Herman Witsius (1636-1708)
From the New [Testament], that speech of James and the elders to Paul, Acts xxi. 21. has been proposed to my consideration by a learned person: “and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews, which are among the Gentiles, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” But when this made a great commotion among those who were zealous of the law, and yet believed in Christ, James authorised Paul to do such things, from which all might know, “that those things, whereof they were informed concerning him, were nothing, but that Paul himself also walked orderly, and kept the law,” ver. 24. Paul complied with this advice. From this it might be concluded, that the true sense of Paul’s doctrine was, that though the Gentiles were not indeed bound to circumcision and the other ceremonies, yet the Jews, even after they embraced the faith of Christ, were to circumcise their children, and to walk after the customs; because Paul, at the persuasion of James, by this compliance removes from himself the suspicion of his teaching a contrary doctrine …
But we are here to consider distinctly three things. 1st, The true doctrine of Paul. 2dly, The calumny invidiously fixed upon him. 3dly, The prudential advice suggested to him by James and the elders. Indeed Paul, who was an excellent preacher of Christian liberty, set both Jews and Gentiles, who had submitted to the gospel, at liberty from the necessity of submitting to circumcision and the other ceremonies: for he proclaimed to all, that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God,” 1 Cor. vii. 19. And he compares the law to a tutor, under whose tuition the Old Testament church was placed, being then in a state of bondage; but now the kingdom of heaven being set up in the world; he declares that the same church was come to age, which no longer standing in need of a tutor, was not again to be given up to bondage under those first elements of the world, Gal. iv. Which certainly comprised both Jews and Gentiles. He every where published this privilege of the New Testament freely and openly. Nevertheless he was not against making some allowances for the weakness of the Jewish brethren, in the exercise of that liberty; in case there was not a spirit of contention, nor an opinion of necessity and righteousness in standing up for the practice of the ceremonies. Calumny put a quite different construction on this conduct: as if he acted thus to the reproach of the law, and taught apostasy from Moses, and did not agree, in this doctrinal point, who with others, maintained the Christian faith. But the case was certainly the reverse; for it is no reproach put upon the law, to teach, that Christ made satisfaction to it; any more than it is a reproach put upon a hand-writing, that, on payment being made, it is cancelled. Nor is it any apostasy from Moses, to preach that Christ is the bestower of liberty, since Moses himself commanded him to be heard;1 nor did Paul disagree with the other Apostles; because they also taught according to the decree of the synod of Jerusalem [Acts 15:23-29], an immunity from that yoke; and Paul, in the exercise of that liberty, by no means disowned, that charity and prudence were to be regarded. Nevertheless the calumny gained ground; and many of the brethren, who were not truly informed of the Apostle’s doctrine, entertained groundless suspicions of him. Hence arose the advice, that he himself should openly perform some certain ceremonies: not in order to create any prejudice to that Christian right and liberty, which he had preached; but to show publicly, that he had done nothing inconsiderately, which could give rise to any just indignation: that it was a vile calumny, by which he was defamed, as entertaining less reverent thoughts of Moses, and teaching the Jews a contempt of the law. With this advice the Apostle complies, not that he approved the violence of those zealots, but to wipe off a calumny, and to suit himself prudently and friendly to the weak. Thus, “unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that he might gain them that are under the law,” 1 Cor. ix. 20. These things being duly considered, it is evident nothing can be concluded from this passage for the continuance of circumcision among the converted Israelites.
(The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, vol. 2 [Edinburgh: John Turnbull, 1803], book IV, chapter VIII, pp. 257-259)
1 Witsius rightly argues in Book IV, chapter XIV that Deut. 18:15, 18 speaks of the Messiah.
Appendices
John Gill, Baptist theologian (1697-1771): ”saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children; though this does not appear; it is true the apostle taught that circumcision was abolished, and that it was nothing; yea, that to submit to it as necessary to salvation, was hurtful and pernicious; but as a thing indifferent, he allowed of it among weak brethren; and in condescension to their weakness, did administer it himself; in which he became a Jew to the Jew, that he might gain some” (Commentary on Acts 21:21).
James Durham (1622-1658): ”Some are weak, so condescending edifies them, and grieving of them might stumble them at the gospel. Others are perverse, and condescending to them strengthens them in their opposition, and so proves a stumbling to them. Upon this ground, circumcising of Timothy [Acts 16:3] to the weak at one time is edifying, and forbearing thereof had been a stumbling block. At another time, and to other persons circumcising had been an offense, as in the case of Titus [Gal 2:3-5] instanced, and Paul’s refusing to circumcise him, was not that he regarded not their stumbling, but that he knew the circumcising of him would puff them up and strengthen them, and so stumble them indeed. Therefore he would not do it” (The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal [Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1990], pp. 29-30).
