Acts #82 (chapter 21:22-26)
The Book of Acts
The Humility of Paul, pt 2
Acts 21:22-26
 
We are in Acts 21, and looking in particular at verses 17-26 where we find Paul finally arriving in Jerusalem. He has come, along with some Gentile church leaders, to deliver a love offering to the church in Jerusalem.
 
And as you can imagine, when he arrives, he receives quite a welcome. We used the word "communion" to describe that experience as he is received, first of all in an informal way by the church, and then, in an official time of greeting the following day.
 
It was then, most likely that the presentation of the offering is made and the believers in Jerusalem give Paul an opportunity to share about what's been going on in his ministry and mission work.
 
Then, as we read in verse 20, the Jerusalem leaders voice a concern they have. Multitudes of Jews have been saved, but in their words, they are zealous of the law. In other words, they are professing faith in Christ, but still practicing Judaism.
 
And to compound the issue, someone, most likely the Judaizers who believed circumcision and Jewish adherence to the law was necessary to be saved, were stirring things up by telling these Christian Jews that Paul was going around telling the Jews who lived in Gentile areas that they should forsake Moses and the law.
 
So they have this potentially explosive situation created by there being 1,000's of Jews who believe you should be Orthodox and the rumor floating around that Paul says you should ignore Moses. So what do we do?
 
That's where we left off last time, so we'll pick up there and begin our reading in
 
verses 22-26
 
So what do we do? That is the question that is asked there in verse 22. And the answer that is offered is a
 
3. Compromise
 
Now if you're like me, when I hear the word “compromise,” I tend to react negatively. But compromise doesn't have to be negative. If we are sacrificing the truth just to get along or avoid confrontation, then, obviously, compromise is a negative. It is impossible to teach truth by violating or watering down the truth.
 
But just in a general way, compromise doesn't have to be negative. Sometimes we wind up eating pizza when I really wanted Mexican. I could argue about it or whoever wants the pizza can get mad, or we can just eat pizza for lunch and Mexican for supper and get along.
 
So there’s a sense in which the word compromise can be neutral or inconsequential, or even positive thing.
 
Now here, it seems to me the Jerusalem church leaders have been thinking about this situation and what to do about it and they've already come up with a plan to propose to Paul.
 
Notice what they say in
 
verse 23
 
I'm not sure I want to be the one who has to approach Paul with the plan and say, "Just do what we tell you to do".
 
But what happens here is very revealing of what is happening in the church itself. Remember, they are in transition. And at first, by design, the apostles called the shots. Then along came elders and they made decisions together. But now we have elders telling apostles what to do.
 
And by the way, I looked at the Greek for what they say, and it's actually a command. They say to Paul, "Here's what you are going to do. They understood their authority.
 
They continued
 
23b
 
Four men have taken a Nazarite vow, which is a vow of separation. And that vow traces back to Numbers, chapter 6 where God said that when any Jew wants to separate himself totally unto the Lord, he takes a vow to do that.
 
 
And as a part of that vow, he would restrain himself from drink. That means he would sacrifice the joy of life and restrict himself to the serious matters of life.
 
  1. he wouldn't cut his har for the duration of the vow. By the way, the New Testament teaches that it is a reproach for a man to have long hair, or hair that looks like a woman's. So the person who took this vow was inviting reproach upon himself.
 
Usually, the vow was for 30, 60 or 90 days, and at the end of the period, they would make a sacrifice, shave their head, take their hair to the temple, and offer an offering to God.
 
By the way, it is highly likely that this is what we saw Paul doing back in chapter 18 where he cuts his hair and then goes to the synagogue.
 
Anyway, these four men had taken the vow, and they were getting to the end of it. So they say to Paul,
 
verse 24
 
So why would they want Paul to do that? They want him to do it to refute what the Judaizers were saying about Paul telling people to ignore Jewish custom and law. And in doing what they ask him to do, there would be a public testimony to his adherence to Mosaic law.
 
And just in case somebody thought he was just doing it for appearance, they say, "By the way, Paul. We expect you to pay their expenses also!"
 
Now you need to know that this purification process could get expensive because of the number of animals that were involved. For five of them, their would have been at least a dozen animals required for the sacrifices and so forth.
 
But again, their thinking is what he does will be more credible if he foots the bill for all of them. After all, Paul didn't have a lot of money. And if it had been me, I might have said, "I'll do it, but I'm taking it out of the love offering I brought you!"
 
