Augustine of Hippo : As to Paul's circumcising of Timothy, performing a vow at Cenchrea and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, it is manifest that Paul's design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation. [His intent was] to prevent people from believing that he condemned, as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites that God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it and as shadows of things to come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught people "to forsake Moses." This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, "If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me." LETTER 82. — TO JEROME Bede : 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 because of the Gentiles. Though these old shadows were to be gradually taken away, as was the moral depravity of the Gentiles, as said above. For those legal shadows, sometimes established by the Lord, were sometimes used by the Apostles in those times to avoid the infidelity of the Jews. But the Gentile institution, truly found by Satan, was never touched by the saints. — Commentary on Acts Bede : 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 Jews, to show through him that he does not condemn the sacraments of the Mosaic law, but does not impose them on the Gentiles as necessary for salvation. But after he circumcised Timothy, certain Jews, who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised because they said that without those sacraments they could not be saved, began to boast and say: "Because Paul also holds this view, which we say, that without these sacraments there is no salvation. For if he does not believe this, why did he circumcise Timothy?" When Paul heard this, who did it out of freedom, not necessity, to avoid scandal among the Jews, not for Timothy's salvation, he saw that they had taken the occasion to preach something else and to cause a bad suspicion towards Paul, and he did not want to circumcise Titus. It is therefore apparent why he wanted to circumcise one and not the other: he wanted to circumcise the first to avoid scandal among the Jews, and did not want to circumcise the latter because of the opportunity for misbelief. — Retractions on Acts Clement of Alexandria : 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. — The Stromata Book 7 Gregory of Nazianzus : There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of people's lives, which are also called two Testaments, or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two earthquakes; the one from idols to the law, the other from the law to the gospel. And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved. Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden or at the first movement of the endeavor. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees that are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Therefore God did not think it behooved him to benefit the unwilling but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a tutor or physician he partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as doctors do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits that custom and use have made honorable. For instance, the first cut off the idol but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them; in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time administered circumcision and submitted to legal purification, he advanced till he could say, and I, brothers, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity. — ON THE HOLY SPIRIT, THEOLOGICAL ORATION 5 (31).25 John Chrysostom : 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. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 16.1-3 John Chrysostom : 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. — Homily on Acts 34 John Chrysostom : 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. — Homily on Acts 34 Origen of Alexandria : [But] perhaps it has been recorded at some time or other with good reason that even the true worshiper who worships in spirit and truth performs certain symbolic acts so that, by acting in a most accommodating manner, he might free those who are enslaved to the symbol and bring them to the truth that the symbols represent. Paul appears to have done this in the case of Timothy, and perhaps also in Cenchrea and Jerusalem, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 13.111 Tertullian : He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, which incidents are described in the Acts. — Against Marcion Book V Tertullian : Now, if the apostle had even absolutely permitted marriage when one's partner has been lost subsequently to (conversion to) the faith, he would have done (it), just as (he did) the other (actions) which he did adversely to the (strict) letter of his own rule, to suit the circumstances. of the times: circumcising Timotheus on account of "supposititious false brethren; "and leading certain "shaven men" into the temple on account of the observant watchfulness of the Jews-he who chastises the Galatians when they desire to live in (observance of) the law. — On Monogamy