Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Acts 16

Pushing on through the Cilician Gates in the Taurus mountains, Paul and Silas came to the Galatian border town of Derbe and then moved on to Lystra. At Lystra he found a young man who was highly spoken of by believers in both Lystra and the neighboring city of Iconium. The Jewish community at Lystra seems to have been small and without influence (cf. comments on 14:8–10). Probably for that reason Timothy’s mother, a Jewess, was allowed to marry a Greek. Timothy, however, had never been circumcised. In Jewish law, a child takes the religion of its mother; so Timothy should have been circumcised and raised a Jew. But in Greek law the father dominates in the home. Apparently the Jewish community at Lystra was too weak or lax to interfere with Greek custom. In 2 Timothy 1:5 Paul speaks of the sincere Jewish faith of Timothy’s grandmother Lois and of his mother, Eunice, and 2 Timothy 3:15 speaks of Timothy’s early instruction in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here Eunice is identified as a Jewess as well as a Christian believer, who had probably been converted during the first visit of Paul and Barnabas to Lystra. The Greek implies that her husband was now dead. From Paul’s reference to Timothy in 1 Corinthians 4:17 as his “son,” we may assume that Timothy’s conversion to Christ also dates from the proclamation of the Gospel on that first missionary journey.

Pushing on through the Cilician Gates in the Taurus mountains, Paul and Silas came to the Galatian border town of Derbe and then moved on to Lystra. At Lystra he found a young man who was highly spoken of by believers in both Lystra and the neighboring city of Iconium. The Jewish community at Lystra seems to have been small and without influence (cf. comments on 14:8–10). Probably for that reason Timothy’s mother, a Jewess, was allowed to marry a Greek. Timothy, however, had never been circumcised. In Jewish law, a child takes the religion of its mother; so Timothy should have been circumcised and raised a Jew. But in Greek law the father dominates in the home. Apparently the Jewish community at Lystra was too weak or lax to interfere with Greek custom. In 2 Timothy 1:5 Paul speaks of the sincere Jewish faith of Timothy’s grandmother Lois and of his mother, Eunice, and 2 Timothy 3:15 speaks of Timothy’s early instruction in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here Eunice is identified as a Jewess as well as a Christian believer, who had probably been converted during the first visit of Paul and Barnabas to Lystra. The Greek implies that her husband was now dead. From Paul’s reference to Timothy in 1 Corinthians 4:17 as his “son,” we may assume that Timothy’s conversion to Christ also dates from the proclamation of the Gospel on that first missionary journey.

Why, after all the discussion in Jerusalem, would Paul circumcise Timothy?

Some commentators even question whether Paul actually did this. But while Paul stoutly resisted any imposition of circumcision and the Jewish law upon his Gentile converts (e.g., Titus), he himself continued to live as an observant Jew and urged his converts to express their Christian faith through the cultural forms they had inherited (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17–24). As for Timothy, because of his Jewish mother, he was a Jew in the eyes of the Jewish world. Therefore, it was both proper and expedient for Paul to circumcise him. As Paul saw it, being a good Christian did not mean being a bad Jew. Rather, it meant being a fulfilled Jew. Paul had no desire to flout Jewish scruples in his endeavor to bring both Jews and Gentiles to salvation in Christ. Similarly, there is no reason to think he would have refused to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem Council to his Galatian converts and every reason to believe he would—particularly if he had written Galatians to them earlier and was now able to say that the Jerusalem leaders supported his position.

Why, after all the discussion in Jerusalem, would Paul circumcise Timothy?

Some commentators even question whether Paul actually did this. But while Paul stoutly resisted any imposition of circumcision and the Jewish law upon his Gentile converts (e.g., Titus), he himself continued to live as an observant Jew and urged his converts to express their Christian faith through the cultural forms they had inherited (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17–24). As for Timothy, because of his Jewish mother, he was a Jew in the eyes of the Jewish world. Therefore, it was both proper and expedient for Paul to circumcise him. As Paul saw it, being a good Christian did not mean being a bad Jew. Rather, it meant being a fulfilled Jew. Paul had no desire to flout Jewish scruples in his endeavor to bring both Jews and Gentiles to salvation in Christ. Similarly, there is no reason to think he would have refused to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem Council to his Galatian converts and every reason to believe he would—particularly if he had written Galatians to them earlier and was now able to say that the Jerusalem leaders supported his position.

This summary statement, concluding a crucial phase of Luke’s narrative, is comparable to the summary statements of 6:7; 9:31; 12:24 that culminate their respective panels (cf. also 19:20 and 28:31 later). It stresses the strengthening and growth of the churches as a result of Paul’s missionary policy and the response of the Jerusalem church to it.

Panel 5: Wide Outreach Through Two Missionary Journeys (16:6–19:20) Panel 5 presents the wide outreach of the Christian mission through two further missionary journeys of Paul in the eastern part of the empire. Having described the gradual extension of the Gospel to new groups of people and through a new missionary policy, Luke now shows its entrance into new areas. Notable in this panel are Luke’s emphases upon (1) God’s direction in and supervision of the Gospel’s outreach, (2) Christianity’s right to be considered a religio licita (see Introduction: Luke’s Purposes in Writing Acts), and (3) Paul’s circumstantial preaching in terms of proclamation and persuasion. Also of interest is the fact that the missionary outreach was confined to the major cities of the Aegean coastline connected by the main Roman roads, and that at the beginning of this panel we have our first “we” section (16:10–17; cf. 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Temporal references in the panel are fairly general, and even when datable—e.g., the Edict of Claudius (18:2) and Gallio’s proconsulate (18:12)—they leave some margin for dispute. Generally, however, the material given here covers the years A. D. 49–56, with the journey into Macedonia and Achaia taking place about 49–52 and the one centered in Ephesus during 53–56.