For the Sake of the Gospel

Father, we thank you so much for the privilege of being able to sing these songs of praise to you, the living God. And we recognize that what you have to say to us is far more significant than what we actually have to say to you. But we’re glad that you bid us come and worship and praise you. And we’re glad, too, that you’ve chosen to speak to us in the Bible, and our confidence now is in this: that you will conduct a divine dialogue between your Spirit and our lives so that beyond the voice of a mere man we might encounter you, the living God, in the pages of the Bible. To this end we turn our gaze to you and ask for your help in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Please be seated. And I invite you to turn to the portion of Scripture that was read for us, from Acts chapter 21, page 789 in the Bibles that are around you there in the seats.

During the week I had a couple of letters from friends in pastoral ministry in different parts of the country, and two letters in particular from different places, different people, in very different circumstances: one from a fairly large and significant church on the East Coast and another from a relatively small gathering of people. But in both of the letters, both of my friends mentioned the daunting challenge of teaching the Bible. And in one of the letters, from the larger of the two churches, the person said, “You know, the prevailing tide in the country is so strong that I find myself almost tempted”—and this is after some twenty years in pastoral ministry—“almost tempted to throw in the towel in terms of biblical exposition and just go down the road that everybody seems to want.”

Well, I had a number of reactions to that. One was to say to myself, “I understand exactly how you feel,” because I had been looking at this particular passage of the Bible, and while we know that all of the Bible is equally inspired, we also know that every part of the Bible is not equally inspiring! And so this fellow said, “You know, I’m thinking of chucking this and just going for some humor, a few anecdotes, and some information out of Time magazine,” and it seemed to be such a splendid idea in passing. But I quickly took myself in hand and also wrote him a note saying, “Oh no, whatever you do, don’t do that. Let’s make sure that we don’t give up working through the Bible systematically and consecutively, believing that God will surprise us and instruct us and change us by his Word.”

Because if you think about it—and I know that you do think about it—what could be more surprising, what could be more daunting, what could be more unusual than for a group of interesting people in the twenty-first century in suburban Cleveland to come together on a beautiful morning like this and take their Bibles and open them and read the story of how Paul paid for the haircut of four men whose names we don’t even know? And any thoughtful person is going to say, “What possible relevance does that have concerning the cost of gas or concerning raising your teenage children or concerning anything at all that has to do with anything in my life?” Well, of course, I understand that, because that’s the question that I’m asking when I study the passage. And only, then, the loss of common sense or a deep conviction that God chooses to surprise, to instruct, to teach, and to change through the very words of Scripture would find us doing what we’re now about to do. Otherwise, there is no real explanation for it at all.

Well, with that by way of background, let’s turn to what is not necessarily one of the most obviously helpful passages of the Bible, asking God to do all those things: inspire and instruct and intrigue and surprise and so on. In order to try and help us through it, I’ve broken it down into three sections. I know there are children with us this morning. I’ve met many of you throughout the course of the morning, and I know that you’re here for a variety of reasons, and I’m glad that you’re here, and I hope that you will at least learn something from the time that we’re now spending. I know that your moms and your dads are supposed to listen very carefully. Sometimes I think you listen a little bit better than them. And if you see me in the hallway or outside, you can always come and tell me, “I learned one thing.” And it may only be that you learned that Paul paid for the haircuts of four men, but at least that would prove that you were listening for the first five minutes or so. I’m glad that you’re here.

The Report and the Response

The first section we’re going to look at under the heading “The Report and the Response.” “The Report and the Response.” We’re told here of this report in verses 18 and 19. And Luke tells us that having been warmly received by the believing community in Jerusalem, Paul and the rest of the group, Luke included, went the following day to see James, and on that occasion “all the elders were present.” One of the things that’s important in studying the Bible is not to overlook the obvious. And we should pay attention to the fact that Luke makes it clear that this gathering was not initially a gathering of the complete church community. And presumably there was some wisdom in the way in which they went about things.

There is something of a pattern of this in the Acts of the Apostles itself—the apostles getting together with the leadership in communities, especially where the matters under discussion may prove to be the basis of misunderstanding, of confusion, and perhaps even conflict. In the same way that parents might, when the children had gone to bed, discuss an issue that relates to the family so that they might have clarity in their own minds before they share it with the rest of the family, so church leadership may convene on occasions to address issues that need to be addressed, but not first to address them in a public forum, so that they might have clarity with which to go forward. And the wisdom would seem to be borne out as a result of what ensues. The possibility for confusion and for misunderstanding here bears testimony to the wisdom of what they did.

