Conclusion
Chapter Six
The end of an era: the law is no longer the direct authority for God’s people
In the previous chapter we observed that Acts 3 – 7 shows the ramifications for the old-era institutions of temple and temple leadership in the light of the emphasis in Acts 1 – 2 on the reign of the Davidic King Jesus in the inaugurated kingdom of God. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is evidence that the Lord Jesus reigns from the throne of David, the last days have arrived and God’s last-days promises for the restoration of his people are being fulfilled. Since God’s intentions for the temple have been fulfilled in Jesus and since Jesus now reigns as Lord and his chosen apostles are the new leaders of God’s new people (those who have turned to Jesus in repentance and faith and have received God’s blessings of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit), then what has become of the Mosaic law in this new age? This question is all the more pressing given Jesus’ words that ‘the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached’ (Luke 16:16). What is the relationship between the law of Moses and the people of God now, in the inaugurated kingdom after Jesus’ ascension? After a brief orientation to some of the debate about the law in Acts, this chapter will argue that Luke points to the authority of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of his apostles as the direct guiding authority for God’s people now that the One to whom the Mosaic law pointed has come. Thus although Luke is not against the Mosaic law, he emphasizes (1) that the proclamation of Jesus is a proclamation of the one to whom the law pointed; (2) the authority and teaching of the apostles is now the guiding authority for believers in Jesus; and (3) even though, under the direct authority of the Lord Jesus and his apostles, aspects of the law are no longer required, this shift does not mandate insensitivity to Jews.
The debate about the law in Acts
Some have argued that Lukan theology is ‘fundamentally Mosaic’. Vielhauer’s famous essay ‘On the “Paulinism” of Acts’ asserted that Paul is portrayed as ‘a Jewish Christian who is utterly loyal to the law’. Jervell has become particularly influential since his essay ‘The Law in Luke-Acts’, where he argued that ‘the Law is not invalidated, abridged or outmoded’. Others, however, have dissented from the conclusion that Luke is ‘fundamentally Mosaic’. Inevitably, much of this discussion revolves around certain practices of Paul in Acts (i.e. circumcision in 16:3; participation in vows in 18:18; 21:22–26) and the nature of the decree at the Jerusalem Council (15:20, 29; 21:25). Those who see more of a consistency between Acts and Paul’s letters on the view of the law correctly note that (1) such practices in Acts do not contradict Paul’s teaching elsewhere that circumcision is a matter of indifference (Gal. 5:6; 6:15); (2) as long as the matter is not made a requirement for salvation (Gal. 2:3–5), Paul is willing to ‘become like a Jew’ (i.e. to follow the law) when there is opportunity ‘to win those under the law’ (1 Cor. 9:19–23); and (3) the law is nevertheless ‘fulfilled’ by Christians, as they are under ‘the law of Christ’ (Gal. 5:14; 6:2; Rom. 13:10). When these perspectives from Paul’s letters are kept in mind, the accounts of his practices in the book of Acts do not require the conclusion that the Paul of Acts is more ‘Mosaic’ than the Paul of the letters. We will focus, however, on Luke’s view of the law in Acts.
Jesus: the one to whom the law pointed has now come
Luke emphasizes that believers in Jesus are not opposed to the Mosaic law because the law is ‘fulfilled’ in Jesus. The frequent charge of Jewish opponents in Acts that Christians are opposed to Moses and the law indicates that this is a major feature in Luke’s view of the law (Acts 6:11, 13–14; 18:13; 21:21, 28). The defences against these charges by Stephen and Paul in particular, however, as well as Luke’s statement that the charges against Stephen are false charges, indicate that Luke’s view is that believers are obviously not opposed to the law. As observed above, Stephen’s defence in Acts 7 draws to a conclusion with his own charge that it is not he but his accusers who have disobeyed the law (7:53). Specifically, in his proclamation of the rejected and risen Lord Jesus, Stephen proclaims the one to whom Moses pointed. A similar point is made by Peter in Acts 3. Peter, like Stephen, proclaims the one Moses spoke about. More than that, Moses said that ‘you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people’ (3:22–23). Thus failure to listen to Jesus is disobedience to Moses and will incur the judgment of God.
