CROSSROADS (TROUBLE WITH THE GENTILE MISSION)
Acts 21:14-36
Have you ever taken a trip where you expected a lot of good to happen, only to have things go wrong? Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem was not the most pleasant trip. It follows the extreme success of the Ephesus mission and the Asian expansion of the kingdom through Christ. He went from one of the highest highs, to one of the lowest lows, as his ministry was to end abruptly and his life would be snuffed out. The church and the ministry of Paul were at a crossroad. FF Bruce looks at Luke’s dedication of 6 chapters to Paul’s final visit with wonder. His amazement is over the use of so much space to futility. George Ladd asks then answers the reason as he comments that:”Why does the story merit so much space? No new churches were established; no theological or ecclesiological problems solved… The importance of these chapters is found in their illustration of Israel’s rejection of the Gospel.” Today, I am going to add a new twist to the interpretation of the inclusion of these chapters that I have not read elsewhere, as the rejection may go beyond Israel’s rejection of the Gospel. It may very well be that the story includes the Israeli Church at Jerusalem’s rejection of the Pauline doctrine and practices of a grace based salvation.
I) ARRIVED
Let’s begin with a question. Did trouble take Paul by surprise? It shouldn’t have. Back in Acts 9, right at his conversion, Jesus made it clear to then Saul what his future would be like. He told Ananias, who was sent to pray for Saul, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” Now he has the prophecy of Agabus serving as an omni-budsman, guiding his steps. When Paul first arrives, the brethren who were probably remnant Hellenist Believers greeted him warmly. We’ve got some old friends from California who keep threatening to fly out and visit us. We can’t wait to see them and hopefully you will meet them. Connecting with old friends and family is a wonderful thing, and it was no different for Paul as he reconnected with old friends. The attitude of James and the Elders of Jerusalem is an entirely different matter.
17-18 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 17–26 James here is Jesus’ half brother, not the disciple James, who was martyred. James, the half brother of Jesus (not of the “James and John” Apostolic ministry) was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and it was appropriate that Paul seek him out. This was at least the fourth meeting between these two men who represented the twin streams of Christian faith; James the Jewish strain, and Paul the Hellenist and Gentile variation. To say that they didn’t always see eye-to-eye, would be a mild misstatement. As you may remember, we discussed their theological conflicts in a previous study. Galatians and James seem to be contra-publications written from an argumentative place, as both men tried to correct the others theology.
18 And all the elders were present (pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15, and that the tone is less than warm and embracing. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours, or that they are identified simply as Elders in context to their work in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there were differences in perspective. This gathering of the presbytery was for a specific reason. Paul thought it was to present a significant offering that many of the Gentile believers wanted the Jerusalem Church to receive. James seems to have had a different agenda entirely. The elders received the report positively. Following the update, James informed Paul of their agenda: the reports of his supposedly subversive teaching.
Most if not all of the Jerusalem church viewed Christianity differently than Paul. Even it seems that they understood that they were saved by the grace of God, they likely believed that they were kept saved by keeping the Law of Moses. There are believers today who believe like the Jerusalem Jews that our good works, while not playing a role in the obtaining of salvation, still plays a significant role in our “holding on to” salvation. The answer to this dilemma is to understand that: We are separated and baptized into the Body by Holy Spirit’s presence, even as we empowered by Him to do the ‘Works of the Kingdom.’
- We are saved by God’s grace through faith, apart from our good works (works are not the basis of salvation);
- Real faith changes us, so that we can do the ‘Works of the Kingdom’ and good works are the proof of real faith (James: “show me faith by works”);
- We are secured and kept by God’s Grace, not our good works;
- We do not lose salvation by sinning or failing to do good works (because good works aren’t its basis);
- Our salvation is sealed by God on the basis of His grace and power (it doesn’t depend on me, thank you Jesus!).
Paul is now able to present the offering that had been collected for the poor believers in Jerusalem, which was his reason for going to Jerusalem: Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. 26For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; Romans 15:25-27) and to fill in the leaders of the “mother church” on the events of his missionary journeys.
19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. God had done (epoiēsen ho theos). This is another summary statement by Luke that gathers up all the stories of what God had done during the 2nd Missionary trip. Paul appears to have taken great pains to give God the glory as he recounted the many miraculous events that had occurred during the intervening period of time since they had last seen each other.
Although the response of the audience is praiseworthy toward the Lord, Luke implies that he observed an absence of warmth and enthusiasm concerning the entry of Paul in contrast with the welcome accorded by his friends the day before (17). Philip Furneaux thinks that Paul was coldly received on this day in spite of the generous offering brought from the Gentile Christians. It looks as though his misgiving as to its reception (Romans 15:31) was confirmed. Neither do we hear that the Christian leadership of Jerusalem put in so much as a word on his behalf with either the Jewish or the Roman authorities following his arrest or in an expression of sympathy with him during his long imprisonment at Caesarea. The most that can be said is that the Judaizers referred to by James do not appear actively against him in this meeting leveling their accusations against his message as they had done in the past. Most commentators say that the money stopped the mouths of those lions. That may not have been the case, as we shall see. So we come back to a central question: what did Paul need do to allay the fears of the main leadership in the Jerusalem church?
Before we answer that question, let’s consider the historical milieu of the day and the external considerations of the Pauline mission at the time. This part of the Book of Acts gives us a clear idea as to when Paul probably wrote the Epistle to the Romans, as it contains explicit statements about this trip and Paul’s future plans for Kingdom expansion into Spain. It is reasonably safe to assume that Paul did not anticipate imprisonment or betrayal on any level as he mapped out his future and his planned visits to the far reaches of the Roman Empire. We understand that Paul had intermittently visited Jerusalem on prior occasions, following his initial flight from Jerusalem following his dramatic conversion and testimony about the Lordship of Jesus Christ; however his trips were probably like Jesus’ trips to Jerusalem prior to the passion, and would have been conducted incognito. This trip to Jerusalem was not conducted in the shadows, as it seems to have been announced, the offering was needed and anticipated. Many scholars view it as an oddity that there was no mention of the gift, in spite of the fact that it would have been substantial. Paul had actually expressed fear over the possibility of a rejection of this gift by the Jerusalem Christians (Romans 15:30-31). Why would that be the case?
The answer seems to lie in the nature of the church and the then current disputes that burned in her bosom. The Jerusalem church was trapped in many ways, between its commitment to the Gentile undertaking on the one hand, and its Jewish history and traditions on the other. These two points were almost irreconcilable. In his defense, Paul had argued that the Gentile believers owed a debt of gratefulness to the Jews, as they had become participants in their spiritual blessings, and that they needed to give generously. The task of collecting the offering and the goal of preaching in Spain as a destination is recorded in Romans 15, where we read that: Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. 18I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21Rather, as it is written: ”Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you. (Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome ) 23But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. 26For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. 30I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, 32so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed. 33The God of peace be with you all. Amen.
II) ARTICULATED A False Charge 20b-22
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law How many thousands (posai muriades) James begins his line of reasoning by alluding to a major dispute among the Judaic branch of Christianity, saying that there are both 1,000’s of Jewish Believers in Christ, and that they do not like Paul’s teachings. Muriades is both the word for ten thousand (Acts 19:19) and an indefinite number like our “myriads” (word origin) as in Luke 12:1; Acts 21:20; Jude 14; Revelation 5:11; 9:16. Some see this as a surprising statement concerning the total number of believers in Jerusalem, even with allowable hyperbole, but we can recollect Acts 4:4 (number of the men—not women—about five thousand); 5:14 (multitudes both of men and women); and 6:7. Even with modest growth and change, it is highly likely that there was a substantial church presence in Jerusalem some 25-30 after the Ascension of Christ. Luke records their sentiment as to Paul’s position, which may very well explain Agabus’ apocalyptic prophecy, as they were all zealous for the law (pantes zēlōtai tou nomou). Zealous should probably be rendered Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective). The word zealot is from ζηλοω (zēloō), to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used zēlōtēs for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called “hot-heads,” who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Acts 1:13), was in the number of the twelve apostles. Luke’s point is clear. They sided with an extrapolation of Mosaic stipulations as being relevant and binding to all of the church. It is highly likely that none of these men saw the Gentile mission as being relevant or necessary, particularly in the directive aspects of faith.
