The wisdom of Paul is indeed amazing. He, who fought so many battles against circumcision, who moved everything for this, who did not give up until he had carried his point, once the decision was confirmed, he circumcised his disciple. Not only did he not forbid others, but he himself did this. Timothy, it says, he wanted as his companion. It is surprising that he even brought him along. Because of the Jews, it says, that were in those places. This is the reason for the circumcision. For they would not have endured to hear the Word from one uncircumcised. Nothing could be wiser. So in all things he looked to what was advantageous. He did nothing at all according to his own preference. And what was the result? Look at his success. He circumcised to take away circumcision. For he preached the decisions of the apostles.

As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, performing a vow at Cenchrea^[1] and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow,^[2] 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.

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?^[1] His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.

[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^[1] 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.^[2]

[It was] not because he believed that the symbolic actions of the law could provide anything of use now that the truth of the gospel was shining forth. [Paul did this] instead so that the Jewish [Christians] would not fall away from the faith because of the pretext of the Gentiles. Nevertheless, the old trace [of the law of circumcision] was to be gradually removed for them, just as the depravity of their ancient ways was to be removed in the case of the Gentiles, as has been said above. For these traces of the law were used from time to time by the apostles, as if they were at one time established by the Lord, in order to avert lack of belief on the part of the Jewish [Christians]. The saints, however, never had anything to do with the practices of the Gentiles, inasmuch as they were acquired from Satan.

Whatever . . . [the gnostic]^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3] 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.

Truly terrible is the Lord in his councils upon the sons of men.^[1] The one who promised that he would follow the master through everything was not granted permission,^[2] and another man who had been ordered to follow did not receive the delay he asked for in order to bury his father.^[3] Paul, who was fighting against [Christ], was attracted in spite of himself.^[4] Cornelius, who devoted himself to prayers and almsgiving, was shown the way of salvation as his reward.^[5] And God, who knows hearts, on account of his kindness, withdrew [his] teacher from Asia lest, if what is holy were given to dogs,^[6] the error of their wicked hearts might be judged more reprehensible on account of their disregard of his preaching.^[7] On the other hand the Macedonian legate, whom we believe to have been the angel of that people, asked the apostles, who were concerned with other matters, that crumbs of the Lord’s bread might be offered to them.^[8]

The text does not say why they were prevented but only that they were prevented. It teaches us that we only have to obey and not to enquire about the reasons, and it shows us that they did many things according to human customs.

It should be noted that the apostle did nothing according to his own will. Rather, whatever he did or did not do, it was under the impulse of the Spirit. Therefore it is dangerous to despise what was done by Paul or investigate what was directed by the Spirit. Consequently, we ought not to ask why the Spirit did not allow Paul to preach in Asia.

When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us. Look, no longer through an angel, as it was with Philip^[1] and Cornelius.^[2] But how? Through a vision it appears to him, in a manner now more human, no longer as divine. For where obedience came more easily, revelation was of a more human sort; where much force was needed, of a more divine sort. Thus when he was only urged to preach, a dream appeared to him; but when he could not bear not to preach, it was the Holy Spirit who revealed it to him. So it was with Peter. Arise, go down.^[3] For the Holy Spirit did not work what was easy; a dream was enough in his case. Also for Joseph, who obeyed readily, it was in a dream, but for others,^[4] including Cornelius and Paul himself, it was in a vision. And notice how it says a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying. Not ordering but beseeching, that is, on behalf of the very people in need of caring. What does concluding mean? It means they made an inference. From the fact that Paul saw him and not someone else, that Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit and that they were at the borders—from all this they reached their conclusion.

Listen, shepherds of the churches! Listen, God’s shepherds! His angel always comes down from heaven and proclaims to you, Today a Savior is born for you, who is Christ the Lord.^[1] For, unless that Shepherd comes, the shepherd of the churches will be unable to guard the flock well. Their custody is weak, unless Christ pastures and guards it along with them. We just read in the apostle, We are coworkers with God.^[2] A good shepherd, who imitates the good Shepherd, is a coworker with God and Christ. He is a good shepherd precisely because he has the best Shepherd with him, pasturing his sheep along with him. For, God established in his church apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. He established everything for the perfection of the saints.^[3] Let this suffice for a simpler explanation.

But we should ascend to a more hidden understanding. Some shepherds were angels that governed human affairs.^[4] Each of these kept his watch. They were vigilant day and night. But, at some point, they were unable to bear the labor of governing the peoples who had been entrusted to them and accomplish it diligently. When the Lord was born, an angel came and announced to the shepherds that the true Shepherd had appeared. Let me give an example. There was a certain shepherd-angel in Macedonia who needed the Lord’s help. Consequently, he appeared to Paul in his dreams as a Macedonian man and said, ‘Cross over to Macedonia and help us.’ Why do I speak of Paul, since the angel said this not to Paul but to Jesus who was in Paul? So shepherds need the presence of Christ.

Therefore the sharp contention^[1] was brought to pass as part of the divine plan. For otherwise it would not have been the work of the Holy Spirit, and Macedonia would not have accepted the Word. Such a rapid progress of the Word is a sign that what happened was more than human.

Therefore we need God, who can open the heart. (God, however, opens hearts that are willing. For there are also hearts that are crippled, incapable of seeing.) . . . To give heed to what was said by Paul. The opening, then, was God’s work, the give heed, hers. Therefore it was both God’s doing and Paul’s. And when she was baptized, it says, she sought us, saying, ‘If you have judged me . . .’ Look, as soon as she is baptized, she receives the apostles with an entreaty more earnest than Abraham’s.^[1] And she mentions no other proof but that by which she was saved. She did not say, if you have judged me a great woman or if you have judged me a devout woman. What does she say? If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord—if faithful to the Lord, all the more so to you, unless you dispute it. And she did not say stay with me but come to my house and stay, thus showing the great eagerness with which she was doing this. Truly a faithful woman!

Notice again the absence of pride. She was a woman, and she was lowly and a manual laborer. Note, however, that the woman was a lover of wisdom.^[1] The first evidence of this is her testimony that God called her. See how the writer of the story was not ashamed to report the habits of life. . . . And as for us, let us not be ashamed of these students or of any student of these things. Peter stays with the tanner, and Paul with the dealer in purple and a foreign one for that matter. Where is their pride? Therefore let us pray to God that he may open our heart. In fact God opens those hearts that want to be opened, as he can see those that are hardened. The opening is God’s part, being attentive hers: this is something that is, in fact, both human and divine.

Observe that instruction came first, and then, after the disciples heard the word, baptism followed. But if someone dares to say, Behold! God saves only those whom he wants to save, he has compassion on and opens only the hearts of those he wants, as if he were seeking to assign to God the reason why we are either saved or not saved, so that he can say that God is responsible—if he says, Look, see how he opened the heart of Lydia, we must reply to him, Search the Scripture,^[1] for he who does not search does not find what he requires. How do we say that what is said about Cornelius is by the grace of God? We answer that God opens the door to those who live a righteous life but err about faith because of the error transmitted to them by their fathers. And so Lydia too worshiped God but did not know the way in which she had to be saved, which God revealed to her through the true teaching. Therefore the text says she was a worshiper of God. On the other hand, if God does not open the heart of someone, he does not open it because that person is impious and receives his words in vain. For even if someone should establish the word of God through manifest proofs, just as the apostles did through signs and wonders, while he, still desiring to be a slave to his passions and wickedness, rejects the word, he is responsible for himself. In fact, God never aids someone in evil, but because of his love of goodness he joins anyone in approving what is noble. But as for what is evil, he allows each to walk in his desires:^[2] each may live for whatever he wishes.