What is the theme of this chapter?
From Miletus to Caesarea, to Jerusalem.
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 20-21
And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
Well, I could put here that I can avoid falling into temptation like Paul did when he decided to go along with what James purposed — IF I believed Paul was wrong in doing so. But I'm still not convinced that he was.
So thinking out loud here, it seems obvious that the second and third passages below are connected. But what if all three passages are connected? Williams tells us that Paul had taken "the vow of a temporary Nazirite" and that "the period engaged in the vow expired at the time of reaching Cenchreae." Walker makes a point of saying this about this same Acts 18 passage: "According to the letter of the law, this ceremony should take place in the temple of Jerusalem; but we have evidence that, at that period, a person who had taken a temporary Nazirite vow was allowed to poll his head elsewhere provided that he carried the hair so polled with him to the temple and burnt it with the rest of his hair when finally shaven there. Josephus speaks of these modified Nazirite vows (Wars. II.15.1). It would appear that St. Paul had taken a Nazirite vow, possibly on deliverance from some great danger, and that he polled his head before embarkation, intending to complete the ceremonies of his vow in Jerusalem." So Paul arrives in Jerusalem in Acts 21 and James suggests he joins with 4 others who are under Nazarite vows and pay for the completion of their vows — plus his own.
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers[c] and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. 19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined. 21 But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus (Acts 18:18-21).
Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law (Acts 21:23-24).
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. 17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. 18 While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult (Acts 24:14-18).
One thing I noticed about Gaebelein's and Stam's take on this whole thing too is they make much of saying that Paul going to Jerusalem was part of God's permissive versus directive will, that God didn't direct Paul to Jerusalem but did permit it. I have never thought that Scripture supports the view of there being two parts to God's will. In my mind, God's permissive will is the free will God has given to man.
I realize, however, that all this took place during the transitional period. God's will today is absolute and can only be found in Scripture. But during the Pentecostal (transitional) period, God did specifically direct men (like Paul) apart from Scripture. To me, then, if God had not wanted Paul to go to Jerusalem, He would have said, "don't go" similar to what we read in Acts 16:1-10:
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
It seems that Paul himself interpreted what was told him as information and warning, not as a prohibition, too. Stam even concedes that "he [Paul] was not able to view Agabus' warning in the same way as did his friends."
This is the way I see it: Those who were warning Paul in every city, knew by the spirit of prophecy that if he went to Jerusalem, many terrible things would happen to him. So out of love for Paul, they advised him not to go. I believe God was preparing Paul — and the people — for what was ahead and then left it up to Paul to decide whether or not to go. When Jesus went up to Jerusalem to die, he first prepared His disciples so that they wouldn't be so radically shaken (Lk 18:1-34; Jn 14-16).
I'm not going to dig my heels in on this view, though. I will remain open to receiving further light on the subject.
Additional observations/questions:
These quotes from William's Complete Bible Commentary make a lot of sense to me:
"The subject of this Book [Acts] being the offer of the Kingdom to Israel and their rejection of it, and not, as it is unfortunately called 'The Acts of the Apostles,' it necessarily closes here [Acts 28].
"In passing, therefore, immediately from Acts to Ephesians, the reader advances from the 'Kingdom' to the 'Church.'
"At the opening of this Book the Kingdom was offered to the Jews of the Homeland at Jerusalem, the capital of the Hebrew world, and at the close of the Book to the Jews of the Dispersion at Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. The offer was rejected, and a just judgment destroyed their City and Temple, and scattered them among all nations. Divine relations were broken; and will continue so up to the pre-determined time of Acts 15:16. That judgment closed the Pentecostal era.
"The Apostle Paul had a triple ministry — to Israel (Acts 9:15); to the Gentiles (Rom 9:13); and to the Church (Col 1:25-27). He was an Israelite (Rom 11:1); and there is, therefore, no conflict between his teaching in Galatians and his action in offering the sacrifices of Num. 11:13, 21 (Acts 21:23-26). Those sacrifices pointed backward as well as forward to Calvary. They were Divinely ordained. The Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates his ministry to the Jews; the Epistle to the Romans, his ministry to the Nations; and the Epistle to the Ephesians, his ministry to the Church."
From Miletus to Caesarea, to Jerusalem.