By the way, where did Paul get what money he did have? He got it the old-fashioned way. He earned it! He made tents and paid his own way in the ministry.
 
Well, anyway, he did what they told him to do.
 
verse 26
 
Now in a sense, that's a compromise, because I don’t think Paul felt that it was necessary to do that. But he brought himself under their authority and did as they instructed.
 
Read the epistle Paul wrote and you will discover one of his primary themes is unity in the church. It's what Jesus prayed for and Paul was committed to seeing it accomplished. So anything he could do to win lost people and keep unity in the church, he was willing to do within the bounds of truth that didn’t violate doctrine to accomplish his goal.
 
And this purification process certainly doesn’t violate any doctrine. In fact, it’s rather inconsequential.
And I’m sure God looked at their hearts; and if their hearts were really separated and really pure toward Him, I’m sure God was pleased, even though the form was strictly Jewish. And so the apostle Paul is asked to do this.
 
Now they want to make one thing very clear, and we see it in
 
verse 25
 
That is a repeat of the decision that was reached in the Jerusalem Council that is recorded back in chapter 15.
 
When it comes to Jewish custom and requirement, the Gentiles don't have to observe any of that. But our expectation is they will keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual sin. Those thing were specifically mentioned because they were the things most offensive to Jews.
 
That means, as far as the Gentiles are concerned, there was no need for circumcision, no need to keep the ceremonies, no need to keep the law to be saved, but they needed to do these things for the sake of unity and fellowship among the believers.
 
And really what it boils down to is just being sensitive to where others are in their walk with God. We never want to be a stumbling block or a hindrance to someone else's walk with God. That’s a simple principle, but it makes a tremendous impact for the cause of Christ.
 
 
So, as I said, Paul did what they asked him to do.
He took the four of them, paid the expenses and participated himself. And by the way, there is no indication that he argued or debated or resisted. He just went along with the compromise.
 
Now this brings up a very interesting point. Did he make a mistake by doing that? Was it wrong for Paul to go along to get along? Did he compromise when he shouldn’t have compromised?
 
As you can expect, there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument.
 
G. Campbell Morgan said “I hold that Paul made the greatest mistake of his ministry on this occasion. Yet we have to recognize that the reason of his consent was not that of expediency, not that of policy, but that of devotion and his desire to win his brethren. This was not the act of a man trying to save his own life, it was the action of a man who compassionately and earnestly desired to do anything to win his brethren. He sought by that compromise contrary to his own conviction, to gain an opportunity. His brethren were not one, and the last word of the paragraph is the same cry hurled after him and that hurled after his Messiah: ‘Away with Him.’ Men who would never compromise in order to save their own lives are in danger of compromising in the hope that they help save others.”
 
So Morgan, respected New Testament authority that he was, says that he went against his own conscience, and that he compromised by acquiescing to Judaism when he should not have done it. It was an evil compromise, and as a result, it didn’t work out and he was put in prison.
But I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. I certainly agree that it is always wrong
to compromise truth for the sake of the method. And a lot of people do that. They have an objective and they'll compromise any way they have to in order to reach it.
 
And it is also true, as we'll see in verse 27 and following, that Paul was victimized by this angry
mob and would up in prison.
 
But did those things happen because Paul compromised when he shouldn't have? Did Paul violate his conscience and disobey God? I don’t think so.
 
I don’t agree with Morgan at all, and the reason I don’t agree with him is because, as I mentioned a moment ago, he himself took a Nazarite vow, as we saw in chapter 18. So even Paul, the great champion of grace and liberty and freedom in Christ was still hanging on to some of the trappings of his Judaism. So I don't think it was a violation of conscience for him to participate here.
 
But beyond that, if this was the greatest mistake he ever made, wouldn't the Holy Spirit have said something about that?
 
The Holy Spirit is not prone to let sin go by without comment. He certainly mentioned it in the life of Ananias and Sapphira. And He mentioned it in the life of Simon the Sorcerer. And He lets us know about Peter's refusal to eat certain foods.
 
 
  1. if you and I are honest, we'll have to admit the Holy Spirit certainly comments when sin occurs in our lives. So why would Paul get by without comment, especially if this is the greatest mistake of his life and ministry?
 
