We have seen that Paul was appointed by God as an Apostle to the Gentiles. So what caused so much controversy between Paul and the Christian Jews? Paul taught that circumcision was not necessary for salvation (Ac 15:1-2) and that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law to be a Christian (Ga 2:16). Many of the persecuted Jewish believers had fled to Antioch and other churches teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in addition to accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior. In other words, you had to first be a Jewish proselyte to become a follower of Jesus Christ. Paul was opposed to this and went to the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem where they heard how God was blessing Gentiles and were receiving the Holy Spirit without being circumcised. This created quite an argument, but Peter also told how he had seen the Holy Spirit given to Gentile believers without them being circumcised (Ac 10, 15:7-11). From Peter’s statement, the Jerusalem council said they would be satisfied if the Gentile believers would not eat meat sacrificed to idols, not eat meat from strangled animals, not eat blood, and would keep themselves sexually pure (Ac 15:20). This Paul did (Ac 16:4).

So did Paul give up his Jewish customs? At times he did, for he did not want to be a stumbling block to others and confuse them (1Co 9:20-22); however, for the most part he kept a lot of the Jewish customs. On his second missionary journey, he hurried back to Jerusalem to keep Passover (Ac 18:21). On this journey he also seemed to have kept a Nazarite vow (Ac 18:18). On his third missionary journey, he observed the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Philippi (Ac 20:6) and wanted to get to Jerusalem in time for Shavuot [Pentecost] (Ac 20:16). Therefore, Paul did not live like a Gentile in every aspect. However, he was not bothered by blending the two.

So how do we reconcile this? Paul’s main emphasis was that Jesus Christ came and died for the sins of mankind and everyone needs to hear about him, accept him, receive salvation through him, and receive the Holy Spirit in order to live a life then pleasing to God. Everything else was just tradition. The Law of Moses had shown them their sin (Ro 3:20); keeping it did not save them (Ro 3:23, 28). Salvation through Jesus Christ is for all, both Jew and Gentile (Ro 3:21-31). Paul saw no problem with keeping the Jewish traditions/customs, or even the Law itself, as long as it was kept in its proper context. It is something one chooses volitionally to do but not committed to do. Therefore, there was no need to impose this on Gentiles as it was not necessary for salvation. However, anyone, either Jew or Gentile can decide to keep the Jewish feasts and any other customs if they know this is not making them any better than anyone else (1Co 8:8).

Paul’s teaching is a good lesson for us today. Our customs and heritage are especially important to us, as well as they should be. However, we should not let any custom or tradition make us feel superior to anyone else. We are all equal in Christ. Jesus Christ came to die for the salvation of all. It is our faith in him that saves us and that is the equalizer. All other things we do or do not do are based upon personal conviction and have no bearing on our goodness or righteousness. It is not how much faith we have but the object of our faith that makes the difference. Let’s let Paul’s example be our guide.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

What was Paul’s background? Paul was trained to be a Pharisee and he seemed to be top of his class (Ac 22:3; Pp 3:4-6). He was also a Roman citizen (Ac 22:27) which gave him special privileges. Peers would say he had it all—all that any Jew could ever hope for—wealth, special spiritual training, respect of their Jewish leaders and all the privileges that a Roman citizen could receive. Paul also had a zeal for doing God’s work—just misguided. No one else could see his potential, but it was truly clear to God.

So, why was Paul’s background so important? Well, let me ask you. If you were going to accomplish a paradigm shift: going from using a Jewish nation to individuals and not just Jewish individuals but Gentile individuals also, who would you want to help accomplish that? You would need someone who could understand Jewish law and how that now relates to the teachings of Christ. You would need someone that could stand up to criticism of this new paradigm and be able to defend it with Jewish scripture. You would need someone who could gain the respect of the Gentiles as well. What better person than Paul? He had special training in Jewish law. There was no one who could argue he did not know the Jewish Scriptures. He had originally hated the Christians, so he could identify with how the Gentiles must feel going from their current culture to becoming a Christian which would seem rather foreign at first. He would be able to tease out from Scripture what was necessary for the Gentiles and what was optional and was just Jewish tradition. He could tease out the meaning behind the Jewish traditions and not just feel the tradition, in itself, was sufficient. He could put Christ’s teachings into their proper Jewish scripture context and explain it in a way that would make sense to the Jew as well as to the Gentile. Yes, God needed someone like Paul. And Paul did not let God down. Yet, God had to be quite blunt with Paul and stop him dead in his tracks in order to get his attention (Ac 9:1-6). Once on the right road, however, there was no stopping him.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

So, how many apostles are there? It seems the number has always been reported as 12. Jesus had twelve disciples, but Judas betrayed him and committed suicide. Peter initiated a replacement and Matthias was chosen (Ac 1:12-26). Then, later, Paul states that God called him to be an apostle (Ac 9:15; Ro 1:1). So, are there 12, 13, or 14 apostles? Well, if we take at face value that the information in Revelation is speaking of the future, it seems to indicate there are only 12 (Rv 21:14). If this is true, how do we come to grips with this? Well, let’s go through this step by step.

