It was not unusual for Paul to try appeasement to satisfy his critics, as the above scriptures strongly indicate. But in taking this route, I’m convinced he erred in judgment. As noted in Acts 21, he participated in Jewish rites to soothe the sentiments of Jewish Christians who still believed in the Old Law and practiced many of the Jewish rituals.

It is of interest that the mistakes of many of God’s chosen servants are recorded in scripture. It is chronicled that David, a man after God’s own heart, committed adultery and murder. Although the apostle Peter was led by God’s Spirit to write to fellow believers, his behavior was less than perfect, for Paul verbally disciplined him when he (Peter) played the part of a hypocrite by discriminating against Gentile believers. Paul said, “I opposed him to the face, because he was clearly in the wrong” (Gal. 2:11-13).

Why, then, should we think it strange that Paul made mistakes in his behavior? If Peter blundered, why not Paul? Paul was just as behaviorally infallible as Peter. So, yes, it seems that the great apostle Paul was human after all. This was the man who told others that the Old Law, with its commandments and regulations, had been abolished (Eph. 2:14). Yet he participated in the very rituals and regulations that ended at the cross. Divinely inspired? Yes. Humanly fallible? Of course.

Assuming Paul’s fallible humanity was exhibited on the two occasions alluded to above, he was no less an apostle of Messiah Jesus, and no less a believer. All of us are sinners. It is that some of us are redeemed sinners, others are unregenerate sinners. All of us make mistakes. God’s grace compensates for the mistakes and blunders of redeemed sinners. If not, the road to heaven will be difficult to negotiate.

Paul was both accommodating and mistaken. For if Judaism’s rituals and regulations ended in Jesus, and they did, and if Paul knew this, and he did, how then could he consistently participate in those very acts while teaching others they were no longer valid and authoritative? I still believe Paul wanted to pacify his brethren, as well as some of his enemies, in the two cases addressed.

Now tell me, would I err in judgment? Would I demonstrate inconsistency? Certainly. Although I wanted to do nothing more than accommodate, I surely would be guilty of participating in futility. You see, Paul knew about the Old Law of Moses as surely as I know about Catholicism’s teachings and methods. He knew the OId Law was invalid and ineffective. He proclaimed this truth and told the Galatian believers that they had deserted Jesus by turning back to the Old Law, or, as he phrased it, “...turning to a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-9).

As to Paul circumcising Timothy, it was done to facilitate Timothy’s ministry, not done as a religious ritual. On the other hand, Paul explicitly participated in religious rites which, he said in a number of his epistles, were dead letters, non-authoritative, and ineffective. He took part in dead acts and dormant ordinances. There’s no parallel between the two incidents.