Last time we saw how Paul had made his way from Miletus along the
southwest shore of Asia Minor, taking a
ship across the Mediterranean to the
port city of Tyre, Syria where he had
met with the church. The church had urged him not to go to Jerusalem but he sailed on to Ptolemais, and from there on to Caesarea. Here he met again with the church,
and again the church at Caesarea and
even his fellow travellers (at least nine men[1],
Luke includes himself) urged him not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul was determined to go to Jerusalem,
and his aim was to be there, if possible
by Pentecost (19:21 ; 20:16,22).
Our passage today records that Paul finally arrives in Jerusalem. His
first lodging is at the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple (21:16).
The other well-known personality from Cyprus whom we have already met in the book of
Acts is Barnabas. We are told that the
brothers received us gladly (21:17). This is probably a delegation
representative of the whole Jerusalem church. From them news of his coming
would filter back to the rest of the church (21:22).
The next day there is this official meeting with James the brother
of Jesus along with the other elders of the Jerusalem church. Incidentally, the
other influential James mentioned in the book of Acts is found in 12:2. He is the brother of John. We read
that he was killed by Herod.
We may safely assume that Paul’s first order of business was
to hand the collection from the gentile churches to the Jerusalem elders (see
reference to this in 24:17). This was done once before in Acts 11 for the
purpose of relief from the famine (cf. Acts 11) when a collection had been taken
in the church of Antioch for the struggling saints in Jerusalem. In that instance Barnabas and Paul had
delivered this money to the Jerusalem elders in 11:30, and this fact really must have impressed the Jewish Christians, knitting their hearts to their gentile brothers in Christ. This might have provided further impetus for the idea in Paul's mind that he
would gather a collection from the churches in Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia,
churches representing largely Gentile congregations, and that he would bring
this collection to the church in Jerusalem[2],
a largely Jewish Christian congregation, now afflicted with much poverty. Paul wanted to see the barriers between Jew and Gentile
broken down (Eph.2) as he brought this
substantial collection to Jerusalem. So
this is ultimately not about money. This was ultimately about unity in the gospel, and Paul writes about that in his letter to the Ephesians and Chapter 2.
So, when
the brothers in Caesarea were pleading with him not to go to Jerusalem, Paul said
to them,“What are you doing, weeping and
breaking my heart? For I am ready not
only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the sake of the name of
the Lord Jesus.” Why was Paul ready
to die in Jerusalem? Was he ready to die over money? No! He was ready to die because of his burden for the whole church of Jesus
Christ. Paul is ready to give his life for the sake of the unity of the
church of Jesus Christ. What does that say to you? How important is the unity
of the body that Christ died for, to
you?
Paul knew that there was always this very real possibility
that the Jewish church and the Gentile church could seriously divide. And it
would discredit the Name of Jesus who died to unite all things under Him. Paul had evidently hoped and believed that
this collection would be a catalyst to avoid such a potential division.
V.19. So, how was Paul
received? After a
customary greeting with James and the
Jerusalem elders, Paul began with an account of his recent ministry
in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia. He
tells them of the churches in Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth and Ephesus. He
recounts the extraordinary things that the Holy Spirit had done through his
ministry to the gentiles. ”He related one
by one the things that God (not Paul!) had
done among the gentiles through his
ministry” [3] This is a necessary reminder, for often we are
so busy doing our demographics, planning our outreach strategies, preparing our
people and materials for our missionary thrust for God that we forget that He
must do the work. True ministry for him
will always be ministry by him.
V.20 And
they glorified God! However, there
was an immediate but! It goes like this …”Yes Paul, we are glad with you for the great work that God has done among the gentiles, BUT remember that there are also many
thousands of Jews, and all zealous for the law... These Jews
certainly included the converted
Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Being literally "zealots for the
law," they combined their faith in Jesus
with a Jewish nationalism along
with a strict observance of the whole Mosaic code. And they were teaching other converts to do
the same. “And Paul, they have been told about you, that you are teaching all
the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake[4]
Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to
the customs.” OUCH! PAUL
YOU ARE IN TROUBLE!
V. 22: And then the question: “What
then is to be done? (They clearly have thought about this). They
will certainly hear that you have come”. Try to imagine that scene. Paul is
here to report on his ministry and to hand over the collection from the gentile
churches. But instead there is a greater concern about what the Christian Jews
in Jerusalem are thinking with respect to his apparent disrespect of the Jewish law. It was not
true of course what they were thinking, but there you are. This matter is proving to be a mental block in the mind of the Jerusalem elders.
