Paul seeks validation of his
teaching (v2:1-10)
·
In the last lesson, I pointed out that Paul
seems to show great confidence that his vision was from God. He makes a very specific point in claiming he
did not consult with anyone, or seek out the apostles immediately. Understanding the cultural context of his
statements is critical in order to understand the next point Paul is
making. During my life, I have heard claims
that Paul essentially “broke rank” and did his own thing. I would agree that Paul’s eyes were opened,
and he was given a specific understanding of existing scripture, which was
radically different than what had been the major Jewish doctrine. However, I would disagree that he “broke rank”
and did his own thing. Hopefully this
segment of what I’ve learned does justice to how I believe we should understand
Paul.
·
Paul writes that he went to Jerusalem because of
a revelation – v2:2
o
It is commonly misunderstood that Paul is
speaking of his own revelation, and testifying at the Jerusalem council in Acts
15.
§
This does not make sense because if Paul was
speaking of his own revelation, why would he have waited 17 years to seek
validation with the beit din? If it was a new revelation, why was the new
revelation not explained further?
§
Luke records Paul’s visits to Jerusalem
·
First
Trip: Acts 9:26-30 – 3 years after conversion he visited Peter (Cephas) for
15 days, and met with James. (Gal 1:18)
·
Second
Trip: Acts 11:27-30 – short trip to bring donations to the poor in
Jerusalem because of revelation about a famine. (Gal 2:1-2)
·
Third
Trip: Acts 15 – Jerusalem Council
·
Fourth
Trip: Acts 21 – Proves Torah observance. Ultimately arrested and sent to
Rome
o
Paul’s reference to a revelation lines up with
Luke’s record in Acts 11:27-30 about the revelation from the prophet Agabus that
a famine was coming. (same prophet that binds Paul with his belt
in Acts 21:10 and warns him about traveling to his last trip to Jerusalem.)
o
If Paul would have been referring to the trip
taken to Jerusalem to testify in front of the council in Acts 15, it would only
be logical that he wouldn’t need to prove his point independently, through a
letter. He would have been able to
present the council’s letter as the official halachic ruling, which would
eliminate all question of validation or authority.
·
Although confident, Paul knew that he had to get
official authority from “those who seemed influential” (v2:2 and v2:6)
o
Paul has a pattern of submitting to authority.
§
Acts 9:1-2 – Though zealous to do what he felt
was right for God, he sought a letter of permission from the high priest
(Sadducee) and did not act on his own.
§
Acts 21:17-26 – Rumors were being passed that
Paul had abandoned the Torah and was teaching others to abandon. In order to dispel the rumor, instead of
arguing, he proved the rumors false by submitting to James’ directive to perform
a ceremonial cleansing in the Temple.
o
There was and still is great significance to
getting confirmation of a vision, and also getting approval for what you are
teaching. It was imperative that
permission, or a stamp of approval, be given by someone in authority and that
it does not conflict with scripture. Deuteronomy
12:32 – 13:5
o
Was Paul really concerned he could be found
“running in vain” v2:2?
§
He knew that the leadership had authority to
make legal decisions regarding teaching.
Even though he was fully confident in his vision and his understanding
of scripture, he knew that if leadership disagreed, he would be fighting a
significant uphill battle, and perhaps would have to re-evaluate his teaching
and vision. I don’t believe he was truly
concerned because of his confidence that his revelation was from God. I believe he is making a point to those listening
to his letter that he was willing to submit to authority.
§
Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18 – Jesus issues authority
to bind and loose.
·
Jesus was most likely referencing Deuteronomy
16:18-20 regarding the appointment of judges and officers
·
Binding and loosing is a term used regularly to
explain authority to interpret scripture in order to forbid or permit certain
activities or teaching.
o
Forbidding (binding)
o
Permitting (loosing)
·
Binding and loosing is not the authority to
change, add, or remove scripture, but only the authority to interpret
scripture.
·
Binding and loosing decisions made by a beit din
are referred to as halacha or halachic rulings
o
Beit din (pronounced bait dean) is a council of
3 community elders, Rabbis, or judges, depending on the type of ruling or
decision.
o
Halacha (pronounced hall-uh-hah) or halachic
rulings (pronounced hall-ah-kick) are similar to legal precedent. These rulings would be recorded and referred
to in future issues of similar nature.
o
Halacha is still the word used for legal rulings
in Jewish law.
·
Talmud is the official book holding all of the
ancient halachic rulings.
o
These were orally passed down from one
generation to the next, and is what the scripture is usually referring to when
speaking of “under the law” or “traditions.”
o
All oral traditions and halachic rulings were
written down around 200CE after the destruction of the 2nd temple
threatened the idea that these would not be passed down orally any longer.
o
Talmud is 38 volumes, 6200 pages and is still
studied today by Jews, and even used as a beginning foundation Jewish law.
§
v2:9 identifies James, Peter, and John as the
beit din, which would make sense considering Jesus seemed to also separate them
as leaders in Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37, & Mark 14:33.