Now, in terms of this report, let’s just notice two things. First of all, that it was a detailed report. Luke tells us that in verse 19: “Paul greeted them,” and he “reported in detail.” So we know that he didn’t just give them generalities. He didn’t simply say, “We went a number of places, and we preached a number of sermons, and we met a number of people.” No, he was actually giving to them dates and times and places and people so that they might understand in a very express way the work of God in the lives of different ones. And you can only but imagine that there would be certain highlights that he mentioned—perhaps the conversion of Crispus, the story of the transformation of the synagogue ruler and his family.[1] Perhaps he even, in a self-deprecating way, told the story of Eutychus, the fellow who fell asleep while Paul was preaching and came crashing down to his death and had to be resurrected.[2] And a number of his friends there in Jerusalem said, “The thing that surprises us, Paul, is not that that happened once but that it doesn’t happen more often, given the length of some of your sermons!” And they would have been able to laugh about that and marvel still that, the grace of God, that he uses all kinds of different people. The report, then, was a detailed report.

Secondly, you will notice from the text that it was a God-centered report. He “reported in detail what God had done.” He didn’t begin by telling them what he had done, which, of course, is far more customary, especially in our present generation—to exalt ourselves, to talk about ourselves, to explain where we’ve been, what we’ve been doing, and so on. We can disguise that kind of pride in all kinds of ways, but God knows our hearts, and it is something to be resisted at every point. Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Paul operated in this way. Remember he told the Corinthians when he wrote to them that “neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.”[3] So he doesn’t come with a glowing report about himself. He comes soli Deo gloria. He comes in order that they might recognize that while Paul was not irrelevant—he had an opportunity, he had a privilege—nevertheless, the story was of what God had done.

We need to learn that, don’t we? That God won’t share his glory with anybody—no individual, no little group, no organization, and no church family. He has exalted above all things his name and his word.[4] And any attempt on any of our parts—mine or anyone else’s—to put ourselves or our own names or our own egos in a place that is God’s alone will only lead us into By-Path Meadow at best and into dreadful chaos and declension at worst.

Well, the report was detailed and God-centered, and the response was equally godly. You will notice there in verse 20, “[And] when they heard this, they praised God.” “Oh,” you say, “you’re doing a remarkable job here of stating the obvious, aren’t you?” Yes, but I say again to you that it is possible for us to miss the obvious. We read phrases like this and miss it completely. You say, “Well, isn’t that the right thing for them to do? Isn’t it just understandable that having heard the story of what God had been doing, that they would praise God?” Well, it’s the right thing, but it is not often the customary thing, is it? You think about how easy it is for individuals, in hearing of what God has done in another place or through another person, to respond not with humility and with joy but to respond with pride and with a grudging kind of reaction.

It is not natural to respond with approbation and with the praising of God for the evidences of his grace in the life of another. It is actually a supernatural characteristic.

If you take it out of the realm of the preaching of the Bible or of the world of evangelism, take it simply into your own life. Take it into your career, whatever you do and whatever sphere of service in which you find yourself involved, and ask yourself the question: Do you always rejoice when those who are your colleagues and your peers do better than you? Do you rejoice when they hit the ball further than you? Do you rejoice when they are apparently more successful than you? And the answer is that it is not natural to respond with approbation and with the praising of God for the evidences of his grace in the life of another. It is actually a supernatural characteristic. And here, in this little scenario, we discover that God-centered preaching led to a God-centered report which in turn was responded to by God-centered praise.

The Tension and the Solution

Now, James, having responded in this way, then introduces to Paul, reminds Paul, that as grateful and as happy as he is for the work that has been going on amongst the gentiles, there is also this work that is going on amongst Jewish believers. And there in verse 20, in the second half, he said, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.” Now, that little phrase there gives us a hint of what is to follow. And so we move from the report and its response to what we’re referring to as “The Tension and the Solution” to the tension. That is tension: t-e-n-s-i-o-n.

Now, I want you to notice this. See if you can follow along as I point this out to you. There is a rumbling, there is an underlying tension which is introduced here by the report that James gives. This is as a result of thousands of Jews who have believed who are at the same time zealous for the law of Moses and who are simultaneously misinformed about Paul’s teaching. These three factors combine to create this underlying tension. There are thousands who have believed, they are “zealous for the law” of God, and, as James goes on to explain, “They are saying things, Paul, about your ministry that are causing them to regard you with great suspicion.”