I can’t imagine a sin of this proportion being left unaddressed when it would be the perfect time for the Holy Spirit to teach us about the tragedy of compromise if it was, indeed, a compromise.
 
Plus, I don’t think there was anything evil in doing what he did. I think what he did was a form of tradition. It was a cultural thing; it was a ceremonial thing. It was not a fact of sin or not sin, it was just a way of expression.
 
In fact, I think his motives were pure. By the way, let me give you a little formula you can use to your benefit: If you will take pure motive and add to it Scriptural truth, the result will be right living.
 
When a person has pure motives and rightly applied Scriptural truth, they will do the right thing. That is where we find Paul. I would suggest he had pure motives, accurate Scriptural truth, and he did the right thing.
 
Now, that deals with everything except the results. If his motives were right, his knowledge was right and his actions were right, why did he wind up in prison? Well, we have to keep in mind, winding up in prison wasn't the only thing that happened as a result of what he did.
 
 
All we see here is the riot and imprisonment. But we're not told about the impact it had on the church or the four men who went with him or the whole of Christendom as a result of it.
 
And one other thing I want to mention. Remember, what Paul did was not his idea. The Jerusalem elders were the ones who proposed this plan and really, gave him no choice in doing it.
 
And what we find there is a good illustration of what the New Testament goes on to spell out and implement and that is elder-led churches.
 
By the way, don't be confused by the lingo. We find the New Testament using the words elders, pastor and bishop and they are easy to understand.
 
The term "elder" was originally used to describe the older men of a Jewish community which governed and made the major decisions.
 
In the New Testament, the term evolved into a description of a mature believer who and responsibility for supervising the ministry of the church. It was not so much about age as it was maturity.
 
Generally speaking, the terms elder, bishop and pastor are used interchangeably in the New Testament, but here's a good way to make the differentiation. "Elders" typically refers to the person while "bishop or pastor" deals with their office.
 
A bishop is "an overseer", and again, it generally refers to the pastor of a local church.
Some denominations use the title for those that supervise multiple churches, but they are still functioning in a pastoral role.
 
The word pastor is best seen as a shepherd, one who cares for and leads a flock of God's sheep.
 
So here in chapter 21, verse 18, we have reference James, who is commonly referred to as the pastor of the church in Jerusalem and the elders. These are men who are given responsibility for guiding the work of the church.
 
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work" (1 Tim.
 
And Paul, who is an apostle, brings himself under the authority of these elders, and by doing that, he is
setting a pattern for all future church activity. When the elders said, “Do this,” he did it. Which means if there was any mistake that was made, it is on the elders, not on Paul.
 
This is Hebrews 13:17 in action!
 
"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you."
 
All of that to say, I don’t think he compromised in a negative sense. It was a compromise made under the authority of church leaders that violated no Scripture and was aimed at dealing with a problem and bringing greater unity in the church
 
So we have the communion, and the concern, and the compromise. Next we'll see the
 
4. Consequences
 
We’ll get into these in detail next time, but in closing tonight, I want to point out something to you.
 
A riot breaks out and it goes full-scale. In fact, there is so much confusion, the Roman commander who is in charge can't make heads nor tails out of what is going on. People are screaming and yelling, and Paul has to be rescued and pulled out of the crowd.
 
And yet, while everyone is yelling accusations and trying to explain what's happening, Paul doesn't open his mouth. He doesn't say a word.
 
And I mention that because I want to illustrate one primary characteristic of Paul, and that is his humility.
 
Let me point out three things regarding Paul and his humility from this text.
 
First, in verses 19 and 20, we see
 
- his submission before God
 
When he gave his report, he said, “This is what God has done.” That’s humility.
 
Secondly, we see
 
- his submission before Christian authority
 
The elders said, “Do this”, and he did it.
 
And thirdly, we see
 
- his submission to persecution
 
He was willing to suffer persecution because it was God's will. Remember, the Holy Spirit has told him repeatedly what was going to happen once he came to Jerusalem, and now, it's happening. And when it happened, he was silent.
 
What do we learn from that" We are genuinely humble when we are submissive to God, submissive before God's leaders and submissive when we are being persecuted for the Lord's sake.
 
By the way, Paul wasn't the only one who was told he would suffer persecution. That is God's word to all who will live godly lives. May God help us to be humble and submissive in honor of Him when it happens.
 
Let's pray.