Ok, here is the long-awaited answer (for anyone who really cares) about why Paul went and had Timothy circumcised at the beginning of Acts 16 when the Jerusalem Council said that new converts did not need to undergo this ritual. It's kind of ironic because right after he and Timothy go to the mohel (ritual circumciser) off they go again preaching against circumcision. So what gives?
Are you ready? Drumroll . . . because Timothy's mother was Jewish and Paul did not want to alienate the Jews. You have got to be kidding! I mean this guy has practically made a career of antagonizing the Jews, and now he's worried that they might not accept his traveling sidekick because of a little bit of wrinkled flesh on his privates? That doesn't sound at all like Paul! I mean, the guy is obsessed with the subject--could he be one of us, an Aspie? He tells one group of converts, "beware of mutilators;" he tells another group, "I wish those who were bothering you about this would go all the way and castrate themselves," and on and on in similar vein. Then turns around and does a 180 because he doesn't want to offend? I don't think so. Well, in Timothy's case it was for cultural reasons, not religious reasons; he didn't need to be circumcised to be saved. I'm sorry but this doesn't wash.
Anyway, it's a pretty safe bet that this was not Timothy's idea. In fact, what Timothy thinks or wants doesn't seem to enter the picture. Now, I've heard a lot about female genital mutilation (aka female circumcision) which is a pretty horrendous process, so I thought I'd look up the male counterpart to see if it was as benign as its proponents like to tell everyone it is. All I can say is THANK GOD I WAS NOT BORN A MALE!!!! And especially back in Paul and Timothy's time when there were no painkillers, no antibiotics and the antiseptic treatment of choice was to have the mohel take the newly circumcised penis into his mouth to stop the bleeding. There are a lot of things I could say about that but I won't go there. In essence, Timothy was risking his life just so Paul wouldn't offend the Jews for cultural reasons. In my mind that is even worse than insisting you have to be circumcised in order to be saved.
It does make you wonder exactly what was going on in people's minds that they would get worked up over such an issue. I mean there is a reason, folks, that they are called "private parts." It is another reason I am glad I was not born a male. I hate to say it but some of these folks in the Book of Acts seriously need to get a life if all they can think about is the condition of a man's "junk". Did they have genital inspection stations at all the synagogues, sort of like airport security? I'm thinking about the recent hullabaloo over Rep. Weiner's "sexting" pictures of his equipment to women. Boy, he'd fit right in with that crowd, or they'd fit right in with his, I don't know.
Am I the only one that is revolted by the constant use of circumcision analogies in the New Testament? Change the gender from male to female and I don't think people would be so blase about it.
When I was young, having a tonsillectomy was the thing to do. At that time, nobody realized the role that the tonsils played in keeping the immune system going. Kids were encouraged to look forward to having the procedure done because afterwards you could eat all the ice cream you wanted and then some. I was one of the few kids that went through the 1960's with my tonsils intact. Now, the procedure is so rare that I honestly can't remember the last time I heard anyone talking about it. But at that time they thought that having your tonsils out would protect you from sore throats. I hear the same sort of arguments in favor of male circumcision, and I think, that bit of skin is there for a reason. And not because God wants us to cut it off. That's barbaric.
Are you ready? Drumroll . . . because Timothy's mother was Jewish and Paul did not want to alienate the Jews. You have got to be kidding! I mean this guy has practically made a career of antagonizing the Jews, and now he's worried that they might not accept his traveling sidekick because of a little bit of wrinkled flesh on his privates? That doesn't sound at all like Paul! I mean, the guy is obsessed with the subject--could he be one of us, an Aspie? He tells one group of converts, "beware of mutilators;" he tells another group, "I wish those who were bothering you about this would go all the way and castrate themselves," and on and on in similar vein. Then turns around and does a 180 because he doesn't want to offend? I don't think so. Well, in Timothy's case it was for cultural reasons, not religious reasons; he didn't need to be circumcised to be saved. I'm sorry but this doesn't wash.
Anyway, it's a pretty safe bet that this was not Timothy's idea. In fact, what Timothy thinks or wants doesn't seem to enter the picture. Now, I've heard a lot about female genital mutilation (aka female circumcision) which is a pretty horrendous process, so I thought I'd look up the male counterpart to see if it was as benign as its proponents like to tell everyone it is. All I can say is THANK GOD I WAS NOT BORN A MALE!!!! And especially back in Paul and Timothy's time when there were no painkillers, no antibiotics and the antiseptic treatment of choice was to have the mohel take the newly circumcised penis into his mouth to stop the bleeding. There are a lot of things I could say about that but I won't go there. In essence, Timothy was risking his life just so Paul wouldn't offend the Jews for cultural reasons. In my mind that is even worse than insisting you have to be circumcised in order to be saved.
It does make you wonder exactly what was going on in people's minds that they would get worked up over such an issue. I mean there is a reason, folks, that they are called "private parts." It is another reason I am glad I was not born a male. I hate to say it but some of these folks in the Book of Acts seriously need to get a life if all they can think about is the condition of a man's "junk". Did they have genital inspection stations at all the synagogues, sort of like airport security? I'm thinking about the recent hullabaloo over Rep. Weiner's "sexting" pictures of his equipment to women. Boy, he'd fit right in with that crowd, or they'd fit right in with his, I don't know.
Am I the only one that is revolted by the constant use of circumcision analogies in the New Testament? Change the gender from male to female and I don't think people would be so blase about it.
When I was young, having a tonsillectomy was the thing to do. At that time, nobody realized the role that the tonsils played in keeping the immune system going. Kids were encouraged to look forward to having the procedure done because afterwards you could eat all the ice cream you wanted and then some. I was one of the few kids that went through the 1960's with my tonsils intact. Now, the procedure is so rare that I honestly can't remember the last time I heard anyone talking about it. But at that time they thought that having your tonsils out would protect you from sore throats. I hear the same sort of arguments in favor of male circumcision, and I think, that bit of skin is there for a reason. And not because God wants us to cut it off. That's barbaric.
