When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 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 then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 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. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.
we had come to Jerusalem - "The Jewish church had become numerically powerful in Jerusalem and Judaea. Since the scattering of Acts 8:1 the rulers of Israel had lost Saul of Tarsus, the flaming leader of their rebellion against Christ, and had themselves become less aggressive. The result was that great numbers had returned to Jerusalem until, some ten years later, not only was there a 'multitude' of believers in the city, but they had attained so favorable a position that the Church could hold the great council of Acts 15 with no on to molest. And now, another thirteen or fourteen years later, there are evidently greater numbers than ever (Acts 21:20). Granted that many of the believers present in Jerusalem at this time had come from distances, the great majority would still have been from Jerusalem and Judaea." (Stam)
brothers received us gladly - "In Jerusalem, evidently at Mnason's home, 'the brethren' held an informal and hearty welcome for the party. It is evident that these brethren, however, did not include James and the elders, for Paul and his associates visited them 'the day following' (Ver. 18)." (Stam)
Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present - "It is with sadness that we view the condition of the Church at Jerusalem at this time ... We have already seen how Peter was the Christ-appointed leader of the Messianic Church in those early days when 'they were all filled with the Holy Ghost' (See Matt 16:19; Acts 1:15; 2:14; 2:27; 5:29; etc.). We have seen too, how James 'the Lord's brother' (not even one of the twelve) gradually gained the ascendance over Peter, probably because of his physical relationship to our Lord. Thus we find Peter reporting to 'James and to the brethren' in Acts 12:17. Later Paul mentions James alone as present with Peter at Jerusalem during an earlier visit there (Gal 1:19). Next we find Peter merely testifying at the council at Jerusalem, while James presides and brings the council to a close with the words: 'Wherefore, I decide' (Acts 15:19). Still later, at Antioch, we see Peter intimidated by 'certain [who] came from James,' so that he separates himself from Gentile believers with whom he has been enjoying fellowship (Gal 2:11-12). And now Paul and his companions go in unto James, and so final is his authority that the record states merely that 'the elders were present' (acts 21:18). At the council, some fourteen years previous, 'the apostles and elders' had gathered together to discuss Gentile liberty from the law (Acts 15:6). Now there is no trace of evidence that any of the apostles are even present; the record mentions only 'James and the elders.' If any of the twelve apostles are to be included among the 'elders,' but are not even designated as apostles, we have still further evidence of the secondary character of their position at this time. James, whose very name means 'Supplanter,' has wholly taken over Peter's position. In commenting on the Jerusalem council later, Paul had called 'James, Cepha and John' (with James at the head) those 'who seemed to be somewhat' and 'who seemed to be pillars,' pointing out that 'the gospel of the circumcision' had been committed 'to PETER' (Gal 2:6-9). This elevation of James over Peter and the eleven, whom our Lord had appointed, is evidence of the spiritual decline among the Judaean believers after the raising up of Paul and it has an important bearing on the passage we are now to consider ... Years before, at the great Jerusalem council, Peter had stated that God had put 'no difference' between them and the Gentiles, purifying the Gentiles' hearts by faith. He had further urged his brethren not to place a yoke upon the neck of the Gentile disciples which neither the Jewish fathers nor their children had been able to bear (Acts 15:9-10). He had even gone so far as to say: 'But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they' (Ver. 11). As a result of this magnificent testimony James, Peter, John and the whole church had given solemn and public recognition to Paul as the apostle of the uncircumcision and the apostle of grace (Acts 15:23-29; Gal 2:7-9). The church at Jerusalem should have gone on from there, as Peter did (2 Pet 3:15-18) and should now have accepted Paul in accordance with that agreement. But under James and his party they had declined and gone backward, rather than forward, spiritually. Geikie says of this: '...whereas some time ago, only a portion of these were extreme in their Jewish ideas (Acts 15:1,5) all were now fanatically zealous of the law. So rapidly had the extreme party in the nation spread their bitterly irreconcilable Judaism ...' (New Testament Hours, Vol. III. P. 375)." (Stam)
