Through The Bible - Acts 21-22 - Part 2

Brett Meador: So here's a question: do we as Gentile people need to keep the Jewish laws and practices? No. But this is what these guys are bringing up to Paul.
Guest (Male): Pastor Brett Meador alerting those attempting to earn salvation, all have fallen short of the glory of God.
Brett Meador: When it comes to the Jews, whether they practice their laws and rituals and all that stuff, one thing we all need to be clear on: what saves a person? Does a person, Jew or Gentile, ever get saved by keeping these laws? No, the Bible says no one was ever saved by keeping these laws.
Guest (Male): During the missionary journeys of Paul, we see his respect for Jewish heritage, yet teaching salvation isn't achieved through keeping the law. In today's word, Pastor Brett Meador reflects on Paul's need for clarification of religious tradition with the Gospel. God's favor isn't earned by any of our efforts because salvation only comes by Christ, who fulfilled the law for us.
Brett Meador: To get us up to speed of where we left off, this is the ending really of Paul's missionary journey that we end at here in chapter 20, the third missionary journey. If you recall, it started way back there in Antioch, and then he went through Asia Minor, Turkey, Ephesus, visiting the churches previously that he'd ministered along the way. But then after being there in Corinth and Greece, he made his way back, retracing his steps, ended there at Miletus with the elders at Ephesus, and that's kind of where we left off there in chapter 20. Now in chapter 21, we're going to see where he is going to leave those guys and where he is going to go to next. Well, that's where we pick it up in verse seven here in Acts 21. Let's read. It says, "When we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais and saluted the brethren and abode with them one day. And the next day we were of Paul's company departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven, and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." He was now at Caesarea, which is in the land of Israel, but at Caesarea, he meets up with Philip. Now we've met Philip before. He was one of seven deacons along with Stephen. Do you remember who was there at the stoning of Stephen? Whose name was Saul and he was holding the coats and garments of the people stoning Stephen. Now Paul's at Philip's house. What an amazing transition this has been over the past 25 years. Paul now is friends with Philip. He's staying at Philip's house, one of the very guys that consented to the stoning death of one of the other seven deacons chosen of the early church there. You gotta love that. Paul was consenting and voting for the death of Stephen, and Philip opens up his house. The more I learn about Philip, the more impressed I am by this guy. Philip doesn't get much ink in the Bible, but the ink that he gets is outstanding. First of all, we know Philip's called an evangelist in the Bible. He's giving out sermons, and his home is impressive. He keeps a home there in Caesarea, which is in the middle of the Roman world. He keeps a very Christian home. He's hospitable even to someone who should have been his enemy. Are you impressed by Philip so far? Not only that, he's got these daughters, and the Bible takes time to explain a couple things about the daughters. The daughters of Philip... well, what does it say here? It says the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. He was using them to give words of prophecy to the church. What a cool thing. Remember what a word of prophecy is? It's not "thus saith the Lord, he will return in 45 years when the sun turns red." No, that's Old Testament prophet type stuff. This is a word of edification, exhortation, and comfort. The daughters of Philip were giving 1st Corinthians 14 version of words of prophecy to the church, and these girls go down in history as amazing women, which is kind of cool. Verse 10 goes on. It says, "And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet named Agabus. And when Agabus was come to us, he took Paul's belt, girdle, and bound his own hands and feet and said, 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost: so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" And when we had heard these things, both we, that's Luke and his team, and they, that is the people there in Caesarea, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased saying, "The will of the Lord be done." This is the controversy: was Paul right or were they right? And there's great debate over that. The funny thing is about the Bible on this one, I'm not sure the Bible gives us an airtight case either way. That's the thing, which is kind of funny. I wonder sometimes if God does that on purpose. Do you ever think the Lord does certain things in the Bible that people have been arguing about for centuries, and God's just up there kind of going [laughs]? Calvinism, Arminianism, we'll watch them with that one. Let me just say this. If you're a hardcore hyper-Calvinist, then I see problems with that. It doesn't really fully answer all the things I read in