Now, of course, Paul had made it very, very clear on a number of occasions that he had turned his back on the law as a means of obtaining a right relationship with God. His whole life before he met Jesus had been directly related to the keeping of the law of God. He was zealous in this respect; therefore, he understood the zeal of others. He regarded the fastidious nature of his religious observation as being crucial to acceptance with God. And then one day, in an encounter with Jesus, everything was turned upside down for him, and he was brought into a relationship with God, which he had never known as a result of his religious adherence.

If I give you one cross-reference, perhaps you’ll turn to it, in Philippians and in chapter 3, and this will state it for us as clearly as anything. In Philippians 3:7, Paul, having explained that he had been a member “of the people of Israel,” from “the tribe of Benjamin,” he goes through his background.[5] It’s absolutely a sterling background. He’s a blue blood in relationship to religion, as it were. And then he says in verse 7, “But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him”—now, notice—“not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

And this, you see, had so transformed Saul of Tarsus, he was now Paul the apostle. Some of you who are here this morning will probably still be in, as it were, chapter 1 of Paul’s life. You may even actually come routinely to Parkside Church as a mechanism to put yourself believing in a right relationship with God, because you have the notion that he is somehow or another pleased by your religious adherences or that somehow or another he gives credits for doing these religious things—especially if they are hard to do, if they’re arduous, if they’re demanding, like sitting in here on a beautiful Sunday morning. And it is our hope and prayer that as the Bible is taught, that you will come to the kind of relationship with Jesus that Paul is describing in Philippians 3.

But Paul’s commitment to abandoning the law in terms of a right relationship with God was not actually matched by his desire to overturn the customs and traditions of the Mosaic, Judaic background of those who were his listeners. But that was what people were saying. And many of these individuals had the gospel firmly entrenched within the context of cultural, traditional Jewish expressions. Now, in one sense, that is perfectly understandable, because that was their background. So, they placed the gospel within the framework of the Mosaic law and the traditions that attached to it, and they were suspect of anyone who didn’t.

Paul was teaching gentile Christians that they were not obligated to obey any of these Mosaic ceremonial aspects of Judaism, which is perfectly understandable. But he was not teaching Jewish believers that it was necessary for them to turn their back on all these different things. Remember, the issue is not the gospel here. And as a result of that, those who chose to misunderstand him became the spreaders of rumors. And so people were going around saying to one another, “You know, you want to very careful about Paul, because he is teaching everybody that they don’t need to circumcise their children, that they don’t need to keep kosher, that they shouldn’t do this, and that they shouldn’t observe these holy days.”

Well, in actual fact, that wasn’t what was happening. What he was saying in that respect he was saying to gentile believers, but he wasn’t moving amongst his Jewish brethren and sowing those seeds. However, whether it was what he was saying or what he was wasn’t saying, the public perception was that that was what he was saying. And so they had a problem. And James raises it, and he says in verse 22, “We need to come up with a plan of action in order to address this. What shall we do?”

Now, let me say to you again: the issue of James’s concern is, number one, not about salvation, because both James and Paul were agreed that salvation was as a result of the work of Christ and not as a result of keeping of the law. It was not about salvation, but it was about what it means to live as a disciple of Jesus. The issue was not, as I’ve said, that Paul was teaching gentile converts but that he was teaching Jewish converts. That was the allegation: “He’s saying to the Jewish believers, ‘You shouldn’t do this, and you mustn’t do this, and you can’t do that.’” He wasn’t. And thirdly, it wasn’t an issue about the moral law; it was an issue about Jewish traditional customs—again, you see, because both James and Paul understood that the people of God, when they have come to God through Jesus, must live a holy life. You remember, he writes to Titus, and he says, “teaching them to say no to ungodliness and to say yes to righteousness.”[6]

And how does a person progress in the saying of no and in the saying of yes? Well, by means of the law which God has provided, a law which he now writes on our hearts so that we obey his law, not because we believe that we will be accepted by God on account of it but in order that we might understand how we should live in relationship to him. So because we love God, we don’t tell lies. Because we love God, we love him with our hearts. Because we love God, we don’t cheat on our wives. Because we love God, we don’t bear false witness against our neighbors. Because we love God, we are no longer covetous, and so on. That is the work of God within our hearts. But we don’t use the Ten Commandments as a ladder that we’re trying to climb up to finally reach God and receive his “Well done.” All of the “Well done” is in our opening song: a royal robe we don’t deserve has been given to us in Jesus.[7] All of our best righteousnesses, says the prophet, are like “filthy rags.”[8]