They are all zealous for the law - "The church in Jerusalem had become strong; its membership numbered myriads (literal translation). But they were in a transition period. They had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ [as Messiah], and yet they held on to the law of Moses. They were all zealous for the Law. They kept all the ordinances of the Law, abstained from certain meats, kept the feast days, went to the temple, made vows, and purified themselves ... The fullest teaching on the break which had to come between Christianity and Judaism had not yet been given. The Epistle to the Hebrews furnished this argument and contains the solemn warning of the grave danger of apostasy from the Gospel by clinging to the shadow-things, which are past. To go outside of the camp and bear His reproach is the great exhortation given in that Epistle to these Jewish Christians. No doubt the Apostle Paul wrote that Epistle to his beloved brethren in Jerusalem." [See also a few chapters further on, Acts 23:11 - 'The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”'] (Gaebelein)
telling them not to circumcise their children - "Paul proclaimed that circumcision was not necessary to be saved, but the report that he told Gentiles not to circumcise their sons deliberately twisted Paul's words to foster animosity against him." (Ryrie)
"Now this charged was rather complicated by prejudice, as such charges often are. As it stood it was false. Paul had started no rebellion against Moses or the law. To say that the law was fulfilled by Christ is not to deny but to confirm its claims. But the apostle did teach that the law had been fulfilled in Christ and that it was therefore unnecessary to observe its ceremonial rites—and the taught this not only to the Gentiles but also to the Jews which were among them. 'After the reading of the law and the prophets' in the Pisidian synagogue, the rulers asked Paul for a 'word of exhortation.' In response the apostle gave them a word of exhortation with respect to each. With respect to the law he exhorted them not to trust in it, but to trust in Christ, saying: 'Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that THROUGH THIS MAN IS PREACHED UNTO YOU THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS: And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which YE COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES' (Acts 13:38-39)." Certainly there were Jewish believers among the Galatians and they were included in the number of those whom the apostle wrote Gal 2:4, 19; 3:3, 24-25; 4:9-11; 5:1-2; 6:12-14). The Galatian congregations were, of course, largely made up of Gentiles, but the apostle did not single the Gentiles out as he wrote about circumcision, so that the principle certainly applied also to those already circumcision, so that the principle certainly applied also to those already circumcised and had its bearing on any contemplated circumcision of their their children. Nor can it be said that in the Galatian letter the apostle argued only against seeking to be justified by the law, for he clearly warns those already justified against becoming 'entangled' again by submitting to one of its rites, warning them that submission to one implies the responsibility to obey all (See Gal 3:1, 3). And in this connection he had warned them that 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump' (Gal 5:9) ... And to both the Jewish and Gentile believers at Corinth he had written 2 Cor 11:2-3. And only recently he had written to the believers at Rome—and especially to the Jewish believers among them—in the same vein: 'Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God' ... 'But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:4,6). Indeed, if Paul had not taught the Jews among the Gentiles to give up Judaism, what right did he have to rebuke Peter for reverting to it while visiting with the Gentiles at Antioch? Peter, remember, had been 'living after the manner of Gentiles, and NOT as do the Jews' while there at Antioch. And 'the other Jews' among them had been doing the same, until 'certain came from James.' Then Peter and the other Jewish believers began living 'as do the Jews' again and were rebuked by Paul for their dissimulation (Gal 2:11-14). We cite these passages, and could cite others, only to show that while Paul had not, to be sure, apostatized from Moses, he had taught the Jews among the Gentiles that the law had been fulfilled in Christ and that therefore they were to enjoy freedom from its yoke, so that the current reports about the apostles were not exactly 'nothing' as James intimated (Ver. 24)." (Stam)
Do therefore what we tell you - "... 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 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) ... Their proposition, therefore, was this: Paul himself was evidently not under a vow at this time, but they had four men who were, and Paul could join publicly with them in their vow by purifying himself and paying for the sacrifices marking the consummation of their vow—a considerable amount, since two doves or pigeons, one he-lamb, one ewe lamb and a ram had to be offered for each of the four (Num 6). This procedure was evidently not uncommon at that time. Indeed, Josephus tells how Agrippa I courted Jewish favor by thus financing Nazarite vows (Ant. XIX, 6,1)." (Stam)