The final chapters of Acts are devoted to defending Paul and the gospel in a similar way. Paul repeatedly declares in Acts 21 – 28 that he believes ‘everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the prophets’ (24:14); he has ‘done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar’ (25:8, 10); he is ‘saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen’ (26:22); and he has ‘done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors’ (28:17). As we saw in chapter 2, it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that Paul repeatedly claims to be the fulfilment of the hopes of Moses and the prophets (23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:8, 23). Thus Paul declares that his proclamation of the resurrection is the fulfilment of the same hope that his fellow Jews have (23:6; 24:15; 26:6–7) and is therefore ‘the hope of Israel’ (28:20). In this sense then, Jesus’ followers are not against the law and the prophets, the One they proclaim as risen Lord was anticipated by the law and the prophets!
Apostolic leadership and authority
Apostolic authority and teaching
As we observed in chapter 5, the opening chapters of Acts indicate that a shift has taken place regarding who the leaders of the new people of God are. The direct authority now for believers is found primarily in the teaching of the apostles. In Acts 1 the apostles are described in close association with the Lord Jesus as his ‘authorized delegates’. Thus they are chosen by the Lord Jesus (1:2), taught by him (1:2) and commissioned by the Lord Jesus to bear witness to him (1:8). The account of the appointment of the twelfth apostle in the final verses of Acts 1 emphasizes this close relationship even more. The one who will take over this ‘apostolic ministry’ (1:25) and be ‘added to the eleven apostles’ (1:26) must be one who was with the apostles throughout the whole of Jesus’ ministry (1:21), which is then further clarified as ‘beginning from John’s baptism to the time when the Lord Jesus was taken up’ (1:22). Like the other eleven apostles, therefore, the replacement for Judas must have been taught by Jesus, must have seen the risen Lord Jesus so as to bear witness to Jesus (1:23), and must also be personally chosen by the Lord Jesus (1:24). The status of the apostles as the ‘authorized delegates’ of the risen Lord Jesus is clearly established in Acts 1.
The focus then turns to the message of the apostles in Acts 2. Peter stands ‘with the Eleven’ when he raises his voice and addresses the crowd (2:14). Likewise, in 2:37 the people respond ‘to Peter and the other apostles’. Those who accept this apostolic message to call on the name of the Lord Jesus for salvation (2:21, 36–41) then devote themselves to ‘the apostles’ teaching’ (2:42). In the light of the Jewish commitment to the teaching of Moses elsewhere in Acts (e.g. 6:14; 15:21; 21:21, 28) this description of devotion to the teaching, not of Moses, but of the apostles, is a striking early indication that a new authority is in place for God’s people.
As we noted in chapter 5, the narrative flow of Acts 3 – 7 shows that the Davidic King Jesus who reigns as Lord on the throne of David fulfils and replaces the temple in the inaugurated kingdom of God – Jesus is now the only means by which all of God’s blessings are received. We also saw that, along with this emphasis on the temple, Luke highlights the end of the temple leadership in Acts 3 – 5. The authority of the temple leadership is contrasted with the universal authority of the Lord Jesus (4:7, 12) and there is a growing emphasis on the leadership and teaching of the apostles (who are closely associated with the Lord Jesus, 4:13, 27–30) for the new people of God (4:33, 35, 37; 5:2, 12). The emphasis in 5:17–42 is especially on the teaching of the apostles about the Lord Jesus (5:20–21, 25, 28–32, 40). Thus Acts 3 – 5 culminates in the statement that the apostles ‘day after day in the temple courts and from house to house never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ’ (5:42). It is especially noteworthy then that in this context Gamaliel, a ‘teacher of the law’, declares that the Jewish leaders should ‘Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’ (5:38–39). The reign of the Lord Jesus, who enables the message of the apostles concerning Jesus to spread despite opposition, is the theme of Acts 3 – 7 (cf. 6:7). Because the apostles are the authorized delegates of the reigning Lord Jesus, it is their teaching that must now be listened to (5:17–42); it is response to their teaching about faith in the Lord Jesus that brings salvation and a place among the true people of God (2:41; 4:4; 5:14); it is their leadership that enables the people of God to continue to grow as one people under the Lord Jesus (6:1–7); and it is therefore the message they proclaim about the Lord Jesus that will continue to spread despite opposition (5:38–39, 41–42; 6:7; 8:4).
