|
Bro. Turner:
 In
Acts 21:20-f, Paul apparently took part in Jewish ceremonial
matters involving sacrifice. How can this be consistent with his
teaching re. the Law and New Covenant? D.L.
Reply:
McGarvey
says, "I think it must be admitted that subsequent to the
writing of the epistle to the Ephesians, and more especially
that to the Hebrews, he could not consistently have done this...
But in Paul's earlier epistles, though some things had been
written which, carried to their logical consequences, involved
all this, these points had not yet been clearly revealed to his
mind, and much less to the minds of the other disciples." I
quote this for your consideration, with due respect for
McGarvey's line of reasoning; but it raises as many questions in
my mind as it solves.
When
Paul circumcised Timothy (16: 1-3) he had already "had no
small dissension and disputation" with Judaizers (15:1-f).
He knew what he was doing. If his Jerusalem visit of Gal. 2: 1
is the same as that of Acts 15: as I believe it was, he had
refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3-5) prior to the
circumcision of Timothy. Paul made a clear distinction between
binding things of the old law, and making allowance for doing
such things as matters of indifference. He could become "as
a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the
Law, as under the Law: (1 Cor. 9:19-23) and at the same time
give battle to those who would bind Judaism or the Law. Clearly,
he acted in keeping with
| |
principle, and not in mortal fear of
"what the brethren will think." Consider further, Judaism was a
Theocracy: civil government and social regulations being found
in the same "law" that contained religion. While
Jerusalem and the Jewish economy stood, there was no separating
daily life from the Temple. (Health laws required a man healed
to go to a priest for ceremonial cleansing, Matt. 8:4; Lev.
14:1-f.) Vows, ceremonial rites, and "offerings" were
an integral part of Jewish life, and like special
"days" (Rom. 14:5-6) were deeply planted in the Jewish
conscience. Paul knew the offerings, days, meats, etc., had lost
their significance and he would not bind any of them. But he did
not view these things from an Occidental distance as do we. They
were daily "home town" transactions that he could take
part in, NOT as affecting the universal scheme of redemption,
but as a national practice. See Acts 14:25, "as touching
Gentiles..."
James
wanted to show "that thou walkest orderly and keepest the
law." In many ways this was equivalent to saying today,
"you keep the laws of the land, obey traffic signs, respect
the constitution." Lenski thinks the specific reference is
to the "law" of Num. 6: concerning Nazarite vows. This
would show that Paul had not rebelled against "law and
order" for the Jews; was not encouraging a revolution to
overthrow the Jewish national codes.
In
the final analysis, Paul was completely consistent with the
principle of "do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor.
10:23-33). Read this passage, and carefully ponder its message.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
