“Acts 18:12-22”

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

“But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, saying, ‘This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.’ But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, ‘If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.’ And he drove them away from the judgment seat. And they all took hold of Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and began beating him in front of the judgment seat. But Gallio was not concerned about any of these things. Paul, having remained many days longer, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila. In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. When they asked him to stay for a longer time, he did not consent, but taking leave of them and saying, ‘I will return to you again if God wills,’ he set sail from Ephesus. When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church, and went down to Antioch.”

---End of Scripture verses---

While teaching the Gospel in Corinth and the surrounding regions, at some point some of the local Jewish population formed a mob and brought Paul before the judgment seat of the provincial governor (proconsul) Gallio (verse 12). Gallio was the oldest brother of the Greek Stoic philosopher Seneca. Seneca wrote that Gallio was of “the sweetest disposition” and “beloved by every man.” I think his brother may have been a bit biased and generous with his lavish praise. Gallio dismissed the charges leveled against Paul by his accusers because they were of a religious nature and he was a secular ruler. He didn’t allow an angry mob to persuade him to wrongfully convict Paul, which was good (verse 14-15); but he was also unmoved by a sense of justice or compassion to stop certain men from illegally and mercilessly beating the leader of the synagogue (verse 17). Maybe not such a sweet guy.

The accusation leveled against Paul was that he, “persuades men to worship God contrary to the law” (verse 13). Was this a true allegation? Since worship under God’s covenant with the Jews is significantly different than the worship He demands under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, I would say their complaint was legitimate. The problem was that they failed to recognize that God’s covenant and law had changed (Hebrews 7:12; 8:13;10:8-10), and that THEY were actually the ones who were currently worshiping God contrary to His law (Romans 10:1-4).

So, yes, Paul did teach that people should worship God differently (contrary to the law), even though he himself kept many aspects of the Law of Moses. He had even made a vow and was completely dedicated to carrying it out to the end (verse 18). Why this apparent inconsistency in Paul’s behavior? Well, when it came to matters of custom, judgment and personal conviction, Paul was completely free in Christ to practice those parts of the Law of Moses that were NOT contrary to God’s current law. But worship never has been and never will be a matter of custom, judgment or personal conviction. It matters to God how we worship Him. He gives very specific instructions about how He wants His people to worship Him, and these things are not optional (John 4:24: Matthew 15:8-9). Paul was not inconsistent in the slightest. He just knew how to accurately handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

So what was this vow that Paul was keeping and why had he made it? A vow is a solemn promise made to God and could be offered in respect to anything, including thanksgiving for deliverance from a troubling situation. Maybe Paul was overwhelmed by a sense of gratitude because the Lord personally had encouraged him and promised to protect him, and He had since delivered on that promise (verses 9-10). This was probably not a Nazrite vow, even though Paul shaved his head at the completion of it. The person fulfilling the vow of the Nazirite was required to burn his shaved hair at the tabernacle (or temple) along with the sacrifices that he offered (Numbers 6:13-18). The shaving of the hair was likely just a sign of release from the vow after it had been accomplished.

Please read Acts 18:23-28 for tomorrow.

Have a great day!

-Louie Taylor

Share