Apostolic authority where aspects of the law are fulfilled
In this section we will examine two passages where aspects of the law are fulfilled in the life of the early Christian community (Acts 4:32–37; 6:1–7). First, the general statement in the second summary passage that ‘there were no needy persons among them’ (Acts 4:34) reflects the wording of Deuteronomy 15:4. In the context of Deuteronomy 15 God’s people are promised that there will be ‘no needy persons’ among them when they experience God’s blessing in the land he is giving them, if they follow the law (15:5). Secondly, the provision for widows in Acts 6 is in keeping with the law’s injunctions to provide for widows. The command to provide for widows is especially emphasized in Deuteronomy, where it is often linked with the Lord’s blessing ‘in all the work of your hands’ (cf. Deut. 14:29; 24:19 [17–22]; 26:12–15; cf. also 10:18). In Deuteronomy 27 one of the curses to which ‘all the people’ respond with ‘Amen’ is the curse on ‘the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow’ (27:19). Thus the provision for the widows in Acts 6 fulfils the injunctions of Deuteronomy in the Christian community.
In both of these contexts in Acts, however, the emphasis is on the authority of the apostles. In Acts 4:34, for example, the fulfilment of Deuteronomy is found in a context that particularly emphasizes the authority of the apostles. There is ‘no needy person’ (4:34) because the grace of God brings about this new situation (4:33) and, as the repeated references to the placement of proceeds at ‘the apostles’ feet’ indicates (4:35; 4:37; 5:2), because the apostles are responsible for administering these voluntary donations. Similarly, the provision for widows in Acts 6 is accomplished by the initiative and leadership of the apostles (6:2–4). They overcome this need through men ‘full of . . . the Holy Spirit’ (6:3), and the result is a continued spread of the word and increase in disciples (6:1, 7). Thus, although the injunctions of Deuteronomy concerning the needy and widows among God’s people are being ‘fulfilled’, the emphasis in Acts is not so much on specific laws cited and then obeyed in these contexts, but on the enablement of God through the apostolic leadership which brings about provision for the needy and widows among the people of God.
Apostolic authority where aspects of the law are abrogated
The abrogation of aspects of the law in Acts is also evidence that the guiding authority for believers in the Lord Jesus is now the leadership and teaching of the apostles, as authorized delegates of the Lord Jesus, rather than the Mosaic law.
The conversion of Cornelius
The abrogation of certain laws is explicit in the account of Cornelius’ conversion in Acts 10 – 11. Among other things this passage emphasizes (1) the abrogation of the food laws, (2) the acceptance of Gentiles without circumcision, and (3) the impartiality of God. Jervell argues that Luke’s view of the law as continuing without abrogation is seen in his omission (in Luke’s Gospel) of Jesus’ statement that all foods have been made clean (from Mark 7:17–23). This is countered, however, by the Lord’s statement at the climax of the vision in Acts 10:10–15: ‘What God has cleansed, you must not call common’ (Acts 10:15 RSV). In the narrative of Acts, Peter has clearly made the connection between the vision concerning the abrogation of food laws (Acts 10:15) and the association with and acceptance of Cornelius (10:28; 11:12; 15:9). It also should be noted that in the vision of verses 10–15 Peter is not encouraged to break God’s laws. Rather, it is the Lord himself who determines in his sovereignty that he has made these things clean and therefore Peter is not to call them unclean. The overall emphasis of the passage, therefore, is that a salvation-historical shift has taken place. God has taken the sovereign initiative in declaring a change to the food laws and in including Gentiles like Cornelius. It is by faith in the Lord Jesus for forgiveness of sins that one is cleansed (10:43; 15:9). As Peter had already emphasized in his messages to Jewish audiences earlier in Acts, God’s blessings are now found through the Lord Jesus alone (10:36, 42–43, 48; 11:17). Thus clearly a shift has taken place in the role of the direct authority of the law. The reference to the apostles in 11:1 followed by a speech by (the apostle) Peter highlights again the role of the new leadership in leading God’s people even as aspects of the law are abrogated.
