Acts 21:20-23

DISCOURSE: 1805
PAUL BECOMING A NAZARITE

Acts 21:20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee.

FEW subjects require so much caution in the preacher, or candour in the hearers, as that which we are now called to contemplate. To lay down general rules is easy: but to apply them to all states and circumstances is a matter of extreme difficulty: just as the drawing a rough outline of the human body may be done by a novice in the art of painting; but to fill up all the parts in the perfect order of nature, requires the hand of a master. Yet it is not uncommon for persons to sit in judgment on their fellow-creatures with as much confidence as if it was impossible for them to err. The conduct of the Apostle Paul in the passage before us has been much condemned; and a minister almost endangers his own character by undertaking to defend it. But I am persuaded it is defensible, and that he acted as became him in existing circumstances: and I cannot but think, that when the whole Church at Jerusalem united in recommending that conduct, and St. Paul adopted it on their recommendation, it is somewhat presumptuous in us, who are so incompetent to form a judgment in comparison of them, to stigmatize what by them was universally approved. Indeed, to suppose that he who but a few days before had withstood so manfully the solicitations of his friends to keep away from Jerusalem, and had declared himself ready to be bound or to die there, for the Lord’s sake, should be left of God to betray the cause which he had undertaken to support, is to dishonour, not the Apostle only, but that God whom he served.
That we may communicate our sentiments clearly, we shall endeavour,

I. To explain the Apostle’s conduct—

There was a violent prejudice at Jerusalem against the Apostle Paul—
[St. Paul, having been sent chiefly to the Gentiles, had neglected the Jewish Ritual; whilst the Church at Jerusalem, consisting entirely of Jews, had still been observant of its forms. Nor is this difference to be wondered at; for even the Apostles themselves, for six years after the day of Pentecost, knew not that the Gentiles were to be incorporated with the Jews, and that the partition-wall between them was to be broken down. Hence they, and all their converts, adhered to the ceremonial law, and to many of “the customs,” which they had “received by tradition from their fathers:” nor do they appear to have wholly laid them aside, till the destruction of Jerusalem and of the whole Jewish polity rendered the continuance of them impracticable. Considering therefore the veneration in which the Mosaic institutions were held, it is not to be wondered at that the Jewish Christians should regard Paul as an apostate from Moses [Note: ἀποσταίαν διδάσκεις.].

It was to counteract this idea, that an expedient was devised by James and the Jewish elders. They knew that whilst this prejudice remained, the Christians at Jerusalem were not likely to reap any benefit from the ministry of Paul; or rather, that great dissensions and divisions were likely to be occasioned by him: and therefore they wished to reconcile the minds of the people by some public act on the part of Paul. It happened that at that time there were four Jewish Christians who were performing vows of Nazariteship in the temple; and it was proposed to Paul to join with them, and to submit to all the rites prescribed to Nazarites by the law: and thus to shew publicly, that, though he had neglected all Jewish ceremonies among the Gentiles, and had maintained that they were no longer binding on the Jews themselves, he did not think that the observance of them was criminal. James was particular in making known to Paul the precise ground on which he wished him to accede to the proposal. He reminded Paul, that he did not mean to interfere with the decree which had been made in reference to the Gentiles many years before, when Paul himself had come up to Jerusalem to inquire respecting the continuance of circumcision; but that he only wished to convince the Christians at Jerusalem that Paul was no enemy to Moses.
On these grounds Paul, who not very long before had himself made a vow of Nazariteship at Cenchrea [Note: Acts 18:18.], adopted the plan proposed, and immediately proceeded to carry it into execution.

The particular duties of Nazarites, and the sacrifices they offered at the time of their purification, are stated in the 6th chapter of the book of Numbers. The person who took upon him those vows, was only bound so far as he had voluntarily bound himself: and hence Paul was at liberty to join the other Nazarites, and to complete with them what they alone had begun.]
Such was the precise state of the case, and such the conduct of the Apostle Paul, which now we proceed,

II.

To vindicate—

Various are the charges which have been inconsiderately brought against Paul for his conduct on this occasion; but if we view it candidly, we shall find that he was not really obnoxious to any one of them. He has been accused of,

1. Insincerity—

[Great stress is laid on those words of James, “Do this,” “that all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law [Note: ver. 24.].” But can we suppose that James exhorted him to declare a downright falsehood, which thousands of Jews there present were able to contradict? Would not such a proposal have excited in Paul the greatest abhorrence? We must understand the proposal as it was understood at the time. The Jewish Christians had been informed, that Paul set himself against Moses, and would in no case submit, or suffer any other Jew to submit, to any of his appointments. Now, says James, shew them that this is not true, by submitting to this particular appointment proposed to you. To this proposal Paul acceded. Was there any insincerity in that? No: it precisely accorded with his own views, and was the deliberate expression of his own mind — — —]

