I have recently come across two interesting quotes in my reading. The first, based on Galatians 4:17 and 6:12-13, the author explains rather well the motives of the Judaizers in the Book of Galatians — they were using the Galatians for the purposes of 1) avoiding the persecution of devout Jews who sought to wipe out the Church, and 2) to earn points for themselves. In a word, if the Judaizers showed zeal for following the law, they wouldn’t be persecuted as Christians.
"What was the motive at work in the minds of the party of the circumcision? It was certainly not concern for the spiritual welfare and the eternal safety of the believers. On the contrary, the motive the apostle discerned behind their zeal was that they themselves might escape the consequences inseparable from the preaching of the Cross, which pronounces accursed not only man the sinner, the lawbreaker, but man the religious law keeper as well. The Cross is thus an offense to Jew and Gentile alike. The addition of something as a means to, or as a condition of, salvation (such as circumcision in apostolic days, or the sacraments in later times) to the free unmerited grace of God mediated by faith in Christ alone, has proved the most effective way of avoiding that offense. But to preach a gospel without the Cross is to preach what is no gospel at all."
The second quote is from a different author who brings up an interesting fact about the Church in Jerusalem:
"And it is a striking fact that at the very time Paul was nearly torn to pieces by the Jews at Jerusalem, there was in that city a Christian church with James and its elders, all apparently enjoying immunity from Jewish persecution (Acts 21:17-19, 31)."
After reading these quotes, a question sprang into my mind: "Why was James and the Church in Jerusalem enjoying immunity?"
You may recall that some 7-8 years earlier the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was held, which concluded that Gentile believers needn't become Jews before they became Christians nor keep the Mosaic law after they became Christians; nothing, however, was said about whether or not Jewish believers had to continue to keep it.
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19-21 - NIV).
It was shortly after this that "certain men [came] from James" (Gal 2:12), inciting the Jewish believers there to "withdraw and hold [themselves] aloof" from the Gentile believers. I think this author explains that situation rather well:
"It is clear that these men were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests. They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law. James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law...Here he was the occasion of Peter's lapse when he [James] sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law so far as the Jewish Christians were concerned."
Jumping forward again to Acts 21, we are told in verse 20 that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were (still!) "jealous for the law." It would, therefore, stand to reason they wouldn't be a big target for the unbelieving Jews to persecute them. But was James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, encouraging this kind of thinking? And if so, why? Was he trying to avoid persecution? Or was he trying to reach the Jews where they were? Was he trying to gain favor with the unbelieving Jews? Or did he believe the Jewish believers were still under the law? I guess my main question is, "Was James right or wrong?"
James goes on in verses 21-26 and proposes that Paul, not only go along with but, pay for a purification ritual for himself and four other men. Again, what was James thinking? And, whyever did Paul go along with it? Was Paul wrong to do so?
After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Manson of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law (v 20); and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them (Acts 21:15-26).
Okay, so here some possibilities. I'm sure there could be more, but I'll stick with these for now:
1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).
2) James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).
3) James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).
4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).
I've presented all four of these possibilities below, with supporting arguments from different theologians.
1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).
"The Jewish opposition during this final period becomes massive and more intolerant. Its primary object is the Apostle Paul, whose ministry to the Gentiles and alleged neglect of the Mosaic ritual is made the basis of their complaint. Related to this was his progressive revelation of the nature of the ekklesia...But at bottom the cause celebre' was Paul's proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel."
"Upon his [Paul's] arrival at Jerusalem, by advice of the leaders of the church there, Paul made a last attempt to placate his Jewish enemies by conforming to a certain rite of purification in the temple (vss. 20-26). But the attempt only made matters worse. When he was seen in the temple, "all the city was moved, "and he was dragged out and would have been beaten to death by the mob had it not been for the Roman captain whose soldiers rescued him with some difficulty because of the "violence of the people" (vss. 27-36)."
This theologian doesn't address verse 20; and regarding Paul, is it okay to go along with something you don't believe in in order to placate your enemies?
2) James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).
"When a person becomes a Christian, what becomes of his or her religious past? Must all previous pious practice be left behind? Or may some be made fit patterns for the new life in Christ? A patient thinking through of Luke's teaching on the Christian, the Old Testament law and religious tradition, as modeled in Paul's conduct, will give us guidelines by which we can make judgments about our own religious past.
At the home of Mnason, Paul receives a "warm welcome" from fellow Christians. Since Luke does not specify that only like-minded Hellenistic Jewish Christians so greet Paul and his party, we should probably think of a delegation representative of the whole Jerusalem church. From them news of his coming would filter back to all segments of the church (v. 22)..."