You take all of our best days and all of our best deeds and all of our greatest religious aspirations—they’re just like junk. And if we come to God on the basis of how well we’re doing or how well we’ve done, we will be sorely disappointed. But when we come to God and say, “I have done poorly. I’ve made a hash of things. I am a royal mess. There is no way I can come into your presence. Would you forgive me, and would you be gracious to me?” And he says, “I will. Not only will I clean you up, but I’ll put you in a positive situation. Here is a wonderful royal robe that you don’t deserve.” And Paul had been clothed with that royal robe, and he was concerned that others would understand that.

But the rumor mill was flowing. James and the rest are able to distinguish themselves from these rumors. They know that Paul is not guilty of teaching Jewish believers to abandon their ancestral customs. He’s not doing that. And in fact, they wanted to be clear, verse 25—we might just jump forward there for a moment—they wanted to be clear that they want to abide by the decisions that had been made at the previous gathering recorded for us in Acts 15, referred to as the Council of Jerusalem, when, in a quest for unity within the body, the gentile believers were asked, so as not to put a stumbling block in front of their Jewish believing friends, to abstain from food that was sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from the meat of strangled animals, and at the same time from sexual immorality.[9]

You say, “Well, of course!” No, there’s no “of course” to it. These gentile believers came to their newfound faith bringing all their previous junk with them. And if they continued in that junk, not only were they in the wrong, but they were going to cause great discord amongst those who were fastidious about these issues. And you remember when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he says to them, “I can’t even believe that at your Communion services you’re up to the nonsense you’re up to. This is not part of the Christian life,” he says. “You want to be a disciple of Jesus? You have to kiss that goodbye. You can’t have Jesus and this.”[10] And for the well-being of the unity of the body, they had committed to these things.

But the tension was there. It was obviously there. And they needed some kind of solution. And that’s where we go in verse 22. “What are we going to do? They’re certainly going to hear that you’ve come.” This meeting has taken place presumably in the home of James—a large home, they’re all together. James says, “It’s not going to be possible for us to have this meeting, to go out from here, without everyone knowing that you’re here, Paul. Given that the people are saying what they’re saying about you, what do you think about this as an idea for how to handle this?” And operating on the principle that a picture is worth a thousand words, they produce what at first glance—at least, at my first glance—appears to be a compromise solution for Paul, where Paul has to give up everything in order to achieve this objective. And I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the wisdom of Paul complying with this proposal. As a matter of interesting discussion, debate, do you think it was a good idea for Paul to do what he subsequently did? I wonder what you think.

Now, the practicality of it, the political nature of it, was wonderful. Here’s an opportunity for Paul to guarantee the orthodoxy of his own conduct. And the way he can do this is by participating in the haircut procedures of these four individuals. Without descending into the abyss, a little background on a Nazarite vow will suffice. The taking of a Nazarite vow would often be in response to some wonderful kindness of God that had been showered upon somebody, and so, in an act of devotion, they determined to commit themselves to this period of purification and sacrifice—or, in the prospect of some peculiar challenge, they did the same. All that we need to know is that four individuals were in this process. The process involved thirty days abstaining from meat and from wine, and during the thirty days, you were not to have your hair cut; indeed, you were to let your hair grow. At the end of that time, you were to come, following purification rites, into the temple and to offer up sacrifices, and at that time, your heads were to be shaved and the hair from your head was now to be cast into the fire alongside the sacrifices that were being offered.[11] It seems very strange to us, but that’s what it was. And it was an obviously costly business, because you had to take a month from your work, and not everybody could take a month off work in order to display their devotion to God in this way. And so what they did was wealthy individuals who were tender towards the devotion of others, these individuals who were not sufficiently financially to the fore to be able to deal with it, the wealthy individual came in and paid for this to take place so that these folks might proceed with their Nazarite vow.

Now, that is what James suggests Paul should do. He says, “Look, why don’t you step up and pay for these four individuals? This is the best thing that we could possibly do, because everybody will then realize that you’re, you know, kosher after all.” No pun intended. Okay?

