In the book of Acts, we are informed that Paul had Timothy circumcised:
Acts 16:3
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2 The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more trouble Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy’s father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?
To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not — so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant — that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham’s penis when, at God’s insistence, he circumcised himself — heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant — even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised.
Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision. Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to ‘become Jews’ without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship ‘impeded the arrival of the Messiah’. While ‘semi-converts’ were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts.1
So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? A. N. Wilson further explains that:
By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator — the mohel, the professional circumciser — with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul’s Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually ‘cut you off from Christ’. 2
In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:
Galatians 5:2–6
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.
However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him any further. Since we are aware of Paul’s intense opposition to circumcision no matter what the reasons are, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates the hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, so when an opportunity comes along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now has a good excuse to take a penis into his mouth and no one could object to that.
One cannot claim that someone other than Paul had circumcised Timothy, because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who had circumcised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to circumcise Timothy if indeed he was staunchly opposed to the practice, as related in the account in Galatians. But that he did went ahead and conducted the circumcision gives us a reason to pause, as it suggests that he had homosexual urges.
Now it is our turn to say:
Whatever interpretation Christians may have given to Paul’s action later on (whether correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and disgusting to say the least.
Please note that if such a tradition was located within any Islamic literature or in the Qur’an, and if it is required to take the private organ with one’s mouth, the above is precisely the type of argument the Christian missionaries would have vigorously pointed out in order to demonise Muslims and their religion. Hence the above paragraph is in reality the outcome if one happens to think like a pervert as the Christian missionaries obviously are.