"In full spiritual unity, the elders point out to Paul that massive numbers of Jews, . . . all of them . . . zealous for the law, have become believers. These may be the converted Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Literally "zealots for the law," they lived out their loyalty to God by combining ardent nationalism with strict observance of the whole Mosaic code. Phinehas, Elijah and the Maccabees were their worthy predecessors (Num 25:10-13; 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.271)..."
"These converts have been particularly troubled by reports that Paul has been teaching Diaspora Jews to turn away from Moses. This phrase translates apostasia, which refers to either political or spiritual rebellion (2 Chron 29:19; 1 Macc 2:15; Acts 5:31, 39; 2 Thess 2:3). Specifically, Paul is alleged to have instructed these Jewish believers to stop having their children circumcised and "to stop walking according to the customs" (so the prohibitions should be understood).
While it is easy to see how such implications might be drawn from Paul's teaching of a law-free gospel, there is no evidence that Paul ever instructed Jewish Christians this way (Rom 2:25-30; Gal 5:6; 6:15). In fact, Paul was most scrupulous not to offend the conscience of the "weaker brother," the Jewish Christian who maintained ancestral customs, and even went so far as to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3; Rom 14:1--15:13).
Our religious past can make distortions of the truth attractive to us, especially those that reinforce our pride in loyalty to our traditions. What can be done to overcome such falsehood, which always threatens to bring disunity to the church?
The church leaders counsel Paul to combat words with action. Four pious but indigent men in the congregation have taken on themselves a Nazirite vow of limited duration (Num 6). By abstaining from products of the vine, not cutting their hair and avoiding ritual impurity, they have been showing thankfulness for past blessings, earnestness in petition or strong devotion to God. The multianimal sacrifice and cleansing ceremony at the end of the vow period, when the hair is cut and offered to God, is financially prohibitive (6:13-20). Paul is asked to bear the expenses of the four. This was a commonly recognized act of piety (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 19.294). To do so he must go through a seven-day ritual cleansing himself, because he has recently returned from Gentile lands (m. Oholot 2:3; 17:5; 18:6; Num 19:12). The intended result is that the rumors about Paul will be shown to be baseless and he will be seen living in obedience to the law. Lest Paul's action be misunderstood in another direction, as making Jewish custom normative for Gentile Christians, the elders hasten to add that the Jerusalem Council decree is still in place (see discussion above at Acts 15:20, 29). It is repeated here in essential detail..."
"What does the elders' counsel to Paul say about Luke's view of Christians and their religious past? Before we can draw general principles, we must deal with unique and theologically significant factors concerning the Jewish law. At its core was divine revelation in three aspects: moral, civil and ceremonial. Surrounding that were oral tradition and rabbinic exposition. Luke's use of terminology often prevents us from easily distinguishing which aspects of the law he is referring to. Still, Luke's use of the term customs does seem to show he is aware of the difference between divine revelation and human tradition (15:1; 21:21; 26:3; 28:17). And there may be a distinction in Luke's thinking between the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects which will enable us to make decisions about normativeness based on content (Lk 10:25-28).
If we focus on the divine revelation component of a Jewish Christian's religious past, the Old Testament law, we can see Luke says it has no relevance for salvation (Acts 13:38-39; 15:10-11). While the moral aspect is universally normative (Lk 10:25-28; 18:18-23), Luke also sees a positive use for the ceremonial laws, to aid Jewish Christians in the expression of their piety. He does not make these laws binding on Gentiles, however. Only when Gentiles are in the company of Jewish Christians with scruples should they keep ceremonial ritual purity, and then not beyond what God mandated in the Old Testament for aliens living in Israel."
This theologian has addressed verse 20 and has concluded that those "jealous for the law" were weaker brothers in Christ and that James and Paul didn't want to be stumbling blocks to them. But why didn't Paul tell the them what he told the Galatians (Gal 3:1-3)? He didn't seem worried about being a stumbling block about this issue then. It's true the Gentiles hadn't come out of Judaism, but previously Gentiles had been required to convert to Judaism (proselytes). So why did Paul correct one and not the other? Perhaps there's something more going on here?
3) James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).
"...But the council at Jerusalem, while it had closed the mouths of the Judaizers as far as public opposition to Paul's message of grace was concerned, had by no means won them to the attitude which Peter had displayed in his noble declaration of Acts 15:8-11. Instead they had dogged Paul's footsteps wherever he had gone, seeking to undermine his ministry among the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Gentile believers in general. Indeed, Peter himself, along with other Jewish believers, including even Barnabas, had nearly caused serious division in the church at Antioch under the influence of "certain [that had come] from James" (Gal. 2:12,13).