The Action That Paul Took

So, here we are; we’re coming now to the third and final point. First of all, there is a report which is detailed and God-centered, which is responded to with humility and with magnanimity and with genuine praise. Then we’re introduced to the underlying tension which is emerging as a result of the rumors that are going around suggesting that the apostle Paul is seeking to turn Jewish believers away from the blessings and benefits of their cultural framework. And then the solution which is offered, as we have just outlined. So we come to our final section, which is to look simply at “The Action That Paul Took” and then a word or two of application.

Now, Paul actually went ahead with this. You can see in verse 26, there is a summary statement there: “The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them” and so on. Because in acting in this way, Paul could give the lie to the rumors that were accompanying his ministry. This was an obvious, straightforward way for him to squash these rumors.

Now, it is at this point that commentators begin to disagree with one another. For example, Barclay says of Paul engaging in this, “There can be no doubt that the matter was distasteful to Paul. For him the relevancy of things like [this] was gone.”[12] Another commentator says, “Paul readily heeded James’s advice to demonstrate his respect for Israel’s heritage by participating in this process.” And if you take all the different commentators, they kind of line up between these two positions. One group says, “You know, Paul said, ‘Oh, well, okay, whatever, fine, if that’s what I’ve got to do,’ and he grudgingly went to it.” And the other groups say, “No, he went there readily, so as to ensure that everyone would not misunderstand his view of Israel’s heritage.”

Well, I wonder what you make of this. I mean, you’re sensible people. You have to come to some kind of decision. You have every legitimate right to say, “Was this a good idea or not?” After all, Paul is just a man. The best of men are men at best. James and Paul come up with this together. James says, “I’ve got an idea. What do you think of this idea?” Paul has to either go with it or go against it. Are you surprised by what he’s done? Anybody annoyed? Anybody confused? Anybody disappointed? Anybody encouraged? I think if I was to take a survey, I would find a whole variety of responses in this room right now. And there’s no surprise in that. And some of you may be wondering what I think. So I’ll tell you what I think. And then I’ll tell you why I think it.

I don’t think that Paul was a grudging participant in this strategy. And the reason I don’t think so is because what he did in this context was directly related to two features which were fundamental to his Christian pilgrimage: one, the reaching of unbelieving Jews and gentiles with the gospel; and two, the unity of God’s people. Now, let me unpack that, and then we’re through.

Surely we can learn, by way of application, from the generosity of Paul’s spirit. Yes, we should learn also from the magnanimity of James’s spirit in rejoicing in what he had heard concerning the ministry of Paul in the outlying districts. But Paul here doesn’t take James’s words as a personal challenge. He could have said, “James, do you really think I came here to Jerusalem to have you come up with a crazy idea like this and tell me what to do?” I mean, they were just men. They were talking to one another. They were apostles, but they were men. And actually, I wouldn’t have been at all surprised if Paul had reacted in that way. After all, he had withstood others to their face. He had turned his back on John Mark on a previous occasion. He’d made mistakes in the way he responded to things. But he doesn’t do that now. He doesn’t play the Paul card; he doesn’t say, “Hey, James, don’t you know who I am?”

Nor does he respond with indignation and with annoyance. He could have responded by saying, “What’s wrong with these people? How dare they misunderstand me? Don’t they know that I’m the apostle Paul? Don’t they underst—?” You know, he could have jumped to his own defense. But he doesn’t.

And he could have censured James, couldn’t he? He could have said to James, “James, you’ve got to be crazy if you think I’m doing this! James, these are your people, and this is your problem. I’m the apostle to the gentiles. You’re the one that’s heading up the Jewish evangelism. If you don’t have the guts or the gall or whatever is necessary to stand these people up and let them know how things really are, why am I going to have to bail you out? Why do I have to go and do this?”

Now, he wouldn’t have said it, probably, in such categorical terms, but it wouldn’t have been surprising, would it? But he doesn’t do it. And I know why: because he practices what he preaches. And what he preaches is this: “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.” So he has been teaching the absolute, imperative nature of preferring one another in the Lord Jesus Christ. He goes on: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests,” which is entirely natural and understandable, “but also to the interests of others,”[13] which is actually entirely supernatural.

Now, that is what he wrote to the Philippian church. Now he is confronted with a circumstance which allows him the privilege of taking what he has preached and putting it into practice. He would presumably have had his own views concerning this strategy, but he determines, under God and in light of this principle, for the well-being of God’s people and for the unfolding of the gospel, to do what he does.