·
Some speculation whether this is the same James,
brother of John or brother of Jesus but the possibility is high since James,
brother of John mentioned in these verses, wasn’t killed until after Acts 11.
·
Assuming the timeline I have identified is
correct that Paul’s second journey is the trip the trip identified in Acts
11:27-30, then this is before James, brother of Jesus leads the Jerusalem
council in Acts 15.
§
At this point he had been teaching his gospel
for over 14 years, all over the Diaspora (term used to refer to all of the
territories outside of Israel). He would
enter a synagogue, proclaim his gospel and the prophetic evidence in the scrolls
(Tanakh), then teach other leaders and leave for the next part of his journey.
§
Because of the controversial content, Paul’s
teaching was causing confusion and division in synagogues. He knew that if his vision and teaching was
validated by respected leaders (beit din) those teaching his message in
synagogues would have more confidence.
·
Titus was used as a witness - v2:3
o
Paul brought Titus, a Godfearer (uncircumcised Messiah believing Gentile) with him to
this private meeting so he could later serve as a witness to the Diaspora
synagogues.
o
Most likely, Titus would have been interviewed by
the beit din to determine that Paul had been teaching accurately. Titus would have been a living witness to the
beit din proving Paul was teaching a complete and accurate doctrine.
·
Who are the false brothers and why were they
spying? – v2:4
o
The word spying
used here could be replaced with investigating.
o
No scriptural evidence is given to who these
people are. Using some logic, I would
speculate that these were non-Messiah believing Jews that had been attending
synagogue pretending to believe in the Messiah in order to observe what was
being taught. Then taking this
information back to Jerusalem as an attempt to dispute that Paul was
teaching. Pretending to believe in
Messiah could have been what Paul meant by “false brothers.”
o
Perhaps they did believe in Messiah, but were
just in disagreement of the teaching that Gentiles did not require
circumcision. Pretending to agree with
all of the teaching, and being friendly, could have been what Paul meant by
“false brothers.”
o
Maybe from the “circumcision party” referred to
in Acts 11:2
·
Is Paul being disrespectful when referencing the
beit din?
o
He uses the terms “those who seem influential”
or “seem to be pillars” 4 times in a short period, v2:2, twice in 2:6,
2:9.
o
v2:6 – “(what they were makes no difference to
me: God shows no partiality)”
o
Some speculation is that Paul is showing his
status as an educated Pharisee, and in a way dismissing the lesser educated, or
non-educated, apostles in a leadership position.
o
Others speculate that Paul is dismissing the
leadership authority of the beit din because he received his mission directly
from God, so his only authority, or influence, is God alone.
o
These two ideas seem contradictory to Paul’s
later writings,
§
“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit,
but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (Philippians
2:3)
§
“Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or
boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not
irritable or resentful;” (1 Cor 13:4-5)
§
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone
among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to
think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has
assigned.” (Romans 12:3)
o
If Paul was being dismissive, then why take the
time to travel to Jerusalem at all? Why
not continue to preach, claiming God’s direct influence and mission? He has already spent plenty of time using
scripture to convince thousands that Jesus was the Messiah.
o
In light of Paul’s references to not boast and
to not be arrogant in his other letters, combined with the fact that he
voluntarily sought a meeting with the beit din, what seems more accurate is to
consider the context in which he has used this phrase.
§
Verse 1:7 references those that are trying “to
trouble you and distort the gospel of Christ.”
Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in such a way to make a point
to the people making an accusation that Paul’s teaching was inaccurate?
§
Could Paul have been phrasing his argument in
such a way to simply point out that he didn’t listen to the distorters or false
brothers, but instead took his influence from God and those appointed by God as
leaders?
§
Why specify that God shows no partiality
(v2:6)?
§
Perhaps, it is a combination that Paul is
annoyed that some are trying to unravel his work, and that the faith of the
assembly seems to be so shallow. A
halachic ruling from the beit din seems to pale in comparison to the evidence
in scripture that he has been preaching.
§
Perhaps it is Paul’s way of reminding the
assembly that everyone is fallible, but to submit to God’s appointed leadership
anyway. (Consider that David submitted to King Saul even when he knew King Saul
was in the wrong.)
·
Validation is granted – v2:6b-9
o
After presenting his vision, teaching,
scriptural evidence, and Titus’ interview, the beit din “added nothing” to
Paul’s teaching. They did not modify his
message, and further, gave their official blessing.
o
The beit din would not have done this without
thoroughly reviewing scripture, praying, and more than likely fasting.
o
More than likely they also considered Peter’s
vision and visit to Cornelius (Acts 10-11), especially since he was a member of
the beit din.
·
Remember the poor – v2:10
o
Another reference back to the revelation and
reason Paul went to Jerusalem in the first place. Galatians 2:2 and Acts 11:27-30
o
Also serves as a reminder to the assembly to
remember the poor in their giving especially during the famine.
