Acts 21:27-40 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people… Paul's attitude towards the Jewish law must be taken into account in order to understand the reason for the tumult at Jerusalem and the injustice of those who led it. Paul spoke as vigorously as one could speak against the law as a means of salvation. At the same time Paul was a Jew with the most intense national feeling. So much did he love his brother Israelites that he could almost have wished himself accursed from God if thereby they might be saved. So far as his fellow Christians were concerned, Paul held that their relation to the law should be determined by their own antecedents. If a man were born a Gentile, Paul would not counsel him to learn Jewish religious habits. If a man was born a Jew, however, there was no harm in his keeping the old law so long as it was understood not to have saving power. When Paul came to Jerusalem in the year , he found he had been preceded by a report that he was utterly opposed to Jewish Christians observing any of the old Jewish habits, and that he tried to turn them from them. The episode suggests study in four directions. I. PAUL. 1. He was truly a lover of his own people. Wherever he went he sought them out first, not only because strategically this was wisest, but because he truly liked to be with them. He was never above feeling satisfaction in the thought that he had been born a Jew. He loved to go to the feasts at the capital. Undoubtedly Paul had more real sympathy with Jewish religious ideas than many of those in the crowd who condemned him. 2. There was a possibility, we might safely say a certainty, that Paul's position would be misunderstood. For while he kept up his Jewish habits it was not because he thought (as the Jews thought) that they had saving power. They were external matters connected chiefly with ways of living and ways of worshipping. They were not really essential to the religious life, but only helpful in it, if one thought them helpful and used them aright. Among Gentiles Paul did not observe them. The Jews looked upon them as necessary for all. In a certain limited sense Paul stood by Jewish habits. And yet his removing them from the class of necessaries to the class of things optional was undoubtedly the first step towards their abolition. Paul's position thus had such complex relations that it was difficult to be understood and pretty certain to be misrepresented. 3. His immediate intention in the matter which brought him into difficulty was good. He had no intention towards the Jews. He was not trying to conciliate them. His mind was upon the thousands of Jews who had become Christians (ver. 20) who were still zealous for the law, i.e., kept up faithfully Jewish habits of living. For them Paul held that this was perfectly right (so long, of course, as they did not ascribe saving power to such habits). He bad been reported as taking the position that they were wrong. In order to put himself into cordial relations with them and to reassure them concerning himself, he undertook the open performance of a vow. His design in the matter was wholly honourable and kind. II. THE DISTURBERS. 1. Their motive was hatred towards Paul. They came down from Ephesus full of their experiences of Paul's troubles there. At Ephesus they had been thwarted. It was not a Jewish city. At Ephesus Paul had some chance of justice, and the Jews were hopeless of thwarting him. At Jerusalem the tables were turned. There Jewish sentiment was not only enormously preponderant, it was also intense beyond words. 2. They carried out their purpose by spreading skilful misrepresentations of Paul's position. This charge was a deft combination of truth and falsehood, For the wickedest lie is not that which is downright, for that can easily be disproven, but that which is subtly, insinuatingly exaggerative, where the admission of the innocent element of truth which lies at its foundation puts the man who is repelling it in the attitude of a culprit. Paul had not taught against the Jews by any means; he had honoured them everywhere; he had proclaimed himself a Jew. But of course he had said that being a Jew would not save one. The things alleged against Paul had back of them something which he would have had to admit as true. But it was exaggerated, misinterpreted, and supplemented by an absolute lie. 3. The strength of the attack against Paul lay in its appeal to the religious feelings of the crowd. That which was best in them was used for the lowest ends. Nothing is more awful in human nature than the possibility of crime in the name of religion; and how frequently it has darkened the page of history. And some people are so indiscriminating as to lay the blame of all this upon religion. It is as just to condemn the real coin for the existence of the counterfeit. III. THE CROWD. 1. They accepted as true the lies of the Ephesian Jews. They had courts whose business it was to investigate such offences as were alleged against Paul. Without investigation, without so much as a question, they accepted as true what might easily have been shown to be false. 2. Just as readily they accepted the motives of the Ephesian Jews as honourable. What sanctity! What zeal for the temple of the Lord! And all the time the real motive of these scheming Ephesians was nothing more than vile, unscrupulous hatred. 3. They were already prejudiced against him. The words of the Ephesians, "This is the man" (ver. 28), shows that Paul was known by reputation. The people had their minds already made up concerning him. They did not want investigation upon his case. Again, as often before, Jerusalem knew not the day of her visitation. In her sinful prejudice she was ready, consistently with her attitude all through history, to slay the best of her sons. IV. THE OUTCOME. 1. God was a factor at work upon which the Jews were not counting. "Those whom neither the majesty of God nor pious respect for the temple could restrain from madness, respect for a profane man now subdues" (Calvin). And in the conduct of that man the God whom they so impiously disregarded was at work. Thus far could their madness go and no farther. His word, which can check the mighty ocean, put its restraint upon the wrath of men. 2. An immediate result for good was brought about, in that Paul had an opportunity to address the multitude. Such an opportunity he might have sought long and in vain. 3. The riot in the temple had a bearing far off in the future. The testimony at Rome was made possible by the riot at ,Jerusalem. And so the wrath of man ministered to the praise of God. The Jews sought to kill Paul, and they succeeded in giving him opportunity to hold up the Cross before the Lord of the world. V. FINAL LESSONS. 1. Our failures as well as our successes have their place in God's plan. Paul was trying to conciliate some of his fellow Christians when he fell into trouble. God not only exchanges our failures for success, He makes them means of success. 2. Inferences from others' actions are always dangerous. The Jews imputed to Paul motives that did not belong to him. They were too sure of the accuracy of their own reasoning ability. Let us be careful how we put meanings into others' conduct. 3. A multitude is a dangerous leader. It is good advice to keep always out of crowds. Beware of the multitude. Serve thou God and Him only. (D. J. Burtell, D. D.) Parallel Verses KJV: And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, |
    |