the Bible. But if you take a hard, hyper-Calvinist type stance, why even be on the mission field? You'll notice some of the hardcore hyper-Calvinist churches don't even have a missionary program. There's a reason for that, because well, God's already divinely so whatever. Is that what the Bible teaches, that we're not supposed to go into all the world and preach the gospel? So that's wrong. Now there are some, however, that would say, can you lose your salvation or have we left our salvation? Man, I can show you scriptures that talk about eternal security, and I can defend that with the Bible. But I can also show you other passages where if you continually practice sin and without being convicted of your own sin, maybe you're not saved. Well, did you lose your salvation? I don't like that language, losing your salvation, because you can leave it, I think. Paul even said they were once among us, but now they've left the faith. Paul even used that kind of language in some circumstances with some of the guys that failed in the ministry and left the faith. But the point is, I've noticed as a pastor, sometimes I like to put my Calvinist hat on when somebody is like this. For example, they come into the church and say, "Brett, I'm really worried that I thought an evil thought the other day, and I'm pretty sure I lost my salvation because I sinned and I did it willfully and I actually enjoyed the thought that was going through my head. Man, I just know that I'm worried, maybe I'm not even saved." Man, I've got some great eternal security scriptures and the grace of God, His forgiveness and His mercy. You confess your sin and be faithful and just to forgive you and cleanse you. Man, I've got some good strong messages for you on that one. "Oh, so you believe in eternal security, divine election?" Yep, sure do. But then I have another person walk in my office and say, "Pastor Brett, I was saved in kindergarten. I went to church when I was five and accepted Jesus, said the prayer. But now I'm saved by grace through faith, it's awesome. And you know, all things are lawful for me. So what do I do now? Man, I sleep around, I do drugs and drink and I like to party a lot, and I murdered a couple guys down the street the other day. And because I'm saved by grace, I'm not even really worried about it." I'm pretty sure you're not saved, and you need to repent from your sins and fall before God and break off your sinful behavior. And I've got all kinds of scripture I can show you there too. I wonder if the reason people have been arguing eternal security versus can you lose your salvation or the whole Arminianism and Calvinism—all these "isms," I think you should be really careful about. Just go with the Bible, and what the Bible says is don't play around with sin. Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. The Bible tells us what we're supposed to do. It's these groups that want to pin down some of these doctrinal issues so airtight that it might actually mess up what the Lord's trying to teach us. Be careful with that one. Billy Graham, Chuck Smith, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the view that I hold here, it's not this hyper-Calvinism or even pure Arminianist thinking. A lot of the best pastors I've ever heard or read or taught kind of believe that both are true and both are maybe false if they're carried to the wrong degree. So I would say search the scriptures and see what the scriptures actually say, and watch out for "isms" because those are often inventions of men. Now on this one, I love the way they concluded here because the Bible leaves it undone. Should Paul have gone to Jerusalem or not? Was it by the Holy Spirit that he shouldn't have gone, or just that it was a warning when he goes there he's going to be tied up and maybe killed? Which one was it? Well, the way this ends is in verse 14. We ceased saying, "The will of the Lord be done." May the Lord give you and me and us the ability of these guys and girls in this church. What a great way to end this because I know people, and this is so hard—I hope you're listening if you're one of these people—it's really hard on you if you're the person: "But the Holy Spirit said it! The Holy Spirit said!" And Paul just says, "Don't you know I'm willing to die?" "Yeah, but the Holy Spirit said you're going to be tied up!" But you know what, I'm just going to go anyway. Sorry, don't break my heart. Stop crying and I'm going. But! But! And some of you will stand your ground kicking and screaming and stomping your feet. If that's you, repent. There's a really good place where you can say, "Well, you have a different view than we do on that, and so guess what, the Lord's will be done." What a great way to conclude the matter. The Lord's will be done. They're not going to convince Paul, and Paul's not going to be convinced. They saw it differently, but they said, "Well, okay, Paul, we love you. Lord's will be done." That's kind of the way they ended this. Now I'll admit there are some issues that are essential doctrines that we say, "Yeah, that's just not true," and we don't just blow it off. Is Jesus