The first question would be did Judas have faith in Jesus as the Messiah before he died? There are several things that would seem to indicate he did not. Several scriptures suggest Judas did not have faith in Christ’s reason for coming (Jn 17:12; Ps 41:9). This point is addressed more fully in my book, Why is a Gentile World Tied to a Jewish Timeline?. However, Peter, knowing the state of Judas, and knowing that scripture stated he should be replaced (Ac 1:20; Ps 109:8), likely felt Judas had not been a true follower of Christ, and is likely one of the reasons Peter was advocating a replacement for him. However, let’s look at the circumstances around this event. This was on the heels of the disciples seeing Christ ascend back into heaven. But let’s see what Christ told the disciples. Christ stated the disciples were to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit (Ac 1:4, 8). Peter, as his previous actions imply, was not a patient person. He was a man of action—sometimes to his detriment. Yet, he was definitely a leader. Perhaps because there was not a specific time given to them and knowing that the Feast of Pentecost (Weeks or Shavuot) was fast approaching, which would bring a lot of activity, Peter may have felt they should be doing something. However, if Jesus had wanted the disciples to choose another disciple at this time, it is likely he would have given that request before his ascension or even chosen another before his ascension. Remember, Christ’s request was for them to wait. Waiting usually implies just that—to wait.

The other thing to look at is how the decision was made. They used lots (Ac 1:26). This is similar to flipping a coin and making a decision as to whether it lands heads or tails. Now, granted, this was not something unusual. The casting of lots was a customary thing to do to know if a decision was of the gods or not (Jh 1:7). However, for the Jews, this was usually done by the High Priest (using Urim and Thummim; Nu 27:21) because they were expecting an answer from the One True God. Sometimes lots were cast (Nu 26:55) and God was expected to be in the correct decision of the lot. Therefore, Peter most likely thought this was an acceptable way of making the decision. After all, they did pray before casting the lot. However, the way this was done, a decision would be made whether God was in the decision or not. Two candidates (Justus and Mathias) were chosen, and the lot was to choose which one would become the replacement for Judas. Once the Holy Spirit came to indwell each believer, the need for lots was no longer required as the Holy Spirit could minister and impress upon one’s human spirit the right course of action. Maybe this was why Jesus asked the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit? I am sure both of these men were very good men, or the disciples would not have put them up for nomination. It is interesting that scripture does not mention Mathias again after this selection process. Could this be a silent statement of scripture that this was not really God’s plan? Did the disciples know their error after the Holy Spirit came to indwell them? Again, scripture is silent. However, if Paul was indeed called to be an apostle, as he claimed (see 30-Jan-2013 post), then Paul would complete the 12, and not Matthias. It seem obedience is always the best choice.

A caveat here, though. The Bible does not condemn Peter for his actions, so we can’t know for sure if this was indeed rash on his part or not. As they say, time will tell. Or, in this case, eternity. There does seem to be historical evidence that Matthias was just as dedicated to the spreading of the gospel as any of the other apostles and met a martyr’s death as did almost every apostle.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Paul definitely claimed to be an apostle (Ro 11:13; 1Co 9:1; 2Co 12:12; Gal 2:8; 1Tm 2:7; Tt 1:1) and even claimed his appointment as an apostle was given by God (Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Ep 1:1; Cl 1:1; 1Tm 1:1). So was there any proof of this being true? There were two things that usually defined an apostle: (1) being an eye witness to Jesus Christ and (2) being able to do signs, wonders and miracles (2Co 12:12).

Paul was born under the name Saul in the city of Tarsus, Cilicia (which is now part of Turkey) around 3 to 5 AD. Therefore, by the time Jesus was crucified, Paul would have been around 30 years of age. Since Paul was taught by Gamaliel (Ac 22:3), who was a key figure in the Sanhedrin in the middle of the first century and the grandson of the great Jewish teach Hillel the Elder, it is likely Paul would have met Jesus during his lifetime since he would have been in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus’ ministry. Yet, he would likely have been opposed to the teachings of Jesus like many of the other Pharisees would have been. Therefore, he would not have had an intimate relationship with Jesus and his teachings—at least not until Jesus met him on the road to Damascus (Ac 9:1-9). It really shows how Paul had the zeal to serve God, but his zeal was just misguided. After he understood that Jesus was indeed Lord, he had the same zeal to serve Jesus Christ as he did previously to stamp out those proclaiming to be Christians. This wasn’t the only experience with Jesus Christ, though. We find that he had a vision where he was translated into the third heaven and heard inexpressible things (2Co 12:4). This was an experience not held by any other apostle. This likely occurred not too long after his conversion—maybe when he spent his time in Arabia (Ga 1:17). This is also likely when God revealed to him the mystery of the church and how the Gentiles will be heirs with Israel (Ep 3:4-11; Cl 1:25-17), and how the rapture will occur before Christ’s second coming (1Co 15:51-52; 1Th 4:13-18). Do these events not qualify him for the first criterion of being an apostle?

Miracles were usually characteristics of an apostle. One could point out that Stephen, who was a deacon, also performed miracles (Ac 6:8). Yet, as the church grew, the people capable of miracles remained mainly around those characterized as apostles (2Co 12:12). There were many miracles that were accomplished by Paul: he told Elymas that he would become blind for a season, and he did (Ac 13:9-11); he performed signs and wonders in Iconium (Ac 14:3); he healed a crippled man in Lystra (Ac 14:8); he healed a demon possessed girl in Philippi (Ac 16:18); he performed extraordinary miracles in Ephesus where people were healed with handkerchiefs that had touched him (Ac 19:11-12); he brought Eutychus back to life in Troas (Ac 20:9-10), and even though bitten by a poisonous viper, he had no ill effect from it (Ac 28:3-6).

Based upon these criteria, it would seem Paul would meet the criteria for being called an apostle. So what about Matthias who was chosen by Peter and the disciples shortly after Christ’s ascension (Ac 1:12-26)? And what about Judas? Do we have 12, 13 or 14 apostles? We will discuss this next time.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens