In Paul’s time, in his part of the ministry, there were three problems: the problem of the Gentile churches, the problem of handling the relationship between the Gentile churches and the Jewish churches, and the problem of the so-called co-workers. None of these problems were there in the section of Peter’s ministry. Peter was appointed and designated directly and officially by the Lord Jesus. No one could deny his authentic authority. In that time the work was under Peter’s leadership.
However, at the time of Paul’s appointment, he himself was the only one who saw the heavenly vision (Acts 26:13-19). Such a situation compelled the Lord to send a brother named Ananias to confirm him (Acts 9:10-17). We may think it would have been wonderful if the Lord had sent Peter to confirm Paul, but instead the Lord sent a brother who is mentioned in the Bible only in connection with this one thing (Acts 9:10-17; 22:12-16). Although the Bible says that Ananias had a good report of all the Jews there, it is strange that he is not mentioned any other time. It seems that no one knew this brother, and that he was good to be used in the Lord’s hand only to do this one thing—to confirm Paul when he came to Damascus.
Some may have questioned Paul in a critical way saying, “You, Saul of Tarsus, who do you think you are? Do you really think that you have been appointed by the Lord to be an apostle? When Stephen was being stoned to death, you were there helping those stoning him. Do you really expect us to believe that now you have become an apostle, and not only an apostle, but the one to take the lead in the Lord’s work? Do you think Apollos should be under you, and even Barnabas should be under you? It was Barnabas that brought you in. Therefore, Barnabas must be above you, and you must be under Barnabas. Apollos knows the Bible, and he knows how to present the Bible in a very attractive way. Saul, how much of the Bible can you expound? Who do you think you are that you should take the lead?”
No doubt there was a problem among the so-called co-workers. Barnabas disagreed with Paul, even though he was the one who had brought him in (Acts 9:27; 15:36-40). We can see the indications of the problems not only with Paul and Barnabas, but even the more between Paul and Peter. No one can deny that Paul and Peter were co-workers, but there was, nevertheless, something not so smooth or sweet in their relationship. Paul says in Galatians 2 that God appointed Peter and also John and James as apostles to the Jews, and God appointed him as an apostle to the Gentiles (vv. 7-9). There is a strong indication of the problem between these co-workers in the same chapter where Paul tells us that he rebuked Peter to his face (v. 11). In addition, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians that there was a problem when some were saying that they were of Cephas, and some were saying that they were of Paul. Paul suffered because of this problem.
Moreover, if Paul had received a vision to go back to Jerusalem to strengthen Peter and James and to establish churches in Judea among the Jews, God’s chosen people, that would have been easy for him to do. We need to consider, though, what it meant for Paul to receive a commission to go to the Gentile world to establish the Gentile churches. It was very hard for Peter even to go to visit a Gentile family within the territory of the Jewish land. It was hard for Peter to get even a little out of the atmosphere of the Jews. Now here was another one, a typical Jew, who received a commission to go into the Gentile world to establish Gentile churches. We should not think it was easy for Paul to carry out his commission.
Eventually, trouble came to the Gentile churches from the source of the Judaizers who came to Antioch, the source of the Gentile churches. There was a conflict in Antioch that forced Paul to go to Jerusalem; he had no choice. From the account of the conference in Jerusalem in Acts 15, we can see how much Paul had learned. I do not believe that the decision made there under the leadership of James was satisfactory to Paul (Acts 15:19-21, 28-29). Paul could not have been satisfied with that decision, but he tolerated it. Otherwise, he would have told the brothers in Jerusalem strongly that they should make the definite decision to forget about the law and not to mention it again. Nevertheless, the very Paul who rebuked Peter strongly regarding the matter of law (Gal. 2:11-16), tolerated the outcome of that conference in Jerusalem. Now you can see that there was a problem between the Gentile churches established by Paul and the Jewish churches established by Peter. That problem was not a small thing. Therefore, Paul was forced to tolerate a neutral, “grey” decision. There was no absoluteness in that decision, but rather a compromise.
That decision in Acts 15 with its element of compromise produced Acts 21. In the last visit paid by Paul to Jerusalem, it is as if “the tail of the fox” came out. James took the lead to tell Paul to look at the tens of thousands of Jewish believers, all zealous for the law (v. 20). They were even practicing the Nazarite vow of the Old Testament. At that very time, four were there taking such a vow, but they were poor and unable to pay the price for the sacrifices, the offerings. James advised Paul to pay the charges for them so that he could share in their vow. In this way Paul was dragged into the old net, the very net that he himself had torn into pieces in Romans and Galatians. In those two writings Paul had torn the old net of Judaism into pieces to the uttermost. However, that net was still in existence in Jerusalem, and when he went there, it seemed that he entered into the net and was caught.
In that situation Paul was nice, unimposing, and tolerant. He may have thought to himself, “I wrote the Epistle to the Romans, and I wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, but I also wrote 1 Corinthians chapter nine, ‘To the Jews I became as a Jew’ (v. 20). Now it must be the time for me to be a Jew.” At any rate, he tolerated that situation in Acts 21, and he participated in that Old Testament vow. This was serious. This would damage God’s economy in the New Testament to the uttermost. Therefore, on the last day of the vow the Lord came in. It was as if the Lord told Paul that he may have tolerated that situation, but the Lord Himself would never tolerate it. Therefore, the Lord brought the whole thing to an end. The vow was not completed, and Paul was arrested. This was the ending of that part of Paul’s ministry.