The Scriptures are now complete with the final
truths being recorded by Paul (see Col. 1: 25). While John wrote
later, his ministry, however, is on the line of recovery rather than
revealing what is essentially new. The difficulty expressed in the
question is largely of the questioner’s own making. The assumption
that is made is that we can take what we
now know and apply it
to those who lived
before that revelation
was complete and expect them to act in accordance with it.
Let us consider John 4 first. John begins his
Gospel by viewing the Lord as already rejected by Israel, as John 1:
11 indicates. In keeping with this rejection, we find that the Lord
“left Judaea and went away again unto Galilee”, followed by the
telling words “And he must needs pass through Samaria” (John 4: 3,
4). This is the setting. Yet though rejected and away from Judaea,
He nonetheless defends the inherent rights of that nation saying to
the Samaritan woman “Ye worship ye know not what; we worship what we
know, for salvation is of the Jews” (v22)—a salvation yet to be
realised by Israel when their rejected Messiah comes in glory. The
pretence of Samaria was a rival religion based on the Pentateuch
alone and centred on Mount Gerezim. However, the days of both
Jerusalem and Gerezim were numbered as centres of worship, for the
Lord declared that “[the] hour is coming when ye shall neither in
this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father” (v21). But what
was then historically future, was already morally present for He
also went on to say “But [the] hour is coming
and now is, when the
true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth” (v23,
my emphasis). As ever, what is recorded in John’s Gospel,
anticipates the present time. Worship would be “in spirit” in
contrast to the legality that characterised Judaism and “in truth”
in contrast to the false pretence of Samaria. But the actual words
yield even more instruction for our souls, for in Greek when two
nouns are linked by a conjunction (“and”), the second noun (“truth”)
can be taken adjectively to intensify the meaning of the first
(“spirit”). In English this can be expressed by saying ‘that worship
of the Father by the true worshippers shall be truly spiritual’.
This is what we
should have now in
Christianity, though sadly much of what is offered as worship is
little more than modified Judaism.
Coming now to Acts, we must ever remember that
throughout the history detailed there, Israel was still a nation,
still publicly owned of God, Jerusalem stood, the temple continued
to function, the priesthood operated and the sacrifices were still
offered. Yes, the Assembly was also there but the distinctions
between Jew and Gentile were still upheld as is clear from Acts 15.
There is as yet no concept of the Assembly as the one body, with
Gentile and Jew having
equal status. In a
word, Acts is a transitional book and the events recorded in it must
be interpreted with that in mind. Accordingly, we read of the
occasion in question that Paul “hastened, if it was possible for
him, to be the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem” (Acts. 20: 16). He
told Felix not only that “I went up to worship at Jerusalem” (Acts
24: 11) but also “after a lapse of many years I arrived, bringing
alms to my nation, and offerings” (v17). His position as a prisoner
followed his acceding to the advice of James to pay the expenses of
four men who had taken a Jewish vow “and be purified with them” (see
Acts 21: 21–24). All of this belongs to Judaism, not the present
truth of Christianity. Now going up to Jerusalem to worship is
clearly in conflict with John 4: 23. Did Paul err? No, for Israel
was not as yet set aside by God. Paul was a Jew and during this
transitional period of the Acts as he reminds us in 1 Cor. 9: 20 (an
epistle written during that period) “I became to the Jews as a Jew,
in order that I might gain the Jews: to those under law, as under
law, not being myself under law, in order that I might gain those
under law”. Hence such actions, while wrong now, were perfectly in
order then. Immediately after his imprisonment at Jerusalem, we read
“But the following night the Lord stood by him,” words surely
confirming rather than criticising his previous actions. Not only
that, the Lord went on to say that “for as thou hast testified the
things concerning me at Jerusalem, so thou must bear witness at Rome
also” (Acts. 23: 11). This would be the final testimony to Israel,
given to the leaders of the Jewish dispersion, as recorded in Acts
28. On that occasion the judgment of Is. 6: 9, 10 is quoted for the
last time in the NT, thus sealing that nation’s fate. Then, and only
then, is the way open for the present truth of the one body, as
recorded in the prison epistles, to be made known with its
accompanying truly spiritual worship
independent of place.
