent value, would the Jews not be able to legitimately accuse Paul and Timothy of being deceptive? [NOTE: I'm not saying they were in fact being deceptive but merely questioning how to resolve the exegesis in such a way that avoids creating such an appearance]
I listen to a Hassidic Jewish site and they say that if your mother is Jewish you are Jewish...
DeleteAny thoughts?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteOr, was Paul convinced that Timothy had a genuine understanding of justification by faith alone, and that him being circumcised is not for gaining any status with God?
Dan,
DeleteBut does it not set a bad precedent, having gentiles circumcised in order to spread the gospel to Jewish communities? [I'm only asking]
But this is not the reason Paul circumcised Timothy.
ReplyDeletePaul did not want gentiles to think they needed to become Jews. He didn't want Gentiles to believe that they could become Jews. He didn't want Jews to think that they needed to cease being Jews or that they could to cease being Jews. Paul expected both Jew and Gentile to keep the commandments (1 Cor. 7:18-19).
it looks like that Paul had no problem with a Gentile remaining a Gentile, yet being circumcised. Paul would never allow a gentile to undergo the rabbinic ritual of a proselyte, thinking that this ceremony would gain him a status of "righteous."
Dan's correct. Timothy was circumcised in obedience to the commandments - not as a part of ritual conversion.
ReplyDeleteI avoid using the term "proselyte to Judaism" because it obfuscates the reality that men cannot change their ethnicity. That is what the phrase has meant since the First Century: namely, to become ethnically Jewish. Acts 17:26 teaches that is impossible. On the other hand, I practice Judaism - but that does not make me a Jew.
As for whether Paul was being dishonest - no. He always pushed the envelope, and the halacha was still in flux. The angst between the House of Shammai and House of Hillel was in large part over this issue and related issues. Do not forget, many disciples of Hillel were murdered in the generation before Yeshua's birth - ostensibly by the House of Shammai - because of the Eighteen Measures, which included decrees about "Gentile contagion" (See Acts 10).
Fast forward to Acts 21:28 and notice what they accuse Paul of. Although not true, he was known for pushing the envelope of who was acceptable in HaShem's sight.
So, circumcising Timothy makes perfect sense. If you are going to push buttons, better make sure that you are on sure footing Scripturally. By having Timothy circumcised, he at least could not be accused of traveling with an uncircumcised pagan - and Timothy was shown to be obedient to the commandment.
I share the same conclusions... :D
Delete"traveling with an uncircumcised pagan"
ReplyDeleteWhy then even mention the fact the Timothy had a Jewish mother and a Greek father, if it meant nothing and he was a pagan? I believe that it indeed meant something - he was a Jew from the halachic point of view, one whose Jewish parent failed to circumcise him. Paul corrected that omission, without contradicting his later statements opposing the circumcision of the Gentiles.
BTW, I've read Shaye Cohen, and I found that he offers no solid evidence when it comes to preference of patrilineal descent at the time of the first century. He barely touches on subject of patrilinial descent. In the end, one gets a distinct feeling of a conjecture on his part, especially the conclusion. I read the book at the time I was deeply sympathetic to the concept of patrilinalism and I still came away very underwhelmed by Cohen's support for it. When someone has to use the phrase "in all likelihood" twice in the same concluding paragraph, it tells you of the lack of certainty on the part of the author.
BTW, I've read Shaye Cohen, and I found that he offers no solid evidence when it comes to preference of patrilineal descent at the time of the first century.
DeleteYou are funny, Gene. Shaye Cohen has written extensively on the subject, in numerous books. I can't wait to read your rebuttal to him.
Pick up the TaNaKh and let me know how tribal lineage and inheritance is transmitted.
Gene,
DeleteI think it's great when scholars use phrases like "in all likelihood" because it shows that they are being humble. We could all learn from Cohen.
"I think it's great when scholars use phrases like "in all likelihood" because it shows that they are being humble. We could all learn from Cohen."
DeletePeter, scholarship is not about being humble, being nice, or being vindictive, etc. It's about finding and presenting the facts. When a scholar is not sure, he/she says "in all likelihood".
In Ezra 10 we read about the decision to send away foreign women and children born to them. Had a patrilineal descent been observed in that community and up to the first century (as some believe), Ezra and the exiles would have been sending away Jewish children to worship idols with their pagan mothers.
Gene,
DeleteDo you think Ezra was wrong to have the Jews send away their children who clearly had Jewish ancestry? Hmm? : )
Outstanding, Rick!
ReplyDeleteHave y'all ever noticed that a subject that takes many folios in the Talmud is never mentioned by the likes of FFOZ or BE folks? While it has direct bearing on Acts 10, Acts 15, Galatians etc., it is never even mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of the "subject we don't mention." It makes you wonder what about the Eighteen Measures they are afraid of...(no, wait, I think I figured it out, never mind). < grin >
Gene,
ReplyDelete"I believe that it indeed meant something - he was a Jew from the halachic point of view, one whose Jewish parent failed to circumcise him. Paul corrected that omission, without contradicting his later statements opposing the circumcision of the Gentiles."
