Acts 16:3

Whatever … [the gnostic] has in his mind, he bears on his tongue, to those who are worthy to hear, speaking as well as living from assent and inclination. For he both thinks and speaks the truth; unless at any time, medicinally, as a physician for the safety of the sick, he may deceive or tell an untruth, according to the Sophists. To illustrate: the noble apostle circumcised Timothy, though loudly declaring and writing that circumcision made with hands profits nothing. But that he might not, by dragging all at once away from the law to the circumcision of the heart through faith those of the Hebrews who were reluctant listeners, compel them to break away from the synagogue, he, "accommodating himself to the Jews, became a Jew that he might gain all." He, then, who submits to accommodate himself merely for the benefit of his neighbors, for the salvation of those for whose sake he accommodates himself, not partaking in any dissimulation through the peril impending over the just from those who envy them, such a one by no means acts with compulsion. But for the benefit of his neighbors alone, he will do things that would not have been done by him primarily, if he did not do them on their account. Such a one gives himself: for the church; for the disciples whom he has begotten in faith; for an example to those who are capable of receiving the supreme economy of the philanthropic and God-loving instructor, for confirmation of the truth of his words, for the exercise of love to the Lord. Such a one is unenslaved by fear, true in word, enduring in labor, never willing to lie by uttered word and in it always securing sinlessness; since falsehood, being spoken with a certain deceit, is not an inert word but operates to mischief.

Before blessed Paul, who himself had received circumcision, sent Timothy to teach the Jews, he first circumcised him in order that Timothy, as teacher, might be more acceptable to his audience. So Paul [actually] engaged in circumcision in order to abolish it. He knew why he had circumcised Timothy but chose not to disclose his reasons to the disciples. In fact, if they had known that he had circumcised him with the intention of abolishing circumcision, they would have not listened to anything Timothy had to say, and all the progress he had achieved would have been lost. Indeed, their ignorance was quite useful. As long as they believed that he circumcised Timothy in order to preserve the law, they generously received him and his doctrine. Therefore, by receiving [that doctrine] little by little, and by being taught, they abandoned their old customs. However, this would never have happened if they had known the reason from the beginning. In fact, if they had known, they would have opposed the circumcision and by opposing it they would have remained in their previous error.

It is indeed amazing, the wisdom of Paul! He that has had so many battles about circumcision, he that moved all things to this end, and did not give over until he had carried his point, now that the decree is made sure, circumcises the disciple. He not only does not forbid others, but himself does this thing. "Him," it says, "he would have to go forth with him." And the wonder is this, that he even took him unto him. "Because of the Jews," it says, "which were in those parts": for they would not endure to hear the word from one uncircumcised. Nothing could be wiser. So that in all things he looked to what was profitable: he did nothing upon his own preference.

And what (then)? Mark the success: he circumcised, that he might take away circumcision: for he preached the decrees of the Apostles. He was about to make him a bishop, and it was not meet that he should be uncircumcised. Since therefore he was about to preach, that he might not smite the Jews a double blow, he circumcised Timothy. And yet he was but half (a Jew by birth), his father being a Greek: but yet, because that was a great point carried in the cause of the Gentiles, he did not care for this: for the Word must needs be disseminated: therefore also he with his own hands circumcised him.

He circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places. Not that he believed the figures of the law would bring any utility with the truth of the Gospel shining forth, but so that the Jews would not fall away from the faith …

And taking him, he circumcised him because of the Jews. It is rightly asked why the Apostle, who circumcised Timothy, refused to circumcise Titus, as he himself writes to the Galatians. But it must be understood that he circumcised Timothy to avoid scandal among the …

"Taking him, he circumcised him for the sake of the Jews." The wisdom of Paul is worthy of great admiration. He who so championed against the circumcision of the Gentiles and who drove everything forward until the question was resolved, circumcised his own disciple. He …

Now, the question is, whether it were lawful for Paul to use a vain sign, whose signification and force was abolished; for it seemeth a vain thing when there is a departure made from the institution of God. But circumcision was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ.

He took and circumcised him because of the Jews - The unbelieving Jews, to whom he designed he should preach. For they would not have conversed with him at all, so long as he was uncircumcised.

Him would Paul have to go forth with him,....

But before his departure, Paul took and circumcised him--a rite which every Israelite might perform. because of the Jews . . . for they knew all that his father was a Greek--This seems to imply that the father was no proselyte. Against the wishes of a Gentile father no Jewish mother was, as the Jews themselves say, permitted to circumcise her son.

His would be one of "the souls of the disciples confirmed" at the apostle's second visit, "exhorted to continue in the faith, and" warned "that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Ac 14:21, 22). the son of a certain . . .

Took and circumcised him - For this simple reason, that the Jews would neither have heard him preach, nor would have any connection with him, had he been otherwise. Besides, St. Paul himself could have had no access to the Jews in any place, had they known that he associated with a person who was uncircumcised: they would have considered both to be unclean. The circumcision of Timothy was a merely prudential regulation; one rendered imperiously necessary by the circumstances in which they were then placed; and, as it was done merely in reference to this, Timothy was lain under no necessity to observe the Mosaic ritual, nor could it prejudice his spiritual state, because he did not do it in order to seek justification by the law, for this he had before, through the faith of Christ. In Gal 2:3-5, we read that Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles, notwithstanding the entreaties of some zealous Judaizing Christians, as their object was to bring him under the yoke of the law: here, the case was widely different, and the necessity of the measure indisputable.

Him would Paul have ... - This was an instance of Paul’s selecting young men of piety for the holy ministry. It shows: (1) That he was disposed to look up and call forth the talent in the church that might be usefully employed. It is quite evident that Timothy would not have thought of this had it not been suggested by Paul. The same thing education societies are attempting now to accomplish. (2) That Paul sought proper qualifications, and valued them. Those were: (a) That he had a good reputation for piety, etc., Act 16: