The difference between Acts 15 and Acts 21:

[H. Richard]

When we read acts 15:1 we see that some Judaizers (Jewish believers in Jesus) came down from Judea teaching the GENTILES "Unless they are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they cannot be saved."

Because of this, Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles (James and the elders) for clarification of the truth between them. James said that the Gentiles DID NOT have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses. ---- HOWEVER, James never said that the Jews did not have to keep the Law of Moses. ---- In the end of that meeting Paul was given the hand of fellowship and that was the end of it.

But that is NOT what Acts 21 is about. In Acts 21 the problem is that Paul was teaching that the JEWS did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses either. The end of that meeting was not the same as the first. Paul’s teachings of God’s grace outside of the Law of Moses upset the believing Jews who were zealous of the Law of Moses).

This further proves the point that from Act 1 to Acts 21 James and the elders were still teaching the gospel of the kingdom which was, and will be, under the Law of Moses. They were NOT teaching salvation by God's grace based on what God did on the cross alone as Paul was teaching.

In addition, the rift between the Jews and Paul was further shown in what Paul said in Gal 2.Gal 2:1-16

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

No Return to the Law

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
NKJV

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi HR,

Do you know how many topics we have on teh law,

it comes down to this.

Luk 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

I hope you understand.

 

[Angelina]

But that is NOT what Acts 21 is about. In Acts 21 the problem is that Paul was teaching that the JEWS did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses either. The end of that meeting was not the same as the first. Paul’s teachings of God’s grace outside of the Law of Moses upset the believing Jews who were zealous of the Law of Moses).

Where does it say in Acts 21 that Paul taught that the Jews did not have to be circumcised??? :huh:

 

[FHII]

Where does it say in Acts 21 that Paul taught that the Jews did not have to be circumcised??? :huh:

Seems to me that would be verse 21.

 

[Angelina]

Thanks FHI :)

 

[Angelina]

Perhaps 1 Corinthians 9 can shed a bit of light...

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

 

[H. Richard]

Where does it say in Acts 21 that Paul taught that the Jews did not have to be circumcised??? :huh:

Not in Acts 21. It is in the following:

1 Cor 7:17-20
17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.
20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.
NKJV

NKJV
Gal 5:2-4
2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
NKJV

 

[Angelina]

That really wasn't the gist of Paul's point here. He was basically stating that Law keepers cannot profit from Christ's work on the cross because Christ's work is based on faith.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

 

[H. Richard]

Why is it so hard to see what happened in these two sections of verses? In the first Acts 15 James and the rest of the 12 said it was okay that the Gentiles DID NOT HAVE TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES. However, there are no words stating that the Jews did not have to keep the law of Moses.

In Acts 21 we see that James is all excited that the Jews who believed Jesus was their Messiah and all of them were zealous of the Law. But there is a problem. They knew that Paul was teaching all (jews included) that they did not have to follow the Law.

Ask yourself, was Paul really teaching all, including the Jews that they did not have to keep the law? Yes he was, Paul said that if a person, including the Jews wished to be saved they must not go under the law because only those of faith can be saved under grace.

Check it out.

 

[FHII]

Yes, H. Richard. Seems clear to me. I had seen that part about chapter 15 and the Jews not freed from circumcision, but hadn't seen the point about chapter 21. Thanks!