You slip (ignorance ) is showing. Read this: (M. Kiddushin 3:12).
Jewish lieage could only be determined in marriage ruled valid. The "Marriage" of a Jewish woman to a Gentile would not be considered valid, and the children from such a marriage would not be considered Jewish. The only exception would be if the husband were a proselyte.
Dan, can you give me a link to your quote above. I don't seem to be able to find anything remotely similar in Mishnah, Kiddushin 3:12. Did you just make this up?
DeleteAre you telling me that Judaism holds that one born to a Jewish mother is actually not considered Jewish unless his/her father was a convert to Judaism? (The above example is perhaps why I should just stop wasting my time trying to reason with you.)
If I may...
DeleteI believe that a section to look at is Kiddushin 68b. Go to this link, perform search for "68b" and read the section and footnotes.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
As you can see, it's a complex subject. I'll look into doing a post about it later today.
Here's footnote 5 from the above link:
Delete"(5) [Although the text speaks both of the case of a Jewess becoming the wife of a heathen, and of a heathen becoming the wife of a Jew, yet it gives only one reason for the prohibition of intermarriage: viz., lest ‘he turn aside thy son from following after me’, a reason which, as it stands appears applicable only to one prohibition. Hence the verse must be taken not as expressing the fear lest the Jewish partner in a heathen marriage may turn aside from God, since this is evident and is equally applicable to both cases, but states an additional reason for the prohibition with reference to the offspring — the fear that the heathen father ‘will turn aside thy son’ i.e., the son of thy daughter who is legally a Jew ‘from following after me’; whereas in the case where a Jew marries a heathen woman the fear does not arise, since the child follows her status, and is not considered ‘thy son’ Rashi.] Tosaf.: Since Scripture states ‘son’ and not ‘seed’ which would include the son's son, it is evident that the fear is only for thy ‘son’ born of a Jewess, but not his son, born of a Gentile. That must be because his son is a heathen too, like the mother."
Gene,
ReplyDeleteCohen, "The beginning of Jewishness" page 305.
Dan, I am looking at page 305. Nothing from Mishnah, Kiddushin 3:12. Are you making stuff up as you go?
DeleteGene,
DeleteMoses married a Midianite yet his offspring was considered Jewish. If descent had only been reckoned only matrilineally, as it is in modern non-Messianic Orthodox Judaism, then Moses' offspring would NOT have been Jewish. Tell me, Gene, are you going to overrule Moses?
"Moses married a Midianite yet his offspring was considered Jewish."
ReplyDeleteMoses married Tzippora before Torah was given to Israel. Which explains why Abraham could marry his own sister and Jacob two sisters, something that Torah later forbade. After Torah was given to Israel, it authorized establishment of judges and Jewish courts (seat of Moses). Converts who joined the Jewish people after the Torah was given did so on terms of the Jewish people.
Gene,
DeleteShow me where the Torah of Moses prohibits using patrilineal descent as the criteria for Jewishness. If you can't, then we'll just assume patrilineal descent was normative at that time.
Peter, I am not asking you, Zion, Rick or others here to live like Jews, to believe in things Jews do, to submit to Jewish authorities or to personally conform to standards of Judaism in your lives. If you don't want to accept matrilineal descent or anything else from the Judaism - mazel tov. You are welcome to try to live according to how you imagine Moses would have lived and ruled thousands of years ago. It's a free country. If I am asking for anything, it's to have respect for Jewish sancta, traditions, and authorities if you or others seek to somehow utilize those in your worship. That's it - nothing more. But even if you don't want to respect, neither I nor other Messianic Jews (nor any other Jews) have the power to stop you from anything you want to do or say.
DeleteGene,
DeleteWhy ask me to do something that even Peter the apostle was unwilling to do? Let's not forget that, in preaching Yeshua, he opted to obey G-d rather than the Sanhedrin. What could be more disrespectful to the Sanhedrin than to publicly reject their authority and denounce them as being anti-G-d? But was he not right to do so? I will be as respectful as possible, always drawing the line on certain matters. I will concede that the Rabbis hold a certain persuasive authority; but I will never concede that they hold mandatory authority.
first of all, Peter, this is not first century. Apostles obeyed Jewish authorities in all matters and the whole Jerusalem community was held in high regard by all, because they believed that all authority was from G-d. That's why Paul apologized when he insulted the High Priest, even though the the latter was grossly unjust. True, they didn't submit to the Sanhedrin request to stop preaching Yeshua. But to take that instance to mean that Jewish authorities anywhere and in all times are not to be obeyed, well....whatever, YOU don't have to obey them anyway.
Deletesupreme new york
ReplyDeletesupreme new york
golden goose outlet
curry shoes
kd shoes
moncler outlet
jordan shoes
yeezy supply
off white nike
yeezy boost 350