John Calvin Commentary Acts 16:3

"Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek." — Acts 16:3 (ASV)

He circumcised him, because of the Jews. Luke plainly expresses that Timothy was not circumcised because it was necessary, or because the religious significance of that sign still continued, but so that Paul might avoid giving offense. Therefore, consideration was given to men, while the matter was free before God. For this reason, Timothy's circumcision was not a sacrament, like that which was given to Abraham and his posterity (Genesis 17:13), but a neutral ceremony that served only to foster love and not for any practice of godliness.

Now, the question is whether it was lawful for Paul to use an empty sign whose meaning and power were abolished, for it seems an empty thing when one departs from God's institution. Circumcision, however, was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ.

To this question I answer that circumcision did indeed cease at the coming of Christ in such a way that, nevertheless, its use was not immediately abolished. Instead, it remained free until everyone could know that Christ was the end of the law, through the clearer revelation of the gospel's light.

And here we must note three degrees.

1. First, the ceremonies of the law were abolished by the coming of Christ in such a way that they no longer pertained to the worship of God, nor were they figures of spiritual things, nor was there any necessity to use them.

2. Second, their use was free until the truth of the gospel could appear more plainly.

3. Third, it was not lawful for the faithful to retain them, except insofar as their use served for edification and no superstition was fostered by it; although that freedom to use them, of which I have spoken, is not without exception, because ceremonies had to be regarded in different ways.

For circumcision was not in the same category as the sacrifices, which were ordained for expiating sins. Therefore, it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timothy; it would not have been lawful for him to offer a sacrifice for sin.

Indeed, it is a general principle that all the worship of the law ceased at the coming of Christ (because it was to continue only for a time) regarding faith and conscience. However, concerning their use, we must know this: it was indifferent and left to the liberty of the godly for a short time, as long as it was not contrary to the confession of faith.

We must note the shortness of time of which I speak, namely, until the clear manifestation of the Gospel. This is important because some learned men are grossly deceived on this point, thinking that circumcision still applies among the Jews, while Paul teaches that it is superfluous when we are buried with Christ by baptism (Colossians 2:11–12). It was better and more truly said in the old proverb: "The synagogue was to be buried with honor."

Now it remains for us to declare to what extent the use of circumcision was indifferent. That will easily appear from the nature of this liberty. Because the calling of the Gentiles was not yet generally known, it was fitting that the Jews should have some prerogative granted to them.

Therefore, until it could be better known that adoption was extended from the lineage and family of Abraham to all the Gentiles, it was lawful, as far as edification required, to retain the sign of distinction.

For since Paul would not circumcise Titus, and affirms that this was well done (Galatians 2:3), it follows that it was not lawful to use this ceremony always and indiscriminately. Therefore, they were to have regard for edification and for the public benefit of the Church.

Because he could not circumcise Titus without betraying the doctrine of the Gospel and exposing himself to the slanders of adversaries, he abstained from the free use of the ceremony, which he did use with Timothy when he saw that it was profitable for the Church.

From this it easily appears what horrible confusion reigns in Popery. In it, there is a huge heap of ceremonies—and for what purpose, except that they may have a hundred veils instead of the one veil of the old temple? God abrogated those ceremonies which He had commanded, so that the truth of the Gospel might shine more clearly. Men dared to presume to bring in new ones, and that without any measure.

After this, a wicked notion arose that all these serve for the worship of God. Finally, the devilish confidence in merit followed. Now, since it is evident enough that such ceremonies are neither veils nor tombs with which Christ is covered, but rather stinking dunghills in which faith and religion are choked, those who make their use generally free ascribe more to the Pope than the Lord grants to His law.

It is pointless to speak of the mass and of such defilements which contain in themselves manifest idolatry.

They all knew this. Luke tells us that this was Paul’s intention: to create an opening for Timothy to the Jews, so that they would not abhor him as a profane man. They all knew (he says) that his father was a Grecian. Therefore, because mothers, in such matters, had no authority over their children, they were fully convinced that he was uncircumcised.

Let the readers note here, by the way, how miserable the bondage of God's people was then. Eunice, Timothy's mother, was one of the small remnant whom the Jews themselves regarded as a pariah. Yet, being married to a man who was an unbeliever, she dared not consecrate her children to God.

No, she dared not even give them the external sign of grace. And yet, she did not therefore cease to instruct her son from childhood in holiness, in the fear of God, and in His true worship. This is an example surely worthy of being followed by women whose husbands, with their tyrannical rule, try to frighten them from keeping and training up their children and families in chastity and true godliness.

In this passage, "Grecian" is used for "Gentile," following the old and common custom of Scripture.