Fri. Aug. 15th :: Acts 16 :: Paul, Timothy and Michael Phelps

Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived,
whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The
believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along
on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

(Acts 16.1-3)

------------------------------------------------------------

If you remember last chapter, the big decision made by the early Christians was that Gentiles (like you and I) need not undergo the painful and sometimes humiliating process of rejecting their ethnic identity in order to become followers of Jesus. Converts need not become Jewish and men especially need not be circumcised in order to be Christians, etc…

That was the takeaway from Acts 15.

And that’s what makes Acts 16 so confusing.

Fresh off telling Gentiles they need not be circumcised, Paul does something seemingly inexplicable. He turns around and has his Greek friend Timothy ‘go under the knife’. Why? Because he knew other Jews in the area would raise a stink if he didn’t.

Anyone else smell hypocrisy?

So why did Paul do this?


Indulge me a parable of sorts:

Probably because I was up late watching swimming, a story comes to mind. Four years ago at the US Olympic trials Michael Phelps and another US swimmer Ian Crocker went head to head in the 100m Butterfly. Crocker won, and with that, he earned the right to swim the event in the Athens Intermediate relay. But then things changed.

A few weeks later in the Olympic Games, Phelps beat Crocker in the final, and with that, he re-earned the right to the relay (and an almost certain Gold). It seemed cut and dried. Crocker would be off the team and Phelps would get ANOTHER medal.

But then something strange happened. In a show of sportsmanship Phelps walked over to Crocker and offered him his relay spot. In other words: Phelps had earned the right to be there. But having earned the right, he promptly gave it up in an act of unity and friendship.

So what does this have to do with Paul and Timothy?

It seems that simply earning the RIGHT to do something does not always mean that one should do it. Sometimes there is a greater good to be achieved by giving up what is rightfully yours.

In this passage Timothy ‘goes under the knife’ NOT BECAUSE HE HAD TO, but because doing so showed his Jewish friends that he was more concerned about seeing the gospel go forward than simply claiming his RIGHTS as a Christian.

So here’s the question:
Is it possible that God is calling you to give up one of your RIGHTS so that his work might go forward? In what way?