Reader’s Guide: “The Word for Today” Sunday, August 11, 2013 Read – Acts 21:17-36 In language that is typical of Luke, when Paul arrives in Jerusalem, the first thing he does is to appear before James, the brother of Jesus, and the other elders who are in Jerusalem. They must authenticate what Paul has been doing. So Paul reports all that has happened and he receives their approval. Peter is notably absent from the story. This is a curiosity without any explanation since Luke provides us with absolutely no information, and as we have noted, Luke does not mention Peter again in the book of Acts after the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15). As we noted earlier, the picture that Luke is painting of a submissive Paul “reporting in” does not square well with what we can read in many of Paul’s letters. Luke’s story is not without significant historical challenges. Would Paul have acted in this submissive way? Why doesn’t Luke mention a word about the offering Paul was bringing for the poor of Jerusalem – the main motivation in Paul’s letters for his journey to Jerusalem at this time (Romans 15:25-29)? Paul has mentioned that Titus was among those representatives from Macedonia who were accompanying Paul to guarantee that the offering would be delivered in good order (2 Corinthians 8:19). Why does Luke omit talking about Titus? This is the second time Luke has done that, since Paul also says that Titus accompanied him to the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15. From what we read in Paul’s letters, it is doubtful that Paul would have agreed with the way in which Luke has portrayed this scene. The challenges only become greater as we move forward. Having heard Paul’s report and given Paul’s ministry their blessing, the authenticating leadership in Jerusalem moves on to what for them is a huge problem. First of all, they tell Paul that there are “many thousands of believers (in Jerusalem) among the Jews and they are all zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). Once again, Luke does not want his readers to miss the point that a great many Jews did receive Jesus as the Messiah. He began with about 120 on the day of Pentecost and told about 3000 more believers added that day (Acts 2:41). In a short time there were at least 5000 Jewish believers (Acts 4:4). While no longer providing a number, Luke repeats several times that the number of believers is growing! Here the number is beyond counting – thousands of zealous Jewish believers! Luke’s contention that his readers, including us, need to recognize that the Jews did not reject the Messiah but welcomed him is an important message in his gospel and in the book of Acts. We would do well to remember that. But, the presence of “thousands of Jews, zealous for the law” does create a problem. It’s the mention that they are “zealous for the law” that becomes the bone of contention. What does it mean to say that they were “zealous for the law?” It likely means that these Jewish Christians are behaving in much the same way that other Jewish non-believers in Jesus were behaving. Likely an outside observer would not distinguish much difference – although in conversation they would discover that what did distinguish the Jewish Christians from the Jewish non-Christians was that Jewish Christians understood Jesus to be the Messiah. We have noticed all along that Luke has been portraying Christianity, not as a new religion, but as the proper expression of Judaism. In Luke’s mind there likely is no such thing as Christianity. All Christians are really Jews who believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and that includes Gentiles who have been grafted into Judaism. The struggle that Luke is describing is fully within the scope of Judaism! What Luke describes for his readers is a community of “thousands of Jews, zealous for the law” who believe in Jesus and yet live in a very “Jewish” way. They observe the Torah by circumcising their children, following the “food laws” and all the other “purity laws” laid down in the OT, and participating in the sacrificial system and festivals which would still have been taking place. For all intents and purposes they remain faithful Jews. The contention between “believing Jews” and “non-believing Jews” was only with respect to Jesus – was he the Messiah or not? This glimpse into the early life of the church, at least in Jerusalem, is very valuable. We do not often think of the early church behaving in this way. That Luke has told us this story is evidence that they did. We need to remember that this is now at least 20 to 25 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. That Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians would have looked so much alike and shared so much in common in the experience of the Jerusalem community and perhaps throughout most of Judea is incredible! Luke’s insight provides us a great deal to ponder. The reality “on the ground” in Jerusalem and in the communities of Paul in Asia Minor and Greece