pay their expenses - "Paul was being asked to pay the expenses involved in the offerings required at the completion of the Nazirite vow these four men had taken (cf. Num. 6:13-21). He was being urged to take actions that would indicate that he was, after all, a 'middle-of-the-road' Jewish-Christian." (Ryrie)
Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them - "Acting as then seemed best (1 Cor 9:20), though his desire to avoid misunderstanding and friction was not hereby gratified. One of his special objects at this juncture was, it would seem, to conciliate the Judaean churches and to promote Christian unity. He had probably purified himself and offered the usual offerings on his previous visit (Act 18:18), so that he was not now violating anything which he regarded as a principle ... The shaving of the head was connected with the fulfilment of the vow of the Nazirite (Num. 6:13-21). 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. Though the vindicator of Gentile liberty, he confirmed himself, in various respects, to the laws and customs of his own people (see Acts 20:6, 16; 21:26;27:9; 1 Cor 9:20)." (Walker)
"In his own soul he knew that all the commands of the law and the law itself had been abolished by the death of Christ. The ordinances had been nailed to the cross. The Holy Spirit foreseeing what would happen had warned him, as we have seen, not to go to Jerusalem. He went to the city and with this he stepped upon dangerous ground. He had left the way into which God had called him, and though it was his all-consuming love for his own brethren which was the motive, he became ensnared by the enemy." (Gaebelein)
"...Peter was rebuked for his failure at Antioch; would not God have rebuked Paul if he were similarly guilty? In the first place, no careful student of the record would say that Paul was 'similarly guilty' in agreeing to offer the sacrifices of the Nazarite. Peter went back on the light he had received, 'fearing them which were of the circumcision' (Gal 2:12). Paul, on the other hand, became involved in this vow out of a burning love to his kinsman whom he hoped would thereby be won to listen to his testimony about Christ." (Stam)
"Much is said about the two programs that run side by side through the latter part of Acts. We have no objection to the term 'side by side,' if only it is understood that it was not God's purpose for both programs to continue with equal force during those years. Just as the new program gradually emerged, the old was gradually to pass away. There was to be a transition from the one to the other. Peter's part in the conversion of Cornelius and his household, his words in Acts 15:8-11 and the decision of the Jerusalem council alone had indicated that even on the part of the Jewish believers there was to be a gradual liberation from the law. The breaking down of 'the middle wall of partition' was to affect those on both sides ... But had he not also written: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law"? (1 Cor 9:20-21). This passage 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 ... 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) ... How could either Peter or Paul have practiced the popular interpretation of 1 Cor 9:20-21 here at Antioch anyway, with both Jews and Gentiles present? In such cases the fruits of duplicity would surely be reaped! And note further that Paul rebuked Peter on this occasion, not for crossing a Jewish-Gentile line the wrong way or at the wrong time, but for going back on light received (Gal 2:15-19). Peter had learned by a special vision and by the conversion of Cornelius that God had made no difference between Jew and Gentile and he had publicly stated this, and more, at the council at Jerusalem. Now, by separating the Jews from the Gentiles at Antioch, he was building again that which he had destroyed, and thus making himself a transgressor (Gal 2:18). Thus it is not enough to argue that there was one program for the Jew and another for the Gentile, during the latter part of Acts, for it was on the basis of revealed truth as to Old Testament rites that Paul fought for Gentile liberty from them, and it was on the basis of revealed truth also that the Jewish program was gradually to be abandoned (Acts 15:8-11; Heb 10:1-39, etc.)." (Stam)
"Why should he [Paul] try to prove to the Jews that he 'walked orderly and kept the law' when he certainly had not done so among the Gentiles? He had come to Jerusalem to bring an offering to the poor saints there and to 'testify the gospel of the grace of God.' There is no record that the offering was gratefully received, and surely he could not 'testify the gospel of the grace of God' by offering blood sacrifices. But even the sacrifices were not actually offered. So far from James' plan succeeding, a great commotion and Paul's arrest 'when the seven days were almost ended,' prevented him from having any part in the offering of the proposed sacrifices." (Stam)