God incarnate? Well, we believe Jesus is God in the flesh. That's an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. That's what the Bible teaches. That's part of who Jesus is. If you deny that, you're denying Christ. So there are things that we're not moved on. But there's so many other issues I've noticed people think, "Well, we're right about this, and you might have some nuance scripture that might defend your position." But isn't it interesting? The Bible talks about don't let division be named once among you. I'm reminded of 1st Corinthians 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." That's what the Bible asks of His church. On those clear things, you gotta do what the Bible says. But on the ones that are more nuance-y, this is kind of important to understand. I like the way they end this argument. The Lord's will be done. Good way to end that. Verse 15 and 16, it says, "And after those days we took up our carriages and went up to Jerusalem." Here they go. "There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple with whom we should lodge." When it says that he was an old disciple, the Greek word *archaios*, which some of you are like, "That's me, I'm archaic." Well, this isn't necessarily old like as much in years, but the idea is he's one of the original disciples, probably from the book of Acts chapter 2. That's what a lot of scholars believe, that Mnason of Cyprus was an early disciple. Based on the dating of Paul's Corinthian ministry, which was about AD 51, F.F. Bruce writes about this, by the way, and other considerations, this basically tells us when Paul arrives in Jerusalem in AD 57, which means this is 25 years after Acts chapter 2, the first 3,000 people that were saved into the church. 25 years later, so they're already calling, recognizing the early Christians. Now Mnason was one of the very early Christians, one who'd been associated with the followers of Jesus maybe even from the earlier years. That's why Mnason gets noteworthy here. I'm so thankful for the old saints, people that are not necessarily just old in age—that too—but I love the people that have been walking with the Lord for a long time. Mnason's been walking with the Lord solidly for at least 25 years, and he gets noted as one of the older disciples and they were lodging with him. I love that. Verse 17, "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly." Now this is the brethren in Jerusalem. They receive Paul and the gang gladly. Why? Two reasons: one, because they had people from all over. Now Paul's bringing a whole posse with him back to Jerusalem and they're like, "Wow, look at all these people that are now Christians." And that was joyful to the Christians, Jews in Jerusalem. They're like, "Wow, cool, Paul." And the second reason, does anybody know the second reason why they were really glad that Paul was there? Paul brought a bunch of money from the other churches that were wealthy, like at Ephesus and other places. He brought money because the Christian church was being persecuted in Jerusalem and they had no money and they were struggling. There was even famine in the land that was causing these Jews at that time to be suffering, the Christian Jews. By the way, that's one of the things that we get to do as a church globally, but also locally, anytime we can, we try to help chip in financially or otherwise. And that's what the church should do. We should help other churches, and we see that. Verse 18, "And the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord." Now notice when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. The Jerusalem Jews are a little different than the other Jews they'd been meeting on Paul's missionary journeys. They weren't quite so violent and angry, but they're actually glad. Oh, look at what's happening here. They're excited about the Gentiles being saved, but there's a bit of a problem here and it's going to ignite to be a big problem. Picking up verse 20 again, "And when they heard, 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 their customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come.'" Do you see what's happening here? We've got the Jews saying, "Hey, this is cool, we're so happy for you, Paul. Awesome to see you, bro. But word has it that you're telling some of the Jews that they no longer have to be circumcised, that the Jews don't have to practice the customs and the laws." Now here's the question: did Paul tell the Jews to forsake all the Jewish customs and practices? No, he did not tell them that. He was preaching that especially for the Gentiles, there's some liberty. We'll get to that in a second. But just as a reminder, do you remember what Paul made Timothy do before he went in and ministered to the Jews? He had Timothy as an adult male be circumcised. So Paul, we've got real evidence that Paul was not forsaking that. And you remember why Paul did that? It was that he might be a better minister to the Jews. It's almost like to Timothy said, "Timothy, you need to among the Jews be like a Jew." But among the Gentiles, remember Paul made Peter sort of feel a bit wacko