The council on circumcision
Similar themes are found in the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The issue is clearly stated in 15:1 where some from Judea had come to Antioch and declared that ‘unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved’. Then at the Council itself the issue is stated again in such a way as to highlight the implications of this requirement of circumcision for the role of the Mosaic law more generally: ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses’ (15:5). After Luke’s statement that ‘the apostles and elders met to consider this question’ (15:6), Peter’s opening response clarifies that salvation is by God’s gracious initiative and is through faith (15:7), that the gift of the Holy Spirit is evidence of inclusion among God’s people (15:8), that faith in the Lord Jesus brings cleansing (15:9) and, in an interesting turn of phrase, that it is Jews who by the grace of the Lord Jesus are saved through faith just as Gentiles are (15:11). The implication of this is that circumcision is not even required for Jews, let alone Gentiles, in order to belong to the people of God. In fact this statement of salvation by grace through faith is stated in sharp contrast (highlighted in 15:11 by the strong adversative alla, ‘but’) to the law, which is described as a ‘yoke’ in 15:10, a yoke neither Peter and his fellow Jews nor their fathers have been able to bear! Following this emphasis on ‘faith alone’, Barnabas, Paul and James continue to emphasize God’s initiative in including the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas do so by highlighting God’s work among the Gentiles through them; and James does so by highlighting the fulfilment of God’s promises in the prophets. Up to this point then the Council establishes that salvation is by God’s grace through faith in the Lord Jesus.
Questions remain regarding the role of the law, however, when at the conclusion of the Council James adds certain ‘requirements’ for Gentiles (15:20; cf. also 15:29; 21:25). These requirements seem, on the face of it, to indicate the ongoing validity of the Mosaic law for the Gentiles after all. The injunctions to abstain from strangled animals (pniktos), blood (haima), the ‘food polluted by idols’ (alisgymata tōn eidōlōn, 15:20) or ‘food sacrificed to idols’ (eidōlothyta, 15:29), and sexual immorality (porneia) seem to impose a strange collection of moral and ceremonial laws. If these are drawn from the Mosaic law it is difficult to know, however, why just these four laws are selected out of all of the laws commanded by Moses. According to Jervell, the apostolic decree ‘enjoins Gentiles to keep the Law, and they keep that part of the Law required for them to live together with Jews’. Specifically, Jervell argues that the apostolic decree in Acts 15 refers to Leviticus 17 – 18 and the requirements for ‘strangers’ among Israelites. In his critique of this view, however, Wilson correctly argues that it is difficult to link pniktos (strangled animals) with Leviticus 17 – 18 (the term is not found anywhere in the LXX) and the term porneia (immorality) is unlikely to be limited to the forms of incest listed in Leviticus 18. It should also be noted that there were numerous other laws, in addition to these, for the ‘sojourner’ in the land of Israel. In this context it is remarkable that when these injunctions are sent to the churches, these four restrictions are presented as the sole requirements and no link is made to the Mosaic law as the basis for these requirements. The letter to these Gentile believers states, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements’ (15:28). The obvious question remains: if immorality is ruled out, then why not stealing, lying and other ‘moral laws’?
Thus some have argued in opposition to this view that these are essentially ad hoc requirements just for this situation out of concern for the sensitivities of Jews. So, these are just a collection of laws that reflect the kinds of things most offensive to Jewish sensibilities. In contrast to those such as Jervell who see this as the imposition of the Mosaic law, advocates of this view highlight (1) the ‘occasional’ nature of these requirements as the letter is specifically addressed to Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (the areas where the problems arose), and (2) the lack of any ‘legislative’ force to these requirements as they are presented as what ‘seemed good’, there are no other requirements, and these believers would ‘do well’ to avoid these things (15:28–29). Thus, in this view, the Jerusalem Council essentially concludes that although salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus, and although circumcision or observance of the law is not required in order to be saved, nevertheless, Gentiles should be sensitive to Jews when they live in their midst and avoid immorality and the kinds of food most offensive to them.
Although this view is more likely than the view that associates these requirements with Leviticus, it seems that this second view nevertheless overlooks the general applicability of these requirements to all Gentiles in 15:19 and 21:25 (cf. also 16:4) and down-plays the repeated emphasis on the authority of the apostles and elders throughout this account (15:2, 4, 6, 22–23, 28; 16:4). The references to ‘requirements’ (epanankes, ‘necessary things’, 15:28), and especially ‘the decisions’ of the apostles and elders (ta dogmata, ‘rules, regulations’, 16:4), indicate that there is more ‘force’ to these requirements than advocates of the ad hoc view suggest. What must be noted about these ‘decrees’, therefore, is that (even if they were based on Lev. 17 – 18) they have been ‘filtered’ through the leadership of the new community. The emphasis on the nature of the four ‘requirements’ is that they are the decrees of ‘the apostles and elders’, not the direct imposition of the ‘laws of Moses’. The Mosaic law has been displaced as the direct governing authority for the people of God. Nevertheless, the issue of the source of these regulations requires explanation. In this regard the best explanation is still Witherington’s argument that these requirements relate primarily to pagan practices associated with temple idolatry.