we had come to Jerusalem - "The Jewish church had become numerically powerful in Jerusalem and Judaea. Since the scattering of Acts 8:1 the rulers of Israel had lost Saul of Tarsus, the flaming leader of their rebellion against Christ, and had themselves become less aggressive. The result was that great numbers had returned to Jerusalem until, some ten years later, not only was there a 'multitude' of believers in the city, but they had attained so favorable a position that the Church could hold the great council of Acts 15 with no on to molest. And now, another thirteen or fourteen years later, there are evidently greater numbers than ever (Acts 21:20). Granted that many of the believers present in Jerusalem at this time had come from distances, the great majority would still have been from Jerusalem and Judaea." (Stam)
brothers received us gladly - "In Jerusalem, evidently at Mnason's home, 'the brethren' held an informal and hearty welcome for the party. It is evident that these brethren, however, did not include James and the elders, for Paul and his associates visited them 'the day following' (Ver. 18)." (Stam)
Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present - "It is with sadness that we view the condition of the Church at Jerusalem at this time ... We have already seen how Peter was the Christ-appointed leader of the Messianic Church in those early days when 'they were all filled with the Holy Ghost' (See Matt 16:19; Acts 1:15; 2:14; 2:27; 5:29; etc.). We have seen too, how James 'the Lord's brother' (not even one of the twelve) gradually gained the ascendance over Peter, probably because of his physical relationship to our Lord. Thus we find Peter reporting to 'James and to the brethren' in Acts 12:17. Later Paul mentions James alone as present with Peter at Jerusalem during an earlier visit there (Gal 1:19). Next we find Peter merely testifying at the council at Jerusalem, while James presides and brings the council to a close with the words: 'Wherefore, I decide' (Acts 15:19). Still later, at Antioch, we see Peter intimidated by 'certain [who] came from James,' so that he separates himself from Gentile believers with whom he has been enjoying fellowship (Gal 2:11-12). And now Paul and his companions go in unto James, and so final is his authority that the record states merely that 'the elders were present' (acts 21:18). At the council, some fourteen years previous, 'the apostles and elders' had gathered together to discuss Gentile liberty from the law (Acts 15:6). Now there is no trace of evidence that any of the apostles are even present; the record mentions only 'James and the elders.' If any of the twelve apostles are to be included among the 'elders,' but are not even designated as apostles, we have still further evidence of the secondary character of their position at this time. James, whose very name means 'Supplanter,' has wholly taken over Peter's position. In commenting on the Jerusalem council later, Paul had called 'James, Cepha and John' (with James at the head) those 'who seemed to be somewhat' and 'who seemed to be pillars,' pointing out that 'the gospel of the circumcision' had been committed 'to PETER' (Gal 2:6-9). This elevation of James over Peter and the eleven, whom our Lord had appointed, is evidence of the spiritual decline among the Judaean believers after the raising up of Paul and it has an important bearing on the passage we are now to consider ... Years before, at the great Jerusalem council, Peter had stated that God had put 'no difference' between them and the Gentiles, purifying the Gentiles' hearts by faith. He had further urged his brethren not to place a yoke upon the neck of the Gentile disciples which neither the Jewish fathers nor their children had been able to bear (Acts 15:9-10). He had even gone so far as to say: 'But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they' (Ver. 11). As a result of this magnificent testimony James, Peter, John and the whole church had given solemn and public recognition to Paul as the apostle of the uncircumcision and the apostle of grace (Acts 15:23-29; Gal 2:7-9). The church at Jerusalem should have gone on from there, as Peter did (2 Pet 3:15-18) and should now have accepted Paul in accordance with that agreement. But under James and his party they had declined and gone backward, rather than forward, spiritually. Geikie says of this: '...whereas some time ago, only a portion of these were extreme in their Jewish ideas (Acts 15:1,5) all were now fanatically zealous of the law. So rapidly had the extreme party in the nation spread their bitterly irreconcilable Judaism ...' (New Testament Hours, Vol. III. P. 375)." (Stam)
