The commentaries of M. John Calvin upon the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully translated…The commentaries of M. Iohn Caluin vpon the Actes of the Apostles, faithfully translated…

3 He Circumcised him because of the Jews. Luke doth plainly express that Timothy was not circumcised, because it was necessary it should be so: or because the religion of that sign did continue as yet: but that Paul might avoid an offence. Therefore there was respect had of men, whereas the matter was free before God. Wherefore the circumcising of Timotheus was no sacrament, as was that which was given to Abraham and his posterity: but an indifferent Ceremony, which served only for nourishing of love, and not for any exercise of godliness. Now the question is,¹ whether it were lawful for Paul to use a vain sign, whose signification and force was abolished: for it seemeth a vain thing when there is a departure made from the institution of God. But Circumcision was commanded by God to continue only until the coming of Christ. To this question I answer, that Circumcision did so cease at the coming of Christ, that notwithstanding the use thereof was not quite abolished by and by: but it continued free, until all men might know that Christ was the end of the Law, by the more manifest revelation of the light of the Gospel. And here we must note three degrees. The first is, that the ceremonies of the Law were so abolished by the coming of Christ, that they did neither any longer appertain unto the worship of God, neither were they figures of spiritual things, neither was there any necessity to use them. The second is, that the use thereof was free, until the truth of the Gospel might more plainly appear. ⟨p. 385⟩The third, that it was not lawful for the faithful to retain them, save only so far forth as the use thereof served, for edification, neither was there any superstition thereby fostered. Though that free power to use them, whereof I have spoken, be not without exception: because there was a diverse respect to be had of ceremonies. For circumcision was not in the same place, wherein the sacrifices were, which were ordained for the purging of sins. Wherefore it was lawful for Paul to circumcise Timotheus: it had not bin lawful for him to offer a sacrifice for sin. This is in deed a general thing that all the worship of the Law, did cease at the coming of Christ, (because it was to continue but for a time) as touching faith and conscience:

3 He Circumcised him because of the Iewes. Luke doth plainely expresse that Timothie was not circumcised, because it was necessarie it should be so: or because the religion of that signe did continue as yet: but that Paul might auoid an offence. Therefore there was respect had of men, whereas the matter was free before God. Wherefore the circumcising of Timotheus was no sacrament, as was that which was giuen to Abraham and his posterie: but an indifferent Ceremonie, which serued only for nourishing of loue, and not for any exercise of godlinesse. Nowe the question is,