11/07/2026
If we observe Paul’s own practice concerning the scruples of “weaker” brethren, it is quite clear that he always accommodated his personal liberty and practice in order not to offend the sensitive among his congregations. On several occasions a similar problem arose in his churches. At times it involved eating food dedicated to idols (1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:23–33); at times it involved those who objected to eating meat (Rom 14:1–15). In such instances, whereas Paul agreed with those advocating freedom, he always surrendered his own freedom in order not to offend the “weak”, and he urged those who had a similar understanding of the freedom of the gospel to do the same. For Paul circumcision was an irrelevant issue in itself, for it only involved the presence or absence of a piece of skin unless one argued that the removal of this piece of skin was a requirement for salvation. Thus when a theological issue was at stake, he refused to have Titus circumcised (Gal 2:1–3); but in the case of Timothy, when it did not involve a theological issue but permitted greater freedom in ministering among the Jews, he was willing to have him circumcised (Acts 16:1–3).
To understand Paul’s view of freedom,we must recognize that he was so free that, unless a theological issue was at stake, he could willingly surrender his freedom in order to facilitate the spread of the gospel. This is seen most clearly in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Although free, Paul voluntarily became a slave to the weaknesses of others … [He] would have no problem urging Gentile believers that they should keep the decree when they were in the presence of Jews, for truly free persons are only free when they can surrender their freedom out of love for the weak. For Paul this could even involve taking a Jewish vow, if it helped in his ministry among the Jews (Acts 18:18; 21:26).
- R. H. Stein, ‘Jerusalem,’ Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993), 471.