They are all zealous for the law - "The church in Jerusalem had become strong; its membership numbered myriads (literal translation). But they were in a transition period. They had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ [as Messiah], and yet they held on to the law of Moses. They were all zealous for the Law. They kept all the ordinances of the Law, abstained from certain meats, kept the feast days, went to the temple, made vows, and purified themselves ... The fullest teaching on the break which had to come between Christianity and Judaism had not yet been given. The Epistle to the Hebrews furnished this argument and contains the solemn warning of the grave danger of apostasy from the Gospel by clinging to the shadow-things, which are past. To go outside of the camp and bear His reproach is the great exhortation given in that Epistle to these Jewish Christians. No doubt the Apostle Paul wrote that Epistle to his beloved brethren in Jerusalem." [See also a few chapters further on, Acts 23:11 - 'The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”'] (Gaebelein)
telling them not to circumcise their children - "Paul proclaimed that circumcision was not necessary to be saved, but the report that he told Gentiles not to circumcise their sons deliberately twisted Paul's words to foster animosity against him." (Ryrie)
"Now this charged was rather complicated by prejudice, as such charges often are. As it stood it was false. Paul had started no rebellion against Moses or the law. To say that the law was fulfilled by Christ is not to deny but to confirm its claims. But the apostle did teach that the law had been fulfilled in Christ and that it was therefore unnecessary to observe its ceremonial rites—and the taught this not only to the Gentiles but also to the Jews which were among them. 'After the reading of the law and the prophets' in the Pisidian synagogue, the rulers asked Paul for a 'word of exhortation.' In response the apostle gave them a word of exhortation with respect to each. With respect to the law he exhorted them not to trust in it, but to trust in Christ, saying: 'Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that THROUGH THIS MAN IS PREACHED UNTO YOU THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS: And by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which YE COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES' (Acts 13:38-39)." Certainly there were Jewish believers among the Galatians and they were included in the number of those whom the apostle wrote Gal 2:4, 19; 3:3, 24-25; 4:9-11; 5:1-2; 6:12-14). The Galatian congregations were, of course, largely made up of Gentiles, but the apostle did not single the Gentiles out as he wrote about circumcision, so that the principle certainly applied also to those already circumcision, so that the principle certainly applied also to those already circumcised and had its bearing on any contemplated circumcision of their their children. Nor can it be said that in the Galatian letter the apostle argued only against seeking to be justified by the law, for he clearly warns those already justified against becoming 'entangled' again by submitting to one of its rites, warning them that submission to one implies the responsibility to obey all (See Gal 3:1, 3). And in this connection he had warned them that 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump' (Gal 5:9) ... And to both the Jewish and Gentile believers at Corinth he had written 2 Cor 11:2-3. And only recently he had written to the believers at Rome—and especially to the Jewish believers among them—in the same vein: 'Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God' ... 'But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:4,6). Indeed, if Paul had not taught the Jews among the Gentiles to give up Judaism, what right did he have to rebuke Peter for reverting to it while visiting with the Gentiles at Antioch? Peter, remember, had been 'living after the manner of Gentiles, and NOT as do the Jews' while there at Antioch. And 'the other Jews' among them had been doing the same, until 'certain came from James.' Then Peter and the other Jewish believers began living 'as do the Jews' again and were rebuked by Paul for their dissimulation (Gal 2:11-14). We cite these passages, and could cite others, only to show that while Paul had not, to be sure, apostatized from Moses, he had taught the Jews among the Gentiles that the law had been fulfilled in Christ and that therefore they were to enjoy freedom from its yoke, so that the current reports about the apostles were not exactly 'nothing' as James intimated (Ver. 24)." (Stam)
Do therefore what we tell you - "... 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 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) ... Their proposition, therefore, was this: Paul himself was evidently not under a vow at this time, but they had four men who were, and Paul could join publicly with them in their vow by purifying himself and paying for the sacrifices marking the consummation of their vow—a considerable amount, since two doves or pigeons, one he-lamb, one ewe lamb and a ram had to be offered for each of the four (Num 6). This procedure was evidently not uncommon at that time. Indeed, Josephus tells how Agrippa I courted Jewish favor by thus financing Nazarite vows (Ant. XIX, 6,1)." (Stam)
