|Faith Strengthened||Chapter 74||Part 2|
Acts 16:3. Paul, by circumcising Timothy, proved that the Mosaic dispensation of circumcision had not been abrogated. On the other hand, he wrote to the Galatians (chapter 5:2-3), "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that, if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." If circumcision were of no avail for Timothy, why did his master circumcise him? If, however, that sacred act was indispensable, and bound the man fully through the covenant of Abraham to adhere to the commandments and the laws of Moses, how is it that Paul deemed it perfectly consistent to break by precept those very teachings of Moses?