The Judaizers are mentioned here, however it is in a different context, as they are identified as being zealous (zealots) and they rankled under Paul’s success and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also with the specific intent of undoing the harm done by Paul in Jerusalem. This may have been due to the nature of the offering that Paul gathered, as the great collection from the Gentile Christians brought it with him to give to the delegates from the churches would have been distasteful. After all, these were formerly heathen people giving charity to them, the Jews.
21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. James in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion lets Paul in on the actual situation Paul is facing through the charge of teaching against Moses. The passage literally says, “That you are teaching all the Jews among (kata) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in 2:9) apostasy from Moses.” The crux of the matter revolves around the word apostasian (apostasy), a late form (I Macc. 2:15) for the earlier apostasis (cf. II Thess. 2:3 for apostasia). In the minds of the leaders of the church at Jerusalem, this is the heart of the matter. It was a far more serious charge that trumped the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts. Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church in Jerusalem with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole that challenges Paul. The charge is apostasy from Moses, or the Law, the central point of Judaism.
Think about this with me, Paul, with his call to the Gentiles would never be greeted warmly by true Jewish believers, who were zealous both for their countrymen and their traditions. There were also many Jewish believers in Christ who were being swayed away from the message of grace; as prejudices were being instilled into their minds by irresponsible people intent on the destruction of the principle point of Christian faith: Salvation by Grace through Faith plus Nothing. I think Luke is telling us that Paul and his missional message were being viewed with suspicion by the church at Jerusalem, as their heritage affiliation made them prejudiced to the full freedom Christ had bought, and that they were through with Paul and his message. They were fed up with Paul and his insipid deviations from their Law and traditions. His apostasy had to be stopped, as it was beginning to spread.
It seems that the church at Jerusalem did not want this preacher to the Gentiles to continue to lead people away from the Laws of Moses. On a side note, this would explain Peter’s qualified defense of Paul in his Second Epistle, where he says that: Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:14-15). If my theory is right, Peter’s defense of Paul would have been written somewhere around 57-58 AD, and end the dispute of authorship and date, as this would place 2 Peter in a historical context concerning Paul and the problems of the Asian church. As to the attitude of the church then, they are not so different than us today. We are by no means immune to the prejudices of the day in which we live; we need look no further than our nation’s past history of civil rights, and the fact that many professing Christians were on the wrong side of the equation, to know that this is true. The Book of Acts gives us clear information as to the prejudicial conditions and views of the day.
The “Gentile Question” was supposedly settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15 and Galatians 2), with the Mosaic ceremonial laws not being imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul had won freedom for them. But what was not said was, is it wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing the Law if they wished? The answer is not as easy as it may be presumed after 21 Centuries. Think about the position the Jerusalem Jewish believers were in. Throughout their lives, they had been taught to keep the Law of Moses; now they had become followers of Christ as their Messiah. So what were they supposed to do with the Law? What about ritualistic circumcision, the centerpiece of their identity? What about the religious feasts they grew up keeping? These are the things that had been part of their faithful expression in worshipping God. Now, as Christ-followers, what should their attitudes and actions to be? What was being said slanderously about Paul, was that he was teaching Jews to throw away all of their heritage and customs. This was not the case; the true gospel of Jesus Christ does not demand cultural obliteration, and only demands cultural change when the prevailing cultural norms and practices are contrary to the Bible’s teaching. As we will see, Paul was no exception to this rule.
Paul observed Passover in Philippi (Acts 20:6) and his projected desire to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost (20:16) show us his affirmation of Judaism and its practices. There are no biblical statements that Paul taught Jews to dismiss circumcision. He guided Timothy who had a Jewish mother, into circumcision. As to the Gentiles however, he gave no such instruction. This does not mean that Paul was unwilling to work together with the Jewish believers and their adherence to Mosaic traditions. F.F. Bruce said this is evidenced as, “A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul’s is not in bondage to its own emancipation.”