pay their expenses - "Paul was being asked to pay the expenses involved in the offerings required at the completion of the Nazirite vow these four men had taken (cf. Num. 6:13-21). He was being urged to take actions that would indicate that he was, after all, a 'middle-of-the-road' Jewish-Christian." (Ryrie)
Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them - "Acting as then seemed best (1 Cor 9:20), though his desire to avoid misunderstanding and friction was not hereby gratified. One of his special objects at this juncture was, it would seem, to conciliate the Judaean churches and to promote Christian unity. He had probably purified himself and offered the usual offerings on his previous visit (Act 18:18), so that he was not now violating anything which he regarded as a principle ... The shaving of the head was connected with the fulfilment of the vow of the Nazirite (Num. 6:13-21). 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. Though the vindicator of Gentile liberty, he confirmed himself, in various respects, to the laws and customs of his own people (see Acts 20:6, 16; 21:26;27:9; 1 Cor 9:20)." (Walker)
"In his own soul he knew that all the commands of the law and the law itself had been abolished by the death of Christ. The ordinances had been nailed to the cross. The Holy Spirit foreseeing what would happen had warned him, as we have seen, not to go to Jerusalem. He went to the city and with this he stepped upon dangerous ground. He had left the way into which God had called him, and though it was his all-consuming love for his own brethren which was the motive, he became ensnared by the enemy." (Gaebelein)
"...Peter was rebuked for his failure at Antioch; would not God have rebuked Paul if he were similarly guilty? In the first place, no careful student of the record would say that Paul was 'similarly guilty' in agreeing to offer the sacrifices of the Nazarite. Peter went back on the light he had received, 'fearing them which were of the circumcision' (Gal 2:12). Paul, on the other hand, became involved in this vow out of a burning love to his kinsman whom he hoped would thereby be won to listen to his testimony about Christ." (Stam)
"Much is said about the two programs that run side by side through the latter part of Acts. We have no objection to the term 'side by side,' if only it is understood that it was not God's purpose for both programs to continue with equal force during those years. Just as the new program gradually emerged, the old was gradually to pass away. There was to be a transition from the one to the other. Peter's part in the conversion of Cornelius and his household, his words in Acts 15:8-11 and the decision of the Jerusalem council alone had indicated that even on the part of the Jewish believers there was to be a gradual liberation from the law. The breaking down of 'the middle wall of partition' was to affect those on both sides ... But had he not also written: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law"? (1 Cor 9:20-21). This passage 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 ... 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) ... How could either Peter or Paul have practiced the popular interpretation of 1 Cor 9:20-21 here at Antioch anyway, with both Jews and Gentiles present? In such cases the fruits of duplicity would surely be reaped! And note further that Paul rebuked Peter on this occasion, not for crossing a Jewish-Gentile line the wrong way or at the wrong time, but for going back on light received (Gal 2:15-19). Peter had learned by a special vision and by the conversion of Cornelius that God had made no difference between Jew and Gentile and he had publicly stated this, and more, at the council at Jerusalem. Now, by separating the Jews from the Gentiles at Antioch, he was building again that which he had destroyed, and thus making himself a transgressor (Gal 2:18). Thus it is not enough to argue that there was one program for the Jew and another for the Gentile, during the latter part of Acts, for it was on the basis of revealed truth as to Old Testament rites that Paul fought for Gentile liberty from them, and it was on the basis of revealed truth also that the Jewish program was gradually to be abandoned (Acts 15:8-11; Heb 10:1-39, etc.)." (Stam)
"Why should he [Paul] try to prove to the Jews that he 'walked orderly and kept the law' when he certainly had not done so among the Gentiles? He had come to Jerusalem to bring an offering to the poor saints there and to 'testify the gospel of the grace of God.' There is no record that the offering was gratefully received, and surely he could not 'testify the gospel of the grace of God' by offering blood sacrifices. But even the sacrifices were not actually offered. So far from James' plan succeeding, a great commotion and Paul's arrest 'when the seven days were almost ended,' prevented him from having any part in the offering of the proposed sacrifices." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment