Hypocritical or Helpful?

“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” Acts 16:1-3

This is a strange event with even stranger timing.

Paul had just been sent by the Apostles in Jerusalem to deliver to the Gentiles the very exciting news that they didn’t have to submit to Jewish customs and laws. This was exciting for many reasons, and one of the biggest ones for Gentile guys was that they wouldn’t have to “come under the knife”, if you know what I mean.

So what gives here? Paul recruits a young man to accompany him on this journey where he would be delivering the incredible news of freedom (and great relief) that was decided by the Church leaders, but he insists that Timothy gets circumcised before joining him on this assignment.

Doesn’t that seem hypocritical?

I used to think so; but as I’ve grown in leadership, I’ve come to understand there is a difference between setting a mature example and cowering before undue influence.

Sometimes you may have freedom to do something, but your gut tells you that your message will be more readily accepted if live web sex you forgo that freedom.

For instance, in Christ I’m certain I can dress how I want to in church without offending God, but if I’m speaking to a more conservative congregation, my ripped jeans and converse shoes may immediately shut the ears of those who need to hear my message.

The point was, Paul was not willing to compromise what needed to be heard regarding the message of freedom by insisting on that very freedom for himself, or even his team (if you are on assignment at a church where you think the staff requirements are challenging, just be glad you weren’t Timothy!).

See, Timothy was half Jewish, and if the Jews thought for a moment that Paul was trying to change Jewish religion and culture and not just extend this Gospel he preached to the Gentiles, they would go crazy trying to shut that message down—which is exactly what happened in Acts 21. Though that was a false accusation, Paul correctly understood the possible stakes for the message of the Gospel. He did not see as hypocritical an action that might not reflect his own understanding of what is required for life in Christ (see Galatians), but that would clear the way for a helpful advance of his assignment.

Are we so insistent on our own rights that we declare as hypocritical any self-expression that may infringe on our freedom, or will we, like Paul, sometimes make painful but wise decisions to further the full message of grace?