And now do James and the elders make their proposal to Paul to help him, or because they are embarrassed by his presence in Jerusalem at this time? If their desire is truly to help, they are in the position to do so now, but this does not appear to be the case, for, without offering to endorse his ministry or to stand by him in any way, they urge him to go through a Jewish ritual to appease those who have been informed (partly in truth) that he is leaving Judaism."
"...Thus the apostle [Paul] was urged to endorse the action of four Jewish zealots in taking a Nazarite vow, by financing, not one, but five bloody sacrifices for each. And he was urged to do this to prove that he was a faithful observer of the law. Would it be right or wrong of him to yield? As we examine all the Scriptures involved we can come to but one conclusion: It would be wrong."
"...This passage [1 Cor 9:20-21] is thought by some to contain the full justification of Paul's involvement in Judaism at this time. They suppose that it means that he alternately placed himself in subjection to the law and at liberty from it as he labored, now with Jews and then with Gentiles. Those who interpret this passage in this way to defend Paul's action at Jerusalem should take care that they do not charge him with worse than a lapse in faithfulness. We can understand how the apostle, like all other men of God, should stumble and fall, but the above interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:20 would make Paul guilty of habitual duplicity.
...We believe that the passage in 1 Cor. 9 simply means that, sympathetically, he placed himself mentally in the position of those with whom he dealt. He did not go back into Judaism while among Jews, but, recognizing their prejudices, he refrained from doing what might offend them — so that he might gradually teach them the same truths he had taught the Jews at Pisidian Antioch: justification from all things by faith in Christ, apart from the law (Acts 13:38,39)."
"...It is strange to see Paul yielding to James and going back again to what he had only recently called "weak and beggarly elements." What all his own reasons were for doing so we do not know. It cannot be said that, being at Jerusalem, he submitted to the authority of the circumcision apostles, for there is no evidence that any of them were there — indeed, the evidence rather indicates that they were not present at the meeting."
This theologian has addressed verse 20 as well as the rest of the passage and has concluded that both James and Paul were wrong. Now I know we all have feet of clay, but I have to admit I have a hard time believing this one.
4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).
"Many think that the apostle [Paul] erred in persisting to visit Jerusalem, and they support their conviction by pointing out that at this juncture the record of his evangelistic labours ceases. They find it also difficult to understand how the author of the epistle to the Galatians could take the vow of the Nazarite and offer the sacrifices (vs. 25-27) of Numbers vi. I3-20.
But both this difficulty and this conviction disappear when the Book of the Acts is intelligently interpreted, and its relation to Messiah's earthly kingdom recognised, and when the approbation of xxiii II is remembered.
Paul was a chosen vessel (ix. I5) to offer that kingdom to Israel, as well as to proclaim it among the Gentiles. The final and official offer to the Twelve Tribes at Jerusalem, and at Rome, by the greatest of the apostles, and its rejection, is the subject of chapters xxi.-xxviii. This final offer was a Divine necessity; and, therefore, the apostle is bound to go up to Jerusalem and afterwards to Rome."
"...He [Paul] was a child of the promises made to the Fathers, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee, and as a godly Israelite he offered the sacrifices of Numbers vi. in commemoration of the Great Sacrifice which, prior to it, they fore-shadowed. They were a Divine institution, and they pointed forward and backward to Christ with equal significance. It is true that personally he was quite willing to surrender all his privileges as a Hebrew in favour of the greater glories of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. iii.); but that desire did not release him from his appointment as a prophet to Israel (ix. I5)."
"...At Jerusalem Paul recognised the authority of the Twelve (vs. I9-26), and did so intelligently."
"...Each one had to offer a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering, a meal-offering, a drink-offering, and unleavened bread as commanded by God in Num. vi...so it was a somewhat costly matter, and among the Jews it was esteemed a very great proof of fidelity to the law to pay for such sacrifices. A Nazarite bound himself for a period or for life. Paul and his companions had taken this vow for a given period of time; and as commanded by the law they hastened to offer the prescribed sacrifices appointed for the termination of the vow. These sacrifices struck at self-righteousness, for the Nazarites in offering them declared themselves to be lost and guilty sinners, notwithstanding their religious resolution and conduct. They publicly confessed that sin attached even to their holy things, and that they themselves needed cleansing and forgiveness."
This theologian believes the Jewish believers were still observing the law because Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside. While this explains verse 20, wouldn't that still mean Paul was guilty of "habitual duplicity" like the previous theologian suggested? Perhaps this could be explained by the transitional period, where Judaism was decreasing at the same time the Church (both Jew and Gentile) was increasing?
So what do you think? In light of the whole of Scripture, which explanation makes the most sense to you?
