June 58 – Paul arrived in Jerusalem and met with James

45 practice upon which the Preterist view has a beneficial impact, it would still be worth the switch.

But futurism creates many more moral, ethical, and spiritual problems besides that one. Just think how much it would clean up Christianity in the eyes of the watching world if the Preterist worldview could be applied by the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide. I presented a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society on this very subject (Eschatology Ethics). It is available as a PDF lesson outline. Simply email me and request it (preterist1@preterist.org). It was here at Caesarea that Paul and his companions “stayed for some days” before going up to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. While they were there, a prophet from Judea came and took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “This is what the Jews in Jerusalem are going to do to the man who owns this belt. They will deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles” (Acts 21:11). When the church there and Paul’s companions heard that, they began begging Paul not to go to Jerusalem. But Paul was steadfastly resigned to facing whatever awaited him at Jerusalem. Evidently there was a significant group of Christians there in Caesarea, since we see some of them travel in caravan with Paul to the feast (Acts 21:1516). This third missionary journey of Paul lasted about four years from start to finish (Spring of

AD 54 until Summer of 58).

June 58 – Paul arrived in Jerusalem and met with James

and all the elders. Paul related all the wonderful things God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. Then the elders of the Jerusalem church told Paul that he had been accused of teaching Jews in the Diaspora to forsake Moses, and not to circumcise their children, nor walk according to the customs. Did you ever wonder why Paul did not agree with his accusers, and say, “Yeah, that is exactly what I am teaching, and all of you Jewish Christians here in Judea should be doing the same thing.” Why does Paul deny their accusations, instead of agreeing with them? How can

Paul present sacrifices in the Temple here in AD 58, which is almost thirty years after the first

Pentecost? Doesn’t this violate the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross? Why are these

Jewish Christians and Paul still sacrificing in the Temple? This whole controversy points us back to what Jesus said in Matt. 5:17-20. There is no doubt that the Cross was the once-for-all sacrifice for sin. If Jewish Christians were still sacrificing thinking that they were getting some kind of forgiveness or justification from it, they were sadly mistaken. From the books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews, it is crystal clear that the Law had no power to justify in the first place. It was merely a tutor to lead them to Christ where the real justification was. So, why did the Jewish Christians continue sacrificing? Let’s suppose you were an unbelieving Jew in AD 58 while the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. Would you listen to a Gentile who was trying to preach the gospel to you?

Would you even listen to a fellow Jew who was breaking the Law of the land by not keeping the jots and tittles? Nope to both questions. This is why Jesus told them to keep every jot and tittle better than the scribes and Pharisees, so that their fellow unbelieving Jews would listen to them preaching the gospel. Their scrupulous law-keeping gave good testimony to their righteousness, and earned them a hearing. The Jews wanted to know what it was about

Christianity that made Jewish Christians better Law-keepers than they were. This law-keeping by Jewish Christians “adorned the gospel” and made it attractive to the Jews. Jesus had commanded them to keep the jots and tittles for that very reason, so the gospel would not be hindered by their bad law-breaking example. The apostles all knew this principle, that Jewish

Christians needed to continue keeping the Law until it was all fulfilled and passed away at the destruction of Jerusalem. They became all things to all men, in order that more would be converted. They did not bind the Law on Gentiles, since it was destined to pass away soon, but until it passed away the Jewish Christians needed to keep it in order to attract as many

46

Jews to Christ as possible. This is why Paul taught the Jews who lived outside Palestine to continue keeping the Law. He was not guilty of what these Jewish believers in Jerusalem were accusing him.

So the elders suggested a way for him to prove that there was no substance to those accusations, but that he himself also walked orderly keeping the Law just like his accusers did. They asked Paul to take with him four men from the Jerusalem Church who were keeping a vow, and to pay their expenses so that all five of them could have their heads shaved and be purified according to the Law. They went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. (Acts 21:17-26) So here in AD 58 we have Paul and the Jerusalem Church still keeping the Law and still sacrificing in the temple. How can this be proper? Notice what was the accusation against Paul: that he was teaching Jews (not Gentiles) in the Diaspora (not in Israel) to forsake Moses, not circumcise their (Jewish) children, and not walk according to the (Jewish) customs. They were not accusing him of teaching the Gentiles to forsake Moses. The Gentiles were never into the Mosaic Law anyway, so they could not leave it.

The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were concerned about what Paul was teaching to their fellow Jews in the Diaspora. They thought since Paul was not teaching the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the Law that he was also teaching the Jews in the Diaspora to no longer keep the Law and circumcise their kids and bring them up in the Jewish customs. They knew that Jesus had instructed them to keep every jot and tittle of the Law better than the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:17-20), so they would not have fellowship with Paul if he was teaching Jews (who became Christians) to forsake Moses. Paul was not guilty of that. He himself kept the Law and taught Jews in the Diaspora (who had become Christians) to continue keeping the Law (every jot and tittle of it).

It is important to note how extremely “zealous for the Law” this group of Christians were. We have seen them mentioned or alluded to in both the book of Acts and the book of Galatians. They seem to have been connected with James and the other relatives of Jesus (such as Jude and Simeon). Peter and Barnabas also had consistency problems in this regard. It is this same “zeal for the Law” that characterized the Ebionites and Nazarenes in Pella in the second century. Evidently they did not fully understand the statements of Jesus in Matt. 5:17-20 when He stated that the Law would be all fulfilled and pass away when “heaven and earth” passed away in AD 70. They kept right on requiring circumcision and law-keeping even after AD 70. Furthermore, the Ebionites and Nazarenes that were in Pella also denied the Deity of Christ. And the fact that they installed Simeon in the place of James after James was martyred in AD 62, implies that they still had an earthly kingdom concept, and wanted a fleshly descendant of David (and close relative of Jesus) to occupy the episcopal throne in Jerusalem until Jesus returned to sit on it. They also did not believe the Gentiles would inherit the Kingdom at the Parousia without being circumcised first. What does this tell us about their spiritual condition in relation to Christ? It does not look good for them. Some of the true followers of Jesus in Judea, represented by Peter and Paul, may have gone with these Judaizers to Pella “before the war” (as Eusebius suggests), but it was only the apostates that were left in Pella after the rapture of the true Christians.

Another proof of Paul’s uprightness was Timothy. Because he came from a Jewish mother and grandmother, he was Jewish, but had never been circumcised before he became a Christian. Paul had him circumcised. But Paul did not have Titus circumcised, because he was a Gentile and Paul refused to bind the Law on Gentiles. Paul did not want to bring the Gentiles under bondage to something that was about to pass away. But the Jews needed to continue keeping every jot and tittle of it better than the Pharisees so that there would be no hindrance to the gospel going to the Jews. The Jews would never listen to the gospel coming from uncircumcised lips. But if it came from a Jew who kept the Law better than they did, they would be curious to hear what it is that makes Christian Jews better keepers of the Law than they were. It would