Was this in fact what Paul had been doing and teaching? Well, he would certainly have taught that the
ceremonial aspects of the Law, the sacrifices, and the sign of circumcision were
mere types that had been fulfilled by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. He would have taught that when Christ died and
shed His blood, those things had no more significance. There was no further obligation
to keep the ceremonial aspects of the law on the part of either Jew or Gentile.
So, in his ministry Paul wasn’t
pressing these things upon the consciences of his converts – Jew or
gentiles. He left his Jewish brothers their freedom to decide.
But Paul had certainly not been actively campaigning that
Jews no longer had to obey the Law. There is no evidence that Paul had ever
instructed Jewish Christians in this way (Rom. 2:25-30; Gal. 5:6; 6:15). He had not
opposed the practice of circumcision.
What Paul did oppose was that if anyone insisted that without circumcision
you cannot be saved, then he would oppose that teaching. But if it was merely
a matter of social custom, then that explains why Timothy (a half Jew) was
circumcised and Titus (a gentile) was not. But as I have already observed is that the problem is that the Jewish
believers in Jerusalem were made to believe that Paul
was undermining their social customs, which he did not.
Vv. 23-25: So James and the Jerusalem elders respond (an imagined dialogue): “Here's
a plan. We have four men in our local church
who are undergoing a Nazarite vow” [cf. Numbers 6]. A Nazirite vow could be
made for showing thankfulness for past blessings, or earnestness in prayer or as
a sign of strong devotion to God. “So
Paul, why don't you join them, since you
have recently returned from Gentile territories? Why
don't you take part in a ritual purification? Join with them. Pay all of their
expenses…the shaving of the head, animal sacrifices etc.
all that would be necessary in order to complete this vow. Paul, if you
do that this will demonstrate to all
the Jewish brothers that you are still with them in practise.”
V. 26 : What did Paul do? He obliged! He did it, not because
he believed that any of these rituals
were essential or helpful for
his sanctification, but he did this
because he loved the church. This obviously wasn’t his
spiritual choice. He humbled himself for the sake of the weaker
brothers. Yes, James and the Jerusalem elders were weaker in this
regard. Paul discusses this principle in
Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians 8. Paul
was very careful not to offend the
conscience of the "weaker brother," and so
he respected the Jewish Christian
who continued to maintain the tradition of the elders. And for their sake, as already observed, he even
went so far as to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). And since Paul does not violate his own conscience in this matter he has liberty to oblige. He
knows which hill to die on, and this is not one of them. Paul’s heart for
Christ and His church is just that much greater. He is truly the apostle of the
heart set free, to quote the title of the book with the same name by Professor
F.F. Bruce.
So what can we learn from this as modern Christians in Namibia
who are
far removed from all this cultural clutter?
1.
We
affirm that the keeping of the Old Testament law, has no relevance for
salvation. Forgiveness of sins is not obtained through the blood of sheep and
goats, but through trusting in Christ
alone (Acts 13:38-39; 15:10-11).
2.
This
does not make the moral law (the 10 commandments) irrelevant. It simply put it into it right
place. (Lk. 10:25-28; 18:18-23)
3.
Concerning
the use of the ceremonial law there is freedom.
Jewish Christians may find a positive use for the ceremonial laws
(circumcision, keeping of festival, food laws) to aid them in the expression
of their faith, as we find it in fact the custom in some of the modern church in Israel. It’s
simply a cultural choice that damages no one if used in this way. But we cannot make this binding upon the consciences of non Jewish Christians. Christian Gentiles in the company of Jewish Christians have the
liberty to observe such feasts (e.g. the observation of the Friday
night Sabbath meal) when in their homes, as long as they know that no additional merits come to them as a result of doing these things etc. In all of this we learn to be humble and largehearted in accommodating ourselves to our brothers in all things non essential.
4.
According to the Bible there is a large
measure of freedom in the use of all
things made by God, but be sure that this freedom is to be used to promote
(i)
The advance of the gospel
(ii) The
unity of an ethnically diverse church.
[1] The
nine men have come from Macedonia and Galatia, and Achaia. From Macedonia,
Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus; from Galatia have come Gaius and Timothy;
from Asia have come Tychicus and Trophimus. And then there's Luke. And then
there's a ninth, who isn't mentioned by Luke. And in all probability he's a
representative of the church of Corinth, and his name is Titus. There's a
long-standing tradition that Titus is actually Luke's brother.
[2] II
Corinthians 8 and II Corinthians 9 is a lengthy discussion about the collection
and about principles of giving toward this collection. Romans 15 mentions this
collection.
[3] Acts
15:12, 14; also see 14:27; 20:24
[4] This
phrase translates apostasia, which refers to either political or spiritual
rebellion
No comments:
Post a Comment