What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 20-21
And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?
Well, I could put here that I can avoid falling into temptation like Paul did when he decided to go along with what James purposed — IF I believed Paul was wrong in doing so. But I'm still not convinced that he was.
So thinking out loud here, it seems obvious that the second and third passages below are connected. But what if all three passages are connected? Williams tells us that Paul had taken "the vow of a temporary Nazirite" and that "the period engaged in the vow expired at the time of reaching Cenchreae." Walker makes a point of saying this about this same Acts 18 passage: "According to the letter of the law, this ceremony should take place in the temple of Jerusalem; but we have evidence that, at that period, a person who had taken a temporary Nazirite vow was allowed to poll his head elsewhere provided that he carried the hair so polled with him to the temple and burnt it with the rest of his hair when finally shaven there. Josephus speaks of these modified Nazirite vows (Wars. II.15.1). It would appear that St. Paul had taken a Nazirite vow, possibly on deliverance from some great danger, and that he polled his head before embarkation, intending to complete the ceremonies of his vow in Jerusalem." So Paul arrives in Jerusalem in Acts 21 and James suggests he joins with 4 others who are under Nazarite vows and pay for the completion of their vows — plus his own.
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers[c] and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. 19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined. 21 But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus (Acts 18:18-21).
Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law (Acts 21:23-24).
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, 15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. 16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. 17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. 18 While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult (Acts 24:14-18).
One thing I noticed about Gaebelein's and Stam's take on this whole thing too is they make much of saying that Paul going to Jerusalem was part of God's permissive versus directive will, that God didn't direct Paul to Jerusalem but did permit it. I have never thought that Scripture supports the view of there being two parts to God's will. In my mind, God's permissive will is the free will God has given to man.
I realize, however, that all this took place during the transitional period. God's will today is absolute and can only be found in Scripture. But during the Pentecostal (transitional) period, God did specifically direct men (like Paul) apart from Scripture. To me, then, if God had not wanted Paul to go to Jerusalem, He would have said, "don't go" similar to what we read in Acts 16:1-10:
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily. And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.
It seems that Paul himself interpreted what was told him as information and warning, not as a prohibition, too. Stam even concedes that "he [Paul] was not able to view Agabus' warning in the same way as did his friends."
This is the way I see it: Those who were warning Paul in every city, knew by the spirit of prophecy that if he went to Jerusalem, many terrible things would happen to him. So out of love for Paul, they advised him not to go. I believe God was preparing Paul — and the people — for what was ahead and then left it up to Paul to decide whether or not to go. When Jesus went up to Jerusalem to die, he first prepared His disciples so that they wouldn't be so radically shaken (Lk 18:1-34; Jn 14-16).
I'm not going to dig my heels in on this view, though. I will remain open to receiving further light on the subject.
Additional observations/questions:
These quotes from William's Complete Bible Commentary make a lot of sense to me:
"The subject of this Book [Acts] being the offer of the Kingdom to Israel and their rejection of it, and not, as it is unfortunately called 'The Acts of the Apostles,' it necessarily closes here [Acts 28].
"In passing, therefore, immediately from Acts to Ephesians, the reader advances from the 'Kingdom' to the 'Church.'
"At the opening of this Book the Kingdom was offered to the Jews of the Homeland at Jerusalem, the capital of the Hebrew world, and at the close of the Book to the Jews of the Dispersion at Rome, the capital of the Gentile world. The offer was rejected, and a just judgment destroyed their City and Temple, and scattered them among all nations. Divine relations were broken; and will continue so up to the pre-determined time of Acts 15:16. That judgment closed the Pentecostal era.
"The Apostle Paul had a triple ministry — to Israel (Acts 9:15); to the Gentiles (Rom 9:13); and to the Church (Col 1:25-27). He was an Israelite (Rom 11:1); and there is, therefore, no conflict between his teaching in Galatians and his action in offering the sacrifices of Num. 11:13, 21 (Acts 21:23-26). Those sacrifices pointed backward as well as forward to Calvary. They were Divinely ordained. The Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates his ministry to the Jews; the Epistle to the Romans, his ministry to the Nations; and the Epistle to the Ephesians, his ministry to the Church."
No comments:
Post a Comment