2. Inconsistency—

[When Peter had, through fear of some Jewish Christians, been guilty of dissimulation, and had made such a compliance as that recorded in our text, Paul had publicly reproved him before the whole Church [Note: Galatians 2:11.]: and now that Paul himself was brought into similar circumstances, (it may be said) he acted in the very way that he had before condemned. But this is not a just statement of the case. Peter had acted in a very different manner, and from very different principles. He had not only gone back to Jewish ceremonies himself, but had compelled the Gentiles also to conform to them: and this be had done solely through the fear of man. But St. Paul compelled no one to follow his example: he abridged no man’s liberty: he merely conformed to a rite himself, from love to his fellow-creatures, and from a hope of furthering their eternal welfare. The two cases were as different as can well be conceived. St. Paul did nothing but what he had frequently done on other occasions. He had himself circumcised Timothy, that Timothy might find the readier acceptance among the Jews: and St. Paul tells us, that he had always acted on the same Principle, whenever a just occasion had arisen; “To the Jews, became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that T might gain them that are under the law [Note: 1 Corinthians 9:20.].” Thus, instead of being guilty of any inconsistency, he acted on the very principles which he had invariably pursued.]

3. Unfaithfulness both to God and man—

[St. Paul had received a commission to go to the Gentiles; and to shew both to them, and to the Jews, that the law was abolished, and that both Jews and Gentiles were henceforth to form “one body in Christ:” and, it may be said, that in this act of his, he was “building again the things he had destroyed.” But again, I say, we must distinguish between an occasional conformity to a rite for the sake of removing prejudices, and an insisting on that rite as necessary. If he had told the Jews that the ceremonial law was necessary to be observed in order to their salvation, he would indeed have betrayed the cause of Christ. If he had even inculcated the observance of it as having an efficacy towards their acceptance with God, he would then also have betrayed the cause of Christ: because it is certain, that such an idea would have put the ceremonial law in the place of Christ, and would have made the cross of Christ of no effect [Note: Galatians 5:2.]. But he merely shewed, that if, on the one hand, men were not to be saved by their observance of the law, they would not be condemned for it, provided they did not rely upon it for their justification before God. The time for the total abolition of the ceremonial law was not yet fully come: it was gradually passing away; and, when Jerusalem should be destroyed, as it would soon be by the Romans, the whole Jewish law and polity would be swept away together. Till that period should arrive, the observance of the law was purely optional; and whether men observed it or not, they should equally be accepted, provided they acted really with a view to please and honour God [Note: Romans 14:2; Romans 14:6.]. This was the whole that St. Paul’s conduct was intended to prove; and his proving it in the way he did, was highly acceptable to God, and profitable to the Church.]

Having shewn the propriety of his conduct, we now proceed,

III.

To improve it—

Many valuable lessons we may learn from it; a few of which we will now suggest to you.

1. Endeavour truly and simply to approve yourselves to God—

[God forbid that any thing which has been spoken should be considered as justifying dissimulation, or as countenancing a worldly temporizing spirit: no: we must act uprightly, as in the presence of the heart-searching God. We must so act, as to have “the testimony of our conscience, that with simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have our conversation in the world.” The Christian should, so to speak, be a transparent character; and should prevent, as far as possible, “his good from being evil spoken of.” In acting according to circumstances, we must take care not to be influenced by unhallowed principles, or to carry our concessions to too great an extent. It will sometimes happen, that the path of duty is extremely difficult to find, and that even good men may differ in their judgment respecting it: but in such cases it will be well, after consulting the most aged and experienced of the Lord’s people, to commit the matter to the Lord, and to do that which we judge will be most acceptable in his sight: and, if we have the testimony of our consciences, that we are willing to be hound or die for him, we need not fear but that God will guide us aright, or, at least, so guide us, that we shall not greatly err.]

2. As far as you can consistently with a good conscience, consult in your conduct the welfare of those around you—

[That inconsiderate conduct which has no regard to the feelings of others, is common indeed, but highly culpable. We may, by imprudence, cast a stumbling-block before others, when, by a more wise and temperate conduct, we might remove it out of their way. In all such cases, however we may think to please God by our zeal, we grievously offend him by our want of love. Happy would it be if this matter were better understood by young people of every description. Many thousands of persons might be won by a conciliatory conduct, who are repelled and disgusted by the injudicious sallies of intemperate zeal. Children, servants, yea, all of you who are under authority, remember, that if you have souls, so have your parents, and masters, and governors, souls also: and though you are not to concede one Christian principle for any man, or to act in any thing contrary to a known duty, yet you ought, to a certain degree, to “become all things to all men,” and to “seek, not your own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”]

3. Guard against rash and uncharitable judging—

[If the conduct of Paul, when acting by the advice of James and of all the elders at Jerusalem, has been misunderstood, the conduct of holy men at this time may be misunderstood also; and we may be condemning them for things which God most highly approves. It is impossible for us to judge aright, unless we put ourselves into the precise situation of those whose conduct we are contemplating: nay, more, we should also know the exact motives by which they were actuated. But these things are known perfectly to God alone; to whom alone the office of judging belongs. “Who art thou that judgest another? To his own Master he standeth or falleth.” If you do not see the exact propriety of a brother’s conduct, apply to him for an explanation of it, if you will; but judge him not. Are you weak? judge not the strong: are you strong? despise not the weak: but all of you determine this rather, to “take up every stumbling-block out of your brother’s way,” and “seek those things whereby one may edify another [Note: Romans 14:13; Romans 14:19.].”]