Acts 16:3

Him would Paul. Apparently Paul wished Timothy to take the place that would have been filled by John Mark, to act as an “assistant” (see on ch. 13:5), and thus begin the “work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). The apostle saw how useful a companion Timothy could be, but realized that unless he were circumcised, he would be a cause of trouble instead of help.

Circumcised him. Probably Paul himself performed the rite. This act seems at first inconsistent with Paul’s conduct respecting Titus, whom he refused to circumcise (see on Gal. 2:3), and with his general teaching concerning circumcision (see on 1 Cor. 7:18, 19; Gal. 5:2-6). But there is a distinct contrast between the cases of Titus and Timothy. Titus was a Greek, and to have him circumcised would have yielded a principle that Paul was not prepared to yield. The mixed parentage of Timothy made him a Jew, for the rabbinical code held that the child of a Jewish mother was reckoned as a Jew (Talmud Yebamoth 45b, Soncino ed., p. 297). Had both his parents been faithful Jews, he would have been circumcised on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3), but religious differences between his parents doubtless prevented this.

Now, however, the young Timothy was about to enter public work and would be in close contact with Jews. If uncircumcised, he would be a source of difficulty to the Jews, who would think that a bad Jew could not be a good guide as a Christian. Hence, Paul saw no inconsistency in opposing the teaching that circumcision was a spiritual necessity, essential to salvation, while having this lad of Jewish background circumcised in order not to give offense. This was in harmony with his declared philosophy (see on 1 Cor. 9:20), and is the reason recorded by Luke for the action — “because of the Jews.”