Why did Paul agree to participate in the purification rights?
Was this a mistake or compromise on his part, especially in light of the way that this was posed to him?
Was Paul attempting to please men in regards to a system that was made obsolete by Jesus?
Acts 21: 20-25 (NKJV)
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 *What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided *that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Thoughts?
Did Paul compromise? (Acts 21)
Did Paul compromise? (Acts 21)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
It may seem to some that Paul is here committing the same offense that he rebuked Peter for doing in Galatians 2:11ff—viz., compromising the message of grace by succumbing to pressure from Jewish interests. It is, indeed, surprising to see Paul sheepishly submit to James' request on this occasion, when he had shown such backbone, on an earlier occasion, in resisting the pressure to have Titus circumcised (Gal.2:3-5).
On the other hand, Paul had very early in his ministry adopted a policy which he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. According to this passage, Paul was willing to comply with the local culture of his hosts (so long as doing so did not violate the law of Christ—v.21) in order to avoid placing an unnecessary obstacle in the way of their receiving his message. This, he said, included his willingness to live "as a Jew" and "under the law," as occasion required.
This policy may sometimes have seemed to come into tension with his determination not to compromise the message of grace, and I don't know if Paul sometimes may not have felt conflicted in a case like that in Acts 21.
My understanding of Paul's actions here, and why they do not contradict those in Galatians 2, would be as follows:
Paul believed that his calling was to bring the Gospel to (and safeguard its purity among) the Gentiles, whereas he believed the stewardship of the gospel to the Judeans was given to Peter, James and John. This was the mutual agreement held by all four men (Gal.2:7-11). In Galatians 2, Peter was among the Gentiles in Antioch (Paul's turf), and Paul feared that Peter's actions might had an adverse impact on the way the Gentiles would understand the terms of the gospel.
Paul's earlier refusal to circumcize Titus (even while visiting Jerusalem—Gal.2:3-5) also involved the integrity of the gospel preached among the Gentiles—since Titus was a Gentile, and the gathering in Jerusalem was held specifically to determine the nature of the gospel preached among the Gentiles.
On the other hand, Paul did have Timothy circumcised before allowing him to travel on his team, because he was a Jew (with a Gentile father—Acts 16:3). Timothy's circumcision would prevent undue offense among the Jews, and would have no impact upon the question of Gentile conversion requirements.
In Acts 21, James told Paul that he was widely-reported to have discouraged Jews from practicing circumcision. As far as we know, this was a false rumor, and one that did not endear Paul to the Jewish people or even the Jewish Christians.
It was to dispel this false impression that the Jews had, and to heal the breach between the Jewish and Gentile sectors of the church, that Paul was asked to participate in the Nazirite vows of four Christian Jerusalemites. Paul, as a Jewish believer, had himself taken a Nazirite vow, while in Greece (Acts 18:18), so he could hardly have objected, in principle, to these four men's vows. Paul was, on this occasion, on James' "turf."
The outcome of Paul's actions, on this occasion, was not positive, as it led to his arrest and a two-year delay in his plans to visit Rome. However, I don't think he was being inconsistent to his own principles in his agreeing to do what James suggested.
He may, however, have been mistaken even in being in Jerusalem at that time, since certain men had urged him "through the Spirit" not to go there, and he had disregarded them (Acts 21:4).[/img]
On the other hand, Paul had very early in his ministry adopted a policy which he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. According to this passage, Paul was willing to comply with the local culture of his hosts (so long as doing so did not violate the law of Christ—v.21) in order to avoid placing an unnecessary obstacle in the way of their receiving his message. This, he said, included his willingness to live "as a Jew" and "under the law," as occasion required.
This policy may sometimes have seemed to come into tension with his determination not to compromise the message of grace, and I don't know if Paul sometimes may not have felt conflicted in a case like that in Acts 21.
My understanding of Paul's actions here, and why they do not contradict those in Galatians 2, would be as follows:
Paul believed that his calling was to bring the Gospel to (and safeguard its purity among) the Gentiles, whereas he believed the stewardship of the gospel to the Judeans was given to Peter, James and John. This was the mutual agreement held by all four men (Gal.2:7-11). In Galatians 2, Peter was among the Gentiles in Antioch (Paul's turf), and Paul feared that Peter's actions might had an adverse impact on the way the Gentiles would understand the terms of the gospel.
Paul's earlier refusal to circumcize Titus (even while visiting Jerusalem—Gal.2:3-5) also involved the integrity of the gospel preached among the Gentiles—since Titus was a Gentile, and the gathering in Jerusalem was held specifically to determine the nature of the gospel preached among the Gentiles.
On the other hand, Paul did have Timothy circumcised before allowing him to travel on his team, because he was a Jew (with a Gentile father—Acts 16:3). Timothy's circumcision would prevent undue offense among the Jews, and would have no impact upon the question of Gentile conversion requirements.
In Acts 21, James told Paul that he was widely-reported to have discouraged Jews from practicing circumcision. As far as we know, this was a false rumor, and one that did not endear Paul to the Jewish people or even the Jewish Christians.
It was to dispel this false impression that the Jews had, and to heal the breach between the Jewish and Gentile sectors of the church, that Paul was asked to participate in the Nazirite vows of four Christian Jerusalemites. Paul, as a Jewish believer, had himself taken a Nazirite vow, while in Greece (Acts 18:18), so he could hardly have objected, in principle, to these four men's vows. Paul was, on this occasion, on James' "turf."
The outcome of Paul's actions, on this occasion, was not positive, as it led to his arrest and a two-year delay in his plans to visit Rome. However, I don't think he was being inconsistent to his own principles in his agreeing to do what James suggested.
He may, however, have been mistaken even in being in Jerusalem at that time, since certain men had urged him "through the Spirit" not to go there, and he had disregarded them (Acts 21:4).[/img]
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve