In Acts 16 the Apostle Paul takes the unusual step of circumcising a young man for no reason other than for the sake of others!

Acts 16:3
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.

Timothy’s circumcision was clearly not for himself but for others. Timothy was willing to go under the knife not for his own benefit but for the benefit of others. This sounds like a travesty – especially after the decision of the Council in Jerusalem where it was authoritatively declared that circumcision was not a requirement for salvation. Ironically, Paul and his companions on this leg of their missionary journey were also actively delivering the decision to the churches. Yet Paul went out of his way to do the opposite – an apparent contradiction.

It seemed like Paul and his companions were delivering one thing to the churches but practising another. Paul had the backing of the entire Jerusalem council but he still chose to circumcise Timothy. The apostles in Jerusalem and what they decreed carried much weight because they were the ones who had been with The Lord. Despite the binding decision of the council which he was delivering to all the churches for observance, Paul chose to do the contrary by circumcising Timothy. Why did he want to do that?

The Jews were the main antagonists to the gospel and so Paul sought to remove unnecessary offence that could potentially hinder the progress and spread of the gospel even though he would have been well within his rights not to circumcise Timothy. He did this in order to avoid any question that could possibly arise precluding an entire sector of the society from hearing, let alone accepting the gospel. The fact that Timothy was uncircumcised would have been a major obstacle to Jews even being open to the gospel in the first place.

Paul chose to take pre-emptive action and avoid any questions that would become stumbling blocks for some from even hearing the good news of Jesus Christ. He factored in the conscience of those who are yet to believe. Despite the decision of the council Paul was ever mindful not to present a stumbling block to those who were on the outside – as far as it was within his means and reasonable to do so. He was not one to insist on his rights even when he had every right to do so. When it came to the issue of circumcision, Paul stood in the right not to circumcise Timothy yet chose to do so in order not to offend the Jews and present a stumbling block for the gospel. It was so that a favourable platform for communicating the gospel among the Jews would be preserved.

This was an unforced concession on a peripheral matter – not a central issue of salvation. Paul’s unforced concession was motivated by his desire to – as far as it was possible and reasonable – bring the gospel to all.

1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

The apostle Paul’s diverse approach tailored to those he was sharing the good news with was driven by the burning desire to win them for Christ and secure their salvation.

Going in with all guns blazing and a total disregard of every and all issues of concern (cultural and/or ethnic) was not a gospel strategy favoured or employed by Paul but rather a tailored one to those whom he was bringing the gospel. He contextualised his introduction to the good news of Jesus Christ to the people he was bringing it to. Of course the central tenets of the gospel remained untouched and untouchable. Circumcision was settled by the Jerusalem Council as being a peripheral issue and not central or vital for salvation and the gospel. It was therefore neither here nor there but carried the potential to be a stumbling block for a certain people group – in this case Jews. And so it was necessary to consider conceding on it in order to reach them with the gospel and offer an opportunity for salvation.

Paul did not allow himself to be distracted from the central and vital issues of the faith and salvation but chose to centre on them by temporarily conceding on the peripheral ones or agreeing to them – for the sake of argument and in order to save as many as possible. When it came to reaching out to others with the gospel and their salvation, Paul was ready and prepared not to let the peripheral matters cloud (or distract from) the central and become stumbling blocks for them, closing them off from hearing the gospel.

In all things, Paul sought and strove hard for the salvation of many!

If we too desire to reach many with the gospel and offer them the opportunity for salvation, all guns blazing is neither the wisest nor effective approach. When reaching out to the lost with a desire to see them saved, not every issue different people groups face carry equal weight. The focus must and always should be what is central and vital to the gospel and not what is peripheral and unnecessary for salvation. We must take care not to get so caught up by the peripheral and nonessential issues that we get distracted from the central and vital elements of the gospel.

We will be more effective in reaching many if when we communicate the gospel, we start with where people are. However, it is also the peripheral issues one must be ready to concede on, not the central tenets of the gospel of Jesus Christ.