Paul willingly did what the Law required, not for the purpose of reverting to a legalistic faith, rather he wanted to identify with his Jewish brethren, his ancestral people, and not allow his freedom in Christ to become their stumbling block. Paul saw and understood the value of the Jewish rituals and their significance, as they pointed toward Christ. The Jerusalem council had already settled the matter of how Gentile Christians should act. They should abstain from sexual immorality and things sacrificed to idols, with no addendums about following the laws and customs of Moses, including circumcision. The restatement of the council’s decision 8 years ago may just have been to assure Paul that they hadn’t changed their mind 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Let me take a moment and comment on the construct of James statement. What is it therefore? (Τι οὐν ἐστιν; Ti oun estin?). See this form of question by Paul (I Cor. 14:15, 26). What is to be done about it? Clearly James and the elders do not believe these misrepresentations of Paul’s teaching, but many do Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V, c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Ac 21:22).
Virtually every Commentary I examined accepts that James did not believe the charge against Paul. One commentary says: This verse is to be understood on the basis of vs. 21. τί οὖν ἐστιν, “What then is to be done?” does not mean that the church leadership entertains any doubt about Paul’s innocence (we ought not to seek in this expression such a meaning in pre-Lucan tradition). They ask only what is to be done in this situation. “They will certainly hear” seems to make more sense in reference to Jews than to Jewish Christians. Thus it has been suggested that vs. 20 originally referred to Jews. The focus of this passage, however, is not yet on the attack against Paul, but rather on settling the situation within the church. 21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. Acts 21:21 (NRSV) 20 When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. Acts 21:20 (NRSV) Schwartz, “Chronologie,” 290; Preuschen. Conzelmann, H., Epp, E. J., & Matthews, C. R. (1987). Acts of the Apostles: A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Translation of: Die Apostelgeschichte; Passages in Greek and Latin. Facsim., map on lining papers.; Includes indexes. (180). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.”
The passage appears to be in the form of a challenge, not as an allowance. Most commentators agree that it appears to be constructed as a challenge, but allowances are made in translating it in a more subtle manner, which suits the prevailing dynamics of the day concerning our view of James and his piety. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come Virtually all commentators assert that James and company did not believe this false charge, but only wished that Paul would set the matter straight, as to Judaic principles and practices. Paul had made his position clear in the Epistles of 1 Corinthians and Galatians, with an added point in Romans for all who cared to know.
The charge that was articulated was one that stated the threat to the ongoing posterity of Judaism: 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs Telling them not to circumcise their children (legōn mē peritemnein autous ta tekna). The participle legōn agrees with “you” (Paul), the subject of διδασκεις (didaskeis) teaching. This is not an indirect assertion, rather it is an indirect command, hence the negative μη [mē] instead of οὐ [ou] with the infinitive (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion were doing, but that he says that they were not to go on circumcising (peritemnein) their children. The opposite was the case, as his own practice is stated in 1 Corinthians 9:19 “to the Jews as a Jew.”
21 Live according to our customs/neither to walk after the customs (mēde tois ethesin peripatein). The charge was enlarged to cover all of the infractions Paul had committed and to give credence to the enemies of the erstwhile Apostle, while making Paul out to be an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. It is interesting to note that the same charge had been made against Stephen when a much younger Saul (Paul) was the leader of those who were opposed to Christianity (6:14): “Will change the customs (ethē) the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us.” I wonder if some of Stephen’s friends and relatives may have been prompting some of the current actions. At any rate, it seems that the original charge that was leveled against the Jews that they cared more for Moses than for God was true: Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God (Acts 6:11).” This was also the same charge that had been leveled against Jesus. It is interesting to note that both Jesus and Paul had raised someone from the dead prior to their betrayals and/or arrests. It’s almost as if their detractors saw this as an insurmountable obstruction that granted favor and acceptability in the eyes of the common populace.
They have been informed concerning you katēchēthēsan peri sou First aorist passive indicative of katēcheō It means to sound, echo, from ēchō, which is where we get our word echo from, down (kata), to resound, re-echo, or to teach orally. This can be used to express oral teachings and it can infer that the countryside was buzzing about Paul’s teaching. People were talking about him, and the message was consistent in Ephesus, Jerusalem, Galatia and all of the other outposts where he had ministered. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had previously brought trouble for Peter: So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him (Acts 11:2) and Paul: “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved… Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses’ (Acts 15:1, 5).” They had failed in their attacks on Paul’s world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at Jerusalem, which lent itself to a more potent place of danger historically. In Paul’s long absence from Jerusalem since Acts 18, the Judaizers had a free hand and they seem to have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul and their criticism was working.
Paul could have challenged James instructions: 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law, and told them that it would be to risky for him to make a public appearance on Temple grounds. Instead, he submitted humbly to their demand. Under the circumstances, and with the allegations before Paul, it is hard not to wonder if their call to have Paul go to the temple was what actually sparked the riot that led to his arrest.
The passage addresses seven days, which were the even days for the completion of the Nazirite vow. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in going along with the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in 1 Corinthians 9:20, To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law, when no principle was involved. It is charged by many commentators that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. In order for Paul to show he was not going against the council, which wanted Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians to live in harmony, he needed to act like a Jew. Many people call Paul’s actions compromise and failure. I do not. I think it was betrayal on the part of the Jerusalem Churches Leadership, as many of them were Paul’s ‘Judaizers.’ It is hard to dismiss the fact that Paul could have been set up, considering the fact that he would have stood out in the crowd as he accompanied four bald men.
III) ARRESTED 23-30 Paul’s attitude toward the Law and Politics Paul wasn’t concerned with changing culture and customs, denying his heritage; he was concerned with proclaiming the gospel. We must be careful or we can concern ourselves with outward appearances and miss the grace of God. I also want to stop for a moment and review Agabus’ prophecy in light of its inclusion in the text. As you know, I had commented on it recently, and issued the guidelines for personal prophecy and the need of the receptor to accept or reject it, as they often are not intended to be binding guides. Although I hold this to be true, I am developing a new perception of this incident with Agabus. C. Peter Wagner questions Agabus as a prophet by questioning the accuracy of his word. He points out that the prophecy as it was recorded had two points: 1) The Jews at Jerusalem (are the instigators who bind the owner of the belt; and 2) it is the Jews who deliver Paul into the hands of the Gentiles. Wagner says that Paul is bound by the Romans, not the Jews, and the Jews had no intention to hand him over to the Romans. Instead they wanted to murder him. According to any interpretation that sees the Jerusalem churches actions as benign, Agabus was more wrong than right. With Luke’s repeated focus to detail that he views as important to Paul’s legal defense, while excluding details that frustrate many of us, this doesn’t make sense.
As many of you know, I have been fascinated with the Dead Sea Scrolls for years, and I think that the Community at Qumran had a huge influence on the early church, with many of these scholars becoming Christians. I think their work makes allowance as to how such a prolific body of writings that became known as the New Testament could be produced so rapidly. The Dead Sea Scrolls let us see an internal argument among the adherents, as there were righteous and unrighteous teachers who were sided with in the apocalyptic writings. I think the real answer lies not in the division between the Priesthood and Jesus, as the Community rejected the Priesthood carte blanche. Rather it probably revolves around the dispute between James and Paul, Judaic Christianity and Hellenistic Christianity, Law or Grace.
Let me bring another item into the light. It is important to understand the issues that existed in Jerusalem. Josephus reports that this was a time, of turmoil, as it was shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome (A.D. 56-57). Jerusalem was full of political upheaval, with lots of uprisings and Jewish nationalism, all put down by the Governor Felix. Religious intrigue and conflict was not seen as beneficent by the Romans, who were known to allow for the betrayal of a leader of a sect for the good of the nation: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. ”What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place[c] and our nation.” 49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life. 54Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew to a region near the desert, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples. 55When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple area they asked one another, “What do you think? Isn’t he coming to the Feast at all?” 57But the chief priests and Pharisees had given orders that if anyone found out where Jesus was, he should report it so that they might arrest him (John 11:45-54).
Returning to Wagner, he asserts that we can explain this prophecy by arguing that the details may not be right with the prophecy still being accurate (somewhat). I am beginning to dispute this position, which seems to be consistent with an assumption that the elders were innocent in Paul’s arrest. I am beginning to think that a proper view sees Agabus as correct, and this is why Luke includes the prophecy with its two assumptions intact. Luke editorialized at times in order to make his points. This is why it is nonsensical to assume that he would include a primarily false prophecy in the narrative. In order to view the prophecy as correct however, means we have to accept a more nefarious position, one that includes a deliberate betrayal of Paul, as he is handed over to the Romans bound by the actions of the Jerusalem elders. I think it is appropriate to see the Temple visit as a set up that was intended to have Paul arrested following his very public appearance on the Temple grounds.
It is probably important to note that Paul had done more for the kingdom than any of these men in terms of influence and conversions and churches started. They understood that if he were left unchecked, his teaching would change the complexion of Christianity, separating it from its Jewish restrictions and nationalism. Yet when Paul was confronted, he did not display his illustrious resume and boast in his accomplishments in an unseemly manner. Paul’s attitude toward Christ We won’t take the time to do it right now, but an interesting study for another time or on your own would be to notice the many parallels between the crucifixion of Christ and the imprisonment and abuse of the apostle Paul. Though Paul’s attitude toward Jesus would undoubtedly have been much like John Baptist’s—“I’m not worthy to tie His shoes”—it still is interesting how Paul’s treatment mirrors what happened to Christ. Their shouts of “away with him!” were almost identical to what the Jews cried out to Pontius Pilate about Jesus in Luke 23. Under the circumstances, and with the allegations before Paul, it is hard not to wonder if their call to have Paul go to the temple was what actually sparked the riot that led to his arrest. I believe this to be true, even though this view is not sustainable in so far as I have been able to research it. I think it was betrayal on the part of the Jerusalem Churches Leadership, as many of them were Paul’s ‘Judaizers.’ Again, it is hard to dismiss the fact that Paul could have been set up, considering the fact that he would have stood out in the crowd as he accompanied four bald men.
When Ananias told Saul of the sufferings he would endure for Jesus, it probably never entered into the future Apostle’s mind that this would include betrayal at the hand of Christians following years of successful service to the Savior. The consequences of Paul’s imprisonment and the demise of his free hand in ministry could have been devastating, especially at the hand of the half-brother of Jesus, the one who the Sanhedrin betrayed. We need to remember that one of the main reasons Luke/Acts was originally written was to act as a defense for Paul, serving as a legal brief or summary. The issue of intrigue and betrayal makes this even more compelling, especially in light of the fact that the manuscript is incomplete. Were their Romans in on the betrayal from the beginning, and did the Emperor use these points of actions on the part of Zealots who acted against Roman inclusion into the religious milieu of Israel to move against Jerusalem?
Instead of being strong and denouncing the rumor mongers, the council wanted Paul to pay the expenses of the men who had taken a Nazirite vow. So was Paul under the law or not, or was he a denouncer of the Law? Many commentators see this as a great failure, with others using it as a proof text for obedience to legal issues of faith. The short answer is no to both questions, but we have to understand that he bent toward the Law in some of the non-essentials in order to win the Jews according to 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Here are a few brief points about what’s happening:
- After coming into close contact with Gentiles, Paul would have to undergo a ceremony of purification according to the Law of Moses.
- Paul would have to report regularly to the priest for appropriate rites, according to Jewish law.
- Paul had to pay for the offerings of four poor Jewish Christian men who had taken what was known as a Nazirite vow. This vow was an act of dedication to God, and involved abstaining from alcohol and meat, as well as growing the hair longer than normal, among other things. The final week was to be spent in the courts of the Temple.
- Paying these offerings was considered a good deed and a display of solidarity with the Jewish people. There were apparently four Jewish believers who, still living as Jews, had taken this vow at some point in the past, but were unable to afford to be released from the vow. The payment for release was several sacrificial animals, as well as other offerings.
- If Paul were to tell them to disregard normal procedure, to treat the Jewish law with no respect, then he’d confirm the suspicions of some; if he were to pay for these poor men to be able to follow Jewish tradition, so that they could shave their heads and be released from their vow, then he’d demonstrate that he did not disrespect the Law.
