The Apostle’s Greatest Mistake! Or Was it?
The issue of the biblical food laws has been recurrent throughout the present Church Age. If they are abolished for us, why did the Apostle Paul keep them? Is he not our example to follow? A particularly perplexing instance occurs in the Book of Acts 21:23-26. The famous Evangelist, G. Campbell Morgan wrote, “I hold that Paul made the greatest mistake of his ministry on this occasion.” Was the Apostle Paul’s theology really mistaken?
The passage reads, ”Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, 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 keepest [Greek, phulasso, G#5442: observe, watch, be on guard, preserve, obey] 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. Then Paul took the men, and 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.” (Acts 21:23-26)
All sorts of explanations about this passage have been attempted by modern expositors. Some suggest that the event never happened; that Paul fabricated the incident. Still others suggest that Paul simply did not understand that the Hebrew Law had been abrogated. Yet again, some think that Paul contradicted himself by statements that he made at other times.
Instead of assuming that the Apostle was ignorant or contradictory, notice the dichotomy that he gives in this text. The Hebrews were keeping Old Testament precepts, while non-Jews were clearly not under this obligation: “…we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing…” Paul was not going to insist that non-Hebrews keep the biblical laws as a matter of Christian faith. They had no biblical law obligations.
The Apostle understood that Old Testament “Torah” laws were given only to Israel, not to other peoples. We read in Psalm 147:19-20, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
This was verified at the Jerusalem Council where non-Jews were asked to keep a small, scaled-down version of the biblical laws. We read in Acts 15:19-20, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
Conversely, Paul and other Jews kept the biblical precepts. The Apostle gave his famous defense in Acts 22:1-3: “Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence [apologia: plea, answer, clearing of self] which I make now unto you… I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (cf. Acts 21:39)
Paul’s speech to the Jews in Rome was another justification of his Torah-obedience. We read in Acts 28:17, “And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.” Paul did not “convert” from one religion to another, he remained Torah-obedient and added belief in Israel’s Savior and Redeemer, Jesus.
It is important to note that there is nothing wrong with people maintaining their customs and traditions after becoming Christian; that is outside the realm of faith in Christ. Whether a person is an Israelite or not, obedience to Mosaic laws is not a matter of salvation under the New Covenant. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Rom. 14:5) A Christian-Israelite under the New Covenant has the personal freedom to follow the ancient customs if he so wishes.
It is probable that Paul spoke to mixed audiences, Jews and non-Jews. We do not know the exact make-up of each congregation Paul wrote to, but it is probable that his words to each were geared toward that particular audience. Thus, it may seem that Paul was contradictory between some of his letters and their audiences because some were composed of Jews and some non-Jewish.
That said, for both Israelites and non-Israelites, the biblical food laws are a matter of hygiene and health, and are therefore good for all to follow. Paul says, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” (1Tim. 1:8) That is, they are not made a lawful requirement for salvation. Again we read, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” (Rom 7:12)
Christians have contrasting views about the biblical food laws, but we should not condemn or break fellowship with someone over food: “So then, let us go after the things which make peace, and the things by which we may be a help to one another. Do not let the work of God come to nothing on account of food. All things are certainly clean; but it is evil for that man who by taking food makes it hard for another.” (Rom 14:19-20) Paul himself kept the divine law because as an Israelite he felt he must follow God’s commands to Israel.
Many Christian-Israel churches keep the biblical Holy Days. The Apostle Paul made a great effort to keep these Israel appointed feasts: “When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.” (Acts 18:20-21)
Again we read, “For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.” (Acts 20:16)
Some are confused over Paul’s statement that, “nothing is unclean of itself.” (Rom. 14:14) Paul in this chapter is discussing things which are clean in themselves! Paul is not discussing fornication, murder, adultery, homosexuality, stealing or the like; he is concerned with matters of indifference.
Finally, it is important to note that there is a transformation of Old Testament laws under the New Covenant. The author of Hebrews said, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb. 7:12) However, not an abolishment! For example, circumcision is no longer a physical requirement under the New Covenant, but it is a spiritual requirement: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Rom 2:28-29)
An examination of the changes under the New Covenant have been dealt with in prior study, “The Better Covenant” and are beyond the scope of this present article.