Among Witherington’s detailed and helpful arguments, he particularly notes the following: (1) the reason why the four restrictions against idol food, blood, strangled animals and immorality are grouped together is because they were all associated with pagan temple practices; (2) the language of Gentiles ‘turning to God’ in Acts 15:19 is similar to the language in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, where the Thessalonian believers are described as those who ‘turned to God from idols’; and (3) an association of food and immorality with idolatry is also found in 1 Corinthians 10 (cf. vv. 6–8, 14–22). In that context Paul declares, ‘Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry’ (1 Cor. 10:14). The Jerusalem decree then forms part of a wider polemic against idolatry in (1) the narrative of Acts, (2) Paul’s own preaching where he critiques idolatry in Acts 14:16; 17:24–31; 19:26; and (3) the wider context of early Christianity.
The Jerusalem Council therefore clarifies two issues involved in how Gentiles may be saved: (1) Gentiles do not have to become Jews; salvation for Jew and Gentile alike is by grace alone through faith in the Lord Jesus alone. (2) However, Gentiles cannot remain pagan idolaters either; they must turn from their pagan idolatrous past. Essentially then, the Jerusalem Council applies the way for pagan idolatrous Gentiles to be saved: faith (in the Lord Jesus) and repentance (turning from idolatry). In the context of 15:1 and 5, which urge the imposition of the law of Moses, 15:10, which highlights the difficulty the Jews have had in observing the law, 15:11, which then indicates a rejection of the imposition of the law, and the statement of James that ‘we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ (15:19), it is likely that the reference in 15:21 to Moses being preached and read everywhere on every Sabbath is a further reference to the difficulty being imposed on Gentiles outside the Christian community. Thus James essentially states, ‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles turning to God . . . (we should, of course, urge them to repent from their pagan idolatry) . . . for it is made difficult enough in the synagogues every Sabbath.’ This view of the decree, therefore, makes most sense of the reason why (1) these four requirements are grouped together; (2) there is an emphasis on the decisions of the apostles and elders rather than an appeal directly to the Mosaic law as the basis for Gentile behaviour; (3) the decrees are applicable to pagan idolatry among Gentiles more generally; and (4) the decrees are not presented as options but as the ‘requirements’ or ‘regulations’ of the apostles and elders.
Sensitivity to Jewish beliefs about the law
In this chapter we have seen that, although Luke is not against the law, he nevertheless emphasizes (1) that the proclamation of Jesus is a proclamation of the one to whom the law pointed, and (2) the teaching of the apostles as the authorized delegates of the Lord Jesus is now the direct authority for believers in Jesus. We will now clarify that in Acts, even though believers are under the direct authority of the Lord Jesus and his apostles and the Mosaic law is no longer the direct authority for believers in Jesus, Luke also demonstrates that this shift does not mandate insensitivity to Jews.
Timothy and circumcision
Although we have observed that compromise for the sake of Jewish sensibilities is not the point of the decrees at the Jerusalem Council, this issue is nevertheless taken up in the immediate context with Timothy’s circumcision in 16:1–5. That the themes raised in Acts 15 are still on view in 16:1–5 is indicated by (1) the reference to circumcision again (of Timothy, whose father was a Gentile) and (2) the explicit reference to the decrees of the apostles and elders from Acts 15 which are now being delivered. Spencer helpfully outlines the flow of the narrative in 15:1 – 16:5 as (1) Dissension (15:1–5), (2) Discussion (15:6–18), (3) Decision (15:19–29), and (4) Dissemination (15:30 – 16:5)! The reference to Paul’s circumcision of Timothy in the section immediately following an account in which circumcision was declared to be unnecessary is particularly striking. This narrative location together with the reference to the decrees of the Council in 16:4 indicates that Luke intends this to be read in the light of the account in Acts 15. At one level this indicates that the decision to be circumcised is now a matter of freedom. Acts 15 did not introduce a new law that now mandates uncircumcision! The Council merely affirmed that repentance and faith are required for salvation and that circumcision is not required for salvation.