was likely very different. In the “outer reaches” of the Kingdom of God, Jewish practices likely ebbed away rather quickly. The experience of Christians in Corinth, Ephesus, or even Rome likely had very few of the Jewish customs that were important in Jerusalem. One has a hard time imagining these Christians worrying very much about being “Jewish” in their practice – although we should not overstate the case. It is also significant that Luke tells us that Paul always went first to the Jewish synagogues. Paul’s own letters do demonstrate Paul’s concern for the Jewish people, but they also paint quite a different picture from what we are reading in Luke’s portrait in the book of Acts. James, the brother of Jesus, and the other leaders in Jerusalem are very worried about how Paul will be perceived by the Christians in Jerusalem – and by other non-Christian Jews there. They are so worried that they nearly dismiss Paul’s report. Luke’s omission of any mention of the offering Paul was delivering likely means that either they did not receive it, or if they did, it was unimportant to them. What was important was presenting Paul in an acceptable way. Rumor has it that Paul has been teaching “Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs” (Acts 21:21). The evidence from Paul’s letters comes very close to substantiating that the rumor was true. It may be going too far to say that Paul was teaching the Jews to forsake their Jewishness, but he certainly was advocating that Gentiles did not need to follow Jewish custom – and Jews, like Paul, who chose to do so, no longer needed to be bound by those customs either. “What then is to be done?” (Acts 21:22) These sound like desperate words of frightened and anxious people. A plan is put together for Paul to demonstrate his Jewishness. Once again the authorities in Jerusalem tell Paul what he is to do – likely the Paul we meet in his letters would not have accepted their directive so submissively, but this is Luke’s story not Paul’s. Paul is told to submit to the rights of purification, which would have meant he had to go to a priest and present himself as one who is presently impure and thus unfit to participate in the worship of God. Clearly Paul would not have perceived himself as either impure or unfit to participate in worship. To submit to such a right of purification would have been only for the sake of others and not because this is something Paul thought God required him to do. The right of purification would take seven days. Added to this was a plan for Paul to pay for shaving of the heads of four men from Jerusalem who apparently were ending a period under which they had been observing a Nazarite vow. What was Paul to use for paying for this vow – perhaps some of the money he was bringing in his offering. Can we imagine Paul actually doing that? Hardly, since Paul was so concerned about the integrity of the offering he was bringing to Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:20-21). To do such a thing would be diverting money collected for one purpose to a completely different purpose. Was Paul independently wealthy? Again such could hardly have been the case. Did the Jerusalem authorities supply the money? Such questions must remain unanswered. The historical challenges between Paul’s letters and the story Luke is telling in the book of Acts continue to mount. We have been listening to Luke tell his story for a long time now. We may have been wondering just who this author is and what he was like – what were his core beliefs? Of course we can only speculate about that, but it appears from all that we have read thus far in the book of Acts that the author of Acts was himself likely a “Jew, zealous for the law”; or, at the very least that he was sympathetic to those who held that point of view. Such a person could hardly have been a co-worker and associate of Paul. Listening carefully to what the Bible says in this regard leads us to a different conclusion than tradition has handed down to us – that the author of Acts was Luke, the physician and companion of Paul. That the author of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts was the same person is without question. But he almost assuredly was not the Luke we meet in the book of Acts and in the letters of Paul. His identity slips into the unknown as does his name which is recorded nowhere in either the gospel we call Luke or in the book of Acts. While we can appreciate his brilliance and skill and the fact that God used him to proclaim the gospel, he will forever remain nameless. As we return to the story that Luke is telling us, Paul receives the assurance from the authorities in Jerusalem that if he will just do this act, he will demonstrate to the Jerusalem community that there is “nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law” (Acts 21:24). If Paul does as he is told, he will be viewed as a “Jew, zealous for the law” and all will be well. They go on to talk about how the Gentiles are to be presented to this observant Jewish