Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.  (Acts 16:1-2)

Timothy’s Greek father gave his son a suitably Greek name, Τιμόθεος.  Timotheos ‘honoured by God’, derived from timé, ‘accorded honour’ or ‘perceived value’ and theos, a ‘god’.  It is not clear whether in naming his son, the god Timothy’s father had in mind was a god of the pagan pantheon or the God of Abraham; but it is likely to be the latter, because Paul tells us his mother was Jewish, which meant Timothy was Jewish (as by Hebrew tradition, racial attribution is from the mother not the father.)

Moreover, by religion, Timothy was raised a Jew, as we read in pastoral letter, Paul would encourage his protégé: 

… you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  (2 Timothy 3:14-15)

It is also clear from Luke’s description in Acts that the household was Christian, possibly as a result of Paul’s first visit to Lystra, for in the same letter Paul writes,

I may be filled with joy,when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.  (Ibid 1:5)

Timothy and, by implication, his family are well-regarded by the growing church, for ‘he was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium’ (Acts 16:2).

Why then, particularly in the immediate aftermath of Paul’s victory at the Council of Jerusalem over the Judaizers – notionally believing Jews (he calls them ‘false brethren’, below) who argued that Gentiles must circumcised to be received into the body of Christ – did he advocate for Timothy to be circumcised?

The contrast with another of Paul’s young companions in the lead up to the council could not be starker:

I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.  And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.  (Galatians 2:1-5)

Could Paul be accused of hypocrisy, or if not that then inconsistency, in the different stance taken, vis-à-vis Titus and Timothy? On closer examination, there are differences between the circumstances of the two men.

Firstly, Titus was wholly Greek just as Timothy was wholly Jewish.  For Titus, there was never any question that he might be circumcised.  In fact, outside of Judaism, in the Graeco-Roman culture, circumcision was thought backward and barbaric – we can assume that this attitude was a factor when eight days after his birth, Timothy was not taken to the synagogue for the rite to be performed.

Likewise, we may suppose that this caused upset; and not only within the family.  It is probable that among the tight-knot Jewish diaspora of Galatia, this gained a certain notoriety. 

Secondly, Titus’ standing as a Christian had been under threat within the new church of Syrian Antioch, whereas Timothy was well-regarded by the faithful in the dusty towns on the Anatolian Plateau.  This was not, therefore, a matter of salvation, as it was for Titus, but an offence to custom.  Timothy’s faith was accepted and his baptism sufficient.

So again, why did Paul raise an issue?  The answer is to be found in Paul’s initial model of evangelism.

On his first visit to the region, Paul preached the Gospel of Christ on the Sabbath in the synagogues, beginning with Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14) and thereafter, in the subsequent towns he journeyed to.  This was not exclusive and only for Jewish ears, as many Gentiles attended synagogue also; although, this method had not been problem-free:

Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. (Acts 14:1-2)

On this, his second mission, he intended to revisit the same towns but visit others, this time in the Roman province of Asia, west of Galatian, by once more taking the Gospel to the synagogues.  In order to do so, he wanted no unnecessary issue, or whiff of scandal to get in his way.

To this end, and for the sake not of Jews who had heard the Gospel and had accepted only on their terms, like the Judaizers, but for both Jews and Gentiles who feared the Jewish God but who had yet to receive the Word, he advocated Timothy complete what his tradition and heritage required, and be circumcised.  Timothy would not and indeed, as a young in his early twenties, could not have been forced to undergo this procedure – it was a personal sacrifice, freely offered.

This then was not then an act of oppression, born out of the resistance of divine grace; as Paul writes addressing the Judaizers, reminding them of the ‘royal’ law as James calls it.

And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”  But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!  (Galatians 5:11-13)

Paul simply wanted no impediments to the promotion of the Gospel, as he explains to the church, he later founded in Greece itself:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.  (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

In making himself a cypher to the Gospel, acting not as himself but as a messenger acceptable to all, Paul was therefore consistent in wanting the same for Timothy.  And as for Timothy, he would benefit by gaining another father, one who did the right thing whereas his own did not.  Paul adopted Timothy calling him ‘my true son in the faith’ (1 Timothy 1:2). 

Nor by this this act, did Paul intend to set new ‘law’, or impose on others law which was never intended for them; as, the Judaizers tried by decreeing new Gentile converts be Jewish by observing all the requirements of the Law of Moses.  Indeed, as Paul would demonstrate in his letter to the Romans under the Law of Christ, application is individual.  Jesus left commandments and expects obedience, but outside of that, largely how any worship God is left to the individual; as with example of a Sabbath day, the observance of which is the only one of the Ten Commandments, Jesus did not re-iterate for his disciples:

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day to the Lord, he does not observe it. (Romans 14:5-6)

In the same epistle, the apostle shows that regarding his discipleship of Timothy, he knew himself accountable, and his only justification before God would be that his ‘son’s’ adult circumcision was done to remove any hindrance Jesus command to make disciples and take the Gospel to the nations (Matthew 28:19-20):

‘As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.’

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore, let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.  (Ibid 14:7-12)

God will judge what Paul did regarding Timothy, as subsequent, fellow disciples all are required to view Timothy’s circumcision as an act of love done for the sake of Christ.