It had been 20+ years since Paul had lived in Jerusalem, and he’d only visited there occasionally, and so the average Jew on the street, though likely well aware of the “treasonous blasphemer” known as Paul, would hardly have recognized the man. But this was the feast of Pentecost, and Jews from all over Asia would make the pilgrimage back to the holy city, and many of these Jews would easily recognize the man whose preaching had turned the world upside down.
27–36 Notice who is causing the uproar: it was the Jews who had caused Paul significant problems during his time in Asia Minor. It’s likely that some of the instigators were Jews from Ephesus, men who had hassled Paul during his ministry there. They had bided their time until an opportunity arose, and arise it did; as Paul made his way into the temple to pay for the fulfillment of the final Nazirite vow, they saw him, and seized this opportunity with a well-calculated cry (a combination of “treason” and “blasphemer”) designed to arouse both the patriotic and religious sympathies of their fellow Jews. Imagine a Muslim shouting “Allah Akbar” and attempting to burn a flag at a Sarah Palin Rally and you get something of the picture. The anger that must have burned in the hearts of pious Jews who viewed Paul as a heretic, and the lynch mob that formed would have taken Paul’s life then and there had it not been for Roman soldiers nearby who intervened.
A Violent Outbreak There was a balustrade a small wall, that blocked access of Gentiles into the Holy Place, and there were placed all along this wall warnings in Greek and Latin to the effect of “No Trespassing” by Gentiles. The pretense that the Jews used to stir up the crowd was that Paul had brought a Gentile beyond the Court of the Gentiles in the temple, and into places reserved for Jews alone.
Paul was undoubtedly thinking of this wall that separated Jews and Gentiles when he wrote, in Ephesians 2, “remember that at one time you Gentiles…were…separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility…that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”
31-36 A Turbulent Arrest Claudius Lysias was the commander of the cohort (part of a Roman legion) that numbered perhaps 1,000 men. They were quick to investigate any uproar in the city. There were perhaps 200 soldiers that went to rescue Paul (plural “officers” – centurions, each in charge of around 100 men). It actually saved Paul’s life! This “tribune” was a commander of Roman troops, and as you’ve probably learned by now, the main operative marching order for Romans was “keep the peace at all costs!” And so Paul was spirited away by the Roman soldiers, with the screams of the mob for his blood echoing in their ears, reminiscent of a mob scene in Jerusalem some 27 or so years earlier… Paul’s attitude toward Christ We won’t take the time to do it right now, but an interesting study for another time/on your own would be to notice the many parallels between the crucifixion of Christ and the imprisonment and abuse of the apostle Paul. Paul’s attitude toward Jesus would have been like John Baptist’s, “I am not worthy to tie His shoes.” Still, it is interesting how Paul’s treatment reflects what happened to Christ. Their shouts of “away with him!” were almost identical to what the Jews cried out to Pontius Pilate about Jesus in Luke 23.
Not surprising, though; Paul said, “To me, to live is Christ” (Philippians 1:21). Here’s what Jesus said: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.” As a non-masochistic man Paul would not have chosen to suffer, nevertheless his aspiration was that the summation of his life needed to be a reflection of Jesus Christ. This allowed him ultimately, to lay down his life for His Savior, as he followed his Savior humbly to the slaughter, going to the Temple grounds, which led to his arrest. “To me, to live is Christ” meant for him persecution, ridicule, imprisonment, and even death. This leads us to ask of ourselves, how do we respond? “To me, to live is ________.” There can be only one right answer: Jesus Christ.
Points to Ponder: We see in this text several of Paul’s attitudes. Note that…Paul possessed a correct attitude toward evangelism To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (I Corinthians 9:20-22). The only burning issue for Paul was for the Gospel to go forward, and for us to not get caught up in the insignificance of personal inclinations and cultural differences. His attitude was that of a servant. We serve others in order to point them to Christ.
Paul expressed an attitude toward trivial matters. In Romans 14:5 Paul addresses differences among Christians, when he says that “each one should be convinced in his own mind.” This principle should apply, not only to the fundamental doctrines of our faith, of course, but also to the secondary and tertiary ones as well.
