Acts 16 details the decision Paul made to take a young man named Timothy with him on his preaching journey. Timothy was the “son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was a Greek” (1).
The scripture says that since Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, he had this 50% Jewish man circumcised. The reason given in the passage, “because of the Jews there in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek” (3).
It is interesting that Paul was going through the cities, delivering the Jerusalem decree (15:28-29). It states that Gentiles have no need to keep the law, nor to be circumcised. Only to abstain from idolatry, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Paul also taught that Jews were wrong to depend upon the law for standing with God. The Christian faith was separate from the law of Moses. Christ had “broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15).
So, it is obvious Paul was here making an accommodation to the Jews in the area. Timothy was half Jewish and uncircumcised, and Paul had him circumcised before taking him on his tour.
On another occasion, Paul wrote about another young man named Titus. Titus was a Gentile. He had no Jewish blood in him. Concerning Titus, Paul wrote: “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:1-5).
Titus was a Greek, and because of Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised. If Titus had been circumcised, Paul stated it would have been an example of liberty in Christ being spied out; an example of being brought into bondage; an example of yielding submission, and finally a departure from the truth of the gospel.
So, why the different approach of Paul to Timothy (who he had circumcised), and Titus (who he refused to allow to be circumcised)? The answer is simple, Paul accommodated when he could, but was unwilling to cross the line to the compromise of any principle of truth. This was his approach because of his fidelity to the gospel of Christ.
Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
“For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”
Paul’s approach was one we would do well to emulate. Timothy’s mother was a Jew, so circumcising Timothy in no way caused a problem regarding truth. Circumcision was and continues to be a cultural practice. Timothy’s circumcision would take away a potential stumbling block to the Jews who knew of him, and in no way compromised the gospel. However, if he had allowed the pressure of the Judaizers to compel the circumcision of Titus, it would have been a compromise with error. Something Paul would never do.
In our efforts to share the gospel with others, we need to be as accommodating as we can possibly be. Our efforts are to save men, not win arguments. To draw an arbitrary line in the sand, or to take a stand on a matter of judgment instead of seeking first the salvation of another’s soul is foolish and indefensible. May we never forget our purpose! To “win” souls, whether they be Jews, Gentiles, or weak. As Paul we must “come all things to all men” for the purpose of saving them. We do this “for the gospel’s sake.”
Like Paul we do not contend for the compromise of truth. That is a line we must never cross. “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). However, we must not equate inflexibility with the defense of truth. Our convictions in a matter must extend only as far as scripture reveals. Otherwise we are erecting barriers that God has not.
It takes perception and care to make sure we get this right. We must accommodate in any way we can without sacrificing our integrity or the gospel of our Lord. We do this so that we might “by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). We should all adopt Paul’s practice.
