What was Paul’s view of circumcision?
 |
| "Customs of Central Asians. Circumcision." "Photograph shows a group of men seated on the ground near a small boy who is being circumcised." Albumen print. "Illus. in: Turkestanskīi al'bom, chast' ėtnograficheskaia..., 1871-1872, part 2, vol. 1, pl. 71." "Batga [sic] buri" translated from Persian as "circumcision." (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
6:12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
Ok, so Paul was NOT in favor of Christians getting circumcised in order to pander to the Jewish understanding that circumcision was still necessary.
And Paul had sanction for this view from the Jerusalem council itself. In Acts 15, when Paul reported his success in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, the Jerusalem council of Jewish believers discussed whether the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. They opted for NO. They then commissioned Paul to go to the Gentiles and relay this news.
But the very next chapter begins with these astounding words…
Acts 16:1-3 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.
Wait, what? Paul is coming from a decision by the Jewish believers not to* have Gentile believers circumcised, en route to announce that fact, and on the way he collars a half Greek, half Jewish believer to join him, and has him circumcised?!
Why would he do that? He is the Apostle of Grace, the champion of the uncircumcised Gentile. But he is also on a mission to convince some pretty pertinacious people of that truth. This was a long haul. And that lengthy convincing would certainly be cut short if there was an uncircumcised Greek nibbling on baklava in the background.
Paul “compromised” his view in the short-term with these Jewish people so that in the long run he could win them to the truth that circumcision was unnecessary.
Paul didn’t sin in doing this, nor was he being hypocritical; he was exercising wisdom. He was pacing himself. He was showing the maturity of one who had been in ministry long enough for his laces to slacken just enough to allow effective racing, but not so much as to lose a shoe!
It depends on where the finish line is. If the goal is to win an argument for what the Bible says on an issue, then the seminoid has the odds in his favor. He will make short shrift of any ignorant counter arguments that get clumsily tossed his way.
But if the goal is to win a soul, turn an opponent into an adherent, safeguard the relationship, and ensure the application of that truth to the lives and families involved…then what turns a seminoid into a pastor is the willingness to lay down his light saber in order to keep a friend he can then win over in time. There is a time to smile and nod, rather than draw your sword.
Again…I’m not saying let’s avoid offending people so that they keep coming to church. But when there is an actual goal in place to intentionally shepherd people toward the truth, and a strategy for doing so, then cultivating a pastoral relationship with those people is a helpful part of the fight for truth.