More specifically, in 16:3 Luke provides readers with the reason for this circumcision of Timothy: ‘Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.’ Timothy, therefore, is not circumcised by Paul here because of Paul’s commitment to conform to the law of Moses, nor is he circumcised in order to be saved (as some from Judea were advocating in 15:1, 5). The practice here is still consistent with the principle that circumcision is not required for salvation. Rather, the reason given is specific: it was because of the Jews in that area, who all knew Timothy’s father was a Greek (his father had perhaps opposed his Jewish mother’s desire to have him circumcised on the eighth day). The best suggestion, in the light of Paul’s desire to have Timothy accompany him on the journey, is that, being uncircumcised but with a Jewish mother, Timothy would have been viewed as an ‘apostate Jew’ and would not have gained a hearing among the Jews in the area. Therefore Paul, freely, rather than out of Mosaic or soteriological necessity, has Timothy circumcised for the sake of taking him along on a mission that still included appeals to Jews in synagogues to believe in Jesus.
Paul and vows in Jerusalem
Finally, this circumcision of Timothy because of the Jews in the area of Lystra also prepares readers of Acts to understand better the incident surrounding Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem in 21:17–26. The information that has apparently been passed on to Jews in Jerusalem that Paul teaches ‘all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to [the Jewish] customs’ is therefore already seen to be another false charge in the light of 16:3. Clearly there is no basis for the charge that Paul tells Jews not to circumcise their children. The subsequent action of Paul’s participation in the ‘purification rites’ of four men in the temple is then given as an example that Paul is not opposed to Jewish customs and that he himself observes the law when entering the temple area (21:23–24, 26).
Sometimes it is argued that there is some animosity here between the Jerusalem leaders and Paul. Porter states that ‘Paul was in some way, if not directly lured into, at least not prevented from, stepping into a trap.’ Luke, however, emphasizes the harmony of this occasion by noting that ‘the brothers’ in Jerusalem received Paul and those travelling with him ‘warmly’ (21:17). Then, following Paul’s greeting and account of what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry, Luke notes that they (presumably James and ‘all the elders’) ‘praised God’ (21:20). The following verses highlight the agreement between Paul and the Jerusalem elders, as the instructions in 21:24 to take the men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses are followed exactly by Paul in 21:26. The reference in 21:25 to the decree from the Jerusalem Council recalls the Council’s agreement in Acts 15 and clarifies that the issue here does not concern Gentile adherence to the Mosaic law.
As with the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16, this action of Paul in the temple shows that he does not see the new salvation-historical change in the role of the law as mandating insensitivity to the Jews. Paul does not purposely enter the temple ‘unclean’ (21:26; 24:18), nor does he bring an ‘unclean’ Gentile into the temple (21:29) to demonstrate his ‘freedom’ from the law. He is not out to flout Jewish sensibilities. Paul’s activity in the temple in this context is not another supposedly ‘positive’ example of continuing temple activity among the early Christians. In this context, Paul is participating in ‘purification’ rites as a mark of respect to Jewish sensitivities as to what is deemed appropriate in the temple (there is no requirement here to keep the law for salvation as suggested in 15:1).
Furthermore, as with the circumcision of Timothy, this action of Paul in the temple is another example that demonstrates his desire to appeal to his fellow Jews. Thus there is an emphasis here on the proclamation of Jesus as the one who fulfils and replaces the temple. This action presents Paul with an opportunity, like Stephen (cf. 22:20), to point to the Lord Jesus. Thus Paul, outside the temple (21:30), announces that Jesus is the Lord who reigns from heaven (22:6–10), the ‘Righteous One’ (22:14), ‘the name’ who must now be called upon for the forgiveness of sins (22:16) and the One who commissioned Paul to leave the temple, to bear witness to Jesus and to go ‘far away’ to the Gentiles (22:17–18, 21).
Conclusion
The role of the law in Acts is best understood in the context of the new salvation-historical situation brought about by the inauguration of the kingdom of God. Although not all questions concerning teaching and guidance for believers and the role of the Mosaic law are answered in Acts, the broad salvation-historical shift is clear. The enthronement of Jesus as the promised Davidic King and Lord has brought about the promised last days and the restoration of God’s people. Charges against the apostles, Stephen and Paul that they are against the law of Moses are clearly false. The apostles could not be against Moses, for this would be to oppose the one who pointed to Jesus. This new situation, however, indicates that the Lord Jesus is now the one in whom all of God’s blessings are found and, as reigning Lord, he is also the one to whom God’s people submit and the one they call upon. As the authorized delegates of the Lord Jesus, the apostles’ authority and teaching about the Lord Jesus are now the direct guiding authority for God’s people.