And finally, we must surely understand his action in light of another overarching principle which marked his ministry. Remember, he tells the Corinthians that he is committed to “win[ning] as many as possible,”[14] he uses the phrase. It’s in the very athletic section where he says, “I don’t run aimlessly. I don’t box like a man boxing the air. I beat my body, and I bring myself into submission. And I want you to run,” he says, “so as to gain the prize. Don’t just be ambling along.” And in that context, he then explains that “to the Jews I became like a Jew. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law. To the weak, I became weak. In fact, I’ve become all things to all men so that by all possible means I mi—”[15]

Paul’s life and ministry were calibrated by his commitment to seeing unbelieving people become the committed followers of Jesus Christ.

Now, some people read that, and they say, “You see, that’s what we’re supposed to be like: no convictions at all, just fit in. And what Paul is saying here is he wanted everyone to like him. So when he went to the Jews, he did the Jew thing; when he went to the weak, he did the weak thing, the strong thing, and so on, so everyone said, ‘Oh, we love Paul.’” No. He explains exactly why he did what he did. “I do all this,” notice, “for the sake of the gospel.”[16] “For the sake of the gospel.” In other words, his life and ministry was calibrated by his commitment to seeing unbelieving people become the committed followers of Jesus Christ. And so when rumor and slander came into his sphere of reference, when the challenges of misunderstandings and misinformation could have easily overwhelmed him, and when his colleagues came with this suggested strategy and solution, instead of standing up and defending his own position, of holding up his head, of dealing with it from an egotistical point of view, he does what he does, why? For the sake of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

F. F. Bruce suggests, and I think accurately so, that his willingness to do this, to live as one under the law, was not primarily, even fundamentally, to pacify the scruples of the Jews who had already believed, but it was actually because of his desire to introduce the Jews who had never believed to the freedom that is found in the Lord Jesus Christ. And Bruce in a wonderful sentence says, “A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul’s is not in bondage to its own emancipation.”[17] Do you get that? “A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul’s is not in bondage to its own emancipation.” In other words, he recognizes his freedom. He could have stood his ground. He engages in what is essentially a concession on his part to preserve the unity of the body and to see men and women become Christians.

Now, we know enough, don’t we, from our Bibles to recognize that Paul wouldn’t give an inch, he wouldn’t budge one iota, when it came to the issues of the gospel. The whole of Galatians pulsates with that story. But what is equally clear is that when it came to matters of custom and culture and ceremony and tradition, then he was perfectly prepared to make concessions for the sake of the unity of God’s people and the expansion of God’s kingdom.

Now, what should we expect as a result of this strategy? Well, what do you think you’re going to find when you go to 27 and following? You’re going to find a great explosion of the gospel? No. Actually, the plan seems to backfire. Ironically, what he sets out to accomplish, as per the directive of James and the rest, just comes up and hits him right in the face, and he’s introduced to chaos, to arrest, to imprisonment, and to punishment. Well, how does that work? You do the right thing, and all this happens to you? Maybe you shouldn’t do the right thing. But it’s always right to do what’s right, even what happens seems so wrong.

Well, that’s for next time.

Father, thank you for the Bible. Thank you that we’re not left to our own devices. Thank you that the Spirit of God prompts and instructs and guides and teaches us. Help us to think clearly with our minds. Surprise us with your truth, instruct us in your Word, and change us by your Spirit. We long for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ to be renewed by your Spirit, to be established in unity, and to live in order to see others coming to faith in Jesus. Look into our hearts today, and see where we are in relationship to these things. Come to us in your mercy, we pray, and show us the futility of trying to earn our acceptance with you. And show us the wonder of your grace, that in the gift of your Son our repentant hearts may be brought into communion with yourself.

Hear our prayer, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

[1] See Acts 18:8.

[2] See Acts 20:7–12.

[3] 1 Corinthians 3:7 (NIV 1984).

[4] See Psalm 138:2.

[5] Philippians 3:5 (NIV 1984).

[6] Titus 2:12 (paraphrased).

[7] Jarrod Cooper, “King of Kings, Majesty” (1996).

[8] Isaiah 64:6 (NIV 1984).

[9] See Acts 15:20.

[10] 1 Corinthians 11:17–22 (paraphrased).

[11] See Numbers 6:1–21.

[12] William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles, rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), [x].

[13] Philippians 2:1–4 (NIV 1984).

[14] 1 Corinthians 9:19 (NIV 1984).

[15] 1 Corinthians 9:19–22 (paraphrased).

[16] 1 Corinthians 9:23 (NIV 1984).

[17] F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 432n39.