community. The four injunctions included in the decision of the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 are repeated – significantly, there is no mention of circumcision here or that the Jerusalem conference had agreed to set circumcision aside. These four injunctions were precisely about behavior expected of even the Gentiles that they would have observed to enable Jews to remain “ritually pure” in their presence. Even such Gentiles would be acceptable to “Jews, zealous for the law” since they were yielding to these Jewish demands. Luke tells us that Paul unreservedly agrees with the decision and “does what they tell him to do” (Acts 21:23). Could the Paul we meet in his letters have agreed to such a thing? Perhaps – though not as easily as Luke implies. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes, “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). It is not impossible that Paul went along with what was asked of him by the Jerusalem authorities in hopes that by doing so the gospel might be furthered. On the other hand, do we do things we really don’t believe in just to keep the peace? Certainly if Paul did go along with what was asked of him, he would not have done it without a struggle and likely without making it very clear that he was doing so because he chose to do so and not because he had to do so. It is likely that we need to take the story as Luke tells it with a “grain of salt” – it is Luke’s story and not Paul’s and Paul most likely would have told the story very differently. We do not have Paul’s account of this visit to Jerusalem so we are not able to compare it with Luke’s as we did regarding the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15). The only story we have is Luke’s and we need to follow it forward. The plan put forth by the authorities in Jerusalem goes badly! The plan does not work and Paul is quickly put in great danger. One can only wonder about the impact this had on the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that they did not come to Paul’s defense. There is no mention of anyone standing up for Paul – only his sister and nephew provide any help. We will not hear again about the Jerusalem Christian community in the book of Acts. They disappear just as Peter did earlier. It is difficult not to ask why they apparently abandoned Paul. Of course we are not told directly that they did such a thing – but the absence of the Jerusalem authorities from the story is remarkable and perhaps speaks louder than words. We are left disappointed by them. Luke tells us it was Jews from Asia that raised the ruckus that led to Paul’s arrest. Their charges against Paul are that Paul is guilty of teaching against Judaism and against Jerusalem and the Temple – and most seriously that Paul has desecrated the Temple by bring a Gentile into the Temple’s inner courts. The Temple in Jerusalem was arranged as a series of concentric circles. At the outmost court of the Temple was the court of the Gentiles – anyone could enter there. Between this court of the Gentiles and the next inner circle, the court of the women, was a barrier upon which was written the proclamation – “No Gentile may enter here and those who do so will be responsible for their own impending death” – inscriptions with words to this effect have been found on the stone relics of the Jerusalem Temple. For Paul to have brought a Gentile beyond this barrier was a capital crime that demanded Paul’s death. It was also against Roman law to desecrate a religious temple and the punishment for violators was death. The charge against Paul was deadly. Of course readers of the book of Acts know that none of the charges against Paul are true. And Paul’s own letters would concur. It does not matter to the mob that emerges in Jerusalem. As Luke tells the story the scene is one of chaos with some saying one thing and some another. The story is reminiscent of the story of the stoning of Stephen – and the arrest of Jesus long ago. We have been noticing how Luke has written his story in such a way that the journey of Paul to Jerusalem and his arrest there are patterned after what happened to Jesus. The story of Stephen’s arrest and death also echoed the story of the arrest and death of Jesus. Luke is not without purpose in telling these stories in this way. Followers of Jesus can expect to be treated as their master was treated. While there are differences within these three stories we ought not to miss the similarities. Perhaps surprisingly it is the Romans that come to Paul’s rescue. Once again it is worth noting the absence of any Jerusalem Christians – but perhaps this is one more similarity in the story. Jesus was abandoned too. We remember that in Mark’s story not one person is left at the foot of the cross when Jesus dies – at least for Luke there were some faithful women there. In words that echo the scene of Jesus’ conviction the crowd cries out “Away with him” (Luke 23:18, Acts 21:36)! What is to become of Paul? We will hear more of the story tomorrow.