because one minute he'd act one way, the other minute he'd act another. So here's a question: do we as Gentile people need to keep the Jewish laws and practices? No. But this list here, this is what they're bringing up to Paul. "We're told that you're saying to the Jews they forsake these." By the way, just because we're free and saved by grace and not by keeping the law, does it mean that Jews can't still keep the customs and the practices? No. But one thing we all need to be clear on: what saves a person? Does a person, Jew or Gentile, ever get saved by keeping these laws? No, the Bible says no one was ever saved by keeping these laws. That's the main thing you need to remember. Whether you're a Jew or a Gentile, you will not be saved by this list. It won't contribute to your salvation. Salvation only comes from Christ dying on the cross alone. That's important. But when it comes to the Jews, whether they practice their laws and rituals and all that stuff, it is kind of an interesting argument. And these guys are saying, "Paul, you're telling the Jews now they can't do this?" By the way, in the millennial kingdom, some of these practices are going to be reinstated, like the keeping of the Feast of Tabernacles and even the sacrificial system is going to be reinstituted during that time. Old Testament sacrifice pointed to Jesus' death on the cross. Communion for the Gentile remembers Jesus' death on the cross. In the millennial kingdom, the Jews will again sacrifice remembering Jesus' death on the cross. That's what we learn in the scriptures. So basically they're saying, "Paul, we got a problem. All these Jews are still zealous toward the law." And so they're saying, "Paul, we need to see where you're at on this." So check this out. They sort of give him sort of a test. This is interesting. They start in verse 23. "Do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them." What is this vow? It's a Nazirite vow. But there's several forms of Nazirite vows in the Bible. This is the short one. There were guys like Samson who had a lifelong Nazirite vow. But there were other guys that would actually do a Nazirite vow. Numbers chapter 6, if you want to read more about that. But this would be a short-term Nazirite vow. So the Jews say, "Hey, Paul, we got these four men which have a vow on them." Verse 24: "Take them and purify thyself with them and be at charges with them," in other words, pay their expenses, because when you do this ending of your vow, there's a financial cost, "that they may shave their heads and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepeth the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols and from blood and from strangled and from fornication." The Jews here are saying, "Paul, sure, sure, yeah, yeah, yeah, the Gentiles, they don't have to keep these laws. But we need to know that you're still a lawkeeper. So we want you to go with these four guys concluding their Nazirite vow, pay their charges, go in there and do the rituals in the temple with them as we do, just to kind of let the Jews know, 'Hey, Paul's okay. He's still a practicing Jew.'" What do you think Paul's going to do? Is he going to say, "Take a hike, losers. We're not under the law. I don't have to do this." Or is Paul going to go and dutifully keep the law in front of all them? Well, let's read. Verse 26, it says, "Then Paul took the men the next day, purifying himself with them, entered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." What? Paul just did it. Now by the way, what is this? These four guys, if you go to Numbers 6 and you kind of read what they do, a short-term Nazirite vow, it was a way to separate yourself for the Lord. It was being sanctified. And then at the end of your season of vow, they would go to the temple and shave and worship for seven days in the temple, burn their hair on the altar, by the way. They'd shave their hair off that had been growing for a long time and they would burn their hair on the altar. And each one would have to sacrifice four sheep per guy. So this is very Jewish, and so they said, "Paul, we want you to do this with those guys and we want you to pay their way. That will prove to the other Jews that you're still a good Jew." And so what does Paul do? He does it, and I don't think we'd really know why he did it except for one thing. We later on read why Paul does this kind of stuff. Go with me to 1st Corinthians chapter 9. Paul makes some interesting declarations here that I think answers the question why Paul did that. 1st Corinthians 9:19, and he says, "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without the law, as without the law," that's Gentiles, "being not without law to God but under the law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without the law, or outside of the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." Do you see the answer there that Paul gives? He's saying, "Man, with the Jew I'm going to be a Jew, with the Gentile I'm going to be a Gentile, but it's really all about I want them to receive the gospel. I'll do whatever it takes to really let them see the gospel."